The question has been asked as for "How I can still believe in God?", and it has been asked on many occasions. The answer is fairly simple.

Rational Responders as a whole, seems to have a hard time wrapping its head around the idea that one can believe in God faithfully and without doubt, yet still hate and despise what God and Religion bring to humanity as a whole. Pain. Death. Misery. Plagues. 5 year olds being anally raped by priests. Contradiction. Closed mindedness. Stupidity. The list carries on and on.

I hate religion. Religion to me, is the next best thing to the next worst thing on Earth, whatever that might be. I despise it. I dislike the idea that I should have someone else talking to God for me for the sake of my own salvation. I dislike the idea that I should believe in what everyone else believes for the sake of unity. I dislike the notion that some guy named Jesus is my one and true savior, circumventing my own belief that God is out there and actually gives enough of a damn to occasionally talk to me.

As I hope we can all agree, it is meaningless to hold something true if the belief is unfalsifiable.  Certainly we have all heard of the following example: "I believe that the inside of a watermelon is blue, until it is cut into, at which time it appears red, as a watermelon ought to."  This belief is not falsifiable because it isn't necessarily true, but it can never be proven false. As soon as the observer opens up the fuit to observe its color, it is too late and is no longer blue.

Identically, belief in an absolute negative is not falsifiable. Meaning, I cannot soundly believe it to be true with any degree of credibility that something absolutely not exist, unless I can observe the enitirity of the space in question simultaneously. If I can observe the space's entirity, but not simultaneously, then the assurance becomes a question of probability, and hence cannot be true absolutely. 

{MOD EDIT: I believe you've been warned about spamming.}

Is sexual repression an American thing or is it a Christian American thing?

It seems like America is disgusted by sex, mainstream America links sex to immorality and social decay. America also has a huge problem with alternative lifestyles like homosexuality. I want to know if this is purely an American thing or if it is an American theist thing?

Also what is the general atheist consensus on sex?

Personally I think sex is perfectly natural and a normal part of human life. I also think homosexuality is natural, homosexuality can be traced back almost as far as we can trace back human history.

In America sexual repression runs rampant. The way I see it the repression of an urge so fundamental and so ingrained to/in our being is nothing short of dangerous. I actually think (and many studies I have seen agree) that sexual repression leads to a host of social problems. It can lead to lack of self-confidence, low self-esteem, aggression, violence, sexual abuse and suicide. Other studies show that sexual relief is effective in countering anxiety, depression, and stress.

The subject line says it all.

If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.

I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.

This is unusual to post my believe that there is no such thing as an Atheist or Theist on a forum for called "Atheist vs. Theist".

I have a difficult time explaining my views on things because it is just assumed that because that because the labels "Atheist" and "Theist" are thrown around so much that everyone assumes such people actually exist and this is a proper way to categorize people. I don't believe anyone fits either of these catagories. Since they don't exist, I'm going to stop using these terms to label people. I'm going to use my on terms base on how I see the reality of things. Here is how I will categorize people's religious positions:

Liars About Beliefs(LABs) - Religious People that lie and say they believe in a god and holy book, even though the really don't. These people were indoctrinated with religion, made to feel fear and guilt if they ever expressed doubt and are suckers for Pascal's wager. Also includes religious leaders who use religion for money and power. If you hooked these people up to a lie detector, it would show their "belief" is untrue. This is 99% of very religious people. Since they don't really believe in a God and only say they do, they can't be called Theists.

More poking of the bear.

Is theism involuntary for a certain segment of the population? In the same way that sexual orientation is not a choice, is there something structural about some people's brain that dissallows the adoption of atheism? Evidence? Me. I'm a "better" atheist than some of the pseudo-intellectual hangers on that rant on internet forums. Yet I find this immovable part of my consciousness that insists on belief.

Just a weird thought.

Many of the theist I've know (mostly catholic/christian) often cherry pick their particular set of beliefs from their main dogma of denomination. The approach taken towards " their religion", as most of them put it, is that of a personal philosophy, based in and/or derived from the larger set of beliefs of the nominal religion. This (they continue) is often more productive and "morally good" than blindly taking all of the dogma as a whole, embracing both the good and the bad, the applicable and the ancient rules now useless and often unhumane by modern standarts, as equally comendable.

The problem with this, as it should be obvious, is the cherry picking itself. It is much like an abused wife that treasures the good moments she had with her husband, but forgets from where (and from whom) did all her cuts and bruises came from. The problem with cherry picking is the willing misrepresentation of a belief/person/etc. as something it is not, or at the very least, is not in it's entirety. And it is a misrepresentation because the pickers I have meet, both personally and on the net, almost never recognise to be pickers, but rather represent themselves as members of their nominal dogma, i.e. as catholics/christians, disregarding of course the obvious contradiction of being a christian but not following all the teachings of christianity; a Jewish Knight of Columbus makes just as much sense.

Wanted to know some people Ideas on this things, I am thinking this is more of a stretch + a little bit of only counting the hits.

Keep in Mind most of this is fluff and pointless to the point they were trying to make.  (Note: it is broken up into sections as each was its own e-mail)

    Well recently (ok today at lunch) i had the distinct pleasure (if you can call it pleasure) to have debated a hardcore creationist. Now of course this arguement started ok, he stated is opinion that creationism is the only way life could have occurred, so he started of with a quote from Fred Hoyle that the possiblitiy of life getting to our point is 1 x 10 to the power of 40,000, and how he disagreed with the big bang and that he had proposed the steady state universe. Of course I then point out Hoyles fallacy, first off with regards to the possiblity of life, that the hoyle was agruing the complexity of life in his evolution from space, was that it was today more or less, this of course and that all life would spontaneous start at the same time. This of course is quite illogical since the size of the universe and the age of different solar systems allows the possiblity of different forms and different methods to which life could have arised, second it also excludes of large simulatanous trials throughout the entire universe. As for the complexity it excluded the possiblity of a more primitive form of life, that eventually evolves to a more complex form.