Tyler

Seriously. Why would an all-powerful and all-knowing god need sin? Since you guys like to say it a "test", whats the point? God already knows the answers and has the capacity to change them as he sees fit. So ce he already knows who will fail, why doesn't he cleanse them and make them sin-free? Why didn't he just make every soul lure to begin with? How did a lowly angel disrupt an omnipotent beings plan? There's so many holes that probably won't be explained.

Lemme guess, " just because toy don't understand his plan, yada yada yada", or "god works in mysterious ways". Sure. Mysterious ways that can either be explained by nature or can't be explained at all.

About how many of them there are compared to us atheists? Seriously. It goes against basic logic.

Not all, obviously. I only mean those who apply, and those who have also observed this behavior. It's very strange, and I wish to understand it. Why the double standard? Why can't more people look in a mirror and laugh sometimes? Family guy made an episode picking on atheists like me and I couldn't catch my breath from the laughing. It was probably their funniest episode ever, and I didn't get insulted by it.

Getting butthurt shows how far your head is up your ***, guys.

Radiometric dating alone debunks their position, not even counting geological layers and ice layers that prove the earth is older than 6,000 years old. Antarctica has ice samples older than half a million years. How can they still exist in light of all that we as a species have discovered?

It defies logic to the point of absurdity.

Why?

They're all religious bigots now. They simply follow their holy book and call it politics. What happened to being an actual conservative? Where your ideas came from what you saw and heard about the world? Instead of reading some ancient book and concluding from that? Liberals too. Why are we all the same? Were like clones. What happened to the variety we used to see in liberalism? It just stagnated under the weight of the conservative majority I suppose. But why?

Why can twe just agree to disagree and have a nice conversation instead of insulting each other? I have my ideas, you have yours. So how is either side better than the other? They both have downsides and benefits, but when it comes down to it a mixed system is best. Why are some people so vehemently against liberalism and hateful of any other opinions other than their own? It doesn't make sense to me.

I know some conservatives say being a liberal is bad, and some have called me a "libtard". Why is this? Aren't conservatives all about small government and freedom? What happened to accepting ideas of others and intellectually considering them? I've never Insulted anyone for being conservative, so why the hate? My viewpoint is just as legitimate as yours, so instead of hating me, debate me. Why can't that be a rule of thumb? Where disagreeing with someone means discussing your differences? Liberals can be hateful of course, this is just something I've noticed about american religious conservatives.

Some Buddhists are atheist, and they are not materialistic at all. I've seen many rationalists who are atheists. I've also seen many conservative atheists. Why the stigma? Why the prejudice?

Of course, agnostic can be used in front of theist, deist, or any other term that serves a similar purpose. I am simply sondering why so many people don't understand that agnostic is an epistemological term. Also, why are so many more Christians than atheists have a Gnostic "I know I'm right" attitude. Most atheists I've met say that they very well may be wrong. I don't see many Christians doing that. Why is this?

Any time a Christian does some atrocity, the rest of the world denounces them. The Westboro baptist church isn't violent, but their message is still incredibly hateful. Everybody hates them, for good reason. I go on Ramadan and I see Muslims trying to justify what happened in Paris. Really? Not all Muslims are like this obviously, but too many. Why is this? Am I alone in thinking this?

It is a fallacy, and is not a solid argument. It falters underneath even the most incomprehensive criticism, yet Christians(And religious the world over) still use this age-old debunked form of "argument". Why is this? When will they realize it doesn't work?