//We want to know what is the healthy basis of one's life, rather than conflicting with a Christian World view.//

Yeah, your mistake there is assuming that 'conflicting with the Christian World view' and having a 'healthy basis of one's life' are mutually exclusive.

//It then becomes obvious they are the opponents [Hebrew Satanas}//

Oh dear, more equivocation. It's not big and it's not clever, Josephus.

The original Hebrew word satan does mean opponent, but we're all English speakers, and in English the word Satan refers specifically to the supernatural entity from Christian mythology, who is held to be the source of all worldly evil and thoroughly malevolent. And it is in that sense, of course, that English speakers will interpret any references to Satan. You are trying to conflate non-Christian belief with malevolent intentions. It's that sort of thinking that leads to Inquisitions and worse, Josephus.

//They need to come up with a better way of life//

Only if there is something wrong with their way of life. As far as I can work out, your argument seems to be that there definitely is something wrong with their way of life if it isn't your way of life, to which there is a rather obvious rebuttal:

It's their life, not yours. So bugger off and mind your own business, stickybeak.

//rather than disbelief as the basis of their character.//

Yeah, your mistake there is assuming that disbelief is the 'the basis of their character'. Expressing a view on something does not mean it is the 'basis' of one's character. I have been known to express the view that Hungry Jack's are better than McDonald's, but it does not follow that my preference for their hamburgers forms 'the basis of my character'. How ridiculous.

//Most of their accusation are misinformed on Christian realities, because they have listened to misinformed Christians.//

And most of yours are misinformed on non-Christian realities, because you have listened to misinformed Christians (and one in particular: yourself), instead of seizing the opportunity for a bit of education from the non-Christians you converse with.

You mean, “Thanks for allowing yourself to be diverted by my red herring”, Josephus.

<<Thanks for setting a better mood to the topic!>>

You, Cossomby, and myself (when I get caught up in your attempts to divert) are off topic.

Non-believers are being asked by Not.Now_Soon to search for his god, and are being re-assured that He is true when no evidence for this god has been provided, and nor have any means by which we are supposed to search for it. In light of the OP, the responses from myself and others are reasonable.

<<We want to know what is the healthy basis of one's life …>>

There’s that “we” again. Who’s “we”? The OP certainly doesn’t seem to belong to this group.

Again, you are deflecting.

<<They need to come up with a better way of life rather than disbelief as the basis of their character.>>

Firstly, no, “they” don’t. This is your red herring, and it’s off topic.

Secondly, no-one has said, or even suggested, that disbelief is the “basis of their character” - whatever that means.

Thirdly, I have already alluded to a philosophy superior to believing in unproven or unprovable claims: not accepting propositions that cannot be rationally justified.

Fourthly, you have not yet explained how your life-guiding/character-basing philosophies/principles are superior. You have simply assumed that atheists have no life-guiding/character-basing philosophies/principles, and then gone on further to presume that anything is necessarily better than nothing. It’s not.

Finally, despite your attempts to divert, I have been trying to answer your red-herring of a question, yet, when I request further detail from you in order to do so, you never oblige. Clearly you’re not really interested in an actual answer. You sound more like you just think you’ve found a stumbling block for non-believers and are throwing it out there to deflect from the total lack of evidence for a belief which cannot be rationally justified.

The Christian logic for the existence of god is; Only an idiot would believe in something that is not real. I believe in god, I am not an idiot. So therefore god must be real.

There are only three absolute laws of logic.

As they can be applied to god;

The law of identity: god is god.
The law of noncontradiction: god is not non-god.
The law of the excluded middle: Either its god or non-god.

The statement "God exists" is either true or false, there is no middle. God can only identify as god, there can be no contradiction, god cannot be non-god.

The use of the above is a relatively new counterargument to atheism, the so-called transcendental argument for God's existence, or TAG, as popularized by Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.

The following examines that line of reasoning and shows it to be a fallacy.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/do-laws-logic-prove-existence-god

the atheist is totally irrational /dishonest. They deny design needs a Designer, laws require Lawmaker and creation demands Creator. No wonder they must appeal to pseudo science. Walk around with eyes shut all day. The psalmist was certainly right to declare that a fool says in his heart their is no god. And they claim to be rational! Pleassse!

It's natural that atheists don't have anything to say. There is nothing to say about a non-belief.

Paul1405,

I see you know of the infamous Matt Slick and his fallacious transcendental argument, too.

Here’s a fun video of Matt Dillahunty taking down Slick’s transcendental argument during a televised debate the two had on the community access TV show Dillahunty often hosts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgDEiRTJTuk

--

runner,

So, now the Old Testament trumps the New?

<<The psalmist was certainly right to declare that a fool says in his heart their is no god.>>

“... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22)

Looks like you need to study your Bible a little harder.

--

ttbn,

The atheists here seem to have a lot to say. I suppose you had nothing to say when you were an atheist, too, is that right?

*Crickets chirping*