Man, I really regret I didn't visit the forums for a few days, such a good discussion missed. I would have some hard time answering all the interesting posts from previous pages, so here go only a few points.
---
Personal background: Male, 25, from Europe. I was raised as a catholic, but never actually believed, I consider myself agnostic. I live my life according to what my conscience dictates and I believe that if god exists, that's the way he would communicate his will to people, not through some laws, books or revelations.
---
Religion != Faith (this might be obvious for some, sorry for that)

I define religion as a written set of laws that a follower should obey and an institution that governs those laws. Faith on the other hand is what individuals believe in. One shouldn't be mixed with another and arguments against one shouldn't be mixed with another. "Christians can't be right in their beliefs, because they are responsible for crusades or child abuse by priests" - this argument is void.
---
Science vs. Faith

Addressing one of first comments that miracles are not possible according to science: well, that's why they are called "miracles" aren't they? :) Turning water into wine wouldn't be mentioned in the Bible if it was something that can happen without a divine intervention.

Also, it has been pointed out a few times by different people that the existence of God cannot be either proven nor disproved. I don't know where all the discussion about the beginning of the universe or the theory of evolution came from. It has nothing to do with the question of whether god exists or not. And Christians' beliefs aren't any less valid than scientific "proofs"* of theory of evolution.

*) As per RvW advice, i put quotation marks around "proof" as science doesn't prove anything. BTW. Actually, it wasn't Einstein who disproved Newton's laws of motion as he didn't actually do any experiments on his own (as I recall). He based his theory (among other) on experiments conducted by others that tried to prove that light has variable speed (and actually proved that it's constant thus falsifying Newtons laws).
---
Nice post about "A Bunch of Rocks", RvW :) Are you by any chance familiar by ideas of George Berkeley? (@devilnis, you might be interested as well, as you seem to put a lot of stress on the difference between what can be "observed and verified" and what cannot.) He was a philosopher rooted in empiricism (idea that all we can learn comes through our senses), but pushed this a little further by saying that all that we can know is that we perceive something, but that does not necessarily mean that it exists in reality. In fact, there might be no such thing as "reality". This makes things extremely relative, as it means that the only world that exists is the one that an individual perceives. Just some food for thought :)
---
As for the Christianity "forcing" its beliefs on other people, I'll take abortion as an example (and I'm not going to analyze when a fetus becomes a living being :)):

Murdering an adult is considered a crime by law, why? Clearly, the murderer believed that what he's doing is right, but the majority of society believes otherwise. That's why it is written in law that you can't murder other people. Now as long as the majority of people believe that abortion is ok and should be legal, it probably is not going to change. But that doesn't take the freedom to express and advocate their opinion from Christians, does it? And as soon as more people start believing that abortion is wrong, it could become the law. That's how democracy works, "you Americans" should love it! :)
---
I tried http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ and it didn't work... First I clicked that "I don't care if absolute truth exists" and it just said "Thank you for visiting"... Hardly a proof of anything. Then I thought that maybe it doesn't want to waste time on somebody who is indifferent, so the next time I chose "I don't know if absolute truth exists" and then it showed this answer with two buttons "Absolutely true" and "False", non of which was the correct about this sentence (according to the definition of "absolute" given on previous page). I got stuck and now I'm left with that page open in another tab and I don't know how to proceed ;)
---
Why is this discussion revolving mostly around Christianity vs atheism/agnosticism? Are there no Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. on Warlight?

Whoa, why did most of my post turn BIG and there are no horizontal lines??? There must be something that I didn't understand about the markdown language used here...

@KGB138 I absolutely agree with you that it works both ways. It irritates me greatly when people don't use logic to support their statements, and make no attempts to do so. If anything, even though it works both ways, I am even more annoyed by it coming from a religious side. Aside from that being my personal aversion to the subject, I suppose I should come up with a logical reason to support that. So, you could say that the reason is that statements such as "If you're not Christian you're going to hell.
Why?... Uh.... Because Jesus Said so" are trying to use a scare tactic, which is emotionalism, without any sort of logic. On the other hand, non-religious people usually are not using an argument aimed at fear, in my experience, it's simply a "it really doesn't matter to me what you do or what I do, so it's all fine" attitude as opposed to imposing opinions through fear. I find such a stance far more tolerable than emotionalism and a lack of logic.

