It would be awesome if people would stop confusing an atheist - someone who doesn't believe in a deity and therefore can't, by definition, be angry at one - with a misotheist - someone who does believe in a deity and hates it for whatever reason. I don't believe honest conversation can take place when one party flatly refuses to accept that the other person genuinely has a different point of view.

I am not angry at your god, because I don't believe it exists. I haven't turned my back on your god, because I don't believe it exists. I have never been abused. I was introduced to science first, and those who attempted to convert me always claimed that the world was made in six days, and Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and knowledge is for some reason bad, and people could live to 900 and whatever years old, and so on. Later attempts to shoehorn dinosaurs into the narrative hasn't been convincing to me.

I'm talking only about those Christians who have tried to convert me. I know many religious people who have no trouble accepting that I don't believe in their deities and don't see that as a challenge to convince me I'm wrong. Only a few Born Again Christians have claimed I have no morals and will burn in Hell forever. Everyone else I've encountered has at least acted like they thought I was a moral person. Frankly, the god character in the Bible is a very cruel creature, and not a valid source of morality.

Obviously, my experiences are mine. Others have different experiences and different opinions. Like others have said, one atheist can't speak for all, because we're all different. Until you put aside the belief that we're all the same, there can be no fruitful exchange.

The great facade of secularism is that it demands a set of ethics yet has no explanation for the ethics it demands.I am very much in favour of a return to early focus on Judeo Christian value sharing with our children and in society in general.

I feel this on a soul level sister

Not sure what you're after in terms of a discourse ....and don't be too sure about the 'deep thinkers' I've just arrived on the site today and been saddened by some of the deliberately divisive questions....but most do seem to follow the guidelines - 'open to listening' - so I thought I'd stay with it.

Regarding your post, I probably fit your requirements in that I'm civil and also what you would regard as an 'atheist'

Commenting on/answering your specific points/ questions:

• I've had no bad experiences of any of the types you've mentioned but I am what you'd regard as an atheist. The same would apply to the majority of my peer group....I suspect we come from somewhat different backgrounds.
• If I get to the point where I'm frustrated with the conversation, I'll explain why and then politely leave with no abuse or name calling.
• I was a research scientist and keep up-to date on the sciences in general.
• Access to my mind is granted. I don't have a heart in the sense you probably mean Emotions are there to be enjoyed when appropriate but not to base decisions on.
• Converting me would be difficult so a disinclination to do so is a good starting point!
• I don't equate Christianity with Catholicism.
• From you comment regarding Fake Christians I'm assuming that you are less interested in organised religions and more on religious values themselves.

And just so we're clear, my motivation in responding is not to 'un-convert' you but to see what your attitude to those of us seen as atheists actually is. I was saddened to see that in the US there appears to be a general view that failure to believe in a god makes one at best amoral and usually immoral.

Welcome to IDW . I recognize that we are all Bozos on this bus . I have found my head stuck in unpleasant places , many times . I will just inflate my shoes and hope I don't drown .

This is fantastic. What a great invitation.

Most would call me an atheist. I have a degree in religious studies and appreciate many of the teachings of Jesus very much. I'm more comfortable with the word agnostic in some circles so that I don't have to explain that atheism does not entail believing that the non existence of God has been scientifically proven.

I'm glad you're here and it's so refreshing that no one is screaming absurdities! Welcome!

What do you think of the Aristotelian argument for the existence of God? In simple terms, he postulated that the existence of everything rested on its realised potential which in turn is caused by something else. This creates a sort of backwards domino effect until you arrive at the original entity which must have always been realised, always existed, immutable, omniscient, omnipresent and all powerful. He called it the "unmoved mover" - in other words - God.

I probably haven't explained it very well!

I must admit, I'm not sure. Sometimes it just feels like philosophical acrobatics!

Welcome to the dark side!

Good luck.
I’m not an “Atheist” though I am a non believer in anything that has ever been proposed by “mankind” on the topic ... especially anything called Religion ... although I solidly support the concept of Religion for reasons ... well, that’s a long topic by itself ...
My concept of “god” is extrapolated from the actual writings of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians and etc. (Mesopotamians) which predates “Judaism” by a lot and which Judaism is obviously based upon as it contains somewhat rewritten versions of Sumerian writings. Thankfully, the media which the Mesopotamians used for writing has withstood the thousands of intervening years and can be read easily today.
What is interesting to me is that the Mesopotamians had no problem attributing the rise of their people, their culture, their existence to Aliens ... and, in accurate translations of the Judaic “Bible” there are countless references to this as well ...
The part I find interesting is that people seem to think that if you allow the concept of Aliens being Our “Spark” that there can be, somehow, no “God” ... as if ALL beings from wherever don’t have a “God” themselves.
I literally “see” a ... superior power ... in everything that I recognize to exist ... I “see” the proof of it ... I think it’s a bit arrogant/wishful of Homo Sapiens to model their concept of “God” after themselves.