Only if the question of "who am I?" wasn't answered for most people. If there was a culture that answered that without God then I'm sure it would remain without God.

WTF are you talking about dude??? Family guy is millions times better than both Futurama (it got off air LOL, it was a flop) and South Park. Not saying they suck, i like both shows and watched almost every episode of it, but Family Guy has hundreds of awesome jokes, and it most certanly ISN'T POLITICLY BIASED in any way. South Park used to be better, but the latest seasons started to suck real bad, and it REALLY IS politicly biased sometimes. Stewie was the funniest character ever, before they decided to turn him gay.

Quotes I was shown by my friend today that make me proud not to be a Christian. Sorry guys I have no online source but.

Miracles and Missions Digest: Jesus Compassion For an Aldulterous Women Dallas, TEXAS

"God will NOT ACCOMODATE any man or women to feed their lust of the flesh to allow hum or her to REMARRY... GOD only put two togethher--no more-- and they become ONE. And NO COURT or CHURCH LAW can amend that LAW! Marriage is NOT A NECESSITY-- God has made man and women so that they can live without sex. We do not expect "an old maid" who never got a chance to marry to have sex from time to time because she is lonesome or "has " to have sex. God says that if she ever did get a chance to marry, she could be put away immediately as soon as her husband discovered she was not a virgin."

This quote seems like it should be from the 1930's yet it comes out of modern day TEXAS, what trash!!!

Actually, this is a pretty bad argument.

The problem is, there are a wide variety of religions and different religious interpretations and all religions claim to be the truth.

I'll clarify what I mean:

Assume any particular religion and/or religious sect is correct in their beliefs. That is to say a religion is entirely 100% correct as they've claimed.

Why does this create a problem for many religious followers?

Answer: Because if one religion, or religious sect IS the truth, then ALL other religious beliefs (and different sects to some extent) are false beliefs.

Atheism, commonly thought of as the rude, brash, childish, and even juvenille of all belief systems OBJECTIVELY disagrees with ALL religious beliefs because of their basics.

A believer of a religion believes their religion is right (and commonly will spend their entire lives believing in said religion) and is, in fact, an atheist to all other beliefs that don't agree with theirs.

So, while there ARE jerks on both sides of the religious spectrum, it would be a lie to say that either of them are equally credible. In fact, religious believers are technically atheists themselves so there is a certain level of hypocrisy in hating atheists.

And yes, I am an atheist.

Does that mean that you should no longer trust what I say? Aren't I the one being looked unfavorably upon because we simply don't agree on a matter of personal choice?

And who knows? Am I an atheist? Or am I a religious believer who sees hypocrisy in the religious community and simply want people to be more fair and ignore the stupidity on both sides?

You're free to ignore me but I think I've made my point so I'll just leave now as I'm sure I've upset many of you.

I don't follow how you think religious believers are atheists...

Atheism even in it's most broadest sense is simply the belief that there is no god or deities.  Yet every religion believes there is at least ONE god.  Religious followers would then be termed "theists" following the Theism belief in there existing at least one god or deity. Not atheists.

They're "atheist" in the sense that they think that other religions are false beliefs the same as atheists do. They don't state it outright, of course, but I've spoken to some and they admit, if you really believe that one religion is the truth then it denotes that the other religions are fake in their minds.

In THAT regard, they are "as athestic" about other religions as atheists are. At the broadest sense, they believe God is being worshipped the wrong way in other religions.

So, I'm not saying they atheists, I'm saying they can be looked upon that way because the share the same qualities atheists do regarding religions that they don't believe in.

But, you're right, they should be counted as theists anyway. I worded that wrong previously.

I really don't follow your logic on why athiesm is on any more solid ground by your reasoning...if one of the religions is right athiesm is wrong just as well as other religions are.  If any one theory among athiesm and theism of any form is correct, then the rest of the theories pretty much by definition are wrong whether they share their theistic status or not.

As for theism being a 'form of' athiesm...no this is an oversimplification of the issue.  A theist might believe another theist has the details wrong but they all agree on the fundamental existence of a higher power.  An atheist disagrees on the fundamental point.  These are the definitions of what seperates these groups, there is no more clear way to define them than by this fundamental disagreement. 

