Ha, yeah, I think I'd rather discuss the title more than anything else too.

1. I think there are levels of morality. I think there is probably an over-arching sense of morality that just says "Don't be an asshole". That seems to be universal. But cultures have their own idea about what being an "asshole" entails, and sub-cultures, and then individuals have their own interpretations again. So yeah, I think morality depends on context but is informed by that universal 'do right' moral code.

2. I don't trust science.

3. Well, academically, they are all by-products of biological evolution.

4. I'd either go the conspiracy theory (ie "I've been set up!") or the medium theory (ie "Holy crap, you can access other planes of existence!"). Just because I don't believe in any gods doesn't mean I don't consider the possibility of other forms of existence/dimensions/universes.

5. No.

6. I think Atheism offers you what you want. Thats kinda the beauty of it. There aren't any rules about what you can and can't believe in. Atheism, like any other belief system, is a personal thing. And personally, I just feel like it fits me. I don't think Atheism would improve other people's lives if Atheism doesn't suit them.

7. Wow, that makes the giant assumption that I use logic to "conclude facts about religion"... My only answer for this question is that I don't think religion has anything to do with God (or any gods) being real or not, so I don't assess religion by trying to reach conclusions about the realness of deities in the first place.

8. The same as what I argue now: the bible was written by men, for men, for social and political gain.

9. Yeah, it isn't important to me that everyone be an atheist.

10. Yes.


Well, those questions really weren't awe-inspiring. The only mildly interesting question what the first one. The rest make huge assumptions about Atheism and don't do anything to help Atheists express themselves. Surely there are 10 better questions for us out there somewhere! But still, thanks for sharing this. Its always good to work through stuff like this!

1. To some extent. I think people will always disagree about what actions justify what punishments, but on a certain level, some things are universally accepted. If that's what's being asked. But to add, I think you can be a good person even if you don't fear god and going to hell.

1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I am a moral relativist in some meanings - e.g. killing is sometimes justiefied, but not quite in the deffinition set here. I do think that morality is subjective and that an action cannot be objectively viewed as bad or good. However, since we all (or at least the majority of humans) can fell emphaty, it can be seen as deviant to enjoy harming others or doing so without really good reason, and therefore I use this as the moral rule.

2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
On science. I won't deny that science itself has almost religious meaning for me, but that doesn't mean I would hold to study or conclusion if it's proven to be false.
I just like learning new stuff. So much better if it's true.

3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
Language, art, music and religion are side products of human evolution. A lot of intelligent animals (parrots, dolphins, primates, ...) are also social animals. Society of long-lived individuals demands the ability to get along with others. You need to know who will help you, who will use you, etc. and to be able to do this, you must be able to predict other's actions and to set yourself into their postion (empathy) - the need for abstract thinking. You must also be able to promote yourself - "I am nice and I will help you in return if you help me."
Mathematics, art, music and abstract thinking in general are byproducts of its the original function - predicting complex behavior of other individuals in your group. As for language - many animals have their own means of comunicating (again, the more social the animal, the more developed the language - at least mostly) and this is just the human way of doing it.
Another side effect of abstract thinking is "seeking paterns". Similarly to our visual recognising of faces (even if there is not one - in clouds, paterns on the carpet, ...), we seek paterns and conection between events (which is good, as we can learn from it) and superstitions are false convictions that our actions effect random (or not-dependent-on-us) events (such as prayer will protect me from disease). Superstisions are found in other animals as well (for example, pigeons believed that their "dancing" influences the flow of food, which was actually controled by computer and completely unrelated to what pigeon was doing at the time). The origin of religions is a bit more complicated and includes other factors such as psychological comfort, but it is not "beyond comprehension of godless".

4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
Smile, you are on hidden camera!!!!!
No, seriously, there are scarlatans that have someone looking for your personal life to make it seem like they have "sight". That would be my first assumption. Going crazy the second. Considering supernatural effects just isn't my thing. Well maybe if everything else fails, but "supernatural" might be "natural" and the whole mind-reading could be completely explainable.
To answer shortly: I'd be very sceptical.

5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
No. But it is no ground to make any claims.

6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
You stop feeling gilty for doubting. You start asking questions and you are not ashamed of it. I sometimes wonder whether there is a god or not, but the guilt that I felt as a Catholic asking the same question is gone. You are free of prepositions that religion requires.

