It's not about 'perfect understanding'.
Atheists find it ridiculous to worship something when there is no rational reason to believe it exists.
Theists don't care about rationality and say you have to believe first in order to 'know' God.

i think the "atheists this" "atheists that" is the worse of the whole anti-intellectualism religious registery
it reject the agnosticism, burning at the stake any "no believer".

that's a biased way of looking at it and really just a shot at the most stringent traditionalists with scripture. none of us know how the universe was created, we all have a place in us for an irrational god because we're all devoid of a rational explanation that we can verify. the difference there is more about ability to believe, because none of us have something rational to believe in. some lean to a god some to science hopefully one day answering it for them.

Worship is what you devote yourself to everyday. Unless you have a life devoid of any commitment, Atheists simply worship their own ego because they think they need no outside faculty to guide them through life.

The Protestant reformation was a direct cause of the enlightenment, so the notion that religion goes against logic is card_sultan level derpery.

Ppl devote to a lot more than their ego. Copernicus was rather religious, he didn't publish 'Revolutionibus orbium coelestium', to where he devote a few years of his life for, out fear of being criticized. It eventually was published just before he died with the added introduction: "This is not reality, but a mathematical model on how our solar system could work". Galileo picked it up from there, started defending the reality of a solar centric system. But got silenced by Pope Paulus V, brought to court and eventually Galileo had to flee to the Netherlands, with a copy of his book that filled in the gaps in Copernicus' theory. The problem back then was, and to a lesser degree still is today, is that Religion has the idea, that it has the monopoly on truth, without having to provide any evidence. However you look at it, that hinders progress.



You don't have to know what exactly happened in the first second of creation of the universe, there is enough evidence to point towards a big bang, the general idea being backed up with multiple sources for what happened. Now I can scapegoat that first unknown second is work of god, but that's just me being lazy.

/e:

Okey -> logic being oppressed by the pope.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Dec 14 2018 09:17am

This has nothing to do with any of what I said.

Depends how wishy washy you are being about "stringent traditionalist". That view is pretty mainstream in my experience, at least among Baptists and the people on this forum.

Also, you are drawing a false equivilance between the religious and scientific approach. The biggest problem being the religious approach has more typically punished doubt and questioning and requires unnecessary assumptions, whereas the scientific approach has doubt and questioning as its basis and actively works to remove unnecessary assumptions.

That's pretty disingenuous. The religious don't 'lean towards' a god. They believe on exists. They make that claim.
I personally make no claim about the origin of the universe. It's fine for me to say 'I don't know'. The answer may come from almost any quarter... but it's not going to come from those who claim the mystery is already solved and the answer is God.

...

I mean the reformation influenced the enlightenment because it exposed the corruption of the church and led people to questioning Catholic doctrine. It was the very argument that catholicism was illogical that pushed forward human understanding of the nature of the world. So that's a poor example and a shit argument. But I expect nothing more from you buddy.

I'll go ahead and throw this in the big pile of "Words religious people dilute into nothingness so they can try to steal legitimacy from other groups".