"The scientific method doesn't have a bias"

anything that involves people is biased, you can't remove subjectivity from observation and observation is at the core of the scientific method

"and how is atheism an "in thing"?

oh stop

"atheism because if there is no evidence of something, there is no point in wasting time believing it"

everyone without exception believes in things that have no solid physical evidence...you pretty much have to since you are not omnipotent and therefore are extremely limited in what you can perceive

"Atheists have not been indoctrinated to not believe in any gods, they have come to that conclusion themselves."

lol some maybe... but the majority like with most things are riding on a band wagon or going with the flow and that's why they end up with contradictory beliefs - "heaven is such a stupid concept lol but i'll work to bring in the perfect communist utopia!"

"You have to teach a child what a god is."

that's not entirely true... what god really is, is an ideal and you don't have to teach people to strive towards an ideal - everyone has some concept about what they would like to strive towards in terms of knowledge wealth physicality etc..god is the ultimate conclusion of that, the ultimate pinnacle for the ideal

"To teach a child to not believe in god you just don't mention god and it will come to that conclusion itself."

i'd argue that the same child would look up into the blackness at night and believe that is something out there that is greater than he/she is... every child does that in varying ways... but then they drop that idea when scientists who are dishonest claim that the supernatural does not exist

" atheism has nothing to do with politics or society for that matter. "

that's just not true and i've shown examples of that

"As for Atheists dangling their superiority constantly in front of religious people. We wouldn't have to constantly remind people of how stupid they are if they'd just stop trying to wear they stupidity as a badge of honor and stop interfering with people who don't believe in their magical ponies."

well for most atheists that's the primary motivation... you are free to believe otherwise of course but i know better

LMAO can you describe to me how anarchy which is a state in which there is no government is compatible with communism which requires a very large government?

i EAGERLY await your answer

I wouldn´t say infinite importance, but rather great importance since it would enhance our view of the world. But then again, that same claim can be done with any other mythology ike Greek mythology, Hinduism, Scientology and so on.

Like it or not religion has both held back and progressed human advancements throughout our entire history. Can't stand when all these self-righteous atheists claim religion is evil and has only held us back while the hypocritical believers only see the good religion has done through their rose tinted glasses...

More or less a person could say present evidence that the Gospel story didn't happen, that they are a complete fiction but it wouldn't disprove Christianity. 

So, you could have a Christian who believes "God is a man in the sky. He will grant wishes that you pray to him. If you are good, you become an angel and go to heaven, which exists in the sky. If you are naughty or a non-believer, he will send you to a fiery hell, which is beneath the Earth's crust." - This is kind of Christianity for dummies (not in the sense that these are the basics of it, but in the sense that this is the form that dummies believe in; like the Simpsons characters). This is also more of a recent interpretation, this is not the description that any writers before the last couple hundred years describe Christianity; it's mostly a comedic interpretation. In Roman times, the idea of a man in the sky is something Christians found ridiculous as well, which is why they made fun of Pagans for it. There is medieval art and such of Jesus looking up, but that is mostly metaphorical because 

Reading actual Christian theologians and scholarly works, the above description is not really what they believe in. You have St. Augustine over 1500 years ago writing about how God the Father exists outside of time and space, while the holy spirit permeates all things. Even the Big Bang theory was essentially conceptualized as a scientific presentation of the creation with all the sacredness, metaphor, and spirituality taken out of the equation. Relativity and the dilation of spacetime is consistent with the trinitarian view that God the Father somehow exists beyond the universe, but "his" unchanging nature exists before, during, and after time - a massless object moving at the speed of light can hit the other side of the universe instantly (relative to its own point of reference) while the rest of the universe moves forward over a period of trillions of years.

If people want to be Christian, they will figure out a way to make the religion consistent with what we know is true today... and there will always be the dummies who reject a progress of knowledge and will still believe in the man in the sky anyway. But, I don't think there's a such thing as disproving Christianity. It's too huge of a thing. As long as it is appealing, there will be Christians. It is less appealing now because of globalization and people find church boring and a waste of time; those people drop off - but there are those that actually like it, and more Christians join simply due to this cultural appeal.

Some things in Christianity, very core systems, can't really be disproven. They are ideological concepts.

1. It is hypocrisy to judge people - this was the main message of Jesus, a group called the Pharisees were judging all sorts of people for breaking the Law (as in the biblical Law), and that they deserved punishment because they were doing something that would prevent them from getting into heaven. Jesus thought this was ridiculously stupid: they said "So you don't think these laws will get you into heaven" and he said "They will most certainly get you into heaven, I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that you're an asshole for judging people who don't follow the laws, and a hypocrite because you don't follow them either." The Pharisees were insulted at the suggestion, so Jesus said "Yeah dude, if you interpret adultery as even feeling lust for another that is not your wife, you are all sinners! So fuck you!" He didn't drop the F-bombs, but the intent was there. So Jesus essentially said, "All of those laws and commandments are really just aiming to get people to do two things - Love everyone and everything. And if you are beating and stoning people for not following the Laws, then you're a sinner yourself... and an asshole hypocrite."

2. Give to the needy - he said wealthy people are at a disadvantage because they have more to give up. Jesus effectively set up a commune for his followers. The irony is that a lot of the self-described staunch Christians are very anti-communism... despite the fact that Communism has been a common practice among Christian societies (monasteries, nuns, etc...) since the beginning of the faith. It just goes to show that Christianity means very different things to different people.

3. A person who rejects temptation has more freedom.

4. The metaphor for walking on water - it's not meant to be that "Whoah! It's a miracle! This guy can walk on water!" In the context, the story is about defying your pre-existing knowledge of the world and challenge yourself into exploring new knowledge without confines. It's the same as a psychedelic trip - one of the reasons why some people believe early Christians practiced psychedelic drug usage.

But anyway, I'm rambling, what I am trying to say is that these are all ideas and concepts. And the full body of work can really be applied to different understandings as to the origins of the Gospel. If Jesus didn't actually do any of this stuff, someone still wrote it, and that person had the stories in his/her head (yeah, it's possible that multiple books in the bible were written by women; particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament)

I think it is as false to claim religion is evil as it is to claim it is good. It is text written in a book and it is humans, not the religion in itself, that causes harm or wellbeing to other people.

You're mixing up Atheism and Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the absence of belief/knowledge.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

There's also strong agnosticism which is essentially someone who commits to believing that the nature/existence of a God/gods is unknowable. Also, someone who commits to believing that both the existence of gods or the existence of no gods are both possibilities for the nature of existence.

But of course, religion on it's own wouldn't exist without people molding it and getting a large following. Since their texts go back to more ancient times, what is perceived as good or bad has changed substantially, and most religions acknowledge this and have soften up their beliefs to fit the times through many reformations.

I strongly agree with this. As a Christian, I get sick of being lumped into terrible sects of it while I believe in something completely different to what someone else believes in. I take no responsibility in the Crusades for two reasons, I'm not Catholic, and looking at events leading up to it, you cannot put the entire blame on Christians. The actions against innocent civilians was terrible, but you cannot simply lump all Christians together saying we are all pro-Crusades. It falls on the people at the end of the day.

Good and evil are meaningless words, but religion has definitely held us a lot more back and has done way more bad things than it has ever helped us.