Keep in mind that humanism/atheism is also a religion, so what you're really saying is you can't find anything good in mankind, all of whose members hold some kind of faith. Secular or 'science' based societies of the last century are responsible for the deaths of about 100 million people.
I myself somewhat believe in god, but science is the real deal. But atheism is the highest form of satanism. This is because anything that tries to destroy religion is satanism, and that's exactly what science is doing. Kind of messed up to think about if you ask me.
Science is knowledge. Belief is a substitute of knowledge. If you know something, you don't need to believe it. When you know more, you rely less on beliefs. If you believe something, it means it's an unknown thing for you and you want to believe something about it. You are free to believe anything you want. But a scientific knowledge is accepted as a tested, proven fact until someone proves the opposite. Your question is wrong. Science is not a belief.
Well, that's not very far off either... And religion kills how many people every single minute again?
Again, since the atheist's faith in science or naturalism is a religion, the 100M death figure can be broken down. Divide the number by 100 years, then 365 days, then 24 hours, then 60 minutes, and you get 19.29. So, atheist science kills about 19 people a minute.
I thought most of programmers are smart enough to know that it is there is no god. At hiring a programmer I would ask that question, do you believe in god or not. Melprise humanism and atheism is not the same thing. Calling atheism a religion is like calling people who don't believe there is santaclaus a religion. For my luck people in my country don't believe in god. There is no reason to believe, really. It's like believing that tooth-faire exists, because every mother tells to their child that they exist, so they must exist because many people believe that.
The question is wrong. It is not possible to believe in science because it is not a faith. Science is the art of explaining. It is about studying. Second problem is that being a scientist does not exclude believing in god. So the question does not make sense again. You can believe in god and be a scientist. As I am.
What god do you believe in? Isn't god a bit non scientific approach? As we have observed this world, mind can't exist without body. Also how came the god into existence? I think that god is the most unlikely genesis explanation and I have to mention here that if there is something that can be called god then it sure isn't one that is in your bible.
You mix two things up. Science and philosophy. Above I tried to explain. Science is the key for "how". How does the system work, how do we breath, how ... and so on. So it tries to explain everything around us, with us, made by us, and so on. This is science. But the question is: Why do we exist? Science can not give an answer to this question. But philosphy can or it tries at least. Science can explain how evolution was and how universe was made. But again, what is the source of universe? Where does it come from? How can something suddenly occur from nothing? There you go. This is no more an area of science. Philosophy begins here. For me the source is god. This is the most logical answer for me. This is the answer for why do we exist. But I want to underline it: It is a faith, that means I believe that this is the answer for this question why do we exist. Other people, other faith. For you the answer of the question could be different. That will be your faith. For example maybe for you is the cookiemonster the creator of everything. Maybe the answer why do we exist is that in reality we are all humanoid cookies for the cookiemonster. He will eat us when we die. Like I say, this is philosophy. It is about believing, it has nothing to do with science. By the way I am not a christian, I am a muslim.
The difference is that for you it's the cookiemontster, for me it's I don't know. I find your god or cookiemonster equally absurd. Doesn't matter christian or muslim faith is not something you should take as granted. Can you tell me why do you find god/cookiemonster/mind the most logical(if you would forget that you was raised like that for a moment).
For you it is equally absurd, for me it is not. But that is faith. And I tried to say that I do not take it as granted, I believe that it is. Question to you: why do we exist and where does the universe come from? From a cloud of atoms? And where does this come from? And then?... If you want to know why it is logical for me, then you just need to read the Bible, Thora, Quran and read some books about philosophy. At least read the Quran. It is always the same when you discuss about such things. Nobody reads something but always everyone knows everything...
Bible, Thora, Quran are just books, not the truth. Man made, and contain very old information, science has progressed alot. Answers to your questions: We exist for the same reason as any plant or animal. The need to reproduce that comes by nature. We don't come from cloud of atoms, you can read about big bang if you like to read so much. We don't understand many things about quantum theory. The reason why we cant research the origin is because we can't recreate those extreme conditions. You can't know what is nothing. I mean absolutly nothing(no time, no nothing). You don't know how a nothing would behave. But that's another subject. I reason it some how like that. But the same question to you: Where does the universe come from? From a god? And where does this come from? And then?...