7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
Starting at true premises... I guess. Or at least I try to do that, I don't know, and probably wouldn't be able to tell it I didn't.

8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
Where I live, hardly anyone believes that any of the Old Testament is literal (no, there is no evolution vs. Creationism thing) and even New Testament is not believed by all Christians to be a trustworthy historical report.
So when we debate (if we do - religion is thought to be intimate thing in my country), we focus on the IS THERE A GOD question and not on the Bible. We talk about physics and suffering in the world and stuf like that.

9. [If it even is] Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
Well it is not exacly a lets-go-kill-people-who-disagree-with-me-i­ssu­e, but being free of superstision is a good thing. Putting effort into things you can improve is more productive and world would be a better place if we would have to answer not to a deity, but to ourselves and other people.

10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
I don't find this a question of faith. Maybe they are or maybe they are not. I don't know. (Given the size of the Universe, I think it's quite plausible that there is life or even civilization on other planets, but like I said before, I don't know).

The problem with atheists is that they are delusional and irrational.

Atheists study some science at secondary school and then believe that they are experts and specialists on the subject based on the layman research that they did. Some might further their education in science often going down the route of biology (to study evolution) and become devout extremist Darwinists who often use evolution to attack religion.

There is no real conflict between religion and science (especially with a lot of scientists throughout history and even today being religious), the only conflict is brought on by extremist atheists brain-washed by their own dogma.

Unfortunately people like this will always exist. These extremist atheists would still be extremists even if they saw the light and became theists. This is because their mindset is inclined towards extremism which can be observed within any article discussing religion (which naturally they swarm over like flies on excrement).

It is true that there are a few religious people who deny evolution but how is that a conflict between science and religion? Evolution does not form the whole of science. Evolution is honestly quite irrelevant. Most creationists do not deny The Big Bang theory, age of the earth, paleontology and geology, laws of thermodynamics, origin of the universe and medical science. In fact, you'll find that The Bible is in agreement with science over the universe having a beginning.

Myself? I am skeptical of evolution but not due to religion. If evolution is true then it's not the current model. The atheist sadly doesn't realize that science is always changing and old theories are replaced or updated. I do not deny speciation (a part of evolution) but I don't believe natural selection is accurate especially when speciation and the Mendelian laws of Inheritance explain the variation of species better. In general I have an open minded view of evolution and have not rejected it. Unlike Darwin's lapdogs however, I am among the many scientists in agreement that the current evolutionary theory needs revising.

So outside of the whole evolution vs creationism debate there is no real conflict between religion and science. Need I reference the fact that many great scientists of today like Francis Collins (head of the human genome project), Raymond Vahan Damadian, Freeman Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, John Polkinghorne (also a priest), John T. Houghton, Christopher Isham, John Lennox (who are just a few) are all Christians and award winning scientists, some of who have won Nobel prizes for their contributions? Need I reference the great scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, Louis Pasteur and William Thomson Kelvin who were all devout Christians. Some even went as far as speaking against atheism.

Recently, Professor Higgs (an atheist) branded Richard Dawkins a "fundamentalist" and even said that many physicists in his field are actually religious. Clearly the conflict between religion and science only exists in the mind of the extremist and irrational atheist.

Science has NOTHING to do with God. Science is about studying the natural world. However one can use information gained from science and combine it with logic and common sense to work out that atheism remains a delusional viewpoint. The atheist creation myth (abiogenesis) has absolutely no evidence (Miller-Urey experiment proved nothing really due to it being conducted within a lab and is now inaccurate and outdated) and the whole idea of nothingness producing something is absurd and again, it has no empirical evidence. I can understand an agnostic who says "I'll keep an open mind on God" but I don't understand the atheist who says "there is no god" and who cannot back their claims up.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. Atheists often make the claim that gods don't exist and yet have no evidence to back it up. If they want to "debunk the Biblical god" then they better start trying to debunk the irrefutable biblical fulfilled prophecies. There's a reason why Christianity remains in this age of reason with over 2 billion living followers (remember atheists, that's excluding the billions of followers who aren't alive).

Atheism remains the minority and only exists on the internet in great extent because it allows a place for the atheist to gather. As human population increases, it's only natural for small parties to grow but as atheism gains a few thousands followers, Christianity and theism gain even more.

