mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[~Silver Essence~ 2,625]

I used to be a christian.

 

But after much realizing and knowledge, I became an athiest.

 

I have my reasons, but overall, I can't depend on someone to help me in life.

 

If I live the next day, I was either lucky or nothing happened...

[John 793]

If that were evidence for a god, it would be a deist god. If you go by what the Bible says, God made the universe just a few thousand years ago. The big bang happened nearly 14 billion years ago.

I'll admit that there is a slim possibility that a deist god exists. The God of the Bible? 100% certain he's fictional, and I take great comfort in knowing that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pP2InFa16D0

 

 

You, a mortal human, can't say that you know 100% that the God of the Abrahamic faith is a false god.  If your single human brain has the capacity to know 100% that a deity is non-existent, call yourself all-knowing and parade the streets with ultimate answers.

 

And you can't put the existence of a god of any sort into a "percent chance."  It exists or it doesn't.

 

Please. I respect your beliefs; just don't make massive claims like that.

Edited July 20, 2013 by John

[Sickman 205]

Atheist should be taken off that poll, because atheism isn't a religion.
It's the lack thereof.
And to answer the question, I'm an atheist myself.

[John 793]

Atheist should be taken off that poll, because atheism isn't a religion.

It's the lack thereof.

And to answer the question, I'm an atheist myself.

 

Massive Contradiction

 

You start off by stating "Atheism isn't a religion."

 

Then when asked the question:  "What is everypony's religion?"

 

you respond:  "And to answer the question, I'm an atheist myself."

 

 

I don't disagree with what you said;    I just noticed the contradiction.

 

Man A has a quality B which he believes in in the subset D and not subset C.

Man B, out of curiosity, asks for Man A's quality of subset C.

Man A responds that it is quality B.

Edited July 20, 2013 by John

[Le Kvlt Dawn 2,364]

If that were evidence for a god, it would be a deist god. If you go by what the Bible says, God made the universe just a few thousand years ago. The big bang happened nearly 14 billion years ago.

I'll admit that there is a slim possibility that a deist god exists. The God of the Bible? 100% certain he's fictional, and I take great comfort in knowing that.

I totally agree, if there were a god it would be totally different from the one in any religious text.

 

 

 

You, a mortal human, can't say that you know 100% that the God of the Abrahamic faith is a false god.  If your single human brain has the capacity to know 100% that a deity is non-existent, call yourself all-knowing and parade the streets with ultimate answers.   And you can't put the existence of a god of any sort into a "percent chance."  It exists or it doesn't.   Please. I respect your beliefs; just don't make massive claims like that.

I hate to tell ya, but I agree with him. If there is a god it's most certainly not the one from the Holy Bible. But I think that's all part of the human experience, finding the answers to everything gradually. Like my English teacher from middle school told me; question everything.

Edited July 20, 2013 by AtDawnTheySquee

[John 793]

I hate to tell ya, but I agree with him. If there is a god it's most certainly not the one from the Holy Bible.

 

Someone didn't watch the first few minutes of the video.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP2InFa16D0

 

If you did watch the video, which conveys all of my thoughts and opinions about the "Holy Bible," then there should be no reason why the God of the Abrahamic faith has to be singled out as "non-existent."

[Galen 1,354]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pP2InFa16D0

 

 

You, a mortal human, can't say that you know 100% that the God of the Abrahamic faith is a false god.  If your single human brain has the capacity to know 100% that a deity is non-existent, call yourself all-knowing and parade the streets with ultimate answers.

 

And you can't put the existence of a god of any sort into a "percent chance."  It exists or it doesn't.

 

Please. I respect your beliefs; just don't make massive claims like that.

 

The bible claims the universe was created 6000 years ago. The truth is that the Earth itself is 4.54 BILLION years old. That's why using the Big Bang as evidence that the Abrahamic god exists is logically a mistake.

 

Atheist should be taken off that poll, because atheism isn't a religion.

It's the lack thereof.

And to answer the question, I'm an atheist myself.

 

Atheism is a religion. It's a religion which believes no deity exists. Just because you do not align to any deity-based religion doesn't make you someone without religion. The same way Christianity denies the existence of all other gods people believed in during ancient times, Atheism denies the existence of any god.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Freedan

[Vay 175]

I am cheerfully agnostic. I do not think science has all the answers or can reach all the answers (the universe is huge and I feel there are a lot of thing we will be unable to understand) but I also don't really adhere to the idea of a God. Not the way most religions speak of them anyway.

