@WadCheber You say "This was a bizarre tangential conversation that came out of an offhand remark" and you are correct. But why did this conversation happen? No need to answer - I am confident you will it was coincidence, I decided to humor a guy, etc. And you could well be right. However, just something to think about: atheists often say they would believe in God if he called them personally/gave a sign/etc. To a Christian, this whole conversation is such a sign.

We believe God works almost exclusively through human interactions. And such "chance encounters" are how many people became believers, or more accurately started down the path towards belief. (I.E. the conversation didn't prompt belief, but did get them thinking.)

That's not proof of anything, obviously. Again, no need to reply - I don't want to argue with you or bother you further - I just ask you consider the possibility that this conversation did mean something and be open to possibility of further "clues" in the future.

@ThaddeusB That ship has sailed. I already did the Christianity thing. I was immersed in it for the first part of my life. That's why I'm an atheist now.

In my opinion, God, if he exists, should pay more attention to stopping murders and rapes, and less attention to what I believe or don't believe. I'm not hurting anyone. Rapists and murderers are.

@WadCheber I assure you that you haven't caused me any offense. Have a good evening.

@WadCheber What type of Christianity were you immersed in?

@WadCheber Not all Christians think that what you believe is the most important thing in life.

@ThaddeusB That's ludicrous! The simple and logical explanation is that Christians regularly engage in proselytization at their own volition.

@ThaddeusB The issue that people take is that an omnipotent god that wants to have a relationship with people has any means necessary at his disposal, yet chooses to use the method you describe. Really? That makes very little sense.

And here, the common reply is that you would reject him anyway. I find that argument unconvincing and offensive.

It's unconvincing because it shows that God apparently won't even try, so that he cannot be blamed. But here we are blaming him for choosing such shoddy methods of communication.

It's offensive because it paints a picture of people who've reached this conclusion as asininely obstinate.

I consider myself neither asinine nor obstinate, so I do believe that there are methods yet to be employed that would convince me of the Christian God's existence.

@WadCheber I've been saying stuff like that in these rooms for a while. You won't offend the others here who are believers.

@LeeWoofenden You missed the point. There's still rape and murder and plenty of it. What any of us believe or think must be done to go to heaven or fulfill our purpose or whatever is irrelevant to this fact.

@fredsbend Not if what must be done to get to heaven is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we actually practice that, we will "pay more attention to stopping murders and rapes, and less attention to what I believe or don't believe." @WadCheber also.

Protestant belief (in faith alone) is useless and not saving precisely because it denies what actually has to be done to get to heaven, as taught by Jesus Christ himself. And that is one of the key reasons so many former fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have become atheists.

I take up the whole issue of a loving God vs. evil and suffering vs. our job here on earth in this article: If God is Love, Why all the Pain and Suffering?