Not now soon, it would appear that a lot of gods followers disbelieve in things such as the dinosaurs as they are firm believers of creation, rather than evolution. How can this possibly be

So this god that you love nns is that the same god that sanctions slavery, rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing, blood sacrifice etc etc?
Is it the same god that will torture people FOREVER just for not believing in him?

A loving god?
You have a weird idea of love mate.

Toni Lavis appeals to humour. AJ Philips has an arsenal of appeals – logic, evidence, historical methods and fallacies in argument.

These appeals are outweighed by the fact that, for whatever reason some humans have an irresistible desire to believe in crap. It gives meaning to their lives. It bonds them with fellow believers in crap. It allows them to feel superior to those who reject belief in crap. It allows them to feel attacked by those who reject belief in crap. It allows them to feel persecuted by those who reject belief in crap.

Reason cannot prevail against the impulse to believe in crap. Of course, Christianity is not the only provider of crap. The other Abrahamic religions, the non-Abrahamic religions, New Age, conspiracy theories, advertising agencies creating wants for what is not needed, political rationalisations and other providers also produce crap.

In Dover Beach written in the nineteenth century Matthew Arnold saw religion retreating:

"The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating to the breath
Of the night wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world."

Don’t worry, Matthew the Sea of Faith along with other oceans of human gullibility is still at high tide.

"What positive philosophy gives you strength of character?" Addressed to TheAtheist, but I'll take it as a general question.

All religions have had a similar core philosophy setting out how people should treat one another to maintain order and cohesion in human groups. It's basically the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, often elaborated with specific rules. Humans must quite early have recognised that there were conflicting impulses in the dynamic of groups; we called them good and evil. (Why do we still have evil? Because some actions that are bad for the group can have advantages for individuals.) It is quite possible to hold this philosophy without believing that there was or is a non-human creator god.

So why do so many religions tie their positive philosophy to a god? Perhaps because calling on a higher authority to justify the rules works better. People were less likely to behave well just because someone else tells them to, but if it was an authority figure, father, head of extended family, tribal leader, king, or better a god, the authority's stronger. In fact, leaders could assert their own authority by saying 'it's not just me telling you this, it's God's will'. Since leaders will be seen often not to follow the rules themselves, it's more effective to have a superior non-human figure. Add to this the carrot effect - behave and god will reward you by taking you to a better life after you die.

Then, people are curious and like stories and explanations. One of the first human traits must have been curiosity about the world, tied to self-awareness: 'how did we get here? how did the world come about?' Humans could see from personal experiences how new humans came about; so it was reasonable to conclude that the world had a birth. (What's intriguing is that initially the observation would have been that new humans were created by women; so do religions as we know them develop when the penny dropped that men had a role in this?) (to be continued)

(Continued)
The downside of the idea of god (or as it used to be gods) creating the world and setting a philosophy for humans to live by, is that different people came up with different gods, so we got into competitive mode: my god is the only god, and if you don't believe in him, a) you won't be saved, and/or b) we're justified in killing you. This often underpinned the ferocity of wars that might have been fought anyway over resources; and probably made it harder to compromise. The competitive aspect totally overrode the fact the underlying philosophical basis was the same in all; people got worked up (and still do) over relative minor points of difference rather than seeing the greater commonality.

So, I am an atheist but I recognise and try to live by the common philosophical basis of all religions: the positive rules of how humans should respect each other, resolve differences without resorting to disparagement of or violence towards others, and live together well. I am capable of this without having to believe that any of the various gods and creation stories are real, although I recognise the human creativity that has gone into them.

In fact by not believing in any, I have no desire to join in the tit-for-tat attacks between people who believe in different religions. I do think it's unfortunate that some atheists are nasty to believers; but I think it's because atheists are influenced by the broader environment we've all grown up in, where attacks between people who hold different religious (and non-religious) viewpoints are the norm. The other side of this coin is evangelism: trying to recruit people from other faiths or non-faiths to your side, by saying we're the only ones with the true god, and if you don't believe what we believe you won't be 'saved'. Perhaps worse is 'if you leave our religion you will be damned'.

I'd suggest that everyone, religious or atheist, consider the golden rule and themselves stop doing all this now. Don't wait for the other to do it first.

Cossomby, Thanks for setting a better mood to the topic! We want to know what is the healthy basis of one's life, rather than conflicting with a Christian World view. It then becomes obvious they are the opponents [Hebrew Satanas} for the Christians here. They need to come up with a better way of life rather than disbelief as the basis of their character. Most of their accusation are misinformed on Christian realities, because they have listened to misinformed Christians.