But I'm one person on one planet which is a speck in the universe, I can not assume to know everything or really much at all which is why I am agnostic. I am open to possibilities of all kind but will not decide on any one of them because I happily admit humans just can't know everything there is to know.

[Soundgarden 2,758]

If you did watch the video, which conveys all of my thoughts and opinions about the "Holy Bible," then there should be no reason why the God of the Abrahamic faith has to be singled out as "non-existent."

 

*sigh* I'm really doing this, am I?

 

That priest pretty much summed up why I don't believe in Christianity or anything similar for that matter. It's supposed to be read and approached differently according to the priest, and do you want to know how I view the bible after taking different approaches? As stories. Once you read about a man who brought two species of every creature on a boat, talking snakes and a man being returned from the dead, I just view them as nonsensical stories who's main purpose is to entertain. Sorry if I'm blunt, but that's my interpretation of the bible and it has no credibility to me

[MichaelxXxTrixie 433]

The main misconception I am seeing in this thread is that all atheist are being summed up into one group of people who believe in the Big-Bang. I for one don't support the theory because it's still vague for my taste but it's headed in the right direction. Some atheist have spiritual ideals, some believe aliens created everything, and even some believe in an afterlife, atheism is only a state of mind and not a religion. However, I can see why it is listed under this thread just to show a number.

[MLPForums Phanact 1,374]

I think the religion closest to what I actually believe is Atheism and I usually refer to myself as one as it easier than explaining my beliefs but they are as follows:

 

1. I am not sure if a God exists but I do not care as this is not relevant to my life.

2. God and the concepts of Heaven and Hell may actually exist but I refuse to live my life being afraid of what will happen when I die. The concepts of Heaven and Hell are also not relevant to my life.

3. If you are religious, you should follow everything, exactly as it is written or you are following the religion incorrectly. (No offence inteded, this is just my belief)

4. You should never raise/force/indoctrinate a child to follow a religion but instead raise them with the knowledge of all religions and allow them to make an informed choice when they are deemed mature enough. (This may contradict with the above but if one rule is to be broken, it is rule number 3 that should be)

5. Always respect the beliefs of other but be willing to debate about all concepts of all religions.

 

This is what I try and follow (:

Edited July 21, 2013 by Kaz

[John 793]

The bible claims the universe was created 6000 years ago. The truth is that the Earth itself is 4.54 BILLION years old. That's why using the Big Bang as evidence that the Abrahamic god exists is logically a mistake.

 

 

You either didn't watch the video, or you didn't understand it.  The meaning behind my post was expressed in a way such that one would have to watch the video to understand the rest of the post.  You are taking a literalistic approach to the Bible, which the Church defines as a form of heresy.  We don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old.  You get this notion from hearing crazy evangelical Christians babble that every word in the Bible translated literally is the word of God.

 

Being someone who studies in a field of hard science, I can tell you that there is no direct proof that the God of Abrahamic faith is fake or real.  The "Proof" comes from people like you assuming that everything in the Bible is literal and people who view the Bible as one single text written by one single man.

 

Yet you ignore what I say and continue to comment saying "well, you guys believe the earth is 6000 years old so your God must be fake."

That priest pretty much summed up why I don't believe in Christianity or anything similar for that matter. It's supposed to be read and approached differently according to the priest, and do you want to know how I view the bible after taking different approaches? As stories. Once you read about a man who brought two species of every creature on a boat, talking snakes and a man being returned from the dead, I just view them as nonsensical stories who's main purpose is to entertain. Sorry if I'm blunt, but that's my interpretation of the bible and it has no credibility to me

 

 

This comment is a testament to not having an understanding of what the priest was talking about in the video.  You are stating that the whole Bible has to be approached differently, when ACTUALLY the priest was saying that each section of the Bible should be interpreted differently on an individual basis.  Yes, of course if you read the Bible cover to cover, many of the stories are going to seem like fiction.  Imagine having a large book with different sections including works of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Carl Sagan,  Joseph Staten, ect. with different sections that include poetry, lore, saga, history, fiction, accounts, songs.  If you read all of these things assuming that they are all one single work, you would probably assume the entire work to be fictional and valueless based off the fact that some of the work was meant to be interpreted in another way.

