Atheists often make the argument there is no evidence for the existence of God. Personally, I think there is. However, for the purposes of this thread, I would like to take a different tack and put the atheist on the spot by asking him or her: "What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality? Does the atheist really have sufficient evidence to maintain a purely materialistic worldview?"

Note: I realize that some atheists may object to idea that atheism implies materialism. If you are such an atheist, you need not apply. Clearly, you have a lurking God-belief.

Not sure if someone has already posted about this, but a rather ignorant Xtian has posted a rather ignorant (poorly done) art piece on his Deviant Art gallery. It's received coverage on many other locations, including About.com, Pharyngula, and others.

The art piece, attached to this post, depicts a stick figure person sitting in a tiny room, on a chair. His description made it quite clear that he believed the afterlife for an Atheist was basically a lonely, empty room, and that it was impossible for Atheists to know love.

I've had some personal correspondence with this guy -- I've tried reason, I've tried humor, I've tried sarcasm. He's dead-set in his ways. So have at him.

His Deviant Art Gallery (he's posted about this art piece quite a bit lately) is here: http://krensada.deviantart.com/

The About.com article (written by Austin Cline) about him is here: http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/03/11/krensadas-deviant-anti-atheist-bigotry.htm

PZ Myer's blog, Pharyngula, is where I first saw it. The art piece is currently being shown here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/actually_its_theists_who_belie.php

If you're REALLY angry about this, his email is:    his birthday is Oct 22nd, 1982 (this was PUBLICLY AVAILABLE and you can find it by googling him), and his other website is http://www.farmillia.com

Forget the clichéd evil scientist now just about every scientist is evil. Well at least according to the Pope and his new list of sins. Is it just me or has he unfairly targeted scientist? I am not sure if they are aware but the genetic modification of fruits and vegetables has saved billions of lives. It is probably going to end starvation all over the world pretty soon. But ey what’s billions of innocent lives to the pope? Anyway screw the genetics argument it is not even worth getting into. It is obvious that if God exists he is a complete fuck-up and man has to do his work for him.  What I really like is one of the other new sins.

The new sin I love is this one:

3) Accumulating excessive wealth

I love this sin because it makes me laugh. I mean what could they possibly have been thinking sitting in their huge offices with priceless pieces of art hanging on every wall? The Vatican is unbelievably rich, centuries of slaughtering and pillaging will do that. Also let’s not forget the collection plates and all the other money they steal from their followers. We are talking hundreds of billions more likely over 1 trillion.

 The attribute of omniscience; knowing all things, simultaneously. In such a state, the privacy of other minds would not exist. Though one could say that knowing the thoughts of another person doesn't dissolve their identity, knowing all future thoughts would. A lack of surprises would be equivalent to a lack of separation; a lack of identity. The processes of discovery, of constantly checking the current state of things against remembered states of things, by which we gauge our presence in the world around us -- how could this exist for a being for which there can be no such discovery? Even a person in solitary confinement has walls by which to measure their existence, and a person in a sensory deprivation chamber hopefully entered with some prior thoughts and sense of themselves. Would thoughts even be possible for an omniscient creature, let alone identity? We could not exist for such a being, and nor could anything in such a state be considered a mind. Knowing everything would destroy the senses. It's only by arbitrarily limiting the idea of omniscience, and therefore contradicting it, that it doesn't seem absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/calciumboy

Since a large portion of atheists are ex-christians I'm sure that most of you have  heard the old schtick about God and his gift of "free will."

Since the Christian explanation is that God didn't want to program humanity to love him ( "God doesn't want robots ! Amen ) he chose to give us that wonderful gift of free will.  That way God could be satisfied that any expression of love toward him was chosen freely and was a sincere expression of affection.

Here's the problem as I see it. The "free will" choices that God allowed for were only the choices that any slave would be permitted to make:  obey or be punished.  There is no denying that all slaves throughout history have always retained that option.   Granted this arrangement does technically fit the definition of free will, but it's free will that operates within the limitations of one of the most confining and restrictive relationships ever devised...the relationship between a Master and a slave.

What sensible person would ever look to slavery as a representation of free will ?  Yet those are the limitations that God has placed upon his version of free will.  A slave has the ability to make choices of  all kinds...but not the freedom to make those choices.  A slave's choices are only permitted to reflect those of its master's.

 Listen, theists: your gods don't want to talk to you. They've even placed "reality" between you and them as a kind of metaphysical restraining order. You think they love you and you're destined to be together, but it's just not meant to be.

Except, of course, if one of you knows which god is responsible for snow. I could really use a "stop snowing" dance, or maybe the god of snow's phone number or something. Pretty much trapped in my house at this point.

http://snopes.com/religion/bolt.asp

...So, I'm having a small discussion of a theological nature with a co-worker, and at sometime (after she's gone on about how 'undefinable' God is) I say,

"Well, geez. Why isn't God a 'Her', then? Why 'Him'? It seems odd than an entity otherwise devoid of understandable characteristics has a gender."

And then she says (...and I didn't even see this one coming. I swear!),

"Well, I feel Him in me. It's like that. Christians have felt Him in them, so we know He's a He. Jst like we know He loves us."

I started laughing a little bit. Then it built momentum, until it was all I could do to stay in my chair. This punk rock girl sitting at a nearby table, who must've been listening in, was laughing pretty hard too.

So, I'm ever so curious: that's how you know God's a Him? You've felt His mighty phallic presence within you? And that's how you know He loves you?

I am a theist; yet, I am simply trying to understand the views on this board.

I have a question about religion and evolution. It seems that most atheists proclaim that theism served some purpose in our evolutionary past. This explains why the majority of humans believe in a god or in a plurality of gods.

Why is this is this the only argument brought forth? Why can’t it be the religion was a defect, something that did not enhance the continuation of our species? Why does everything have to be "useful" to keep being past down the evolutionarily line?

I admit I am a layman on evolution. Yet, based on what I have studied, I am perplexed that many seem to conclude that any present trait must be a useful trait or it would not be present. Thus, religious beliefs are present and must have served a purpose in the past. Why can’t it be that humans simply had a vast majority of "useful" traits and religion was in fact a defect that was passed along with these useful traits? Thus, religious beliefs did not manifest as a an evolutionary gain; rather, religious beliefs were defects surrounded by actual useful traits.

Is this a likely scenario according to atheistic evolution? I am just asking because many on here argue religious beliefs were a "benefit" yet, if atheism is true, isn’t it also likely that religious beliefs could have also been a defect protected by truly beneficial traits?