Okay, here's my thinking.  First, I don't care one way or another.   I would propose that atheism, however, is nonscientific, and cannot be scientific by it's very nature, for the same reason that theism is nonscientific.  Neither theism nor atheism are testable by the scientific method and therefore lie outside of the realm of science.  The only true scientific approach to God is agnosticism.  Both atheism and theism require faith.I suspect those here who are atheists have a visceral axe to grind, probably have been hurt by religion.SteveHHMD

...keep reading. 

My name is Steve, and I am a Christian.  I understand that those here are generally not, and I cannot fight you or force you to do anything against your will.  I am simply here to create discussion; if you are willing to discuss issues of theology, your belief, or just your story, I am here and willing to hear it.  Please do not send me hate messages, or angry responses, there is no need.  I am not here for a fight, rather a discussion.  For if we cannot speak civilly, then we are not truly men at all.

~philia~

Steve

so, ive been wondering some of these things which i never fully understood about christianity

1. if the all important goal of life is to get to heaven, why arent we just born there? why do we have to have everybody born here to never know wtf we're doing when we die?

2. what is the point of heaven? all i hear is, heaven is awesome. i really cant imagine much to do there. look down at all the destruction in the world? thats fun. sit fly around for eternity? really. unless theres a gamestop in heaven, i dont see a point to it.

 3. what about animals? looking at what you guys say, im sure something must happen to them when they die. they are living and breathing, and their life comes to an end eventually. im sure you christians would agree with me they dont even know about christianity, therefore, because they kill other animals and don't ask for forgiveness for their sins, they are going to hell. how is this justified? and if you say that they are inferior and only humans go to heaven/hell, how is it so hard to believe that we couldnt have the same ultimate fate as them?

One argument against religion that I have frequently heard is that faith is essentially the antithesis to rational thought and since religion treats faith as a virtue it is essentially anti-thought.

I can see quite readily how this argument applies to Christianity and Islam and to a lesser extent Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism. I can also understand that most people arguing against religion live in Christian-dominated societies and that Christianity and Islam are the largest world religions, so it makes sense that they should be the primary targets of such arguments.

Every time I hear this argument or one like it, though, I cringe at its misapplication to all religion. In particular, it does not apply to Judaism.

I'm trying to work on speaking better with laypeople about God and atheism.

 This is my attempt to convince a layperson that we can have ethics without God.  It is in conversation format:

I will set the fictional conversation between me and Jim, who is a minister that I debate from time to time on a different forum.

Jim:  If there is no God then morality is relative, conditioned by society. But if morals are relative and conditioned by society then murder is not absolutely immoral (even if it is illegal).  Therefore, either you must posit an absolute moral law giver, or you must concede that murder is not absolutely immoral.

My last post about this was apparently not simple enough, so I'm going to try again.

I am not trying to disprove anything, or to trap anybody into saying anything.  I want a "yes" or "no" answer.   That's all.  The question is extremely simple.  Theists, please answer a simple yes or no, and you have my word as a gentleman that all I'm going to do is tally the answers.

Is God in Hell?

At the beginning of this post, two theists have answered.  The tally is:

God in Hell: 2

God Not in Hell: 0

Here's another moral question theists like to spring sometimes.
They'll take a concept like 'altruism' or 'freedom' or 'human rights' and say that it is a theistically derived concept and without theism we lose it.
A suggested Socratic approach is as follows:

Theist: Without belief in God we lose <insert humanistic principle here>
Atheist: And why would that be a bad thing?
Theist might give reasons, else you can give them a hand!
Atheist: Well, with good reasons like that, we hardly need superstition in order to support <humanistic principle>

...But before I get to that, a few words directed to, and about, an OVERWHELMING majority of Atheists and Christians...

First, I find it quite troubling that you all consistently and with no hesitation conflate the following terms: "God", "Religion", "Bible", "Christianity".

God is NOT religion - in truth, religion has nothing to do with God. Rather it is a set of rituals, practices, and beliefs held by a common population. I assumed this was common knowledge, but after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.