@charfa:
Never heard of that George Berkeley; I bookmarked him; I hope to have some time to read up on his ideas somewhere in the not-too-distant future.
And yeah, markdown has a nasty habit of having a mind of its own sometimes. In combination with not being able to edit your posts, I suggest you quickly become friends with Mr. "Preview" Button. ;)

---

@Imagination:
|> On the other hand, non-religious people usually are not using an argument aimed at fear, in my experience, it's simply a "it really doesn't matter to me what you do or what I do, so it's all fine" attitude as opposed to imposing opinions through fear.

Doesn't that actually make a lot of sense? For "scientific people", there isn't all that much hanging in the balance: we have a certain idea and if we're wrong, hej, so much the better; we get to have an afterlife after all. For religious people, the "risk" in being wrong is much, *much* greater: if they turn out to be wrong, they'll be conned out of the afterlife they've been working so hard for (and been looking forward to so badly!) pretty much their entire life. Obviously, they're far more likely to feel rather strongly about it.

Don't get me wrong, I bet I'm by no means the only scientifically minded person who would love to watch mankind, science, technology, society, Earth, ... evolve, not just for the next ten years, not just for the rest of my life, but preferably until I get fed up with it (that'd probably work out to "indefinitely"). It'd be awesome to see the remaining scientific conundrums of our time solved (and new ones discovered (and those, eventually, solved as well!)). Just think what a blast it must be for a scientist from the end of the Dark Ages to watch his successors for a measly five centuries.
It's just that, more or less by definition, "we" are aware (and always have been aware) that's just not possible. Sure, medical technology is trying its best to let us see one, maybe two more decades then we originally could have expected (and, at the current rate, those are going to be a very interesting one or two decades), but that's it.
[On the other hands..., it's weird; science is changing every little part of this world (from moving out of the caves, to wearing clothes, to agriculture, to flying to the Moon and having the Internet). Death is one of very, *very* few things science is barely making progress towards "fixing".]

Another factor which might play a role is the kind of "environment" you're used to. If religion is one of the corner stones, the foundation even of your believe system, you're probably used to reading the Bible, or going to church and listening to sermon, having the (unquestionable) truth explained to you.
If, on the other hand, you're a "scientific" person, you're probably used to sitting in class, being encouraged to ask questions, and every once in a while have the teacher admit he/she doesn't know something or even to correct him/her on an error. It really drives home the point (even if subconsciously) that "nothing is absolutely certain, nobody is always right". That's a very good attitude to have going into a discussion, much better (and I hope this doesn't offend anyone) than being used to perfect answers and absolute truth.
I mean, I don't think my opinion is perfect; I'm not here to convince anyone, just to discuss and maybe gain some interesting new insights. Sure, I'll be the first to admit it's "rather unlikely" I'll be convinced either, but that's due to me having considered and reconsidered this particular question countless times already; I don't think it very likely to see a fundamentally new argument here. But on another topic, sure, it happens all the time people convince me to change my mind. And maybe even more importantly, that doesn't feel like a defeat to me.

Sorry, missed this part:

|> Why is this discussion revolving mostly around Christianity vs atheism/agnosticism? Are there no Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. on Warlight?

Apparently they're much more rare (or far less vocal). But as long as the discussion seems to be mostly on "science vs. religion", I think the specific religious background of participants doesn't matter too much, does it?

This is an excellent book to anyone who wants to expand there knowledge of organized religions and how they fail to fulfill the spiritual needs of so many.

God without Religion

Author: Sankara Saranam

@RvW That was exactly my point that it makes more sense (logically.)
Although I disagree with you on the point that they have less hanging in the balance. I am agreeing to the issue of the sensible use of logic. Since, "scientific people" are at least *perceiving* there to be less hanging in the balance and are therefore basing their opinions on some sort of logical premise whether or not that premise is true. Therefore, I have more respect for their point of view than a point of view based on emotionalism.

[Hmmmmmm... After reading your statements again, I'm not sure if you were disagreeing with me or simply pointing out that it makes more sense for religious people to be emotional about there opinions? If it is the latter, okay, I can see your point. In fact, I think I agree with you. However, even though it makes sense, I still cannot bring myself to have any sort of respect for them, and are dismissing of them and their emotional opinions.]

