Do atheists have any other subjects in which they argue about, on the web or in life, other that religion?

Outside of R&S virtually everything is atheist!

Sadly your post is yet another example of why Christianity is facing such a backlash!

Until forty years or so ago there was no problem between Christians and atheists!

All the other religions and atheists live in peace and are only attacked by christians and self defense is legitimate!

It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion. - William Ralph Inge.

Do you not recognise that Christians are provoking retaliation and repudiation for their terrible attitudes?!

Perhaps if Christians stopped their intolerant, egotistical, hate filled and bigoted postings things might change!

Perhaps if Christians stopped eschewing education, science, evolution works of fiction and much, much more things might change!

Perhaps if Christians stopped being the only religion opposing human rights and persecuting gays, pro choice and so much more things might change!

Perhaps if Christians stopped demanding freedom of religion whilst they deny it to all non Christians and persecute them things might change!

If Christians rediscovered the god of love and forgiveness and put aside all those terrible human emotions things would definitely change!

Why are Christians so afraid of people who simply do not believe in any god?!!!! Surely it can only be because they are so afraid that atheist are right and they are wrong or it would not bother them!

Time for Christians to understand that it is not about god, jesus or belief but about the terrible Christians attitudes and behaviour!

The self destruction of Christianity is underway and the only thing that can stop it is to abandon the terrible human emotions, seek to rediscover the idea of a loving god and act like it!

"So that is why I wondered if any of you have opinions on other things in life that the odds of you being wrong is greater than zero %. To you, obviously."

I don't know everything, so the odds of me being wrong about any given thing save what my own opinion is is always greater then 0%, even if marginally so. There can always be something I don't know that completely changes my views.

"You say scientific evidence is the only way to prove God exists. However, God doesn't roll like that. So the scientific evidence isn't there. And probably will never be there. You expect God to do things your way. Which I am pretty sure wont be happening."

Then I have no reason to believe a god exists, as the % chance I'm wrong and a god exists when no evidence or reasoning supports the assertion exists is low enough where it might as well be zero, though if evidence arises in the future this view would change.

I might as well believe unicorns rule the universe if I believe god does, both are equally as likely.

'You say scientific evidence is the only way to prove God exists'

Erm no, if God showed up and was all like 'Hey' most people would count that as evidence.

Secondly it's probably the same mentality as the religious when they argue with science in R&S. If they know their God is real, then why do they need to disprove evolution etc?

Thirdly, you've failed to mention that atheists are constantly misrepresented by the religious, so part of the atheist presence here has to do with saying 'Hey, you know what, I'm not a demon worshiping, christ hating, moral less, pervert your your small town pastor has told you I am'

It's also a way of protecting science from being warped and discredited because it contradicts religion. The premise of your question is that most debates on here are about proving/disproving individual beliefs. But they're not. They range from being morality/practicality based, philosophical and existentialist in nature, which is why they're interesting to take part in.

The short one liners only come out when someone asks a question that is fundamentally wrong/bias.

I don't argue about something that can never be wrong, I just point out that the lack of ANY objective evidence for the existence of a thing is a good indication that thing probably does not exist. I also might point out that the belief in such a thing is not based on rationality, logic, reason or critical thought but on pure, unadulterated wish-fulfillment. But in answer to your main inquiry, yes there are LOTS of things I argue about that are not related to the existence of supernatural super-beings, but not when I'm in religion and spirituality.

"You say scientific evidence is the only way to prove God exists. However, God doesn't roll like that. So the scientific evidence isn't there. And probably will never be there. You expect God to do things your way. Which I am pretty sure wont be happening."

How do you know how God "rolls"?... you ever meet him? Is that how you know all about how he acts and thinks? How convenient for you that he happens to hate showing any evidence.

Sure. The state of the government or the people. Legalising and controlling certain drugs. I love to argue about the implications of nanotechnology and stem cell research. I love to argue for people freedoms and theories on black holes.

sure scientific evidence may never prove the existence of god, doesn't mean thats what he wants or that he exists. The lack of evidence is enough to claim it doesn't.

Yes, there's many more things that i'm very strong about and will discuss them based on facts and evidence.

Your argument about "god not rolling like that" is kinda silly. I mean, if even a theists says that he can't prove god exists, why follow its religion? So, if you can't prove that Thor, Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist, then you have to follow those too.

I also fiddle around on a variety of science and math sites. You do realize that your odds about being wrong about the correct god are precisely the same as mine being wrong about the existance of god--in either case doesn't matter in the end does it--we might both see one another in islamic hell lol. You tried making a subtle indirect arguement--but you see--you tke the biased position that yours is the correct god--and in this particular case ==every other major religon on the planet has a holy book which says they are right and all esle are wrong.

Which essentially invalidates your position does it not?

I have an opinion about a lot of things, pumpkin - for example, just now, I formed one about your writing skills and the competency of your teachers - some of which I share in different sections on here, and some of which I do not. R&S isn't the only section I visit, and Y!A isn't the only thing in my life.

I wouldn't hold my opinions if I didn't think I had a basis for them and if I didn't think they were correct.

Those short one-liner comments are called wit. Learn to recognize it.

We atheists are human and have the usual wide variety of interests in the world.

How is my true belief that no deity exists any more "100%" than your true belief that a deity does exist?

The odds of your superstition being true can't be proven wrong so I wonder if other things you argue about are also considered 100% true, by you of course?

Your finger is pointing back at yourself.