Its really just splitting hairs at this point. All the stats show non-religion being significantly higher in scientists then in the general population and the study I linked to about philosophy shows the same. I think its pretty obvious that that would be the case with most academic disciplines (not including theology!). Whether its higher or lower doesn't really matter that much, the point remains the same.

If that's in regards to me, i'd mention I never said that wasn't the case.  I was just claryfing the numbers, because when it comes to doing studies about finding whether or not people are atheists or not, western studies define atheist as "Not Christian."

Whether or not it would be the case with most academic disciplines though I'd say is vaguely undecided largely because the studies tend to focus on cases where you would expect atheism to be higher anyway.

A higher shift towards Deism, definitly... though that's basically always been the case.  Look at the number of founding fathers that were Deists.

Not specifically at you, just in general.

I didn't say atheism, I said non-religion. Which of course would include atheism, deism, agnosticism, pantheism etc. And if such studies define atheism as "Not Christian" then they are of course extremely flawed.

I'm also well aware that many of your founding fathers were Deists, which wasn't surprising considering the Deistic concept of God was essentially the God of the enlightenment in many ways.

Sorry, but one philosopher is irrelivant to what I was saying. There were plenty of great philosophers that were atheists or most likely were aswell, however thats not the point I was making. The point I was making is that I have read that a large number of philosophers are atheists or lean away from theism, just like in the sciences. Certainly more-so then in the general population.

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All respondents&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

Of note is this.

"The PhilPapers Survey was a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.

The PhilPapers Metasurvey was a concurrent survey of professional philosophers and others concerning their predictions of the results of the Survey. The Metasurvey was taken by 727 respondents including 438 professional philosophers and PhDs and 210 philosophy graduate students."

Whoa

Muslim v Christians. Both bad at each other in there own rights. But terrorists both Chirstian and Muslim killing people for there "god" despite there "god" telling them not to are the worst people ruining faith for many others. 

An solution to all the hate would be for all the regilons in the world especially Christian and Muslims to bound together and remove the radicals on both sides. An that all migiants no matter what reglion or cultural background going into another country never ever try to enforce them to stop what they are doing and if you dont like it leave. 

I would rather all just ditch these old reglions and pray to nature so that we stop destroying it and start fixing the world. 

But we are all most likely not going to change and continue to kill each other by any means possible just like how more money is spent on how to kill each other then save each other. 

@pizzahut451:

I'm tired of this conversation, so I'l just adress some points quickly.

Atheism is intolerant, it claims all religions are wrong. see what i did there ???

Atheism means not beleiving in religions. When a religion teaches that it's the only right one, it's followers will try to eliminate all other religions (Christians have been very good at doing this).

Oh but im just jidging it by the behaviour of some atheist i've meet in life (aka YOU). If you can be judgemental, so can I.

And NO WHERE does jesus nor God say that other religions are evil, again, its just your hate speech, nothing more

It's hate speech that come from Christians, not me. Study about Christian's attitudes towards other religions throughout time.

Study christian attidutes? what the hell? How can you study something like that? There are 2 billion christian people, you want me to go around the world and ask them what do they think of other religions? And another thing:

Stop taking my points out of context and twisting your own. You said ''Christianity is opressing'' but thats not the same as saying ''Christians are opressive''. I asked if Christianity is opressive where does Christ says all other religions are evil  and wrong (fun fact: Jesus was a JEW!!!). Christianity is based on his teachings, and yet nowhere does he say other religions are evil. Yes, lots of ''christians'' were opressive trough the ages, but thats not what you said in the first place. You said christianity is opressive and that is straight up wrong, no matter how many christians were opressive, since their behaviour goes directly against Jesus's teachings.

Buddhism isnt real religion. Its a spiritual lifestyle

No, Buddhism is a religion.

Ok, do you mind telling me in what kind of higher power they believe? What is their holly scripture (their holly book)?... Yup, they have none.Quite te religion, right?

Yes, because in countries like Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark, christians are very intolerant of muslim imigration minority there, despite their behaviour...Yup, thre is some hardcore extermination of muslims here...

That's thanks to secularism, not Christianity (not to mention that those countries are not particularly religious). And muslims are very little trusted in those countries FTR.

Ugn, no. Secularism has nothing to do with it. People rule those countries, not the politics or church. And if people of western Europe (who are mostly christianis in majority) didnt want muslim immigrantes in their country, than muslim imigration in western Euorpe would have been much smaller. People >>> governmant politics

H SWEET MOTHER OF GOD, WHAT THE HELL HAVE I JUST READ??????????????? Spain stealing lands that belong to muslims? Are you fucking serious? I cant believe you just wrote that...