 

Here, once again, is the video.  Understand the video before repeating to me what has already been said.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP2InFa16D0

The main misconception I am seeing in this thread is that all atheist are being summed up into one group of people who believe in the Big-Bang. I for one don't support the theory because it's still vague for my taste but it's headed in the right direction. Some atheist have spiritual ideals, some believe aliens created everything, and even some believe in an afterlife, atheism is only a state of mind and not a religion. However, I can see why it is listed under this thread just to show a number.

 

The Big Bang is not vague.  It is a well established fact among the scientific community and deserves to be treated as one.  Any cosmic background radiation map is hard proof that it did happen.

Edited July 21, 2013 by John

[ShadowRose2k 271]

I was raised a Roman Catholic but have been a member of a few difrent churches.  They range from Christian, to prodistant and a few others in between.   Having experienced  difrent kinds of the same thing has shaped my beliefs.  So I would say I Follow the teachings of Roman Catholics I have a number of disagreements of their teachings.      I won't go into details,  can save that for another topic.

[tranglam 28]

Mormon, so technically Christian. And because originally it was what I was born into. But as a teen I questioned and researched other things. I came back since it is the only one that feels correct and makes sense (to me).

[ShadowRose2k 271]

 

 

If you go by what the Bible says, God made the universe just a few thousand years ago. The big bang happened nearly 14 billion years ago.

 

I'm actually currious as to where exatly is states God made it all a few thousands years ago. Because i'm looking thru my bible now and can't seem to find that.    It does state it took him 7 days to do, but does not state how long a Day for God is.

 

Gennesis if a bit artistic in its wording has creation down pretty good.  "Let there be light."  Big Bang.   Creation of day and night, would be the  formation of stars. (cant have day without a sun.) The creation of the earth, sky and sea.   Formation of solid matter, planets, moons ect.   Then creation of animals and plants. Thats the beginings of life.  

 

I know you can argue about the wording in his creation of life but it still makes sense.  Life starting with (skipping SSO) plants then life in the water. Following this we see larger animals in the sea and animals on land.  Following this we see the creation of Man to have dominance over all creatures of the earth.  That is to say  we see how our ancestors developed inteligence and learned to take command over all we see. 

 

The Bible was writen to hold your intrest and give simple answers to complex questions to people that needed Faith and answers.  Kinda like explaining something to a child. 

 

As a spices we have grown up a bit and are ready for the more detailed and complex answers.  But I feel that if we were children then, we are no more than Pre-teens or Teens at best now.  We are still growing and learning and from all the wars around we are still very immature.

[Durandal 623]

Atheism is a religion. It's a religion which believes no deity exists. Just because you do not align to any deity-based religion doesn't make you someone without religion. The same way Christianity denies the existence of all other gods people believed in during ancient times, Atheism denies the existence of any god.

 

Atheism is not a religion, as it is not organized. A wide variety of people call themselves Atheists, and oftentimes they do not agree on many things. Christianity is a religion - it is organized (church or simply groups who believe in the same thing) and has a definite system of belief (All Christian sects look to the Bible first and foremost. Their differences lie in their interpretation and history).

 

Being someone who studies in a field of hard science, I can tell you that there is no direct proof that the God of Abrahamic faith is fake or real. 

 

I disagree. There is hard, definitive proof that the Abrahamic God does not exist - and that is observation of real life. The God of Christianity is often considered immanent, or involved in the real world. Unfortunately, miracles can often be explained away rationally, and oftentimes prayer either fails to help, or is considered the reason behind coincidences. Time and time again, empirical evidence of God's immanence fails to surface - therein lies His undoing.

 

As for myself, I am Agnostic, though functionally Atheist. If I fail to find empirical proof of their immanence, and therefore existence, then I shall say no. If this god is outside of the physical realm, and therefore unobservable, my answer is that I cannot know.

[ShadowRose2k 271]

 

 

If I fail to find empirical proof of their immanence, and therefore existence, then I shall say no. If this god is outside of the physical realm, and therefore unobservable, my answer is that I cannot know.

 

 

"I refuse to prove I exist says God. For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.  But, says man. The babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't?  It Proves you exist and therfore you don't. Q.E.D.  Oh I hadn't thought of that says God.  And promply vanishes in a puff of logic.  That was easy says man.  Then goes on to prove Black is White and gets killed in the next Zebra crossing."

