>>>Even in the example above?
>>
>>Dragan, I am not interested in debating the accuracy of scriptures, historical stories or the validity of various rituals and ceremonial paraphernalia and what have you. The question is not about belief in science vs. belief in God (and perhaps I expressed this poorly in a prior post).
>
>The example was cooked up to show the difference. One does not believe in science, period. It's not a given. It's a sum of verifiable human knowledge, which nobody has to believe (and shouldn't), it's a method of gaining more such knowledge by rigorous, repeatable and again verifiable procedure. Nothing sacred, no authority welded to their position, everything can be challenged - and no need to believe (again, in the definition of belief as "holding true without evidence or despite it").
>
>The difference is that this sum of knowledge can, and should, change as more work is done. The religions, OTOH, are resisting change and claim that the whole truth is (1) in their possession, although maybe incomplete, (2) was a given from the start and as such (3) will never change. Which looks substantially and conceptually different to me. And which is why I will resist any attempt to be described as if I was, somehow, a believer.
>
>>The question is between a belief in God vs. a belief that there is no God.
>
>Ah, ok, then you forgot the third possibility, no belief at all, abstinence from believing.

The original discussion was the issue of the atheist vs. the believer in God or, as Jess originally expressed it in his OP, "God fearing". It was not about today's organized religions per se which, as I have expressed a few times, have little to do with being religious, imo. That science uses a particular method for it's investigations is all well and fine - no need to re-beat that dead horse, at least not with me.

Abstinence from believing is presumably the agnostic position of not knowing. Which is fine and leaves the door open.