Why aren't any modern religions more like Socrates?

There's no reason for modern languages to exist.

Most atheists tend to be materialist, which typically, results in reductionism. Their thinking is mostly rooted in compartmentalized, dualistic categorical thought, in which everything is "divided and separated", rather than 'connected'.

For example, truth concerns itself with the proper function of things, their purpose, and the correct interaction with, and use of things. We can discard the use of the word as a synonym for honesty, which is a Western reduction of an abstract concept to a sensual level. 

The secular world tends to go crazy over the minutiae of things like a Young Earth because the secular world is bound in the material, and can see little or nothing of importance beyond that. It is especially important at a time when more American Orthodox Christians not only accept a young-earth position, but insist it is the only position an Orthodox Christian can affirm.

But for the materialist/atheist, the assumption that 'subject' and 'object', are apart from each other, results in seeing things as a 'this' or 'that', 'here' or 'there', 'now' and 'then', mentality; which is not the reality of 'Everything', 'Everywhere', at 'All Times', as it is. If I may add, due to their commitment to materialism, atheists must be very careful about which scientists to follow. We should bear in mind that scientism serves as justification of the evolutionary (naturalist) story of origins which, in turn, justifies physicalism (materialism).

Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859, ushered in the beginning of what would be a long struggle between reductive scientism and Catholic theology. For an agnostic, university molecular biologist’s strictly scientific evaluation of evolution, see Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (particularly chapter 10). 

If you're a dualist, you're still stuck with the same problem that Plato—still the world’s leading dualist—had when he was refuted by his prized student Aristotle on how the immaterial realm informs the material world in a secularist viewpoint. Without a God—like the God of the Bible—as a basis for interacting with the material world, then the explanation is merely left to arbitrary stories. Plato knew this!

Let's look at the facts instead of your unfounded, unsupported, illogical, irrational, fabricated OPINION: Fact is there is no empirically supported scientific claim that in any way is in conflict with Christianity. The same cannot be said for evolution, abiogenesis, or Big Bang.

Also, Nelson Glueck a Jewish scientist, and universally esteemed as one of the greatest archaeologists, said that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. We must keep in mind the difference between scientific observations and opinions of scientists, especially in historical arenas. We are all aware of the ideas, opinions, and theories of some scientists which contradict portions of Scripture, but if we are careful to separate that which is established fact from that which is merely theory, we find that there are no contradictions between the facts of science and the Bible.

The Bible is not a science book, but I'm not aware of ANY instance, where the Bible DOES touch on science, that it has been proven incorrect. How can anyone DENY the evidence of the Bible and the scoreboard, when science corrects itself (proven incorrect?) almost daily?

Science is not necessarily the problem. The real problem is the paradigm, ideology, or worldview a scientist adopts and through which he subsequently filters his interpretation of scientific research results.

Here's a great example of "science" trying to be objective and expanding their authority to history. In 1963, a geologist counted 46 different theories for dinosaur extinctions by the scientific community, and many more have been added since then. Probably only the cause of the Pleistocene ice age has generated as many bewildering theories. As of 1968, there were 60 theories for the cause of the ice age. Which one do you believe? Just pick one? Which one is fact? None, not one verifiable fact in the evidence and integrity of operational science. 

Why isn't "science" more like the verifiable truth and facts of the Bible? Or why wasn't Socrates? Or why is "science" off the rails half the time? Because many people don't know what science does, or the difference in operational vs. origins science, that real science requires empirical support and burden of proof where origins science does not, and has no place in any science classroom.

It amazes me.. to hear an atheist in all seriousness saying -- the universe with no cause just magically poofed into existence... Life with no cause just magically poofed into existence, an omeba magically with no cause just poofed into a multi-celluar organism. It makes no difference whether these poofs and changes happened in one day or one year or one million years. They are still unexplained.

To date nobody has ever observed an organism produce viable offspring that was not just a variation of itself. Additionally nobody has ever observed the formation of a novel family or genus produced by an organism of a different family or genus.

Such things did not happen once or twice but millions upon millions of times only to suddenly (and quite conveniently I might add) stop as soon as recorded history began. The common sense of a child can figure this one out. What's your excuse? 

Bible Accuracy/question/index?qid=20170...

A dozen evidences against evolution

/question/index?qid=20180...

10 Problems with Big Bang

/question/index?qid=20160...

Fossil Evidence

/question/index?qid=20191...

Then why do people who do what's wrong try to keep other people from knowing what they have done?

CUZ THEY PREFER TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!!!

1.  I don't know.  Maybe it's because so many people don't want to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

2.  Yes, the concept of original sin is a crutch used by many "Christian" churches.  Some churches even teach us to remain in our sins. 

Socrates was known for implementing a method known as Elenchus, a method meant to stimulate critical thought; meaning that, for the most part, he didn't explicitly teach anything. It is difficult to built a religion on critical thinking, as critical thinking is detrimental to faith. Without faith, there is no religion.

because Socrates was wrong

Just because he believed those things didn't exist, does not mean they didn't exist

The truth makes a very good "Crutch" Or Foundation