Atheists are not scientific. If anything, they are more brainwashed than some religious people I have met.

Good day.

^ I think you raise some good points, but they are unfortunately overshadowed by incorrect assumptions. For example, I identify as an atheist and I have in fact studied more religion/systems of belief than scientific theory. I have studied scientific/medicalised discourse in depth and critique it in my Masters thesis (first class honours, yo). So I have done this study on my own, and at university, within a field of study that privileges scientific enquiry (psychology).

The conflict between science and religion is, arguably, rooted in the extremes from both sides. Many religious I have spoken with are unwilling to concede the smallest of scientific points that question their belief system, yet will use science to their benefit (ie medicine, technology etc). When we consider Western history, it was the Church that persecuted and indeed executed scientists and philosophers that suggested that the earth revolved around the sun. These ideas weren't even necessarily presented by atheists. They were presented by people who believed in the same god as the church, but had discovered, through scientific enquiry, that observable, physical evidence contradicted the bible. So you can see how tension is created through the religious side not willing to admit the flaws in their dominant text. Scientific enquiry corrects itself, moves forward, seeks verification. Religion is more static and based on faith. I also think that religion and science are compatible, if religion acknowledges its own biases, as it demands of science, and as science demands of itself.

In my experience, not many Christians believe in evolution, and if they do, they qualify it in various ways. link in the Christianity spot that shows that the majority (just) of the people who frequent the spot do not believe in evolution. As you can see in the comments, many people who picked "yes" qualify their response by re-framing evolution in biblical or christian terms. I don't have any probelm with that, by the way. People explain things in ways that make them feel comfortable. But there are still a majority christians there who deny evolution, which is at odds with your claim that "a few" still do.

"Most creationists do not deny The Big Bang theory, age of the earth, paleontology and geology, laws of thermodynamics, origin of the universe and medical science."
- Again, in my experience, all creationists DO deny these things, except medical science, probably because medical science serves them and serves them well. This is the part that has always annoyed me: if you deny the scientific methodologies that give you life-saving medical science, how can you deny scientific theories such as evolution which use the exact same process? This is another source of scientific/religious conflict, in my opinion.
Like I said, this is in my experience. If you look around the Christianity spot here on Fanpop you will see A LOT of videos/articles/forums/questions/polls/ima­ges about how evolution is wrong. I don't know what statistics you are basing all your claims off of, but I'm assuming you are talking about your own experiences of who you have been talking to?

One of your most seriously flawed assumptions is that atheists are invested in science, and in particular, evolution. I am an atheist and I am just as skeptical of science as I am of religion. I trust scientfici enquiry more than religion because science shows me how it came to the conclusions that it comes to. I can see how hypothesis moves through methodology through results through conclusions. I don't necessarily argee with it, but it is all laid out there for anyone to see and replicate. It links to previous, current and future knowledges. The christian religion (I use this religion as my example because I live in the Western world and have significantly more direct experience with this religion, its doctrine and its followers), however, tells me that a god (an extraordinary claim, by definition) wrote a book through some men once upon a time and it describes improbable and impossible events and should be used as a moral code, despite its numerous and varying translations, revisions and interpretation, not to mention its enouragement of heinous crimes, literal or figurative, against people and animals. What religion requires from me is faith: faith that the text is representative of god, faith that the aforementioned god exists. Science shows me its processes in order to convince me of its worth, of its closeness to truth. I don't need to participate in a significant leap of faith in an extraordinary untestable claim in order to review the content of scientific theory.

I have never heard a scientist, in any field, claim that evolution is not in need of constant revising. That is what science does: it continually updates knowledge. Perhaps you aren't moving through or reading through the right scientific circles if there are scientists around you who believe that we've found out all we can about evolution.

I too dislike the bulk of what Richard Dawkins says and how he says it. He is not representative of me as an atheist and I despise the fanatic movement that he has inspired and seems to revel in.

"Clearly the conflict between religion and science only exists in the mind of the extremist and irrational atheist."
- This is just factually incorrect. The conflict comes from both sides. If the religious agreed with scientific theories there wouldn't be any conflict between the two camps.


"Science has NOTHING to do with God."
- We agree on this.