I agree that the environment that a person is raised in is a huge influential factor, and yes, usually people are raised in one or the other and as a result have the mindsets that you pointed out. The key word, however, is usually. As always, there is also that one or few that don't quite fit into categories.
There is also the possibility of those that were raised having a "truth" explained to them while being encouraged to ask questions, which can result in the combined mindset of being used to "perfect answers and absolute truth," as well as going into a discussion while having the attitude that "nothing is absolutely certain, nobody is always right."
Now, I realize that probably doesn't make sense right away, so let me explain. It's not exactly the same, but like I said earlier, there is always someone or something that doesn't quite fit into categories. Well in this case, it's more a matter of not everything fits into one category, either or, but that each issue must be properly separated into the correct category. The categories are, "absolute truth" and "nothing is absolutely certain." If you have the knowledge and awareness of both categories, then you can approach a discussion attempting to verify whether or not this is something that is an absolute truth or that is not absolutely certain, and leads to a mindset which combines your two categories into what I would define as "almost nothing is absolutely certain, but there is some absolute truth." Having this attitude is not quite the same attitude going into a discussion as you already described, but I believe that it accomplishes the same goals, which are (if I'm not mistaken) to have an open-mind that is willing to learn and accepts the possibility of being incorrect, and to have a civilized and logical discussion that is not abruptly ended by an absurd statement such as "I'm right and you're wrong. End of discussion."


Also, I apologize if I missed responding to any of your statements, my focus appears to be lacking and I'm not sure if I read your post properly.

their opinions*
Tch.... didn't proofread my added bracketed statements...

@lykus athiest are the least trusted in america which has a population mostly christian and you are using america to compare with the rest of the world so atheist aren't very trusted in america it dosen't just include christians who don't trust them plus if you are saying bullshit no one will trust you and most atheist in america say bullshit and come up with many excuses to sue religious people for their religion

America is a Christian country.

@ charfa I define religion as a written set of laws that a follower should obey and an institution that governs those laws.

I definitely agree with you there. I think it's an excellent point.

Abortion debate, why do you guys all think it's christians forcing abortions? There are many non-believers who disagrees with abortion (but you are right, the bible condemns abortion) I won't debate on the "fetus are considered as non-persons" ruled by the supreme court of Canada (i'm not sure about USA, but abortions in Canada is legal). HOwever, many Asian countries, like Thailand, abortions are illegal (even Thailand isn't considered a Christian country)

@ RvW Another factor which might play a role is the kind of "environment" you're used to. If religion is one of the corner stones, the foundation even of your believe system, you're probably used to reading the Bible, or going to church and listening to sermon, having the (unquestionable) truth explained to you.
If, on the other hand, you're a "scientific" person, you're probably used to sitting in class, being encouraged to ask questions, and every once in a while have the teacher admit he/she doesn't know something or even to correct him/her on an error. It really drives home the point (even if subconsciously) that "nothing is absolutely certain, nobody is always right". That's a very good attitude to have going into a discussion, much better (and I hope this doesn't offend anyone) than being used to perfect answers and absolute truth.

I'm actually both. I'm a university student, thus I do have basic scientific knowledge (not complete ignorant). I chose to believe in the bible, because I personally think the bible is more believable. Or maybe, i just don't have enough Biology knowledge.

I find (in general), there are two main types of persuasive techniques pastors use to "buy" non-believers.
1) They say, believe in God, and you will be blessed. You will receive everything you ask for, and you will live in happiness. Now, essentially, what they are saying is correct. However, audiences tend to have a misunderstanding. They will think God is their servant, that they should pray for this, and for that, and God, will grant these to them. However, God is not their servant, and their actions will only offend God.
2) They say, believe in GOd, or perish. Again, essentially, what they are saying is correct. HOwever, audiences will tend to misunderstand. They will think the Christian God is a cruel God, killing innocent simply because they do not believe. They will likely be offended by this statement, and thus, attack Christianity.
Both these techniques in my opinion are flawed. They do not show the whole picture of God, and do not present an accurate discription of him. Even if they do manage to get people to believe, these people are not believing a christian God (at least not the complete). They believe in only partial traits of this God, which is essentially too insignificant to be considered believing (accroding to Math, you need at least 50% to round up).

That is an excellent post Aqua. I am curious to know, what church are you a part of? (I'm not sure if you already have stated this and I've forgotten it in this 162 post discussion, or if the assumption built into my question is incorrect, but yeah.)

I see religion as a way for insecure people to live their life by the rules of a "higher power." I mean no insult, but aren't you secure enough about yourself, to make decisions without consulting the bible, or the quaran? We as, humans should be pure enough to do whats right. Me? I'm going to do what is my definition of right. I know I'm not not perfect, but I'm secure enough to make my own decisions.

