Parts of site failed to load... If you are using an ad blocker addon, you should to disable it (it blocks more than ads and causes parts of the site to not work).
Dude, no need for the name calling.... you asshole! (j/k ) . He didnt' actually say all people of these places are the same religion, just the very true point that religion, at least initially, is based on which culture you were born into. He also never said that new religions couldn't come up, that people don't rebel, or that one can change faith, he's just talking about the general population for which the religion resides. Does a poster really need to specifically state ".... or he would be Hindu if born in India. And by that I mean if he was born into a Hindu family, and no sihk's or muslims tried to convert him, and etc etc etc..." The basic point is there, you're blowing it out of proportion for not going into uncessesary specifics that are a given.
I apologize for the name calling and I did take things a little to literally
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
Well I totally agree with you that religions were invented to explain the unexplainable, but how did they become "harder to refute" as we learned more? Thunder was attributed to a blacksmith of the gods one time, stars were explained as pinprick glimpses into heaven, neuro-chemical imbalance later explained what christians initially thought was the work of demons. If anything I'd say religion becomes more and more difficult to justify as human knowledge expands. Of course once you explain one thing, they move onto the next thing we haven't yet explained and say "well how could that possibly work by itself? I don't know so that proves god did it!".
my meaning is that, the first religions had very abstract ideas to explain everyday forces like the sun rising but as human knowledge progressed, these ideas becamed explained by science but there a certain things that will never be explainable such as creation that will always leave room for a god, without an explanation of somthing there will always be an abstract idea not based on proof to explain it some may be rediculous and other may be more beleivable
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
Sorry but my BULLSHITOMETER is through the roof. I can't count how many times I've heard the argument that atheism requires "faith". It's a typical theist tactic, yet another, to try and put religion on equal grounds of rationality with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, faith in the unseen and the unproven, faith in the existence of things and beings unverified. Atheism is not "I KNOW there's no god!", atheism is a rational decision to not believe in god until there's is ample evidence to do so. The very notion that you have to have "faith" for non-belief is rediculous. If I say gremlims have a mining colony at the center of the sun, can you disprove it? Do you need to have faith that the gremlims aren't there? Or are you just rational enough to know it's illogical to believe in the gremlims without evidence of them?
If a lack of belief in god requires faith, then it's no more faith than a lack of belief in everything else imaginary. In which case, God has no more credibility than the tooth fairy or the flying spagetti monster. It baffles me to this day that millions have now become convinced that "faith" not only applies to belief, but lack of belief as well. This is a very typical example of people who don't understand that atheism is not knowing there isn't a god, it is knowing god is no more plausible than everything else that doesn't exist, until god has been proven or at least has some supporting evidence.
you have a very different take on atheism than from most people, even most atheists in my expirience. but the way you explain it make it sound more like agnostic than atheistic simply the fact that you would be open to the idea of there being a god if there was ample proof leans you more towards agnostic
everybody has their own opinions about their own religiouns and beliefs there is no uniform religious where everybody belelives the exact same thing and in the same way your subjecting all atheism to be that it is the denial of god untill he can be proven when the definition of atheisn with simply the denial of god