Simply pointing out that a given atheist and a given theist can have similar beliefs in regards to a second theistic belief system does not override their disagreement on the fundamental question of whether god exists, particularly when the given atheist and theist will have vastly different reasoning for why the other theistic belief system is off...and in many cases the two theistic belief systems will probably exhibit considerable overlap.

That ignores the fact that some religions, like Hinduism, Shintoism, etc, believe in Gods that are entirely different from the one believed in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

Specifically what about what I wrote ignores those religions?  Please quote the exact excerpt.  I said quite clearly that those theistic religions share the common thread of belief in a higher power and that some of them have considerable overlap.  The statement is blatantly true and does not ignore or conflict with any of the religions you listed in any way.

So, you're oversimplifying as well. There are MANY religious faiths out there that have no distinct similarities or the same higher power existing in the world. We should look at them as religious believers view them: As different entities entirely.

How, exactly, have I oversimplified the issue? That's actually the opposite of what I've done honestly.  You seem to think I'm saying you should ignore the differences between religions when I'm not, I'm saying you can't focus on them exclusively. I'm saying you have to consider the fundamental disasgreement theists and atheist have, which is not mutually exclusive with considering the differences in theistic beliefs. 

And when did I say their similarities overrided the personal differences? I didn't say that. I just said there is a measure of hypocrisy on the theistic side. They don't always have vastly differing reasons for why a theistic belief is off. Most of it still stems from the idea "it just isn't true" or can, hypocritically enough, stem from the belief that it is lunacy (such as with Scientology, Mormonism, or Voodoo). 

When you say theist are atheist, even "in a sense", you're saying the similarities between a given brand of theism and atheism are greater than that brand of theism and other brands of theism.  Your entire point is that theists are somehow atheistic about other brands of theism, which means you believe that because they believe their brand of theism is right they disagree just as much with other brands of theism as atheists do.  This is obviously falacious on the most critical point of all, a belief in a higher power.  That one point of agreement alone brings them into more agreement with theist than atheist because it is the central question at the heart of the issue. 

The problem with theistic religions invalidating each other is that NONE of them can give proof for why their beliefs should be followed anymore than the other. After all, it's about faith. Faith is the belief without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the theists making the claim.

So, how can there be VALID certainty that any one of them is more true than the other? All religious believers have certainty that their faith is the correct one and therefore superior to all others.

Ok, first: Certainty in atheism requires a leap of faith just the same as theism does.  You cannot factually disprove the existence of a higher power and thus while you can make a very reasonable argument against there being a higher power, at the end of the day you still have to have faith to bridge the gap left by your lack of absolute proof.

Second: Burden of proof lies with the person trying to convince someone else of their position.  If a theist wants to convince another theist or even an atheist to follow their brand of theism then they have burden of proof, and the individual being recruited has the right to determine what is and is not sufficient proof for them.  Similarly, an atheist trying to convince a theist to become an atheist has the burden of proof, and the individual being recrutied to atheism has the right to determine what is and is not sufficient proof for them.  Such is the nature of convincing others to believe as you do.

Now, while one religion being right would invalidate atheism as well, it shows that they didn't really lose out as much as the theists who were wrong, who most likely will face the same punishments as atheists for believing in a false God/Gods/or manner of believing in God(s) their entire lives. Thus atheists lose out less.

Uhm..ok I don't even know where to start on this.  You want to try and argue that if a form of theism is correct that atheist "didn't lose out as much" as theists?  Doesn't that depend on which form of theism turns out to be correct?  For all we know the form of theism that turns out to be valid could be open to anyone who has faith in a higher power...or it could be ridigly dogmatic and require you adhere to strict rules of it's specific doctrines...we just don't know.  Trying to speculate on who is closer is asanine unless we know or assume which for of theism is correct before we analyze it.

Futurama is the best thing ever only being surpassed by Vivi.

Wait, how are we talking about Futurama when this was only about Christian rap groups sucking?