Okay, all this arguing between theists and atheists is getting on my nerves. No, I like the people of DV, so I'm not talking about anyone specifically. I'm talking about the WHOLE conflict, where it takes place in the world. So you can see where I'm coming from, I'll tell you a little about myself:

I was born and raised a Christian for about 15 years of my life. I've been a Baptists, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day Adventist, and even a Non-Denominational at some point in my life. When I was 14, I came up with this crazy idea: make a work of fiction that truly pieces together the origins of the world, God, and religion. The desire to create a fictional world based upon real-life religions got me interested in studying religion as a whole. So I started comparing religions, and saw their similarities through the lens of a Christian. Then, I started to become interested in philosophy, and started to ask myself why Christianity was the true religion, and why other religions were wrong.

But, I kept on reading about it, and saw that people brought claims against Christianity. I did not understand Atheists, nor did I believe in evolution. So, I debated with people on the internet often, and realized that evolution, in fact, did not conflict with Christianity at all. I examined it closer and saw that the half-assed arguments against Christianity were indeed half-assed and incorrect. Then, I thought that if Christianity was correct, and evolution is actually correct as well, then there was nothing stopping me from solving those big questions of life.

I would not believe something till I had evidence for it when trying to answer these questions, which eventually led me to question the value of human life itself. Life has no absolute value in itself, as we eat other organisms to survive. So, ethics failed when it came to other species, but what about humans themselves? After some serious deliberation, I came to the conclusion that human life has no absolute value in itself, and it's value exists in an abstract, relative sense within each human being. The laws of the Bible, if correct, were meant to protect human life, but I saw that it leaned more towards the protection of the faith itself in many cases as well.

I then wondered about the Flood, Creation, and God Himself. Where was the evidence? Wasn't it obvious they happened and exist? If God was real, how could Atheists exist? So I continued to think about it and concluded that Genesis was metaphorical, and that the universe could have been created 4.6 billion years ago, and that Genesis never really happened. But, that would imply that either God lied to us either way, since either the world was made with the appearance of age (a lie to physicists), or that the world was made long long ago (a lie to Christians). Still, God's "plan" seemed overrated and fraught with inconsistencies, mainly because an omniscience, omnipotent being cannot have made Adam and Eve with freewill if He knew that they would sin (omniscience), or with a brain stupid enough to be fooled by the Serpent.

Even so, the geological timescale conflicted with Genesis, as humans were not created by God but rather evolved from Homo erectus and their ancestors. But I seemed to dismiss this idea in my thinking, and rather question God's existence as a whole instead. Without evidence FOR His existence, I couldn't say yes, so I jumped to the conclusion that He didn't exist. I became an atheist, and remained as such until a few weeks ago. I thought about the "burden of proof" for theists pertaining to god(s), and then I remembered an old argument I proposed when I was a Christian. I said that it was irrational to say that god(s) don't exist without proof, but the irony was that I had done the same thing, except I assumed the existence of god(s).

So I'm thinking, hey, aren't theists AND atheists both being irrational when they claim their views are correct. Unless we have proof that god(s) do and don't exist, shouldn't we all just be agnostics and look at things in a neutral, skeptical view?

Your thoughts.