Wow, it would take me a month to respond to the ignorant claims made in the last 4 comments. I'm not going to give lessons on evolution. If you can't be bothered to look at the mountains of evidence showing that evolution is a FACT, then nothing I show you will convince you. You've closed your mind to anything that doesn't conform with your religion. The very definition of being closed minded.

For the record, I was a Christian for most of my life, went to church, and have read the bible. I just don't agree with it. Regardless, you don't have to be a theologian to dismiss a religion. I presume you all disagree with Islam, Buddhism, as well as the thousands of other religions that have or do exist. Have you studied them all thoroughly? I think not.

I haven't changed the picture because it brings people like all of you here and you read what I've written. It strikes a nerve (judging by your lashing out) and I'm totally okay with that :-)

Regarding Einstein, read the previous comments... I've already cited sources. Pay close attention to the "It was of course a lie..." quote.

In any case, I'm not making an argument from authority. I'm not even making an argument. I'm saying that YOUR arguments, arguments from theists, don't hold water. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me :-)

Also, what "claim" did I make and not back up?

Here... I'll give you all the opportunity. What is your BEST argument for the existence of God? What is your very best proof? Present it. We'll discuss it.

Go ahead. I double dare you :-)

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

The quote you cited from Einstein was a second hand hearsay by Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg

When Einstein was asked directly.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I can provide the same examples for everyone on the list if you like, but it's besides the point. And I'm sure you have google as well. This isn't an argument from authority. Even if every one of those dudes was a right wing religious nut job, it wouldn't make the case for God any stronger.

Did you read the article?

Instead of resorting to personal attacks (like calling us nit wits) tell us what exactly you think makes us nit wits? What idea do you disagree with?

Ironically the article has nothing to do with the picture. I accidentally linked the wrong image. I've just been too lazy to change it.

Thanks for your comment Lanny.

I understand your respect for biblical scripture and belief that it is true. However, as an atheist, I do not automatically accept biblical scripture as intrinsically true.

There are good teachings in the bible, but people were setting up moral laws long before the bible came around. Belief in a god is not necessary to be a moral person. I don't think science could prescribe a pill to prevent humans from committing evil acts. I don't think you'll find an atheist who would suggest such a thing. I hope you're not suggesting that without the bible you would murder, steal, lie, etc.

I also don't see any evidence for a "curse". I agree that there are evil people and good people and people everywhere in between. Again though, that doesn't mean we have to turn to scripture to get our morals.

I would recommend reading "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris. He has a pretty good explanation of secular morality.

I don't think believers are just "simple minded". I also agree that there are a lot of smart believers out there. However, I think they compartmentalize very well. The same logic that they use in normal day to day tasks is not applied to ideas about God. Those, for whatever reason, are separate and immune to reason.

Your last paragraph is a common complaint we atheist hear from believers. "If you don't believe, why not just shut up about it? I don't believe in the tooth fairy, you don't see me running around trying to convince everyone that the tooth fairy doesn't exist."

We hear that a lot, and that type of logic would make sense if people regarded God the same way they regarded the tooth fairy. That however, isn't the case. People who believe in God are killing other people over the burning of a book. People who believe in God are trying to prevent gay people from marrying the person that they love. People who believe in God are trying to stop medical science that has the potential to save lives. They're trying to prevent women from getting the heath care they desperately need. And so on, and so on.

If people were trying to incorporate the teachings of the tooth fairy into every part of our society and if those teachings limited other humans from being treated as human and finding happiness; I would spend much of what little time I have here explaining to others why it is illogical to believe in the tooth fairy.

Many believers find religion to be a benign force in the world. They believe this because they've closed their eyes and ears to any criticism. They believe this because they want to believe that they're good. Atheists don't regard religious ideas as immune to reason. We apply the same strict rules of evidence to religious ideas that we do to everything else in this world. By doing so, we expose the evil of religion. Does this mean that all religious people are evil? Of course not. I personally feel that most religious people are good people just trying to be good themselves. I think religion is a meme that has hijacked this intrinsic desire in humans and twisted it.

As Mr. Weinberg once said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I understand they're real people, I never suggested otherwise.

I didn't say anyone had to fit neatly into the above definitions. You can call yourself a turtle, but that doesn't make it so.

I'm talking about the definitions of the words. Words have meanings and I was clarifying a misconception (a common one at that).

So sure, you can believe in God and call yourself an agnostic, just know that your understanding of that word is different than others.

I'm pointing out the difference due to the large number of people who think that agnosticism is a sort of "half-way house" between atheist and theist. This is wrong. It's important to point out this basic misunderstanding because it leads to further misunderstandings. I'm not the first to point this out (far from it). Dan Barker talks about it in his book Godless, as does Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

You'd be surprise (or maybe not) how many theists assume that all atheists are out to convince everyone that there is no God or that they hold the belief that there is no God (strong atheism or gnostic atheist).

There is a difference when talking to theists. One appears to attack them, whereas the other appears to be unconvinced of their claim.

Yes. Of course you have to define what you mean by "God" before I can tell you if I believe in it or not. That being said though, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Thus far, no "proof" for any god concept has been compelling enough for me.

I'm open to any proof you want to provide. I would consider myself broadly an agnostic atheist. I don't KNOW that there is no god of any kind, but I don't believe in one.

However, I can consider myself a gnostic atheist as it pertains to certain god claims because they are logical contradictions.

You should take your own advice :-)

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein

* Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman

How would you know which god is more legit?

What makes a god more legit?

Many of the men depicted above were deists, all of them openly criticized religion. Whether they are or are not, is besides the point. Atheists don't have to "lie to support their world view". I don't have a "world view" anymore than you have a "world view" as it relates to Zues.

Must you lie to not be convinced of his existence? No. You're simply not swayed by the evidence that is presented.

Also, you call yourself an agnostic. You should read my other post about atheism vs. agnosticism. When it comes to belief there is no room for agnosticism. gnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief.

If I ask you if you believe in God, any other answer besides "yes", makes you an atheist.

You mean you don't boil babies and eat them?

It's ironic... you talk about another religion and Christians are like, "Of course Zues is a myth, it would be retarded to think he's real." Seconds later, "YEA JESUS!"

Seriously??