That's not even the important part. The part that people should take into into consideration when they pass judgment is ''whether or not the ideology in whose name people committed the crimes actually supports those actions''  Because anyone can kill in name of anything to make anything look bad. Its much easier to kill and die in the name of christianity, than to live by it's principles.  Someone doing something bad in the name of religion doesn't make the religion itself look bad unless it actually supports that deed.

If an atheist ever succeeds in grasping this concept i will personally deep fry my balls tho :/

Again, the question was specifically directed towards the bigger picture and the quest for answers (see underlined). With no final answer, is the quest legitimate?

This isn't a question I like dodged, since it's an important question to me.

"Regardless, if history serves us right there was more death in the name of non-religion than in the name of religion, the holocaust and red russia being the two biggest ones I believe."

Um, what?  Are you now saying the Nazi Holocaust was not in the name of religion?

 Cause, that doesn’t make any since to me.  Cause Christian Hitler would beg to differ.

You two have been having a pretty interesting debate here, I thought I might put in my two cents.

Most atheists would at least claim to follow science or the scientific method; we're always trying to better our knowledge and to be honest, I think most scientists accept that we'll never know everything the universe has to offer (otherwise we'd be out of a job, lol). It's a long and neverending quest to gain as much knowledge and progress our species as much as possible in our lifetime. The hope is that we lay the foundations for another generation to go on further that understanding.

It's sometimes hard for some deists/religious to accept the method as a lot of the answers are set in stone whereas the scientific method is all about disproving something to build the foundations for a greater understanding. It's a dynamic way of thinking that frequently results in fierce debates until enough data has been gathered for a best case scenario to be reached.

Personally, I want to see as much progress for us as a species as is humanly possible.

1.) I am also Glad

2.) Fair enough

3.) No comment

You're only assuming that there isn't an end to chain of questions. The simple fact that we are capable of formulating a question shows how far have we really  come. After all Scientific method starts with a question!

If you look at the results of that quest (e.g. vehicles, elimination of disease, antibiotics, life-saving surgery, biro pens, forensics... video games ) then doesn't that make it a legitimate quest?

If the quest continues to help and improve our lives, then I see no reason why the quest couldn't be considerred legitimate or worthwhile.

You miss my point.

I'm not attacking atheism. I'm attacking that ridiculous strawman of a picture.

I don't think the idea of never-ending questions is an easy one to comprehend. It's pretty abstract, but I'll try.

Perhaps, after answering so many questions, we will realize that the questions will never end, so we stop stressing over finding the answers. So I guess, in a way, that's kind of like finding the end. We could one day discover that we'll never know everything - I think that's decent closure in and of itself.

I honestly don't know. I don't think the brain was programmed to understand concepts like never-ending, infinity, etc.

A lot of atheists grasp that concept. The fact is that having an organised religion just adds an extra ideology and excuse that people can make. It further adds an extra method to rally and manipulate people to do things that may even be the complete antithesis of that religion's teachings. Religious belief (as well as political belief) is an incredibly powerful motivator for both good and reprehensible deeds. All organised religions are open to this corruption