Fascination of the non-believer/ believer relationship.

Religion is a strange concept to most.

The concept of religion has always been at the forefront of my being.

When I was in the seventh grade, I used to play all day on Saturday, then go to church (Baptist) on Sunday and pray that my homework would be miraculously done when I got home. GOD performs miracles doesn’t he? Every time that I got home, my homework was undone. Perhaps, learning to believe in myself was the specific miracle to be performed. However, I never seemed to get definitive proof of the validity of importance of religion, so I discuss below some thoughts.

To believe in concepts that cannot be proven definitively, is the basis of most religions.
In my opinion, the term, "religious debate" is redundant.
Religion, for the most part, does no follow the fundamental tenets of science, which revolves around the scientific method, which is described below:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, which is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When I say, "for the most part, I mean, the 'religious process' is similar to the ‘scientific process’, up to part 4.5 in the ‘scientific process’. When the concept of 'modifying the hypothesis' is reached in the religious realm, religious folks tend to skip this step and go straight to, 'there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.’ which is malarkey. (wtf is malarkey?) As seasons change, so does the environment. Religious law will never be scientific law.

With that being said, I’d like to discuss the behavior of most non-religious folks. The non-religious often employs the scientific method to observe religious folks (step 1). Then the non-religious folks typically make predictions such as, 'religious folks should behave identically to their preconceived concepts of ideal of human behavior', which is usually a difficult status to obtain (step two). Non-religious folks expect the religious practitioners to be perfectly steadfast in their lifestyle and identity (step 3). In fact, the accomplishment of living the previous lifestyle is more of a quest than a destination. Non-religious folks seem to think that the religious should already be shining examples of their religious bedrock. That often is not the case. The truly religious strive to be improved, but that doesn't mean that they are better. This is where step 4 comes in; non- religious folks should modify what it is perceived to be religious. It is obvious that the most religious person is less than perfect. Why then, through constant observations of that phenomenon do the non- religious expect the religious to be perfect? that is implausible, and it is time for the non-religious to 'modify the hypothesis in the light of your results'.