"The same way that you are close minded to reality  ."

I'm open to corrections, actually.  I think you are begging the question.  You are assuming that the supernatural is not real and expecting me to share that assumption and join you in summarily dismissing classes of evidence.  I am not close minded.  It doesn't make sense to be open minded forever.  At some point its ok to make up your mind.  But you should be open to continual examination of the evidence.

"Nice job, SJ!"

Thanks.  :)

"You seem to think that realizing man is insignificant makes one behave badly for some reason."

Not at all.  You seem to think that I think that realizing man is insignificant MAKES one behave badly for some reason.  That is not my point at all.

"Do you want my statistics on crime rates among Christians v Atheists again?"

This argument was woefully inadequate.  If you'd like to start a thread on that, I'd be glad to clobber it.  Although, given that Christians argue that humans are a fallen race and remain so even after conversion, it should be obvious that this argument, even if valid, proves nothing of substance.  If anything, it would remain consistent with core teachings of Christianity.

"Of course I am!"

Thus undermining your ability to claim you are making a kind of argument others should care about.  Your views may be consistent with your own assumptions, but that's about it.

"When we look at any evidence, we make an assumption based on the available facts."

Speak for yourself.  I don't.  Or at least, I didn't.

"In the absence of any scientific evidence of anything supernatural in hundreds of years of study and experimentation,"

Either you are making an assumption or you are not.  You can't say that you are assuming your position a priori and then run and invoke a posteriori evidence as though we can really argue on those grounds.  We can't, because you are assuming the supernatural doesn't exist.  As you said about yourself when [you] look at any evidence [you] make an assumpton based on the available facts.  Since you are assuming the supernatural is not real, when you examine the 'available facts' you won't be able to recognize evidence for the supernatural, even if it were there.  For all you know, it might be there.

"you'd better have an extremely persuasive argument in favor - "because the Bible tells me so" isn't it."

But this assumes again that your POV is evidence driven and not merely assumed.  You started down the road of trying to ridicule the Bible, saying it was incompatible with facts, leading me to believe that- in theory- if we can establish the opposite, your position might change in light of the evidence.  But we found out very quickly that such evidence was meaningless to you because you have already assumed that the supernatural is not real.

So, you really need to make up your mind.  Is your view that the supernatural is not real evidence driven (a posteriori) or is it assumed (a priori)?

"merda totalis"

I assume is 'totally dead' though I can't place the language.  Sounds like a spell in Harry Potter.    

Very well, then.  You won't mind me ignoring any of your comments that you might make in regards to the EVIDENCE for or against theism or Christianity in particular.  If you don't think your position proceeds from better evidence, but rather is just your base assumption and opinion, I see no reason to respond to any charges one way or the other.

I'm just overwhelmed by your intensley rational argument.  It boils down, it seems, to "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in God."  And that would be fine, but you go further:  "You should not believe in God, either, because I don't believe in God because I don't believe in God."

*gag*

Everyone who believe in the pancake bunny say "i".

Merda is latin, I presume the Spanish is derived from it.

Free thinkers aren't so called because they are free to believe in talking animals, casting out of demons, reanimating corpses, and large, benevolent, all knowing Gods who ignore us completely - we are free from having reality clouded by such nonsense, and free to believe in human beings and their strengths, rather than their weaknesses in the eyes of your fictitious Lord. Despite that, I have never described myself as a freethinker, only as an Atheist. Freethinker is a euphemism employed by those Atheists who can't quite cast off their childhood religious brainwashing enough to see Atheism as something postive, wholesome and good.

I like your comparison of me to a scantily clad woman, by the way, Big Boy    ...

That sounds like a tough spot, the christian part of me wants to say send those kids off to church so they can know salvation.

But, yes I'm into buts', I dont see a problem with buts'. I would think you would rather keep their mind as open as possible. An athiest friend of mine who's mother used to be in nun school, now an athiest because she continued to fear she was condemed to hell, finaly in desperation to grab hold of her life and dodge her fears, made a choice to disown her beliefs.

Well this friend was told, "there's allot religions out there choose one." He chose the same as his parents, interesting isn't it? Well when he became old enough his curiousity lured him on his own. I'm not saying he ever made a choice. I just wanted to offer what I could.