 

I dont know why but this always comes to mind when I hear about people discussing the existence of God.

[MichaelxXxTrixie 433]

The Big Bang is not vague.  It is a well established fact among the scientific community and deserves to be treated as one.  Any cosmic background radiation map is hard proof that it did happen.

 

You see I now know of it being a well established fact (Did some more detailed research on it), and if you asked me how the universe was created I would conclude The Big Bang. The vague part comes from the cause, I know that at the moment and possibly never we will be capable of knowing what caused it. We have many theories on what is the cause but all those theories go back to what caused that and what caused that. 

 

The flaw is probably in our minds, we automatically see things as having a beginning and an end. We can't understand something that doesn't have a beginning like an ant can't understand the concept of itself and being an individual. It's not that bad though, we just have to acknowledge it did happen and get what we can from that. So I goofed up believing the Big Bang was vague... woops.

[Arretez 225]

I'm Christian, non-denominational. I was born and raised as such, and I don't intend to stray from the path of which I currently follow.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Arretez

[John 793]

I disagree. There is hard, definitive proof that the Abrahamic God does not exist - and that is observation of real life. The God of Christianity is often considered immanent, or involved in the real world. Unfortunately, miracles can often be explained away rationally, and oftentimes prayer either fails to help, or is considered the reason behind coincidences. Time and time again, empirical evidence of God's immanence fails to surface - therein lies His undoing.

 

As for myself, I am Agnostic, though functionally Atheist. If I fail to find empirical proof of their immanence, and therefore existence, then I shall say no. If this god is outside of the physical realm, and therefore unobservable, my answer is that I cannot know.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, however these instances you provide aren't hard proof of anything.  I feel as though you misunderstand the meaning of prayer.  Prayer isn't meant for "getting whatever you want instantly" and if something good does come out of a situation, we as Catholics don't automatically jump the gun and assume God did it for us.  We recognize prayer as a spiritual connection through the Holy Spirit with God, and we usually only use it when all else fails.

 

Its like trying to prove the existence of a red apple.  Just because there are green apples, doesn't mean red apples aren't real.

Likewise, just because there are explainable miracles doesn't mean that all of them are explainable.  If you want to gather information on the millions upon millions of miracles that have occurred throughout history and find ways to disprove every single one of them, then good luck.

 

Yes, although this God is said to be "immanent," no where in scripture does it say that the God intervenes with everything.

 

 

 

 

Side topic:

Just a theoretical.  If there is a God and he did reveal himself to us fully, what would people choose to do with their "free will?"  Wouldn't everybody act good just to get into heaven?  I think it is good that some doubt in God exists, for if he truly does exist then he will be able to see the true actions of all of his people.

Edited July 21, 2013 by John

[long gone 8,929]

Atheist. As a kid, I found it hard to keep myself awake during church sermons and, all in all, did not really care about what the priest was saying, so I went atheist at an early age. Last time I was at a church was in 2001, during a forced CCD session that I got myself kicked out of after about all of 10 seconds.

 

I always tended to trust science more than some book, anyway.

[John 793]

You see I now know of it being a well established fact (Did some more detailed research on it), and if you asked me how the universe was created I would conclude The Big Bang. The vague part comes from the cause, I know that at the moment and possibly never we will be capable of knowing what caused it. We have many theories on what is the cause but all those theories go back to what caused that and what caused that. 

 

The flaw is probably in our minds, we automatically see things as having a beginning and an end. We can't understand something that doesn't have a beginning like an ant can't understand the concept of itself and being an individual. It's not that bad though, we just have to acknowledge it did happen and get what we can from that. So I goofed up believing the Big Bang was vague... woops.

 

 

The problem with this is that we are sure that the known Universe did have a beginning.  We also know (from what we observe) that the universe is expanding so quickly that at some point in time things will be so separate from each other that a "Big Freeze" will occur.

 

"Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever. If so, the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. For this reason, this future scenario is popularly called the Big Freeze."  -Wikepedia (Big Freeze)

 

Thanks dark energy!

 

 

 

This also tells us that the universe will never be able to support life past this point.  (Which is pretty obvious given what will happen when this occurs)  Due to the fact that this most likely will happen, it would not be unreasonable to believe that our universe was never always here.  It had a beginning, and for our sake will have an end.

 "Alternate Universe" mambo jumbo shit aside, this is based off of what we observe and what we know.

