I already did. And 90 to 6 they chose popular mythology over science. I’m sure they would self-report a preference for science if asked directly, but when confronted with the actual science, the overwhelming majority chose their pre-existing worldview.
The numbers were actually higher than I expected, but that general predisposition is evident everywhere on this site. Dawkins’ influence is deep and wide... and sadly uninformed.

Is religious belief natural or man made?

It is not science that the members rejected, but only Sakdo and on other interpreter's subjective interpretation of some science, which among many other things makes an entirely false equivalence between belief on the one hand and religion on the other. Like this.

To prove that there is a genetic basis for the game of golf. 1. Science proves that all creatures need to manage their energy usage, because over extravagant use of it would be punished by natural selection, resulting in lower survival and breeding success.
2. This creates genetic instinctive inclinations towards resting and lazy behaviour, since under certain circumstances inactivity is the most economic strategy.
3. Golf is a much less energetic game than Basket Ball.
4. Therefore golf is genetically determined, and built into our DNA.

Also, the actual science, and the honest part of its interpretation, is actually based on Dawkins work and not in any way at odds with it.

[agnostic.com]

True, and some of them are theist and atheist as well. I think there's a difference between being agnostic and identifying as agnostic. Technically, we're probably all being agnostic, in that if anyone were to witness (and fully understand) sufficient evidence they would of course change their mind. The point that interests me here is how nearly universal the idea, that "God" represents a literal personage, has become, such that almost everyone feels they must choose a camp to identify with.

Agnosticism about all things is of course the proper mindset of any scientist. It just strikes me as a bit archaic for any scientist to still be holding the door open for that possibility when it comes to the literalness of gods. Should unexpected evidence arrive, we can always reopen the door. And equally archaic to deny or ignore, as Dawkins does, the psychological and symbolic role gods have played, and still play, in the cultural evolution of H.sapiens, and perhaps even the biological.

It's an internet meme. It represents an invitation to discuss the topic.

@skado If “Change my mind” is an internet meme, it’s an invitation to the 1960s game, “Why don’t you ...?”, “Yes, but ....”

No I think he is suggesting quite different pages with no overlap.

@David1955 Thank you.

H.sapiens is the only animal (as far as we know) that can make use of metaphor. Symbols don’t tell the whole story, or replace lengthy dialogue, but are useful for quick communication of essential information. The story doesn’t end there; it begins there. Discussion can follow.

@skado See second comment.

@skado PS. It maters little if it be metaphorical or not. Gross oversimplification is often an invitation for people to make oversimplified replies, which is often the resort of the charlatan loooking for easy wins.

@Fernapple funny how both can be true huh

@Fernapple If I know anything about @skado, it is that he is never trying to “sell” anything, over-simplified, metaphorical, or otherwise. He invites us to discuss things. He is genuinely interested to know the mindset of others. He does not try to change anyone’s mind, but he MAY interject information which we may not have considered. I greatly enjoy his membership here, much as I enjoy yours.

@MsKathleen I don't agree. If you want to know why, message me.

@Fernapple I am content to respect your right to your opinion.

Theists are comfortable with theism.
Agnostics are comfortable with agnosticism.
Atheists are comfortable with atheism.
None of them are comfortable with science beyond its ability to help them fight the other isms.
But the minute science goes against their preferred beliefs, they choose their comfortable mythologies over science. Atheism is no more about reason than theism is. It’s all about comfort and identity.

There are individuals who manage to escape this pattern of course, but they are a tiny minority.

prima facie evidence:
Is religious belief natural or man made?

more evidence:
Change my mind.

@skado You overthink it, I just don't believe it unless there's a reason to believe it, not having a reason to believe is a great reason not to believe it. Should a deity wander into my life I'll study it, I refuse to waste my time studying human religions now, I did that for decades already and never saw a scrap of evidence.
Atheism isn't my identity, it's just a descriptor for a very small aspect of my life, hardly worth mentioning were it not for people like you jabbering on about it endlessly.
You can't change my mind in the face of my experiences, unless you provide me with a new experience.
As for your mind, I couldn't care less if you change your mind or not.
You just seem to have serious emotional constipation with atheist, I find you amusing, like a bitter old man making life worse by being aggressively intrusive.
I mean that's all your post is, aggression.
It's like trying to hurt liberals by telling them they're the same as the GOP, which I'm sure you've stooped to many times.
Thank you for entertaining me, I love to take inane arguments apart, especially when your point is utterly pointless.
As for Science, I write software for manufacturing for a living, and I was a Nuke in the US Navy, and I've done projects for Aims research and JPL, so I'm covered on my science from Quantum Mechanics to What little we know about Dark matter, not that any of it matters, what I really learned was how ignorant I am, and I'm the smartest person I know.
Knowledge is limited, ignorance isn't.

@Willow_Wisp
Of your own free will you joined a site named AgnosticDotCom whose stated purpose is to discuss these matters. Sorry to have upset you. Not my intention. Best regards.

@skado Agnostic.com doesn't imply anything except I won't be bothered by someone trying to get me to join their cult as I hang out and discuss humor, literature, movies, feelings and opinions.
I'm not in the least offended, I already said I'm entertained.

@Willow_Wisp
I'm not promoting any cult. People who do that don't last a week on this site. I've been here since 2017.
I responded to your comment because it struck me as the most interesting/intelligent one on the thread. All I'm looking for is mutually respectful dialogue about the subject this site was designed to discuss. Ad hominems don't move that conversation forward. I won't do that to you, and you may notice I don't do that to anyone.

My point here is that science is not the friend of any ideology. It goes where the facts lead, and when it treads on anybody's sacred cows, they all do the same thing - attack the messenger. Which proves my point perfectly.

This is not about me or you. It's about a dispassionate discussion of ideas. If you have no interest in this subject, why not just scroll on by? There are lots of discussions on this site I have no interest in... so I just ignore them. I don't have any motivation to throw rotten tomatoes at people I find only entertaining.

@skado You're preaching to a science whore.

@skado “ None of them are comfortable with science beyond its ability to help them fight the other isms.” none?

@MsKathleen
None of those three types.
“ There are individuals who manage to escape this pattern of course, but they are a tiny minority.”

@skado you are not one to usually make sweeping generalizations.

@MsKathleen
Context is relevant...
[en.wikipedia.org]
Details can be ironed out later.