I don’t really know enough about those philosophies to say I follow those or not, but I can tell you a few things. Also I would argue almost everyone has there own why of thinking.

I am atheist in the sense I lack a belief in all gods. I am agnostic in the sense I can’t prove a negative. I am “anti-theist” in the sense some gods can’t logically exist.

I feel morals come mostly from empathy then anything else.

Beliefs are not equal. A well justified belief based on evidence from multiple sources is much better then just wanting something to be true.

There is no such thing as disproof, don’t ask for it, don’t let people ask for it.

Matter in its most basic form, probably unknown, has always existed. Change is a rearrangement of these particles or units of matter.

Reality is not relative. If it was relative there would be no real world in which everything is.

I will criticize with I feel is irrational. No one gets a free pass. The only time someone might get off the hook is if I have more pressing concerns such as I’m about to be late or getting shot at.

Things like Reason, Logic, and Science are our best tools in finding a truth to something.

Supernatural = Magic, enough said.

I tend to pick and choose what works, but I'm best summed up as a metaphysical naturalist. Most of what I believe stems from science and empiricism, including my takes on morality and ethics.

No he isn't.
Do you even know what the big bang is?

Neither am I.

You got it right except for the 'in the beginning there was nothing' part.
I don't know the exact number, but there's a point in time before which we cannot speak of how the universe looked like in any meaningful way.

So what the Big Bang states, is that at the point in time from which we are able to describe the universe, there was a densely packed something, and the densely packed something rapidly expaned into the universe...

Sure, but nothing about what you said here makes the proposition that matter/energy always existed contradict the Big Bang.

I hardly see how.
But my point is that in one case, where you have "nothing" it is impossible for matter/energy to always have existed, and in the other, where you have "a super dense lump that sits idle for infinity", it is possible.

Oh?
And what dimension are you going to use to mark the point of the beginning, if space and time are beyond any means of description?

Why?

Pay attention:
There is a point in time before which we are unable to describe the universe. The laws of physics as we know them do not apply. "Stable state" is a meaningless term.

If there is a point in time before which we are unable to describe the universe, then obviously there is no way to repeat such observation, because there is no way to describe what happened at the time and before this phenomenon took place.

But, I'll humor you, yes laws of physics as we know them take a break and have a beer in the event horizon of black holes.

The t=0 is the creation event, right? You can't claim the universe has always been if there is a creation event. Entropy rolls forward. Roll it back, and you have "the beginning". Creation. Call it what you like, assign rules or names to it, but it is creation, a beginning.

Something that cannot be described is equivalent to nothing. It has no meaning, it cannot be reasoned about. It is no different than being made up.

Now, was there a point in time when the universe didn't exist? If you accept that time is part of the universe, no.

How is it obvious or in any way reasonable?
Saying the universe was created answers no questions and solves no problems, because all that does is it just moves uncertaintiy one more level - what created the universe, how did it create it, where did the creating force come from?

To me it seems you don't wish to learn anything about the universe, you already have came up with your conclusions, now you're just looking for anything to back them up, while conviniently ignoring anything that contradicts them.

It means that we have reached the limits of our current knowledge, and the pupose is to acknowledge those limits, something you seem to be uncapable of doing.

The problem is, steady state theories were set aside with the measurement of the background radiation of the universe, combined with the continued expansion of the universe. All data points to a beginning of the universe as we know it, and indicate that the universe will end. No big crunch, no restarts.

The idea that matter has always existed is called the steady state theory. It refers to the idea that time can stretch on forever in the current universe. This idea was held by both theistic and atheistic people. The discovery of the universal value for entropy discredited this theory. This is not a problem for theistic people. It has caused some furor in atheistic communities...

Wrong.
I support the idea that matter has always existed, but I think that the universe's history matches the oscillating universe theory.

So what does that make it, a steady oscillating universe?
sounds like a contradiction, but luckly, believing that matter has always existed doesn't automatically make you a believer in the steady universe theory.

Your sentence sounds like a post hoc (Or something like it), what next?
Atheist, therefore evil?
French, therefore Jacque?
Blond, therefore dumb?
Or maybe, watches star trek, therefore trekkie?

How many words do you want to stick in everyones mouths?
How many lies are you willing to tell to feel justified?
How many broad brushes are you willing to use, to paint the town red?

I am unaware of an oscillating universe theory that does not rely on a big crunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch), which is now out of favor. If you could cite another?

Thanks.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/september25/universe-925.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

Also the workings of the universe isn't an either or type of debate. We, including scientist, could all be wrong just as people in the past were wrong about the workings of the earth. There are other theories around besides the big bang/crunch that are a possibility like multi-verse.

The thing I claimed was that matter always existed then you said the big bang says otherwise. You then said something about the big crunch isn't possible with the big bang. You asked for some info supporting it so I gave it. I used multi-verse as an example.

Like I said, I am not an expert nor have I studied all the theories in depth. However I do know things are not set in stone and a cause does not mean god did it. There are a lot of theories around and here are a few: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ.html

You said, "our understanding can change, but data won't" well look at the older theories on the list. We get new data and that is way our ideas change.

And god did it isn't an assumption?

Probably something like the kind you would get if you assume Santa gives presents.

It is not my job to prove something exists when I don't think exists...

ned that goes both ways and no evidence anyone has given me for god turns out to be valid. If there was truth to it there would be evidence to the existince of it.

Most logical set? A book is evidence?

For an all loving god he sure kills a lot of people and allows a lot of suffering...

Maybe you should look at this for stuff about jesus...

But the suffering in life isn't much of a loving thing to do? Is everyone who suffers or is killed being punished? As for punishing for crimes what if god decides to make them do something? What is punishable to this all loving god? Do all these punishments fit the crime? I'm not even sure why an all loving god would create a system in which people are capable of eternal punishment. All that is according to the book which you say is his proof.