Athiesm and Religion are exactly the same.

[mIssIng:nO]

Now, I know this title is completely wrong but I'm making a point.

I read alot of these threads and rarely respond because I'm flabbergasted at what some people say.


MOST OF THIS IS REFERENCED TO CHRISTIANITY, NOT BECAUSE I HAVE ANY PRO OR CON FEELINGS TOWARDS IT, BUT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO HAVE THE HIGHEST POPULATION OF MEMBERS ON THIS SITE

Alot of you who are religious blindly follow what is told by the bible, and do not question it at all. And I need to know why.

Do you simply just believe what someone else tells you? But some people pick and choose what they want to believe, meaning they are not completely true to the faith they have chosen.

When you follow something blindly, you are missing the point entirely. When in a school lecture, teachers want you to debate and question what they are saying, not because you don't believe it so to speak, because you are actually listening, and debate leads to learning new things.
I do believe that Jesus is referred to as a teacher directly, and most prophets could be looked at as a type of teacher (spreading word, giving lessons, etc)

So in the end, is asking questions and debating your religion not the ultimate act of showing how "faithful" you are? If someone is willing to be open to the ideas that other religions follow/preach, then you may learn certain things about yourself/ own religion that will strengthen your faith.

But as soon as someone poses a question that directly challenges something about your religion you say "nope, god is an awesome god and is beyond science and factual proof", while I agree in some ways (you can't prove a "god" exists with fact) but as soon as you play the "You can't proove he doesn't exist card" you are instantly forfeiting the argument. While there is no way to directly debate whether he does or does not exist, it becomes a matter of faith, and accepting that there is a possibility that you may be wrong isn't going to enrage said god and get you put in a pit of fire, it's going to show you are a normal human being who is open to debate (look theres that word again). If you are willing to debate for the side of an argument that there is no possible way for you to actually "win" it shows the ultimate faith, saying "nope you are wrong, our god is an awesome god" you are blindly following someting, and do not understand the true meaning of life and learning.


And my question to Athiests who spew the "science tells us so" side of things. I'm in some agreement with you but I have a few questions.

1) Why do you naturally assume that everything is documented towards scientific findings is 100% correct? Science is all about expanding knowledge of what actually exists, and when you expand knowledge, certain things change about old things you already have looked at.

2) Not everything is released and made public, you automatically assume because nothing has been made public about discoveries that it hasn't happened. Plenty of technology isn't known by the public eye, so why do you always assume that knowledge isn't with held to?

3) Narrow minded thinking. Now I'm not saying athiests are narrow minded becuase thats just flat out not true. But my question to you is, why is this "out side the box" thinking made so evil in the eyes of Athiests. Critical thinking is good and needed yes, but without far fetched ideas and unorthodox thinking, many of the ideas we have today may not exist.


In the end, think for your fucking selves people. As soon as you say "we'll science says this" you instantly loose your own free thought, and take what others say as automatic fact. Please, think for your selves some what, yes, everything documented is great to have and scientific facts do point to certain things, thats the entire point of humanity as it is, evolution and the gathering of knowledge, but as we evolve in all parts of life, things change.

And to religious people, stop saying "Oh well my religious text says that there is a heaven and you have to do this and this and this to get into it or you burn in a pit".

Okay, thats great, but let me raise a question (to Christians, as it seems to be the dominant religion on this site). IN the end you are right and your so called "god" does exist in the sky, but he's mega pissed that everyone took his shit wrong. Maybe he just wanted everyone here to live happily on this planet after all it says in the bible that everyone is created in gods image. Damn, everyone eh, I bet yall got alot of explaining to do why you are so willing to seperate.

In the end (and this is just my opinion) Religious titles are the be all and end all of hate in this world. If Christians, Mormons, Jews and Muslims all dumped the tag and decided that maybe the text they follow was guidelines and not a fucking manual to how life should be lived, we wouldn't have had wars and crimes committed agaisn't one and other that we so did in the past. And I'd be willing to bet, if you dropped the NAMES from the texts, majority of people couldn't tell the difference between what religion they were reading about.

