Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Golbez]

And is there something wrong with that?

Not in a spiritual "I want to appreciate the universe in all its glory, so let's imagine each aspect of the world has a rich back-story behind who made what" sort of way. But in a literal interpretation, if truth is what you seek, it's unfounded, and realistically so far as anyone knows completely incorrect.

I don't see a point to providing evidence that a Biblical god exists, as I don't necessarily believe in said gods

I share this view. But there are many, many, many people who do believe it and who want to run our governance and make bad decisions because of it. So there's at least a point to showing the universe operates just fine without the imaginings of a great puppet master. That point is to have a better world with less suffering.

1. If miracles happen... then they are certainly evidence of various deities. 2. Did you know: All scientific evidence *ever* has been an incredibly lucky fluke... or a joke by a jester god.

1. Miracles are not defined simply as "good things with rare probability or explanations beyond a layman's grasp." There's no word for "bad things with rare probability." (Or *gasp* maybe it's the devil's work. A curse or pox!) And surely it's simply not just "rare things." Winning the lotto can't be a miraculous occurrence. Unless the government is cheating you, someone is going to win. And it doesn't require any supernatural force to make it happen.

That's what a miracle would require. If a miracle is to be evidence of the supernatural, it would require supernatural assistance. Then and only then would it be evidence. It would thus have to defy the laws of the universe. If an event happens in which a person has a 1/300 chance of surviving, and of 460 people, one of them does, that's not a miracle in a supernatural sense. If it were, it would be a miracle of incompetence that the supernatural couldn't save the other 459 people.

2. If you mean our existence, yes, yes it has been an incredibly lucky fluke. That's fairly objectively correct. But because of it's rarity, let's invent some rich back-story!

Faeries do exist. Every god ever surmised exists.

False. You misconstrue conception with existence. If I author a book with a rich cast of characters, the book exists. The concept of the characters exist. The characters are not real and do not exist.

Evidence simply is...

Evidence is something that points towards truth. Absent that ultimate truth that the evidence is meant to support, it is no longer evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Bold opinions? Knowledge is entirely rooted in faith.

Incorrect. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Knowledge is clearly (or at least should be clearly) the opposite.

Yes, it absolutely makes you blind to believe there is *only one way* to build a computer.

Straw man. I never argued this. We know how to build something that operates that we define as a computer. We are welcome to keep expanding our knowledge and find other ways. Knowing some stuff doesn't prevent us from knowing more stuff. That's what religion is for, to prevent us from looking at the fixes in stem cell research. Or to prevent us from understanding about evolution, or global warming. "You can't believe that knowledge! You have faith instead!" (hideous over-exaggeration while being pretty much on point).

1. Don't you see the condition you have? It is faith, concrete and unshakable. 2. Scientists have not sought knowledge by hypothesis: they conjectured.

1. Faith doesn't use evidence. So faith is not what I have. You must overcome that hangup if you wish to better understand the rationality of our position.
2. Hypothesis is conjecture. You see an observation, you come up with a falsifiable (able to be proven untrue) conjecture about its cause, and you go test it.

Knowledge is blind, hypothesis is the best that a limited creature is capable of

If by blind, you mean knowledge doesn't have bias, or that knowledge is what it is without the considerations of human projections upon it, then yes. Fine. But if not, this appears to be your problem. We have long laid to rest the theory that the sun travels around the earth, that the earth is the center of the solar system or universe. Those are hypothesis. They could still be hypothesis to this day. But they are flat wrong. And we know this. The knowledge of what actually is replaces the knowledge of mere hypothesis - which is anyone's random guess. Our knowledge has exploded in the past couple centuries. And hypothesis has been a great tool to get us there. But that is not the extent of our knowledge. To make this assertion is to ignore centuries of intellectual triumph. But yes, overturning bad science with better science (evidence, reason, consistency, etc) is a great thing. It's what keeps science honest and is a unique process that religion lacks.

Knowing is simple, it is an absolute faith that will never be questioned or further though about.

Knowledge is not faith. I feel like we should make you write it on the chalkboard like Bart Simpson. Faith is a lack of evidence. This is not what knowledge is. And further, it will be thought about (as opposed to "never.") Knowledge builds on knowledge. We teach this knowledge to children. They think about it. It can be used and reused, especially to dispel persisting myths. So another bold, unfounded conclusion. If you question everything, why didn't you question that assertion?

Have you considered that Jesus might have been an alien?

lol. What won't religion (or the religious) invent to try and save it from its inextricable contradictions? An alien, born of the virgin Mary, created in his image, etc, etc. Tell Christians that Jesus was an alien. And fine, they "believed" the sky was heaven. He certainly still didn't rise into it. People also "believed" the earth was flat. That was never true in any event. I'll just give you the cliffs notes and let you know that our caveman ancestors believed a lot of stupid shit. It does none of us any good to give merit to them now.

It really wouldn't be that easy to find a physical location of 'heaven'.

We wouldn't have to find it. We'd only have to watch other bodies rise up out of the ground and fly away. Quick body count: Earth: 7 billion. Heaven: 0.

He doesn't have a video of his birth, or he'd have mentioned it.

Right, he may not have a video. But births in general can be witnessed and known. And there's DNA for those who hadn't witnessed it. Religion (a supernatural god* I should say - religion certainly exists) lacks either option.

-- What is a religion based entirely on non metaphysical things? Jainism? There are some religions that are atheistic. But then, that's simply a way of life. Not really a religion. And proving that ... "true" doesn't do any favors for Jesus or Muhammad or any other theistic religion.

with great power comes great responsibility.

That great responsibility seems to be "never show up in any sense ever." And so there's no reason to pretend the myths of our great (to the power of 150) ancestors, with their terrible understanding of the planet at the time, are true.

(and infact most of the bible is).

This fact looks an awful lot like an opinion many Christians would disagree with. So concerning religion, what counts as fact? Apparently, anything, everything, and nothing simultaneously.

Well, in my interpretations, gods are amorphous entities... but you started using "he" first, so I continued along your lines of thought. This is because I'm mature enough to drop my understanding of the universe to communicate with others instead of rattling off what would appear to be nonsense to them.

This wasn't a dig at you. I do it too. Mostly conforming to the conventions people use when speaking about god. That's why I said "as an aside." But, in your "question everything" mantra that you say I don't live by, I was questioning why people have ascribed this to "him." But certainly, its gender is not decided by our thoughts. Unless it is fictional. And then we would control that, as we seem to do.

Bad morals are, I guess, lack of morals that are nevertheless preached as morals. The lack of repudiation of owning slaves. Killing gays. Stoning your wife if she's not a virgin when you marry. Policing your thoughts (coveting thy neighbor's anything). Worrying about petty shit like false idols - that one really stands the test of time. So critical is it, that it ought to be the 2nd commandment. Thanks, God! You've really set our priorities straight. Ugh.

I've already told you that if any of the text is perfect, it is only the original

You can only speculate. This original copy exists as much as god does. Or is it in the Pope's Smithsonian Museum?

The last two sentences were typed ... finger in hand (tongue in cheek?) because god seemed to author just one book (or three, depending on your religion, or if you accept that he wrote them all), but then stopped writing. Why write more? He's achieved perfection. No need to write a second. Or make a movie. Or code a program. Invent a recipe. Build a building. Etc. He had but one hobby on earth for a short stint, and has retired. He built the heavens and the earth in a week. But authoring a book us lowly humans can understand is hard work!

Sorry for the length. We're probably getting too carried away. I like discussions like this, but they don't seem to be proper etiquette in forums where people tend to wish threads stay on topic. Hopefully our discussion can continue. =P