My brother is very religious. Yet he does not go to church.
There are plenty of people who don't go to Church despite being religious, but I'm saying that because I'm an Atheist I don't go. I don't think your getting my argument. I'm not saying these things are exclusive to me because I'm Atheist. That's practically impossible. I'm saying how being Atheist lets ME do those things, even if some people with religion do them to. Honestly, how can you make an argument based on the fact that some other people do the same thing? No matter what I could possibly say, you can always say that someone in religion does it to. I'm not trying to point out difference, which you seem to think I am, I'm trying to point out things I do personally because I'm atheist. This isn't some globalized view of it, I'm pointing out the things I do as an Atheist, and good for the people who do them do despite being in organized religion.
I am the only child of 4 who is atheist. I grew up in a very religious household. My parent didn't hassle me about it at all. In addition, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with religion. Fundamental theists only take issue with it because of its contradiction with religious texts. There are many theists that do believe in the theory of evolution.
Again, I'm not saying I'm the only person. I'm not going to be incredibly arrogant and say I'm the only person in the world to ever do this, that would be idiotic. My point here is that for some people, religion is restricting them, and Atheism allows more freedom. They're still people who refuse to believe in science because of religion. Yes, as you pointed out many religious people do believe in evolution. But not all of them have that option, and its one of the freedoms that's pretty much guaranteed by living in a non-religious household, and being an atheist.
Atheism doesn't define my morals. I don't just steal, lie and cheat because I don't believe I'm going to be punished in the next life for it. Many criminals are in fact very religious. By your logic they would not do what they do because of their beliefs.
No, by my logic they would do those things. What I stated is that forced morals upon a person have no effect, in which case criminals wouldn't follow them. There are some people who believe in religion, but don't believe in all the things that go along with it. In some cases though, people just don't even care about potential punishments like hell, which also proves that the criminal justice system is pretty flawed. Off topic though. Morals are a strict, set code in religion, like in the Ten Commandments. You may think you don't chose your own morals, but who's choosing them then? Each person has limits when it comes to morals. Some people can't tell a lie because its too difficult, other people have no problem killing. Even if you don't think you chose your own morals, you do, and people who are religious often have conflicting morals, and that means its more difficult for them to follow either set.
Depends on your definition of ''living your life to the fullest''. It also can't be generalised to all theists or atheists.
True, it is impossible to really define living life to the fullest as it takes so many shapes for different people, so I guess this is an invalid point.
Extremist theist views cannot be generalised to include all theists.
But you can't deny that religion brought them to that level. I'm not saying that every single person that's religious is an extremist, but without religion these people probably wouldn't be doing the same things. Take godhatesfags.com. A disgusting site, based upon religious principles. Without those religious principles to back them up, they wouldn't have the argument against homosexuals that far too many religious people do. Religion is far to invasive into the life's of others, even with non-extremists and non-religious people, and despite the idea of separation of church and state it seems to play far too large a role in government
Interesting you say what I said: (How on earth is atheism a way of life?) was not based in fact, when your initial claim that atheism is a way of life was not based in fact. For another thing, it was a question, not an insult. An insult would be ''How on earth is atheism a way of life?r u liek retrded or sumthin????'' What I said was merely a question. Questions don't require evidence, answers require evidence. As for your claim of being insulted twice, then, until you actually justify your use of the term, my point remains valid.
Its the "How on earth" part. That puts extreme skepticism, and usually when someone says that its with a tone as if the thing you just said was completely wrong. I tried to back it up, but in that I wasn't insulting you when I said atheism is a way of life, so I don't see the connection. I could sit here asking questions all day and wait for you to answer them, but that would settle nothing because I could say whatever I want for minimal reasons. Even questions need to have some backing up, its pointless to act a single line question and not at least have another comment defining that parameters of the question. As for the second one, I view it as an insult because you're acting like I don't even have the intelligence to back up a statement I make. Thinking I said it only because "well it sounded nice" demeans my statement, and yes, I'll view that as an insult. Perhaps I was too uptight last night after debating so many topics, many of them with people who seemed to care more about annoying me that actually going anywhere with it, but that still seems offensive to me, and I bet there's other people who would take offense at those two statements as well.