ALot of tihs is gonna be grammatically incorrect, I haven't slept well.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

In the end (and this is just my opinion) Religious titles are the be all and end all of hate in this world. If Christians, Mormons, Jews and Muslims all dumped the tag and decided that maybe the text they follow was guidelines and not a fucking manual to how life should be lived, we wouldn't have had wars and crimes committed agaisn't one and other that we so did in the past.

This is perhaps the only part of your post I find properly contentious. Hate is quite distinct from religion and exists in demonstrable form quite happily without it - it is after all part of human nature and requires no recourse to divinity for its existence or application. Were religion not available as a convenient differentiating factor and thereby excuse, another one would have been found. Human history demonstrates that all too clearly.

Otherwise, I agree with the overall message of your post even if some details are perhaps less sturdy - blindly following any belief system or philosophy without the use of critique or consideration of its tenets is always going to end badly, and it is something people on all parts of the religious beliefs spectrum could do well to remember.

[Sythan]

I have 2 quotations by Aleister Crowley I want the Christians and the Atheists to simply ponder, the first one will be directed towards the Christians, the second, towards the Atheists:

"I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning"

"Science is always discovering odd scraps of magical wisdom and making a tremendous fuss about its cleverness"

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

And my question to Athiests who spew the "science tells us so" side of things. I'm in some agreement with you but I have a few questions.

1) Why do you naturally assume that everything is documented towards scientific findings is 100% correct? Science is all about expanding knowledge of what actually exists, and when you expand knowledge, certain things change about old things you already have looked at.

Speaking for myself, someone who says anything scientific is 100% correct doesn't know what science is, it's based heavily on falsifiability. The reason for this is to expand knowledge. The moment something is deemed 100% correct, you cant expand on it.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

2) Not everything is released and made public, you automatically assume because nothing has been made public about discoveries that it hasn't happened. Plenty of technology isn't known by the public eye, so why do you always assume that knowledge isn't with held to?

Again, speaking for myself, through my university I have access to many research articles and even when published, many are not available to the public. Generally only the abstracts are available. In addition, I talk with various professors, some of whom are current researchers in the field, such as for pharmacology, some professors are in that field and do discuss some of what is going on.

Lots of the research is made public but it doesn't make headline news, may not even be in the newspaper or on TV. Much of it you need to look at various sites yourself. For example, I often browse Nature News (which you don't need any special access to read) as well as read various studies by Nature and their off-shoot journals. I've read stuff in there, sometimes I post it on here and it is ground-breaking yet I look in the paper, on news television and not a word is mentioned.

Point is, some don't look through such sites, talk with experts, etc... and they may spew out what they hear from others.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

3) Narrow minded thinking. Now I'm not saying athiests are narrow minded becuase thats just flat out not true. But my question to you is, why is this "out side the box" thinking made so evil in the eyes of Athiests. Critical thinking is good and needed yes, but without far fetched ideas and unorthodox thinking, many of the ideas we have today may not exist.

I agree, with the last part but could you give an example of the "outside the box thinking" precisely?

Religious titles aren't the be all end all of the world. It seems a religion gets tarnished the moment one out of, say, 100,000 believers does something horrible in the name of their religion. While I don't agree with religion, especially ones that have hateful things in it. However, a believer of such a religion isn't necessarily going to be hateful, they can get along with other believers despite their religion forbidding it.

But let's be realistic. Suppose we wipe out religion all over the world. There will no doubt be other non-scientific, perhaps illogical faith-relying ideas to serve as an explanation and way of obtaining knowledge. Not everyone will agree with science and once they don't, they find another way to explain things.

[Toast]

Do you even know what Athiesm is? The 3 points you described really are not relevant. I am an atheist but I am sort of spiritual. I do not believe in anything that I have not personally experienced or proved but I am also open to logical theories that may be abstract. When you label everyone who believes that there is no god as narrow minded, you are the one who ends up looking narrow minded.

[Someday]

There's nothing wrong with having your own beliefs, but organized religion is the cause of so many problems in this world it's just not worth having around. Especially with little to no proof or evidence... it's ridiculous.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Someday

There's nothing wrong with having your own beliefs, but organized religion is the cause of so many problems in this world it's just not worth having around. Especially with little to no proof or evidence... it's ridiculous.

Oh my. When will this terrible argument cease. This is like me blaming all of Stalin's issues on Atheism. You do realize the majority of relief efforts in the United States are or were started from religious communities? Even if religion were removed, people would still find things to fight and kill over. It's not necessarily about religion, it's about power.

[Flying_Spirit]

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

Now, I know this title is completely wrong but I'm making a point.

I read alot of these threads and rarely respond because I'm flabbergasted at what some people say.


MOST OF THIS IS REFERENCED TO CHRISTIANITY, NOT BECAUSE I HAVE ANY PRO OR CON FEELINGS TOWARDS IT, BUT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO HAVE THE HIGHEST POPULATION OF MEMBERS ON THIS SITE

Maybe some people who are not religious simply don't bother debating. If you are "flabbergasted " why not reply to them as I am replying to you now?

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

Alot of you who are religious blindly follow what is told by the bible, and do not question it at all. And I need to know why.

Do you simply just believe what someone else tells you? But some people pick and choose what they want to believe, meaning they are not completely true to the faith they have chosen.

I agree some people do not truly follow their religions or blindly follow a faith. The fact it bothers you is amusing. "Live and let live." I would love to know what compels you to understand why people can follow something because you can not.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

When you follow something blindly, you are missing the point entirely. When in a school lecture, teachers want you to debate and question what they are saying, not because you don't believe it so to speak, because you are actually listening, and debate leads to learning new things.
I do believe that Jesus is referred to as a teacher directly, and most prophets could be looked at as a type of teacher (spreading word, giving lessons, etc)

It is not so much following blindly as it is faith. Some people may call this blind faith but many people I know who follow the bible and believe its teachings have spent a long time studying it and forming their own views and valid arguments on it. It is not ALWAYS blind faith. “All generalizations are false, including this one.”
Mark Twain

Many religious people do enter debates and while I myself like to debate with religious people to see their views I do try to take each case individually. I have seen atheists being trounced by religious people in debates for simple lack of knowledge on religion. To debate something you must first know about the subject. I have seen people both religious and atheists walk away from debates knowing more then when they started.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

So in the end, is asking questions and debating your religion not the ultimate act of showing how "faithful" you are? If someone is willing to be open to the ideas that other religions follow/preach, then you may learn certain things about yourself/ own religion that will strengthen your faith.

Many people can learn about themselves and their faith without debating. Many a times I have found that debating things like religion and philosophy requires someone to have a more solid idea of what they're own beliefs are. Yes debating can help but it is not the only thing that can help people to discover who they are. Also I would like to know where you got the idea that debating your religion is showing someone is faithful to it? Does this mean that you are saying not debating it means someone is not showing they are faithful to their own belief? Debating can also turn someone away from their own faith it is not always positive.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

But as soon as someone poses a question that directly challenges something about your religion you say "nope, god is an awesome god and is beyond science and factual proof", while I agree in some ways (you can't prove a "god" exists with fact) but as soon as you play the "You can't proove he doesn't exist card" you are instantly forfeiting the argument.

So you have seen this argument used in every debate? Or is this just another generalization? Some people will say this and others will not. Many religious people I know will say that I cannot prove God exists but neither can they prove he does. When challenging someones faith one can often be surprised by their rational arguments. Just because someone is debating their religion does not mean they cannot form rational arguments.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

While there is no way to directly debate whether he does or does not exist, it becomes a matter of faith, and accepting that there is a possibility that you may be wrong isn't going to enrage said god and get you put in a pit of fire, it's going to show you are a normal human being who is open to debate (look theres that word again). If you are willing to debate for the side of an argument that there is no possible way for you to actually "win" it shows the ultimate faith, saying "nope you are wrong, our god is an awesome god" you are blindly following someting, and do not understand the true meaning of life and learning.

While I have not heard many people using that argument there is also the counter argument, "prove to me he exists." This does not answer your question to them but opens a new ground of debate. You are being just as close minded by not debating that or considering them irrational for saying their God exists. The answer is no you cannot prove it so they have made a valid point. Debates can steer in different directions because the direction has changed you have simply written off their validity as debaters. Also saying that many people would be worried about what God would do to them is also generalizing, the key word I think you are missing here is SOME. I have myself met no person who has felt this way to my knowledge.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

And my question to Athiests who spew the "science tells us so" side of things. I'm in some agreement with you but I have a few questions.

1) Why do you naturally assume that everything is documented towards scientific findings is 100% correct? Science is all about expanding knowledge of what actually exists, and when you expand knowledge, certain things change about old things you already have looked at.

Nothing is 100 percent certain. While I am a scientist through and through it does not have any effect on what I believe. However at the very basis of our knowledge we cannot prove existence is real because science has not been able to do that yet and may not be able to in the future. Science involves some level of faith in its own way. However if one is to look at science and tests it's laws of nature you will find there is a lot of accuracy and it can explain things religion alone cannot to a certain degree. Some people crave structure and that is something that shows more in science then in religion.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

2) Not everything is released and made public, you automatically assume because nothing has been made public about discoveries that it hasn't happened. Plenty of technology isn't known by the public eye, so why do you always assume that knowledge isn't with held to?

Has someone said to you they believe this? If so please do say and I will argue this with you. However your generalization skills I think are not lacking.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

3) Narrow minded thinking. Now I'm not saying athiests are narrow minded becuase thats just flat out not true. But my question to you is, why is this "out side the box" thinking made so evil in the eyes of Athiests. Critical thinking is good and needed yes, but without far fetched ideas and unorthodox thinking, many of the ideas we have today may not exist.

Religion is not looked down on for people thinking outside the box as you have put it. It is looked down on for the fact is has caused many wars in this world and has been used as an excuse to cause oppression to many people and races. It still does today. You need to look at the general picture before making statements like this.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

In the end, think for your fucking selves people. As soon as you say "we'll science says this" you instantly loose your own free thought, and take what others say as automatic fact. Please, think for your selves some what, yes, everything documented is great to have and scientific facts do point to certain things, thats the entire point of humanity as it is, evolution and the gathering of knowledge, but as we evolve in all parts of life, things change.

Yes things change, however believing in gravity does not limit your free thinking in fact it helps you to look at things in a new way. Nothing is solid fact in this world. However science just as religion makes you think. I think that your beliefs are so strong you are limiting your own free thought. However someone reading this is not going to say, yup I read this shes right, no they will form their own opinion on that.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

And to religious people, stop saying "Oh well my religious text says that there is a heaven and you have to do this and this and this to get into it or you burn in a pit".

Prove to me their religion is wrong? Show me indelible proof they are wrong and you are right. Before you turn on me I will say that I cannot prove whether it is right or wrong but if you want to attack religious people in such a way, you should have the proof to back up your statement.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

Okay, thats great, but let me raise a question (to Christians, as it seems to be the dominant religion on this site). IN the end you are right and your so called "god" does exist in the sky, but he's mega pissed that everyone took his shit wrong. Maybe he just wanted everyone here to live happily on this planet after all it says in the bible that everyone is created in gods image. Damn, everyone eh, I bet yall got alot of explaining to do why you are so willing to seperate.