How is consulting the bible any different than consulting advice from your friends or past experiences? They are all methods used to determine a course of action. Also, that's like saying a person doing math problems shouldn't consult a math book that contains the formula on how to solve a problem. Sure you have the possibility of correctly solving the problem without resorting to looking up the formula, but why not? Especially, if it is a truly perplexing problem or situation.

Also, like I said earlier, the very root of the matter is does God exist or not? If God does not exist, then you are correct that acting upon religion is merely a mental crutch. But if God does exist, then how does relying upon an actual entity that is indeed higher than you an expression of insecurity rather than a valid action? Basically, every single religious argument is founded upon whether or not God exists. In which case, it is really not a matter of insecurity, but rather an incorrect foundation of thinking, or vice versa.

I disagree.

@Ironheart:
What does "atheist aren't very trusted in america" even mean...?

---

@Aqua:
|> I'm a university student, thus I do have basic scientific knowledge (not complete ignorant).

Whoa, one moment, I did not use the word "ignorant", and I didn't mean to imply it either (nor, by the way, did I even think it)!

Actually, I know that being a Christian and being a scientist are by no means mutually exclusive properties. Ignoring the USA for a moment (where there seems to be a strong expectation from "society" that everyone should be Christian) and just looking at the Netherlands (where, especially among the younger generations, the number of religious people is rapidly declining). My university has three religious and/or Christian associations. When I first started studying, I was surprised when I learned about the first one, imagine my astonishment when I found out about the others.
I don't know the exact number of members each of them has, but one of them has a picture on their site showing an event for their members which looks to have at least 50 people present (there's no reason to assume that's all their members). On a total student population of approximately 7000 (and over a hundred associations of all kinds fighting for members and attention :p ), that's actually quite big. Also, it by no means implies just 1% of our students is Christian; it means at least 1% is Christian *and* considers that to be a very important part of their life/identity. [For comparison, statistically speaking there should be roughly 350 students who are gay or lesbian; the gay/lesbian student association was terminated a few years ago because the last two or three members just couldn't run the association any longer.] While it's extremely difficult to guestimate how many Christian students we have, I *am* sure it's by no means negligible.
Most of them are perfectly reasonable people, who you can have a discussion with just fine and aren't judgemental or closed-minded or anything (and they make great pancakes! (that joke will be lost on anyone who isn't from my university though :p )). Whether or not they're *right* about God existing? Who knows, I don't, they don't, nobody does. But I have no intention of trying to convert them; I'll explain my reasons, listen to theirs and (with very high likelihood) at the end of the night we'll go home "agreeing to have different ideas" (I don't think "disagree" is the right word).

I'd like to bump the thread, but I don't feel like reading all the posts :P

Gay Catholic Atheist here.

My culture is Catholic but I don't believe in (any) god. I have been raised as a Catholic and have read most of the bible and part of Qran.

I think religions (at least in this point in history) are pernicious and dangerous, and do not do any good. But they aren't equally dangerous some of them are more than others. My top 10 of the worst religions are the following:

1- Islam
2- Christianity
3- Buddhism
5- Hinduism
6- Shintoism

However I find Judaism quite cool. At least they don't try to convert anyone!

can you explain why each is dangerous i disagree with some i don't get why buddhism which is more of a way of life than religion is even on the list.(So sure somechinese buddhist set themselves on fire in protest against the government but they are fighting for their human rights and not killing others).
And i bet you used stereotypes to determine your own list after all not all muslims are terrorist or force their religion on you and are nice people most are peaceful.Shinto is more of a way of life to their believers and i don't know much about shinto and why's its dangerous.
Your list is not even backed up with a reason
why this religions are dangerous.

For those of you interested in debating religion I can recommend a good book called "the God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dont know if this has been mentioned earlier, didnt read through all the posts.

Those of you who like to read have probably heard of the book. Its very well written and easy to read. The only negative thing I have to say about it is that Dawkins ridicules religios people a bit. But the book is a good counterweight to religious literature.

religions are dangerous to societies and religious people for various reasons, not only violence. religion retards cultures in the fields of science and technology as well as justice systems, and sometimes art.

also, people are born into religion, they rarely choose their religion, and being brought up in a religious way can damage people.

so when he means islam is dangerous he isnt referring to the very minor issue of terrorism, but things such as the subjugation of women.

ps not every buddhist is a xiaolin showdown ninja monk cuddly non-violent protestor. they perpetrate a caste system in india - that's apartheid.