You guys should really watch that video I posted, or at least parts of it.

BTW discovery.org is retarded. Not to even speak of how much Micheal Behe sucks.

As an atheist, I can tell you that I have hope and ambition. The truth is that we were born to reproduce and die, that's it. But inbewtween doing those things, we live. And I personally want to make the world a better place for my children, grandchildren, and so forth.

 How pessimistic is my viewpoint?

Also @fooflexible not all suffering of humans is caused by other humans.
God is supposed to be omnipotent and benevolent. God cannot be both, because if god was benevolent, he would want to help all people regardless of position or faith. If god was omnipotent, he could. He doesn't. So god is either NOT benevolent, or NOT omnipotent. And as I have heard it put, if he is not benevolent or omnipotent, then why call him god?

Apostrovich: Odd ending. By declaring that he can't be both through your reasoning, God suddenly becomes neither through any reasoning? I think you just phrased it poorly. Or... just really strange logic. By strange I mean bad.

Not that the first part is wrong by your understanding. If Benelovent means doing all possible good things, then God wouldn't be omnipotent, because life is shit. Of course, does benelovence really mean that? Welcome to philosophy, my most hated of subjects. Well, I hate english more. And most modern art. Alright, it's not my most hated.

I kind of combined two versions I heard, because I can't quite seem to remember all of either....lI'll try to find them both...

I disagree.  Religion is an inanimate concept.  Like science it doesn't want anything.  The point of religion isn't to make people not understand the science.  The original point of it was either to tell god's word, or give hope to people to keep on living.

So an atheist view on religon would be an evolutionary psychological thing to give people a reason to live since well.  Unlike animals people need a reason to live since we've developed intellegence enough to need a reason to live.  It's one of many reasons people use to live.

Some people might use religion to do things like come up with reasons why we shouldn't conduct research or reasons to kill people, but science or really anything else can be used for the same reasons.

For example, we shouldn't research AI's anymore because one day they will turn against us and kill us all, and anyone who has a handicaped (via genetics) or gay should be killed so they can't spread that handicap on to others.  You could justify that those with higher IQs and breeding should be the only ones allowed to mate and those with lower IQs be stuck at maual labor jobs etc.

As many horrors can be inflicted by invoking science as religion, the only difference is that the guys who use religion have been on top more often and longer.

It's like that one saying from that one movie "Would you kill one man to find a cure for cancer" saving millions. The scientific and logical answer would be yes.  Well maybe, we do have a bit of an overcrowding problem right now. 

Epicurus, 341-271 bc---Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is god both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able, nor willing? Then why call him god?

I'd rather not get into a giant debate it's quite clear I'm one against a dozen here, and I don't have time to write a book, I'll try to get back to a few of these things. But first about God, because I think most science and atheist types seem to have a short sighted view of things I'll explain(btw when I say short sighted I don't mean to insult, I can very easily understand many peoples positions, but I just believe there is more to the story.) Now what would you call a father who allowed another person to cut his son open? Sounds horrible, and you can't imagine the father loving his son or having his best interest at heart, and yet what if the person was a doctor? What if he was in the process of a surgery to remove cancer? The child might not understand that, but that's actually the bigger picture, and as much as the hurts the father to have his son go through that, he's allowing it because in the end he wants his son to live. In a similiar sense you could say that is what God is doing, and I know when I talk about biblical things people are going to mock me so if you take these things as a joke, so be it, just hear me out first. Let's take the Biblical creation account God creates man and woman(Adam and Eve) gives them free will. We all have free will the whole idea is God doesn't want to be served from robots, he wants people to chose to serve him. But what happens when they don't? What happens when the idea of what else is out there is so enticing they chose that over him? We all know the Adam and Eve story but most miss the point, they choose a world without God, God could destory them. But what would that prove? Would it prove his way is better? No. So I believe this is a time he's allowed, time he's allowed to go by allowing man to rule themselves and prove once and for all man would screw it up, no matter which way he goes, no matter what technology is developed, no matter what form of government he designs, we are at a point, where man has proven for time indefinite he can't rule earth in peace. And hence I believe he's established a time he would step in. Now terrible things have happened in that time, but in the end if he's making a point about how this world won't work without him, what would it prove if he kept stepping in to fix every problem? It would just work against him and make it look like we're find without him. So according to the Bible, this is that time which will soon end.

That's the story, now go ahead post 5 million posts bashing it. 

Because he theoretically can either send you to a place where you'll be happy or a place where you'll be tormented for all time?

Hey if someone created the world and has control of my soul that's god to me, whether he's omnipotent, beneveolant or a huge jerk.  Who am I to judge?

I mean the Sumerans thought their gods created them soley to be serveants that they could use.  Talk about a depressing religion.

Me, i'm too logical to be an atheist.  Hear me out.  Either time is unlimited or it's not.  If we die and there is nothing after this, if time is limited none of this matters.  If time is unlimited, eventually humans will die and eventually everything humans will have done won't matter, every change that we've made will be washed away like a sand castle in the tide of time.

So if i didn't believe in god there would be little reason for me to live other then the fact that i wouldn't think it was worth the effort of killing myself as my life is meaningless anway.

Besides which i'd really hate myself if I were that emo. 

I believe that is called Pascals Wager. It essentially states that not believing in god is a bad bet.
* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

I like this quote better though.

Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.
—Richard Carrier, The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven