It seems odd to me that atheists seem to be as delude by their own values as theists are of theirs. Read the comments here and on other sites like Rationally Speaking and see the same arrogant self-assured certainty you get with theist religionists. I think humans over value themselves, thus the problems and conflicts we see in the world. No one says you have to care and why does it matter if humanity goes extinct. It would be nice for a answer devoid of appeals to emotion or any fallacies for that matter. Of course, like theists, that is all atheists have to justify themselves.

While atheists might be self-assured, I think you'll find that when asked for evidence for their beliefs, atheists will have that evidence, but theists will not.

And what evidence would that be? What evidence is their that your existence matters and that everything you value at this time is relevant? In the end , none of it matters, so why bother constructing elaborate positions that are not based on reality? You just replace gods with reason and you get cranky and call others anti-intellectual. You matter as much as the bowel movement I had this morning.

Suzy,

When we make a claim, we are generally willing to back it up with evidence. The "evidence" for gods is apologetics, which from my experience is based on some combination deception, logical fallacies, or emotional manipulation.

I don't know of any atheist that claims our lives have ultimate meaning. If you're looking for that here, you're looking in the wrong place.

"You just replace gods with reason and you get cranky and call others anti-intellectual." Reason and science have given us, among other things, the computers that you've used to write this node and read mine. Science works. Religion, not so much.

Suzy do you really think anyone at the ACA think too deeply about philosophical questions other than those concerning religion? Watch the show and tell me if you think there is much of a difference. There is a lot of appeals to ignorance, especially Matt Dillahunty. The sad thing is that atheists like Dawkins and others have to sit at the same table as Aron Ra and Skepchick or whatever these dimwits call themselves. I am a theist, but even I feel sorry for people like Dawkins who have to share a stage by people you do this as a past time and have Youtube accounts. Why do you think William Lane Craig belittles them so? Because they are redundant and ignorant. Cue Don " I am too good to respond to your questions, because I have not a clue" Baker.

Damian,

I imagine you're the same guy that uses a different name every time you post, but expects the respondent to continue the same conversation with you. Please understand that sock-puppetry and ad hominem attacks don't deserve responses. I've said many time that apologetics is nothing more than deception, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation. If you're the sock-puppet guy, then this describes your behavior. It just confirms to me that theology has nothing of substance.

William Lane Craig thinks that god-ordered genocide is just fine. See http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/genocide-or-justice-william-lane-craig-the-canaanites-the-holocaust-and-jihad/ As the post said, he's drunk the Kool-Aid. I wonder why anyone takes him seriously. Why do you?

Suzy, I do completely understand why you view the situation as you do. On the surface, many Atheists do seem to be as arrogant and assured of themselves as your hardcore theists. However, when you dig delve deeper into the subject, you will realize that theists use the same arguments over and over and over and over again. I can't tell you how many times I personally hear these same arguments. There comes a point where it's nearly impossible to not be condescending.

Imagine someone that cannot turn a door knob to open a door. You tell them to turn the door knob to the right rather than the left to open it. Now imagine that person being very stubborn in their belief that it is impossible to turn the knob to the right without actually attempting to do so.

In this scenario, you cannot touch the door knob yourself so you can't physically turn the knob for them. Then the person argues, "prove to me that I can turn the knob to the right". How do you act in this situation?