The Paradox of Power....

[Esquilax]

How do you live without hope? You nearly answered that one but not to the full,
Okay
You have a wonderful plan in your family

• You have a wife and you said "she is lovely" And you think she's going stay like that for ever?
  
• You have a good career 
  
• You have a good family
  

These are your main point,but let me say that when all these aspect's are reached,and some your aspects might fail.What will be your inner hope?

My inner hope is to live the best life possible according to my convictions. Human beings are dynamic, constantly changing perspectives, I can't plot out an exactingly detailed accounting of my aspirations and personality over the course of my life because it's extremely likely that what I hold important will change as my positions change in accordance to the world around me. I just hope that I live well, no matter what sort of person I become. I don't need an afterlife to do that, nor does the impermanence of life on Earth detract from that desire.

If creationist's can't be scientist's why are there creation scientist's with professional degrees in science?

I never said they couldn't be. Do you want to have a conversation with me, or do you want to just go through your list of questions? Because very few of those questions have actually applied to positions I hold, no doubt because they were formulated by a creationist with a severe misunderstanding of atheists.

There are creationists who are scientists, and that is not a controversial statement; smart people can be wrong too. However, it is my position that for them to be successful scientists they would need to follow the scientific method in their work, which means disregarding any notions that are not supported by the evidence; in order to do that, they could not entertain creationism within their scientific work. Good creationist scientists are atheists in the lab, because all of their creationist beliefs cannot be supported by the data, and you can see this if you look at any report or paper in which a scientist has attempted to reach a creationist conclusion; they are, uniformly, plagued with bad methodology, fudging of the data, unsupported conclusions or fallacious reasoning. There has never been a creationist paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal, because when the peers- other scientists- look through the data and try to replicate the findings, they can't, because there's nothing there to replicate.

If Christianity is false, then why is it popular?

False ideas have often been popular, I don't know why you're surprised about that. Before astronomy we thought the earth was flat, your bible still says that it is, and all the other bodies in the galaxy orbited it. Before medicine we thought sickness was demons, and after the advent of medicine but before germ theory we had all kinds of dumb ideas about how the body works and how to cure diseases. Just because an idea is popular doesn't mean it's true, and false ideas can easily spread when, like with christianity, the whole movement is based around forcing the idea onto children before they're old enough to think critically and threatening them about what might happen if they even think about it any less than reverently.

I could make any idea at all popular if I was allowed to start the spread of it first through violence and terrorism against those who wouldn't believe it and then, with the huge group of cowed followers I had amassed with that plan, through persistent cultural and social indoctrination against the most vulnerable members of society.