• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. Atheists Know More About Religion Than U.S. Christians

Holdasown

Active Member
This is a great example of what I was talking about above.

The concept of a soul is readily accepted in religious circles as something that:
A) Exists
B) Needs to be saved

I'd ask what that basic assumption is even based on.
What makes you think there's a soul?
Why do you think that?
What makes you think it needs to be "saved"?
Why do you think that?

To the religionist, these questions seem needless and their answers self apparent.

You realize there are religions with no salvation component. Right.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Why do atheists know more about religion then the actual religious? It makes more sense that the practitioner of a said religion would know more about it then an atheist. You learn more by hands on experience anyhow.

But also, why do atheists spend so much time learning religion in order to bash it IF they are so sure its all wrong?

In that case, why dont they go spend there time enjoying there ONLY ONE LIFE they got. Why do they WASTE so much time studying religion?

We wouldn't waste our time on it if the religious would just keep it to themselves.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
You realize there are religions with no salvation component. Right.
Of course.
I'm speaking to the specific assumptions of the poster I was responding to.

one could leave out the salvation component and we're still left with the assumption of the soul and a need to answer for it.
 

Anthem

Active Member
This is a great example of what I was talking about above.

The concept of a soul is readily accepted in religious circles as something that:
A) Exists
B) Needs to be saved

I'd ask what that basic assumption is even based on.
What makes you think there's a soul?
Why do you think that?
What makes you think it needs to be "saved"?
Why do you think that?

To the religionist, these questions seem needless and their answers self apparent.
I could have replaced the word soul with many words that the atheists and science believes in but I didn't bother because i think my point is clear.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I aint giving no blood sacrifice nah lmao
Your blood sacrifice wouldn't be sufficient anyway, remember?

God required the blood of the holy lamb, Jesus Christ, to wash away the debt of our sins. Only his pure blood was sufficient. I assume you believe this. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's awesome that you were never told to believe anything in church, though.
 

Anthem

Active Member
Your blood sacrifice wouldn't be sufficient anyway, remember?

God required the blood of the holy lamb, Jesus Christ, to wash away the debt of our sins. Only his pure blood was sufficient. I assume you believe this. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's awesome that you were never told to believe anything in church, though.
K
download-69.jpg
 
Top