"The atheist creation myth (abiogenesis) has absolutely no evidence."
- We do not agree on this because this is not my creation myth/theory. It isn't an atheist creation theory. It is a scientific theory. As you stated yourself, science has nothing to do with any gods.

"the whole idea of nothingness producing something is absurd and again, it has no empirical evidence."
- I have never, EVER met an atheist, scientist or otherwise, who claims that the universe was created from nothing. I would suspect that if you have genuinely heard an atheist say that then you have misunderstood them, or they also adhere to some other belief system that led them to that belief. Atheism is the denial of the existence of gods, NOT the claim that the universe came from nothing, NOT the claim that evolution is the absolute truth, NOT the claim that science is infallible and NOT the claim that religion and science can't mix.

"The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. Atheists often make the claim that gods don't exist and yet have no evidence to back it up.
- The atheist denial of gods CANNOT exist without the original claim that gods exist. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim and the original claim is that the gods exist.

"If they want to "debunk the Biblical god" then they better start trying to debunk the irrefutable biblical fulfilled prophecies."
- The thing is, scientists and philosophers have debunked the content of the bible. People have been doing that, on a daily basis, for hundreds of years. Christians, as a group, have not accepted the bulk of these challenges. Challenges like the rotation of the earth were only eventually accepted over hundreds of years due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that acculumated. I like to believe that in hundreds of years, the bulk of the challenges to the bible will have taken hold in much the same way. Unfortunately it remains easier and more comfortable for a large and loud group of people to accept the stories of the bible that promise cultural superiority in this life, and eternal life after death, than it is to consider the possiblity that such ego-satisfying stories might not be true. I have often been asked what I think happens when we die and my answer is that I don't know, but replacing the truth (that I don't know) with a comforting lie, however widespread, is something I cannot so intellectually. Just because many people can deny the truth (that they don't know) and substitute in biblical explanations doesn't mean that their 'truth substitutes' are factually correct and it certainly doesn't mean that they will accept or even acknowledge any challenges to those 'truth substitutes.'

If you believe in the christian god and only the christian god, are you required to prove that the other millions of gods and goddesses do not exist in order for you to legitmately practice your beliefs and religiously honest? Technically, I would only have to disprove one more god than the average christian. If you believe that I have the burden of proof, then you also have the burden of proof. Seems as though religion as a burden to us all (*self-high-five for obvious word-play*).
The easiest way to prove an atheist wrong is to prove that any given god exists. As the great and wise link taught me, religion is about faith and the focus of that faith, by definition, does not require proof, otherwise it isn't faith anymore.
But I'll play along. If any atheist were to accept the burden of proof, how would they prove that no gods exist? How do we decide what is proof and what isn't? I've had christians literally tell me that kittens and rainbows are proof of the christian god. Christians often tell me that the bible is proof of god. To me, kittens are proof that cats have baby cats, rainbows can be explained with light and rain and eyes and the bible is conclusive evidence for the existence of... well, the bible, much like Harry Potter books are evidence of Harry Potter books. So how do we decide what counts as proof? How do we, as a human race, decide what can and can't be used as evidence for or against the existence of god?

link might help your understanding of atheism. For example, if I claim that I do not believe any gods exist, all I am required to prove is that I do not believe in gods. I don't walk around saying "I don't believe in gods" to random people, but the religious regularly (just last week I had some christians at my door claiming to know the existence of their god) and repeatedly make the claim that their dieties exist. Why would you think the burden of proof falls at my feet? I claim that the god that you claim exists does not exist. The burden is yours to prove that it does, as your claim inspired mine. Yours is the original claim. So either prove it or argue that its status as faith (not factual knowledge). Requiring me to prove my claim against your claim when you haven't proven your claim to start with is absurd and another great demonstration as to why science and religion tend to lock horns.

