No it's incredibly easy because, as I stated in the "Should the religious debate section only be for religious people?" debate, religion requires faith. That is the belief in something regardless of the lack of proof. Atheists, by and large, are skeptics who want proof; they refuse to accept a concept without supporting evidence. Thus: "I believe in God because the Bible says He exists" doesn't fly with skeptics because there's no reason to assume that the Bible is accurate. The fact that there is a greater number of atheists than theists is further support for this. Debate is an art that is reliant on logical and rational thought. By definition faith is both illogical and irrational and therefore cannot win in a logical debate. This is a fact, and I must stress that, one's faith in a god (or set of gods) cannot be explained logically.

lol, yeah, I said that, and I meant it, it really is fun.

But I don't actually think we're a majority on this site.

And we certainly are not a majority in the world at large, link.

Christians take the lion share, at a whopping 33% of everyone, followed by Islam at 21%, then "non religious" comes in at 16%, Hinduism is at 14%, then a bunch of other stuff with 6 or less percent.

As Pvt said, it's nearly impossible to win a religious arguement because there just is no proof of any of it.

But I'm curious, where is there an example of two atheists argueing about the existance of god?

The only arguement I can think of is why god doesn't exist, like one person says "there's too much evil, I'm sad" and another, "there's no proof, etc."

In which case, person one would probably lose, because like the religious, they are basing their arguement on unmeasurable, and subjective feelings.

I wonder which atheist on this site you could be referring to....hmmm. Since you're probably attacking me I guess I should respond.

Are you saying an atheist can't argue objectively which religious philosophy is the best? Obviously we don't believe in the supernatural stuff, but certainly one can take lessons from some of the great religious texts. The advantage of disbelief is that you can look objectively to see what parts of each of these books you think are good lessons, and which aren't.

For example, when the Bible says "homosexuality is an abomination" (or something like that), I can see that that's ridiculous because it has no reasoning behind it, and doesn't make sense. The same with touching pigskin (also in the Bible). I know I'm not being immoral by tossing a football.

On the other hand, some of the values taught are useful. For example in the Mahabharata, the hindu epic, the Yudhishthira argues that one must stick to ones ideals in both good times and difficult times, because otherwise our ideals are meaningless. This is a great part of the story because the opposite side is argued by another character, and he makes his points through rational thought.

Thomas Jefferson thought like this, and in fact went through the Bible and cut out the parts that he didn't like. That version is sitting n congress today.

As for the intelligent design thing, I already made my point in another debate so I won't repeat myself, however, let me say this: it is not just atheists opposed to ID. In fact many school science teachers who are Christian oppose the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom because intelligent design is not science.

But if you would like to call all atheists bigots because it makes you feel better about your own beliefs, please don't let reality get in the way of your world view.