Edited July 21, 2013 by John

[Durandal 623]

I understand what you're trying to say, however these instances you provide aren't hard proof of anything.  I feel as though you misunderstand the meaning of prayer.  Prayer isn't meant for "getting whatever you want instantly" and if something good does come out of a situation, we as Catholics don't automatically jump the gun and assume God did it for us.  We recognize prayer as a spiritual connection through the Holy Spirit with God, and we usually only use it when all else fails.

 

Its like trying to prove the existence of a red apple.  Just because there are green apples, doesn't mean red apples aren't real.

Likewise, just because there are explainable miracles doesn't mean that all of them are explainable.  If you want to gather information on the millions upon millions of miracles that have occurred throughout history and find ways to disprove every single one of them, then good luck.

 

Yes, although this God is said to be "immanent," no where in scripture does it say that the God intervenes with everything.

 

 

 

 

Side topic:

Just a theoretical.  If there is a God and he did reveal himself to us fully, what would people choose to do with their "free will?"  Wouldn't everybody act good just to get into heaven?  I think it is good that some doubt in God exists, for if he truly does exist then he will be able to see the true actions of all of his people.

 

 

I understand that prayer isn't meant for instantaneous gratification, however is it often used when frightened of an outcome. People pray that something will happen (or won't), and when it does, they often assume it is because of God's will acting on their prayer. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

If you wish to say that God works subtly to answer prayers, or in ways we do not understand, very well. However, since the explanation implies that his work is not observable, then I would question how this implies that God is immanent in an observable way.

 

I think you've missed a key point with your apple metaphor. Green apples and red apples exist - if you trek far enough, you will find a red apple. It was observed, you understand it to exist because you can touch it, see it, eat it, and smell it. A miracle, by contrast, can not be truly observed. Assuming a miracle is a break in the laws of nature by divinity, then we come across a question: how can we know when the laws of nature have been broken?

 

And this is where the metaphor fails. You don't have to make assumptions to think the red apple exists. You have proof that it is there, in your hand, or in your mouth, or on the tree. With a miracle, there is no proof that it broke the laws of nature, for we do not understand the laws of nature well enough to determine when they have been broken.

 

Though this leaves us with much ambiguity, Occam's Razor states that the solution with the least assumptions - basically, the simplest one -, is most likely the correct solution. From this we can conclude that a miracle can not exist, for it assumes that the laws of nature can be broken, that god exists, that He is immanent, and that He is willing to act on the physical world, amongst a host of other assumptions. The most likely solution is that we do not understand the laws of nature enough to know if they have been broken, since its only assumption is a lack of knowledge.

 

Bolstering the assumption of lack of knowledge is history. How many miracles have been waved off as peculiar but explainable phenomenon as a result of man's understanding catching up with strange events? And at that, how much that we consider commonplace today would be considered a miracle in the past? Arthur C. Clarke's third law states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, any sufficiently mind-boggling phenomenon is indistinguishable from a miracle.

 

Also, bringing the Bible into this is a lofty position. As was explained by the Father, the Bible is meant to be interpreted in several different ways. These interpretations vary to the point that considering anything in the Bible more than an allegory is up to interpretation itself. 

 

To address the side-topic, then he's shot himself in the foot. In the Ten Commandments, it is stated that, first, 'I am the Lord your God,' and secondly that 'you shall have no other gods before me'. If we are to interpret the Ten Commandments as the only literal thing in the Bible, then he is damning all those who do not believe him as their Lord and Savior. If he wanted nonbelievers so that he may see man's true actions, why damn them? Are the Ten Commandments perhaps a farce, to see if man would truly obey a book, and allow it judge their choices? Or will he damn them anyways, believing that to deny their belief in him is a sin without compare?

 

 

 

"I refuse to prove I exist says God. For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.  But, says man. The babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't?  It Proves you exist and therfore you don't. Q.E.D.  Oh I hadn't thought of that says God.  And promply vanishes in a puff of logic.  That was easy says man.  Then goes on to prove Black is White and gets killed in the next Zebra crossing."

 

I dont know why but this always comes to mind when I hear about people discussing the existence of God.

