No we don't. We could say "Deep down you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster really exists and that Jesus is a myth", and it would be just as valid as what you said. And, if Jesus ever really did exist, what Robert Ingersoll said is true: "If he was goog enough to die for me, surely he would not be bad enough to damn me for honestly doubting the Bible."

I've never been against anything I don't think is real. I can go against god, just as well as I can go against Santa Claus.

This page is questioning a belief. A belief that tries to claim the exclusive right to absolute truth. A belief that teachs hate, and intolerance. I think arguing against those is very worthwhile.

Deep down, I would be afraid of a diety who slaughters children, livestock, and entire populations on a whim. What kind of perfect being requires worship? Is your god vain?

It is not possible to be actively against something that doesn't exist.  What I am actively against is the followers of such a thing who see nothing wrong with hijacking my government and infringing upon the rights of those who don't fit their religious criteria. 

I think I have a responsibility to make sure that people like you know that I absolutely do not have any belief in your god of the bible, nor am I particularly concerned with Jesus, either.  I speak out because I think religion is a poison that is affecting the society I live in and I'd like to stop it.

Pthhp, if I don't believe in god, do you really expect threats of eternity to frighten me?  That's just silly. 

Color of the Cross asked: "Why would anyone bother being actively against God?"

Why wouldn't they? This question so accurately reflects the religious climate of America in that it reveals the extreme and unchecked bias of its source. Probabilities aside, if God cannot be proven one way or the other, then the question should be neutral. If it were neutral then no one would be asking why there is an opposition to one side. The questioner would simply acknowledge both sides have an equal claim to truth.

To go further, it would seem that it is acceptable to Color of the Cross for someone to disagree with God's existence just so long as they do not mention their disbelief publicly. It reminds me of parents dropping off their young ones at school and putting every effort into dissuading the disillusioning statements of other older children pointing out that there is no Santa Clause. "All is well as long as no one talks about it" is the creed endorsed here. The fault in this logic seems plainly obvious and therefore it will not be entertained further.

Also, someone who is active against respectful regard for God will find it easy to appreciate the inherent contradiction in the question. The question second guesses the motives of God-opponents as if any action in support of any worldview is wrong. But by this very question the author is performing that same injury; criticizing action in support of a worldview. Asked from the other side it might sound something like "Why would you actively promote God?". The simple answer is this: "If it is well and good to support one answer to the neutral question of God, then it should also be well and good to support the alternative answer." I suspect critics will have trouble with the word neutral in that last sentence and with good reason. But the moment you remove that word's presence you will find the heart of the matter stripped bare: The question is not neutral. It is affected by probability. And so the complicated answer follows "If it is well and good to support one answer to the neutral question of God, then it should also be well and good to support the alternative answer. But if the question is not neutral and favors one answer, then it will be well and good to take the proportion of action warranted by and in the direction of that measure of favor." To make the case for God's improbability here would take away from this dialogue but that should not preclude its being stated bluntly.

All delivery mechanisms and assumptions put to rest for a moment, the heart of the question is a valid one: "Why actively discourage belief in God?" The answer is so simple that one is tempted to question if the author was genuinely curious. And here is the answer if that be the case: If people believe that what they hold as their worldview to be more accurate than that of their neighbor, then they will publicly work towards sharing that enlightenment. Specifically, just as the Christian would debate a non-believer passionately to save his soul from eternal damnation, the atheist will debate a Christian to save his mortal life from toxic irrational belief.

Color of the Cross asked: "It's one thing to not believe so you can avoid responsibilty and accountability, but to stand up against Him and teach others to do the same?"

Let us again remove the assumptions first. Atheists may in fact choose not to believe in God so they can avoid responsibility and accountabliity. But this hardly represents the majority of the group. There are perfectly good reasons not to believe in God and that can be discussed with anyone at length. If you want to know what these reasons are then you can turn to classical examples authored by Hume and Kant. Or if you prefer more up to date reasons then you can pick up The God Delusion by Dawkins or The End of Faith by Harris. To outline the entire justification for non-belief here would detract from the point of the question and its answer. And once you get past the question's embedded jabs it is clear that it is merely restating the first question so I will refer the reader to the first answer.

