The most obvious one is that both think positoning themselves to this topic is really important.

But there is another one. Most atheist believe in "science" as if it was a canonical entirety like the bible, although in reality sience has always been a conglomerate of very diffrent contradictory theories struggling with each other.

Also they have major intrest to answer questions that are traditional important for christians, like the question 'where does the universe/mankind come from'? In other cultures, the question of the origin of mankind or the universe is of no importance at all.

My final argument is that alot of atheists are supporters of worldviews like 'naive realism' and related stuff which are very compatible with the christian claim that 'there is only one god'.

Most Christians believe in science.

Not just them but most people of all religions believe in science.

you misread my post. i didnt critizise believing in science, but beleaving in science as it is as if it was a canonical entirety like the bible

Sorry I am slowly in the head.

But in that case, I believe science is a conglomerate of very different contradictory theories struggling with each other.

Not a canonical entirety like the bible.

Most Atheist have confidence in science yes, as do
most people. But there is a difference between confidence in science and faith in religion. Faith is unsupported belief.
Science is a systematic method of finding the truth, based
on reason and experimentation. Thus no faith is required.
The real difference then is how one comes to one's beliefs.
The prescientific method was to simply accepts as true the beliefs of one's culture.
For instance you where told that the Bible was the word of God, and that Adam was the first man. You simply accepted this. Using the same methodology, had you been born an acient Mayan, would have caused you to believe that humans had to be sacrificed to make the sun come up. Or if you had been born in certain sects of Islam, you would believe that killing Americans is just and will get you into Heaven. What you ended up believing would be a function of how you were raised and what you where told.
Whereas the methodology of science when confronted with a question is , well lets go and find out; do experiments, use reason. I hope you see that this methodology is more rational and thus more apt to result in truth.

well what you are talking about is naive realism, like i mentioned in my op. There are other schools of thought in science theory than this.

That maybe so but he is pointing out the lack of similarities between religion and science.

not everything calling itself science is based on naive realism. otherwise all humanities couldnt be called science. Reducing science to naive realism is something i almost always find in atheistic argumentations.

And as i mentioned befor this school of thought is compatible with the bible. The christians believe in one god, naive realists believe in one reality.

Cool story bro?

As Pooter pointed out you completely ignored my point.
It is not what is believed, but how that belief is reached.
The scientific way is the sceptical examination of the evidence.
The religious way is the uncritical acceptance of dogma preached by
one's shaman, mullah, with-doctor, priest, or whatever the local
equivalent happens to be. In this particular sense, Christianity
has much more in common with the worship of Baal , Vodoo,
Islam, Hinduism, animism etc. than with science.

The only thing they have in common: faith.

I'm as tired of this ******** strawman as I am of the "all Christians hate the gays!" claptrap.

The only thing?

Why is that always the first place theists go when criticizing atheists, that they're as faith-dependent because they prefer observable phenomena to unobservables? This isn't original I know, but atheism isn't a religion, just like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, not playing tennis isn't a sport, and being bald isn't a hairstyle.

As far as "believing in science," if there's anything atheists believe in, it would be the scientific method, and even that is very different than a religious faith. Rather than having a faith in science, it's more like having seen that the scientific method has served humanity well, and the reasonable expectation that it will continue to do so.

It's really a completely different dimension from the world of spiritual faith, and there would be no conflict between the two except that science continues to topple long-held notions of the religious traditions, and so scientists tend to be seen as hostile to believers.

I may have been hasty with that post. They also have, conviction, zealotry, and militancy in common.

I believe the confusion is in mistaking the concepts of faith and belief.
Faith is unjustified belief. The Theist often ends up with the stance that:
OK you've shown that my beliefs stand on shaky grounds, but hey you believe
in stuff too, namely Sience so there. But of course belief itself is not
what was not the problem, unjustified belief was.

Actually, most atheists I know do not really care much about the topic.

There is a major difference though. The reason a lot of people accept science is because it gets results. That which is accepted by the scientific community has been demonstrated to be true. Also, people often arrive at atheism for the same reason they accept science. However it would be misleading to claim that atheism is like religion because they both accept something vaguely similar. While many atheists arrive at the rejection of theism for the same reason they accept science, their atheism itself has nothing to do with accepting science. They do not accept science by virtue of the fact that they are atheists.

It is important to understand, though, that while there are debatable aspects to science (in fact, debate is an imperative factor in the scientific process), the general ideas in science are widely accepted by all scientists. It is inaccurate to try to paint science as a hodgepodge of competing ideas. For the most part, it is the small, unknown details which are debated, not the overall theories of science.

There are plenty of theists and atheists who give little to no thought about this. And the origin of the universe or mankind has nothing to do with atheism. Many atheists do contemplate such issues, but here you make the same mistake you made above. It is misleading to claim that because many people think about this, atheists and theists included, atheism and theism are related. The question itself has nothing to do with atheism.

What other groups are there beside those who believe in god and those who do not, exactly?

Again you make the mistake of invoking something other than atheism to show how theism and atheism are related. And this one is a huge stretch. Here you are not saying anything other than 'group A believes in only one X while group B believes in only one Y therefore groups A and B are related because they both believe there is only one of something.' This is mere equivocation.

Sure, there are some vague similarities between the things you mentioned, but they are not similarities between theism and atheism. The only similarity between theism and atheism is the question as to whether or not one believes any gods exist.

Thats completely untrue

it's a topic i've been thinking constantly about, and i'm at the point where i'm just incredibly tired of religion. it's archaic people, let it go.

They both eat and sleep?

theists and atheists are clearly similar

Of all the atheists friends i have, and they pretty much all are, i can only think of a couple who would know what the scientific method is. They probably know of a few scientists and hear about the breaking news stories in science (such as the guy cured of HIV recently) but other than "they do experiments and prove stuff" their knowledge of the processes of science is pretty basic.

The average atheist doesnt consider what they believe in, for them belief is just pointless and they dont care. If you asked if they believe in god they would say no, but if you ask why you probably wouldnt get more than a shrug of the should and a reference to not believing in the tooth fair either.

Which sums it up cos thats basically all we have, an absence of belief in one or more deitys.

well my point was you are never able to leave christianism as a whole, because you were born in a christian influenced culture, respectively a christ and an atheist have more in common than either of them with say a hindust born in india.

By that measure a Hindu living in America has more in common with an Atheist in America than he does an Hindu in India.