Maybe if God is real, maybe his followers did get things wrong, however why do you feel the need to attack people for following a belief? Yes religion can cause separation but so too can science. Nothing is without it's flaws. I think you should look at your own beliefs before degrading that of others. Prove they are right or prove they are wrong. You can't do either? Then why did you make such a statement. "I bet yall got alot of explaining to do why you are so willing to seperate." Maybe just maybe they could be right so maybe you should not be so judging.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

In the end (and this is just my opinion) Religious titles are the be all and end all of hate in this world. If Christians, Mormons, Jews and Muslims all dumped the tag and decided that maybe the text they follow was guidelines and not a fucking manual to how life should be lived, we wouldn't have had wars and crimes committed agaisn't one and other that we so did in the past. And I'd be willing to bet, if you dropped the NAMES from the texts, majority of people couldn't tell the difference between what religion they were reading about.

I know the difference between a lot of religions I have studied. Take the label off of a book doesn't mean that people can't tell the difference. There is still a lot of words on the pages don't you think. Religion is NOT the only thing that causes hatred in this world, you are missing money, land, power and just plain dislike of people. Religion while causing wars was also used solely as an "excuse" to cause wars when the true underlying reasons were land money and power. If you wish to generalize you should find the specific people or references you wish to use. In fact many people study religions, I'm sure one does not need the name of a book, yes some people might not know the difference but most people would.

[Xujhan]

Boy oh boy, let's have fun with this one.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

Now, I know this title is completely wrong but I'm making a point.

If you know it's wrong, don't write it.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

And my question to Athiests who spew the "science tells us so" side of things. I'm in some agreement with you but I have a few questions.

1) Why do you naturally assume that everything is documented towards scientific findings is 100% correct? Science is all about expanding knowledge of what actually exists, and when you expand knowledge, certain things change about old things you already have looked at.

We don't. Anyone who thinks that any scientific result is 100% guaranteed to never be disproven doesn't understand science. In my experience, this view of science is held by far more often by theists than atheists.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

2) Not everything is released and made public, you automatically assume because nothing has been made public about discoveries that it hasn't happened. Plenty of technology isn't known by the public eye, so why do you always assume that knowledge isn't with held to?

Because we aren't paranoid. It's possible, of course, but until we're presented with a solid reason to think that this is both occurring and meaningful, we don't waste our time with it. What kinds of knowledge do you think are being withheld?

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

3) Narrow minded thinking. Now I'm not saying athiests are narrow minded becuase thats just flat out not true. But my question to you is, why is this "out side the box" thinking made so evil in the eyes of Athiests. Critical thinking is good and needed yes, but without far fetched ideas and unorthodox thinking, many of the ideas we have today may not exist.

Outside-the-box thinking is good, sure. But "Hey, here's a crazy hypothesis, let's test it!" is not the same as "Hey, here's a crazy hypothesis, accept that it's true dammit!" I have plenty of appreciation for the former, and nothing but scorn for the latter.

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

In the end, think for your fucking selves people. As soon as you say "we'll science says this" you instantly loose your own free thought, and take what others say as automatic fact. Please, think for your selves some what, yes, everything documented is great to have and scientific facts do point to certain things, thats the entire point of humanity as it is, evolution and the gathering of knowledge, but as we evolve in all parts of life, things change.

Do you understand the complexities of molecular biology? General relativity? Quantum mechanics? I certainly don't. Thinking for yourself is all well and good, of course, but the simple fact is that most of us don't even have a fraction of the knowledge or education we'd need to have meaningful views on such topics. Even if you devoted your life to understanding such things, you'd never be able to cover all fields. Now, it of course doesn't follow that if a scientist says X that you should automatically believe that X is true. But if there's an overwhelming concesus in the scientific community that X is true, and there are shelves full of documented evidence for X, then yes, you should accept X as true. It might not be, but if you really want to make a case that it isn't then start by getting a university education in that field and look for evidence that supports your view.

It would be lovely if we could all understand the leading edge of scientific discovery, but we can't; our understanding of reality has grown far past the point where one person can hope to grasp all of it. Since refusing to accept anything that you don't yourself understand is going to leave you essentially non-functional in any general discussion, the question is: what do you put your trust in? I contend that trusting science is much more sensible than trusting religion, as both its principles and its results are much more alligned to reality as we all experience it.