Maybe you should read your own links. And maybe you should educate yourself more on this subject. There was no Kingdom of Spain when the Moors came. There were Visigoths who ruled the Iberian Peninsula, and they were terrible rulers who lost the Peninsula due to theri incompetence. The Moors were not radicals, and were tolerant of Christians and Jews. They built the most civilized and advanced state of Medieval Europe, and without them and their preservation of knowledge (like works of tyhe Greek philosophers, plus their own studies in fields like mathematics, astrology or medicine) Christian Western Europe would've never had a Reneissance (Christians had given up on things like education and literacy and hygene I suggest you visit Italy some day). The only intolerant muslims weren't moors, but radical Islamic mercenaries they at one point had to hire from North Africa to protect themselves against the invading Chrisitans (they actually didn't have a good military force, as they were more interested in knowledge then warfare, which led to internal conflicts and the fragmentation of their empire).Here you go again with word twisting anc changing subject. Seriously, you should hear the words you type.  You said and i am quotting you: '' I think you don't really know much about the Reconquista. It was essentially Christians from the North of Spain stealing lands that for centuries belonged to muslims'',<------- YOUR OWN WORDS  on which i replaied with links that say that IT WERE MUSLIMS WHO attacked Iberian Peninsula and Christians, a LAND that DID NOT BELONG to them. Christians start retaking LAND THAT BELONGED TO THEM, before MUSLIMS ATTACKED THEM. These facts prove that Christians only wanted to retake tha land that was stolen from them by muslim conquers,  But you, as usual, twist the topic and start saying how muslims wre really good, smart and tolerant despite that having nothing to do with our discussion. It doesnt change the fact that they ATTACKED THE LAND THAT DOESNT BELONG TO THEM. So just fucking admit you were wrong, nobody is gonna kill your family and castrate you with a chansaw if you do that from time to time.

By comparison the Spanish Christians led a campaign of ethnic clensing that wiped out the millions of muslim who lived in the Iberian Peninsula (deportions, forced conversion, and killing). The Moors never resorted to those things, as most people willingly converted to Islam when they invaded the Peninsula.Yes, God forbid they werent nice to people who took ther land and homes, but it doesnt matter if they were nice to them or not, it doesnt chnage the fact that muslim started the war, christians only seek to retake take their land.

For more information watch the documentary When the Moors Ruled in Europe. I'll reccomend books to you if you want, when my Intercultural Communication teacher gives us our reading list (she's a devout Christian FTR, so she has no pro-muslim/anti-christian bias).

As for inquisition, you didnt provide any arguments there...

The Inquisition was itself a process of eliminating everything that Chrisitans though were dangerous to their beleif system (sects which they deemd as heretics, Jews, Muslims, witches etc.). If they didn't find these groups dangerous, why would they persecute them and attempt to wipe them out?

Inqusition, has but NOTHING TO DO with spreading of christianity, which is my main point, on which you tried to twist words, as always. Seriously, stop doing that

@pizzahut451:

Well, I'm only responding to you as you justly deserve.

So am I.

I said study the attitudes of Christiasn towards other religions THROUGHOUT TIME, in other word from a historical perspective. In other words buy a history book and see read about how Chrisitans have treated people of other religions throughout time.

How did they treat them?  Crusaders and corruptted church leaders dont make up for not even 10% of christians in the world, if thats your point. And besides, what religous side treated others kindly? Not one.  Were muslims and jews kind to christians? Nope. In middle ages, war was connected to everything, and as much as you find it hard to believe, Christians arent responsible for every single war that happend in Middle Ages. Examples such as ottoman Empire and muslim invasion of Hispania prove so.

A religion can only be judged by the behaviour of it's adherents, especially the attitudes of those who are in charge. It's not important what Jesus said. Most likely most of the things you think he said were actually said by the people claiming to be his followers. Jesus himself never wrote anything. What's important is how people interpret the teachings and how they act.

That is bullshit on so many levels its hard to believe you really wrote something like that. lets say I start a religon and say the followers should fed the ppor, help the weak, respect eachother etc etc... and some of my followers do exact the oppiste. Yo're gonna blame my religion and say its bad, even though i said to my followers to do all the opposite? I think you know how bad and stupid your logic is here, you just would never ever admit you were wrong, especially not on this topic. Christianity is, I'll say it again, based on Christ's teachings, and if his eachings are good and rightus than Christianity could not possibly be evil, because the founder and the foundation of it is not. How people later used and twisted it is irrelevant to the moral status of christianity. Like i said, saying ''Christianity is opressive'' is not the same as saying ''Christians are opressive'', because if the followers of the religion dont actually follow the teachings of religion, they cant treally be called followers of that religion, thus they cant be called christians . And even if your incredibly flawed logic is to be considerd (it is not in any way) it would still be flawed for 2 reasons: 1) Those corrupted christians in Middle Ages make for very  small minority  of christians 2) all those opressing from the chistian church happend at hunderds and hundreds of years ago, so its extremly dumb to use them today to prove christianity is bad., even when judged by its followers...who are not even its real followers...who did the acts hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

There are lots of Buddhists texts and scriptures. There's a whole section about that on Wikipedia. They also believe in a higer power, but it's not a theistic religion, so it's quite different from what you think religion is. Ask a Buddhist on this site if you can find one, or do some research yourself.