"Atheism remains the minority and only exists on the internet in great extent because it allows a place for the atheist to gather. As human population increases, it's only natural for small parties to grow but as atheism gains a few thousands followers, Christianity and theism gain even more."
- This entire paragraph is false. Firstly, while in many places atheism is the minority, my first experiences with atheism were in the real world, and I am still constantly reminded of my atheism in the real world. I only in the last couple of years became involved with atheism online and still I find myself encountering situations in which my system of belief is brought up and questioned, and on some rare occasions, supported. Atheism seems like it only exists online because it is one of the few spaces in which atheists can reach out to each other when they need it or want to talk about various issues. If you look around this club in particular, you'll see this is a very international club. We come from all over the world to discuss what atheism means to us. We don't have much of a reason to congregate like the religious do. We don't have a doctrine to read and re-read, we don't have any unifying ideas except for the denial of the existence of dieties that other religions claim. We all believe in vastly different things. We believe in vastly different ways to participate in atheism and religious debate. We can do that with our friends, no matter what religion or belief system. So yeah, the internet allows us a place to gather our different beliefs and ideas, but we have and share those same beliefs out in the real world (well, not all of us. Sadly, for some of us it is unsafe, emotionally and physically, to 'come out' as an atheist ie religious persecution.).
Secondly, there is a hell (ha ha) of a lot of data demonstrating that atheism/irreligion is on the rise, regardless of population increases. There is also a lot of data, particularly from churches themselves, demonstrating that church participation, belief in god and adherence to religion has decreased alongside the 'rise' of atheism. So it is incorrect that religion is gaining followers alongside atheism. You can Google those stats, there are so damn many of them I'm not going to search them all for you.


"Atheists are not scientific. If anything, they are more brainwashed than some religious people I have met."
- Your first sentence here is correct. Atheism isn't science. Atheism does not claim to be science. Some atheists choose to explain their experience of the world in scientific terms, but atheism =/= science, nor does it claim to be science.
As for you second sentence here, I've already addressed how ignorant that statement is because the assumption it is based upon is faulty. I have no doubt that brainwashing is something that can happen to pretty much anyone, religious or not, in some form or another. But I'm afraid that if you genuinely belief the bulk of what you have said here, perhaps you have fallen prey to some scrubbing of your own brain...

1 uh, i guess im more of a moral relativist, but, there are certain things that i would...rather not people do, like, hurt each other or do something against another human being's will just to physically/emotionally harm them for little-no reason or for their own personal benefit. but anything that you want to do with yourself and willing partners that won't harm people that aren't involved, yeah im more or less okay with, but just because im not "okay" with it in my own community, doesn't mean im trying to say my standard for right and wrong is "right" because, how can there possibly be an ultimate right?

2 my trust in science is completely based on science, idk if any other atheists think the same

3 well, people ofcourse! i don't know the whole history, but i can tell you what i do know, which is that a bunch of scared, lonely people, living in perilous times with no technology, created a higher being God/gods, to give themselves a feeling of hope and a reason to be good i.e the rewards from god. ever wonder why the religious teachings are similar? because they came from human minds human consciences and human feelings, no wonder even Christianity has changed over time. sad but true, but now in the future, god may not be able to help us with as much anymore, infarct, in some ways he may be bringing us down, ever since the days of the famous scientists, it was Christianity that forced us to stay in the dark ages a little longer, out of fear and the possibility that their god didn't exist

4heh, well i would think that they were crazy! or, were spying on me and my family for some time, maybe they looked us up on the net idk, you can find this sort of information in places, as for the personal details...facebook, or youtube probably. I'd probably call the police (if) i was that worried. Knowing me i probably won't be, just a little amused, probably slightly worried if i had a wife and kids. you know how these psychics and magicians work! you can't always tell they're tricks, but that's all the are, tricks. you said it yourself "Is absence of proof the proof of absence?" so just because i cannot prove this person is a phoney, it doesn't mean they are not, neither does it mean they are :P

5as you probably found out in my fourth question, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence and i believe that to be not just an opinion, but a hard fact, and science has proved that, there are so many holes in modern science and there were more in the past, which gave a lot of Christians time to ridicule it and pass it off as fake until we seemed to be getting closer to logic and the Christians were the ones who looked ignorant. still though, there is no proof for the absence of god but still people chose not to acknowledge him, in the same way, people choose to worship him. if everyone lived their lives waiting on hard facts to settle their beliefs, then everyone would be agnostic am i right?