Color of the Cross asked: "Deep down you know that the God of the Bible exists, otherwise it would be utterly pointless to have this page and devote time to trying to pick Him apart."

If I knew the God of the Bible existed, it would be quite pointless to have this page and devote time to trying to pick him apart. But this does not make God any more or less true. It has nothing to do with the question of God's existence. It merely questions the purpose and efficiency of how I spend my time. And since I do not know that the God of the Bible exists, and further that I hold the complete opposite view, it is not pointless to have this page and pick apart God.

To go deeper, no Christian can claim to "know" God of the Bible exists. That's right, not one of them can say so. The justification for this is direct:

1. To "know" something is to have evidence for it and to have drawn the proportionate conclusions warranted by that evidence. Even if your use of the word "know" is of the watered down variety the remaining argument still applies.
2. To "have faith" in something is to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
3. Since "knowing" precludes faith in that subject, you could not have faith in anything you know.

This logic would lead any honest thinker to ask: "Why would you need 'faith' in God if you 'know' he is there?"

And to those Christians who would respond that there is evidence to support God I would caution them preemptively. If the one thing God wants from his children is faith that he exists and that he sent his only son to die for us, then he most certainly would not provide our senses with evidence from which to understand that he is there or that his son was divine. Because once we have evidence, on reason alone we could achieve a knowledge of God that would not require one mustard seed of faith. Therefore if you have evidence of something it most certainly is not the Biblical God as it would make pointless his whole faith-gathering universe.

Color of the Cross threatened: "Jesus died for you too, so take a moment to reconsider your stance on the matter. Your eternity will depend on it."

Thank you for your caution. I can honestly state that I have reconsidered the matter and still think the idea of God to be irrational. Further, your questions have galvanized me in my cause to disillusion those around me who are infected by such irrational ideas. And your warning that my eternity will depend on my answer has been heard. I appreciate your concern for my welfare and its being paramount to fearful threats should I not agree with your chosen worldview.

Deep deep down you know Allah exists and your eternity depends on accepting Allah as the one true God.

Hate to burst your bubble bud, merely having an emotional reaction and liking a claim does not constitute evidence. Muslims are just as emotional and fervant in believing in Allah, but you dont buy it merely because they claim it.

"It's one thing to not believe so you can avoid responsibilty and accountability," I just wanted to respond to this part. People are accountable for their actions whether they are atheists or not. Humans hold each other accountable. There are no gods shooting lightning bolts from the sky to stop people from committing crimes, so we have to handle it ourselves.

Why would anyone bother being actively for God?

Presumptuous cocksucker. Thanks for letting me know why I don't believe. Ass.

Deep down, you can kiss my peehole.

Jesus didn't die for me. He died because he pissed off the Romans.

Do me a favor. Go choke on something.

Its not the idea of god i have a problem with, although I don't agree with it. Its what his/her/their followeres try and do in his/her/its name. Like invade Iraq.

I had logical questions against Christianity at a young age and tried to push them out of my head because I thought I would go to hell. 

Atheists getting together to discuss such views such as the falliblity of the bible plays an important roll in getting over this battle with myself that I've fought for so many years.

Knowing that there are others who are skeptical who present their knowledge in books, forums, and web pages, allowed me to do the research to finally overcome theism and feel good about it.

This thread is awesome.

But I don't quite get who exactly we are talking to? Is someone actually the target of all these answers or is that just plain rhetoric for our mental healthcare, in answer to an email someone received?

Anyway, I'll make sure to send a link to this thread as an introductory explanation of Atheism when I speak to believers. This contains so many simple, effective and clear answers and they don't take ages to read (which is something most believers will not, unfortunately, take time to do)

What better way to avoid responsibility and accountability than to ask an invisible man in the sky to take care of everything?

This is definitely one of the biggest misconceptions about atheism, that we somehow KNOW for  a FACT that there is a god, and we're just rebelling.