Again it happens. Those books are not books about science. Your last words make no sense. Yes, science has progressed a lot. Many people who were scientists were also people with a faith. And vice versa. And? As I try to say, and I am a mathematician, science has nothing to do with faith. Mixing those things shows me that you do not want to be objective. Science is just about studiying. But it never can answer the question for why. But I told this already. And this reproducing comes from where and why? Why are we "programmed" like this? It is not another subject. That is everything about. Where does the big bang come from? Let say we create those conditions and can find out where the big bang comes from. And then where does this new reason come from? And so on... For me it is god. Where does he come from? I can not tell. He is not in our system. So we can not research this. It is like being in a snow dome. I can not explain those things which are outside the dome. I just can explain what is in it. This is science. But the question will always be the same, where does this dome come from and why?
This is what they are discovering in CERN. For you it's not god, you only believe it is, in real life its the same for everybody. If you can't tell where he comes from, why do you assume it exists in the first place (faith is not an argument). So you say the god is in void? If he is not in our system, if he doesn't manifest, how can you tell that it's god not cookiemonster. Why do you think there has to be anything outside the dome? Why jump to wild conclusions?
Why do I assume it? Because we exist. Existence means that there is a source. Without a source there could not be an existence. That is why I assume that there must be a creator. That is the only logical explaining for me. You did not answer my question. Where do we come from (or our universe)? CERN just try to explain the "how". Maybe they will find out how the first atom could exist. But they will never be able to explain where this come from. If they do, then that thing will again have a source. This goes on. It must be something outside us. Simple physics. If there is energy, then it means there is a source. The first energy which existed in our system/universe must have a source. Else everything we know about science of physics would be a lie. Or are you gonna tell me that energy can be created from nothing? Why there is something outside the dome? Above I explained. Simple conclusion of elementary physics. Why must be the source the god? A good question. As I mentioned many times. This is where faith begins. It can also be the cookiemonster. But for me it is not very probable. Until now I never have seen a hint or anything which directs to a cookiemonster. But please read at least the holy books. It is like discussing about a movie which you have not seen yet. If you read the Quran, then you can understand why I believe in god. You do not need to believe. But if you really want to know why I think it is god not the cookiemonster, you have to read that holy book.
But if creator exists what is a source for that then? If you get in extreme conditions, simple physics just won't cut it, particles like quarks. Imagine before the big bang there was this collection of stuff that had so high temperatures that atoms couldn't form. It was a particle soup. Sun is ice compared to that. You can't create or observe those conditions and physic laws won't apply any more. It's all about scale. Why do you assume I haven't read your and other holy books? Also I don't see it being relevant. If you don't know what is out there then there is no rational reason to assume it's god. For me it can be nothing(we don't know what actually happens in total nothingness or can there even be total nothing). There probably can't be nothing, cause then we wouldn't exist. But assuming there was god not some physical events is just plain wrong. Since we know that from big bang the events that have been after it can occur naturally.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the absence of religion. As for "science killing people", science is simply a method of obtaining knowledge using rational, logical thought, based on evidence. For the death count, I assume you are referring to some of the regimes of the twentieth century. First of all, while, yes, several of them were atheists, the key thing to remember is that they did not kill people BECAUSE of their atheism. The deaths they caused were out of political motivation. And as for the "evilness" of some of the twentieth century's leaders, I just want to affirm that I think they were some pretty terrible people, but they are not that much more "evil", if at all, than several other leaders in history. Throughout human history, many leaders have undergone campaigns of mass murder or attempted ethnic cleansing, such as King Leopold II of Belgium, General Ran Min of China (4th century CE), and Czar Nicholas II of Russia, to name a few. Based on their actions, it is likely that they were just as bad as many of the leaders of the twentieth century. The difference is, and this is the key to the high casualty rates, the twentieth century leaders had much more advanced technology at their hands; they had the ABILITY to kill many more people, and the psychotic personalities to go through with it. Sickening as it is, the Nazis practically perfected the art of systematic killing, with their gas chambers making the mass murders extremely efficient.
It has been long established, as a matter of rational, logical thought and of law, that naturalism/humanism (the worldview of atheism) is a religion. The political system of the genocidal regimes was based on atheism, so the point remains, secular based governments of the last century have been the biggest contributors to the death count of populations.