6i was forced into atheism by severe depression, i began wondering if god was even there to help me, because my life is quite screwed up right now, dk if it was worse back then, sometimes...i wish there were someone out there listening to me, someone i could go to for help because i feel all alone right now, but let me tell you what atheism has done for me, it's given me the freedom, to be the person i want to be, no longer do i have to think of myself as a sinful, worthless, jerk, i can look into the mirror and say, you are a good, kind sweet, loving person, i don't have to fight who i am just to please the standards of another being, i mean, who wants to change themselves just to subdue the wrath of some god that wants to send you to hell for every wrong breath you make? and barely even lifts a finger to help you, ha ha, so if you're alive, thank god, if you're dead you're gonna meet him....*long sigh* i believe god is good for emotional support though, especially when you think he's actually listening, but isn't that why they invented diaries and meditation? hello people XD

7um, okay, this is a hard one, lol. okay....i'd start with...i believe that god is not real and there are some reasons why i see things that way, which i will take into consideration, i would study whatever data i have about religion from an objective point of view, and (if i find any facts) i will accept them, however, how easy is it really to find a fact that will ultimately prove or disprove the existence of god? there are many facts to support the non-existence of god agreed, but none so great that they will tear religion apart as it stands, same goes the opposite way. i think at the and of the day, someone still has to make a decision, someone has to draw a conclusion, and those who choose to stay in the middle about it are most likely agnostics, however, i would much rather cut god off altogether for the sake of preventing mental conflict and confusion.

8easy, what proof do you have? there isn't any proof that the bible is sacred and transcends the carnal world, in fact, the bible in itself is carnal. it's filled with stories of sheer luck (even though god was involved some people were still luckier than others or "chosen" i should say, blood, killing, some of the chosen ones by god were rather unholy, and who can make an exception to the mass murders of men women and children that God was in charge of) to me it sounds like, man was is charge, not God. I've read the bible a lot through my life, i've been an atheist for, what's say, i year? and as for the other religions, i think most of their books are as carnal as well, no offense to anyone out there who has a religion, this is simply my opinion, and i respect anyone who chooses to believe their religion as i choose to believe what i believe.

9it's not! im not going to try to convert everyone to my belief just because other people are trying to do that to me, see, Christians are compelled to tell people about their beliefs, unlike atheists, we have no moral or spiritual reason universally why everyone should be an atheist, in the same way, all atheists aren't the same, because we are not a...well, we are not really an organization so much with symbols and buildings, we don't all follow the same rules, another atheists would say Christianity is poisoning the minds of the children! I would say, i've believed in other things before and i expected people to respect my beliefs as i do now, and until i know what is "right" i will not force judgement upon other people because of their religion, because, what is truth? really

10i believe it's very probably, the universe is so wide, whether or not we're ever going to have to technology to fine them, i don't know XD we may have to travel to another galaxy. if there aren't any ext-terrestrials, well, then you might see me in a church again ^ ^

I just wanna answer question 10...yes. The universe is constantly expanding and there are so many planets out there, there's gotta be at least some type of ET bacteria or whatever :)

1. Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?
I believe that as a culture builds up, its own rules build up, and thereby its morality. I think everyone looks at things differently, and what seems right for one person may not seem very right to another, so it may be, so no, I don't think there is an absolute true moral assessment at all.

2. Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Science.

3. Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?
People's brains.

4. Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, dicuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?
He either stalked me for a long time, or he happens to be a very good psychologist.

5. Is absence of proof the proof of absence?
The absence of anything is proof of absence, because absence is there.

6. What does the atheist position offer people? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives?
Not praying or devoting your life to a fictional character/fictional characters, mainly. It opens your mind and makes you feel free of the pathetic "rules" that religion puts up on you. It basically did that to me, and it was a huge relief when I stopped believing in a God.

7. When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true? Think about #5 when you answer.
Atheists don't usually say "God is not real" because most of us know that you can't say something you have no proof of. We do not have a proof that God exists, and we do not have proof that he doesn't, but we don't believe that he does. The rest of my answer is basically like misanthope86's.

8. If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?
Then the people that wrote it had a very big imagination.

9. [If it even is] Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?
People will stop being dicks about their religion, the world would be at least a bit of a better place than it is now, women would maybe be less oppressed, there may be less homophobes in the world, and people won't die for leaving any religion. These are just a few things I came up with on the spot.

10. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?
I don't blindly believe in anything, but I do think that there is a big chance there are ETs out there. I don't think they seem as they portray them in the movies, though. Our universe is enormous, and I doubt our tiny little earth is the only thing that contains life.