This to me is simple.

Let me give you a situation and ask your responce. "this wil be long winded and is more for my fun but in the end it will make a point i think you will get"

 Lets say you are in a room with 4 other people, they all stand on a wall and hold phones to there ear's they take instructions from the voice that come through's the handset.  Now if you follow the handset you see that the cord of the handset is cut THERE IS NO ONE ON THE PHONE! the people you are staring at are taking orders from some one you dont belive is there and you cant prove is there...... NOW. Of these four people one walks up to you and punches you in the face and tells  you  " the man on the phone said i should do this and i do what he tells me to" and then walks away. 

The other three remaining people stare at you with distain mumble about how ugly you are and how much you suck at life and disscuss your failings and how should not be aloowed scertain rights because you wont talk on the hand sets like they are.  They dont attack you with violoence  nor do they threaten your life in any way they just make  you uncomfortable.

Do you treat them all the same? Simply because you think they all tke orders from a made up person?

Or do you speak up louder against the one that threatens  your life?

While still speaking up against the idoicy that every one in the room has a imginary friend.

Sometimes some imaginary freinds are more dangours then others.

You haven't stated the premise yet.

[snipped etymological reference as it's been handled]

All religions would have to first be represented equally in a given culture. When faith or adherence is distributed among “every” religion (there are thousands) equally, your premise will be arguable. In reality, the religions that present themselves tend to be the dominant and aggressive majorities, interjecting themselves into the public discourse, trying to steer politics toward their ends. We challenge their claims and their logic because we have a vested interest in the things in our society they hope to influence. If this were not so, I doubt many atheists would pay attention to religion. Expect criticism if your religion is:

1. Powerful.

2. Influential.

3. Aggressive.

Yeah, that's a straw-man.

There's no atheist ideology. I know that's hard for a religious person to grasp.

If you're a vegetarian, stop eating veal. If you're going to criticize something, make sure you're not begging the question and making straw-men.

Yawn.

I admit it. They just don't meet the aforementioned criteria in my country.

Redundant.

You haven't demonstrated hypocrisy in atheists.

You haven't shown that any are.

You're welcome.

I'd bet ready money that the OP is an evangelical / fundamentalist Christian, the OP can't patch the many holes this site pokes into his/her faith, and so the OP crys, "Stop picking on my side, it's not fair!"

I don't think that you can prove that God doesn't exist with 100% cetainty, therefore, you are being irrational calling yourself and atheist. Maybe you should be a little more humble and admit that you, like everyone else on this planet is trying to figure out why we are here. Whether it's by accident as atheist think or by purpose which theists think, either way, there is no way that anyone can be 100% sure of what happens to you when you die.

I assume from your use of the term "God" ( capital "G"  ) that in your mind the only god whose existence that you would consider viable is the Judeo / Christian one ?

If you claim to represent a true unbiased rational stance, are you equally open to the possibility that other gods exist ?

If not, then why not ?

You are right, I do believe in one God.  I've examined the claims of the Bible and I believe them to be true.  That being said, God says that there are no other gods beside Him. That's why I believe that not other gods exist.  Thanks for your question.

What is irrational about judging, on the evidence, that 'God' is so unlikely to exist, that we can safely ignore the possibility?

It would be extremely impractical, and therefore irrational, to go about our lives making provision for the possible truth of every theory ever proposed about the 'true' nature of reality that we can't 100% disprove. So should we try and observe the requirements of every religion, just in case?

Are you saying that in your search for spiritual truth you only examined Christianity ?  You accepted Christianity because the Bible says that being a Christian is the best choice ?  No offense, but what did you expect a book written by Christians to say ?

Consider this peculiar fact :All religions affirm their own legitimacy.

For example, do you think that Muslims believe that they are in error simply because your doctrines are in conflict with their own ?  They are so certain of their beliefs that many are willing to blow themselves up.  How's that for an affirmation of belief ? That certainty doesn't make their religious claims legitimate, does it ?

During the Viet Nam war a number of Buddhists monks set themselves on fire as a form of protest.  Pretty painful way to affirm your spiritual beliefs but no one could accuse them of not being certain..so certain that they were willing to stake there very lives upon it. Although I greatly respect their sacrifice that doesn't make their spiritual claims valid does it ?

I'm not trying to disrespect your devotion to your religion ( I myself was a Christian for more than twenty years ) but your assertions are in exactly the same category as these other religious factions.

These non-christians whose devotion to their "gods" far exceeds the level of commitment most Christians are willing to endure in no way proves their religious claims...the same can be said of Christianity, as well. 

I know my attempts to persuade you to not be taken in by religious claims will accomlish nothing.  You've made up your mind and that's that. 

I used to believe what you believe. I was taught never to question it. No options were allowed, ( even some other Christian denominations were poo-pooed. )  But that attitude is like putting your mind in a prison.

That's cool if you want to limit your perspective.  As a matter of fact it's your right to believe whatever you choose to....just as I do.

Peace !

Not this stupidity AGAIN.

Atheism means 'without theism'... an atheist does not hold to the beliefs that theists hold, qua god belief. That's it.  You don't believe in Zeus or Polytheism, I don't hold to theism. Got it?

There's no cheap rhetorical victory to be had here.... the very idea is childish. Grow up.

Excerpt from Tilberian: There is no such thing as 100% certainty, so it is certainly not irrational to call yourself anything on the basis of less than perfect certainty. However, I know that there is no God and no afterlife with the same certainty with which I know that the sun is coming up tomorrow and that I will fall if I jump off something. That's enough for me to say I know that there is no God.

My response: So I'm taking it that you don't believe in absolute truth? So there is a chance that you are wrong, even a greater chance than the existence of gravity or the functioning of our solar system. So then how can one say that Theism is irrational if you yourself admit that you are not 100% in your own belief? Further you admit that, "it is certainly not irrational to call yourself anything on the basis of less than perfect certainty." So I guss theists aren't so irrational after all...?

But back to absolute truth, tell me, when is rape ok? When is it ok to strangle your mom because she won't let you go to the movies? No those things are never ok to do, 100% of the time, and thus absolutes.