Quote:
It doesn't matter if you struggle with existance and its beginning and refusing to accept that something so complex as life...can come from nothing.
We don't know how or why (if there is a "why") life began here. Many believers seem to be content with assorted versions of "God did it", which is an intellectual dead-end and no more logically defensible than "The Giant Cabbage in the Gamma Quadrant did it." Personally satisfying, perhaps, but not even approaching a credible argument.
Quote:
It does not matter that you see mankind in his full ability to overshadow the entire animal kingdom, dominate the earth with mental appititudes that make even the most complex ape appear mentally dwarfed.
At various times, other animals have overshadowed and dominated the entire earth, for much different reasons and longer periods of time than mankind. We're still on trial (so to speak), and it's not looking too good right now.
Quote:
It does not matter that only man uses reward and punishment...for good and bad.
Man is certainly not the only creature who uses reward and punishment. A few weeks observing packs of dogs, troops of apes, or any of a number of social animals disproves this assertion.
Quote:
It does not matter, that mankind marks time...from the era that Jesus Christ walked this earth. Nope. Forget it.
You're aware that not everyone on Earth marks time by the Christian standard...? You're aware that before Christianity became a political entity, time was measured by whatever political entity was dominant...? You're aware that in some places the days of the week and some months of the year are named after pagan gods, and that in others, strictly cultural references are employed? What can you deduce from that?
Quote:
It is merely coinsidence...that man is here at all, let alone being well defined in his unique abilities, such as language that closely emulate the Creator as described in the Bible...having been created in his image.
What animals on Earth are not "well defined" by unique abilities? And I have no idea what you mean by language closely emulating the Creator, or how it's relevant to the existence of same.
Quote:
Usually, Atheists/skeptics...whatever you want to call them, point to God as being cruel, not giving a second thought to the fact that every trouble man has ever been dealt...he has brought on himself in one way or another.

Nope. Instead, look for excuses, as to why he cannot exist, simply because he does not measure up to what an unqualified, biased, disagreeable few feel he should.
It's been my experience that the majority of atheists are looking for reasons why the god MUST exist and have failed to find even one. And the measure of any supposed god is generally made by those who believe in one...not those who don't. If the human measurement doesn't add up to itself, it's likely to be pointed out. This applies equally to the thousands of gods in which you, yourself, do not believe. What's your excuse for why they can't exist?

Atheists/skeptics usually point to the god's recorded cruelties in response to contrary assertions by theists who are attempting to tell us what the god is really thinking/feeling/doing. We pretty much agree with you that humans bring their own troubles on themselves. That's the point. One way we differ is in attributing human success or good fortune to deities of one sort or another. (Now if you find an atheist who does that, feel free to point and giggle derisively. I'll even help you. :) )
Quote:
You see, we can afford ourselves that right, but when it comes to God? Nope...can't happen.

Aside from the issue of satisfactorily demonstrating such a being is actually there, as far as I'm aware, you're at liberty to give credit or pay homage to anyone or anything that trips your trigger. When you attempt to issue directives that everyone should do so, you're going to bump into walls...much as someone would if they insisted you must thank Allah or Shiva (for example) for your earthly "blessings". Again, should this happen to you, don't hesitate to call on me for assistence in pointing out the reasoning errors.
Quote:
Further, we will find our skeptics laughing at believers in what can't be seen,yet, what skeptic does not believe there is not an Antartica or some other place they have never seen?
There is a distinct difference between what cannot be seen and what hasn't been seen. I can go to Antartica in this perceivable reality and verify that it exists. According to what I've been told by believers, I'm unable to visit either paradise or hell, take slides and return to bore my friends and relatives with them at parties.
Quote:
What skeptic does not believe their was an Alexander the Great? How do they know for sure? Have they seen him?
I can't speak for other skeptics, but *this* one has perused independent, credible and varied sources and has decided that Alexander probably actually existed. However, I can't say the same for anyone's god(s), mythological beings, Bigfoot, Nessie, The Giant Cabbage in the Gamma Quadrant, the Blue Fairy, or the beloved amorphous Higher Power of the uncommitted. Therefore, I withhold belief in any of them.

You don't have to, but you do need to realize that belief in God is largely experential, and therefore not subject to logical resolution. To date, nobody is "qualified" to prove or disprove God's existence, else it would have been done long before now.

Mac