 

Hah! I loved that movie, particularly that part. Well done, you magnicifient bastard! You've made my day.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Durandal

[--Thunder Bolt-- 534]

I voted "atheist" since that is probably the closest label to fitting correctly.  However, for me it depends on the definition of "god."  For example, R. Buckminster Fuller defined "god" as "the synergetic integrity of all known and unknown generalized operating principles of Universe."  The "generalized operating principles of Universe" are what we mislabel as "laws" of physics.  They're descriptions of how things do behave, not legal decrees stating how they ought to behave.  Fuller noted how the generalized operating principles appear to be always "inter-accommodative," that is, they never conflicted with one another.  Universe has an all-embracing "integrity" that incorporates things like an elegant underlying geometric order and ways of operating.  These things are observable and demonstrable. 

 

The generalized operating principles of Universe possess some of the attributes people usually associate with a big-G "God."  They are invisible and intangible (you can't measure out three kilograms of Conservation of Angular Momentum and put them into a jar), operative everywhere ("omnipresent"), and they can't be nullified ("omnipotent" in a sense) except by some application of generalized operating principles that must necessarily incorporate the one you're trying to "get around," e.g. an airplane wing acting in obedience to the Bernoulli Principle to generate lift, in combination with engines operating in accordance with the principles governing combustion, angular momentum, etc. so as to lift and move the craft against the force of gravity.  Though this "counteracts gravity," it also requires gravity to create the air pressure the wing uses to generate lift.  In a nutshell, you can't build a perpetual motion machine or anything else that is incompatible with the generalized operating principles of Universe.

 

However, Fuller's "God" concept is very different from the sort of "god" or "goddess" who creates a Cosmos so that they can be the king or queen of all the humans.  I think that sort of deity-concept is fairly obviously false.

[Galen 1,354]

You either didn't watch the video, or you didn't understand it.  The meaning behind my post was expressed in a way such that one would have to watch the video to understand the rest of the post.  You are taking a literalistic approach to the Bible, which the Church defines as a form of heresy.  We don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old.  You get this notion from hearing crazy evangelical Christians babble that every word in the Bible translated literally is the word of God.

 

Being someone who studies in a field of hard science, I can tell you that there is no direct proof that the God of Abrahamic faith is fake or real.  The "Proof" comes from people like you assuming that everything in the Bible is literal and people who view the Bible as one single text written by one single man.

 

Yet you ignore what I say and continue to comment saying "well, you guys believe the earth is 6000 years old so your God must be fake."

 

Careful. That's not what I said at all. I said the bible is factually incorrect about the creation of the universe. I never said that disproves god's existence, whether in the Abrahamic sense or whichever else and using that argument to say it is evidence is a mistake. And fyi, I'm perfectly content with being a heretic

 

And no, first off I'm not showering anyone with any evidence one way or the other. Being agnostic, I'm open to the possibility, but I prefer to believe in what I see and can be proven with facts, not lore, saga, and storytelling. If you can prove me wrong, I will stand aside. As you said, however, there's no hard evidence that god does exist. There is only faith and the supposition that he exists due to a lack of understanding of the origins of nature and the universe. And I'm perfectly aware the bible is written by multiple people. I have read it, you know -__-

 

Erio pretty much hit the nail on the head. The priest in your video encourages each segment of the bible to be interpreted in a different manner based on its genre. The first difficulty with doing so is there's little to no indication what genre each part of the bible is in the first place. The majority of it is stories when you consider there's a man returning from the dead, another who housed two of every living animal species in the world in one boat (one too small to do so to begin with), etc. Some is historical recollection of events which can in fact be proven through other ancient records and archeology (altho this still would not prove god's existence as correlation is not causation, as I said before), poetical stories, and so on. Much of it is very nice and can teach readers moral values, and I'll be honest that others are downright sickening. Once more, no matter how you want to interpret it, nothing in the bible is evidence the abrahamic god actually exists.

 

Atheism is not a religion, as it is not organized. A wide variety of people call themselves Atheists, and oftentimes they do not agree on many things. Christianity is a religion - it is organized (church or simply groups who believe in the same thing) and has a definite system of belief (All Christian sects look to the Bible first and foremost. Their differences lie in their interpretation and history).

 

Religions don't have to be organized to be deemed religions. There are personal religions which individuals adhere to, and organized religions that have tons of followers of a code of conduct and hierarchy. Yes, atheism doesn't fall under the latter despite having a large number of adherents, but tho it isn't organized the way christianity is, it is still a religion. If you say atheism is not an organized religion, then you are right.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Freedan