Buddhism is more like a mixure of philisophy and spirituality rather than religion. Thats the definition of it.

Most people don't like immigrants, for reasons that have less to do with religion. I'm sure people would love less immigrants going into their countries and stealing their jobs (as many of them put it), but Governments have the role of protecting human rights, not bending over to what the masses may want in their ignorance.

That depends on what kind of imigrants. people dont like immigrants that come to another country, dont learn the language, dont have a job of any kind, get wellfare check and social help from the government, make over 8 childern per family with only 1-2 of them actually get pass schooll etc ect... Immigrants who come here and start working for themselfes, their family and THE COUNTRY that gives them shelter are NEVER hated by anyone (except for nazis and rednecks). But like you said, the hatred towards immigrants has little to do with religion.

When they invent a time machine, I'll take you to the Middle Ages and show you how "civilized" European Christians were.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

^^Just some example on these barberic people. But no, seriously, Europe was and IS the most advanced continent on the planet, to say people there were un civilized is rather...insane

Those Christians were actually Vizigoths who had stolen those lands from the Romans. And the Romans had stolen the lands from... etc. The Slavs (your ancestors) also were barbarians that came and stole lands from the Romans, lands that that did not belong to them.

I agree. In fact all of Balkans should be brought back under turkish rule, because we obviously stole their land in 1912 and in mid-19th century. Also,Poland should be part of Germany, because Poles stole their land in 1945... And India should be part of England as well, those guys stole their english land..

Seriously, I thibk you are getting deprate, you should stop arguing about this. Stole it from romans???? Do you even know who romans were? They were THE FUCKING CONQUERS of the land, you cant steal something that you previously owned. Romans also invaded Hispannia, a land that didnt belong to them. If you take something that didnt belong to you and later you lose it, you cant say someone stole it from you because it was never yours, you just took it away. More education for you:

I'm not wrong in any way, plus that doesn't change the fact that the Christian invaders were much worse and cruel, and much more fanatical regarding religion,  than the Moors ever were, which defeats the image of the "poor Christians" taking back the lands that the "big bad bloodthirsty muslims" stole from them. If you learn more about this, you'll actually find out that the Christian Vizigoths were so incompetent, that the Moors didn't have ti use that much violence to conquer the Iberian Peninsula. In many cases the Christians surrendered to the new rulers willingly, tired of their own incomeptent authorities.

I see what you are trying to do here, the same thing i asked you not to in my last post...THIS WASNT PART of our discussion. You are simply trying to make christians look bad because of your enormous hate towards them, but I dont really care, because your arguments dont change or add up anything to the discussion because that was not what this debate is about. Im gonna put this in the most easiest way I can and please next time you quote me and start replaying to this whole Reconquista discussion, answer me on this statement and ONLY on this statement (which is a fact): Iberian Peninsula is ruled by christians, the muslims come and attack them ,took the land that didnt belonged to them, than christians attack muslims and took their land that was stolen from the by muslims. THE END. Either respond to this or dont try to respond at all

There was no war before the Christians started it. The Christians who participated in the Reconquista had nothing to do with the Vizigoths who lost the peninsyula to the Moors. Also, in case you didn't know this, most of the Muslims that the Christians persecuted were actually ethnic spaniards, who had converted to Islam (most of the conquered Christians willingly converted to Islam, due to the advantages doing so brought), so the Christians were perecutting their own people, jsut because they had a different religion (then again there's not much more you can expect from religious fanatics).

^^See my point above

It had lots to do with making sure that everyone practiced a certain form of Christianity (and people who weren't Christians were persecuted). Can you imagine how different Christianity would be today, if certain sects hadn't been wiped out by the Inquisition? Why did the Christians have to persecute "withces", and Muslims, and Jews, if they weren't afraid of them?

Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point.  I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power.I'll copy & paste this couple of more times so that you dont responed with the same answer for the 5th time

Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point.  I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power.

Again, it had nothing to do with spreading of christianity which was my point.  I wasnt arguing on weather or not christian church would as powerfull as it was wthout inquisition, i said inqusition had nothing to do with spreading of christianity. Only with keeping christian churhc in power.