I edit your post to fit my nihilistic views and it entitles you to say all of this?
First I will address your estimation of me.
Conformity, like all arbitrary things, is not something of value, not something to be strived for or fought against. If you become familiar with internet forums of this nature, you will notice that atheism is not a rarity, and atheists do not stand out. In real life, I actually shy away from sharing my religious views (I am strong agnostic, to be specific) outside of close friends for fear of discrimination. So, in the end, I prefer conformity when it suits my purposes, dislike it when it does not.
As for my fear of death, I would not particularly call it a fear, as it is unreasonable to fear nothing. I do not wish for death, however, as it would be a sad thing indeed to miss those experiences that life brings. I am also not all that keen on being remembered, as it is far more important to be right than to be remembered for being right (or wrong for that matter). I go to bed at night not fearing anonymity or death, but trying to forget the worries of today and concentrating on the hopes for tomorrow.
As for my name, it is far a from a declaration of my actions and opinions. I had made a joke about my admiration for Huey P. Newton at work, and a guy I worked with started calling me "Mr. Fight the Power". I took a liking to it being the unassuming white male that I am.
Now to your "arguments".
I am not sure what "froofy" words I used, but it is not an attempt to make others think that I have everything figured out, as I would never profess to that (that would take a prideful individual indeed). It is quite the contrary, actually, as it is the quest for knowledge, the challenge of learning that I enjoy in life. If I were to know everything, or feel that I knew everything, it would certainly open a void that I would not be able to fill.
You accuse me of being afraid of my loneliness, but the accusation shows more of you than it does me: I relish the loneliness, I love the challenge, I live to be myself!
That you look upon life without a belief in God as a life of fear and longing speaks to the fear that you yourself are cowering from in the placebic shield of God. You truly fulfill my Neitzchean adjustment of your own words:
You have to understand, whenever a human is subjected to vast amounts of religious dogma and indoctrination that they begin to feel a sense of worthlessness, overt piety, and a general disdain for those who do face the danger of the independent life.
It is unfortunate that you bear a strong probability of fulfilling the next sentence, as well. You live through your undying and untested faith that you are correct in your beliefs (that takes a very prideful individual indeed!), but you also deny your own life as well. If you continue to live your life blindly by the dogma of religion, you will likely find yourself to have existed without ever living.
Now I did not argue for atheism, as you seem to think, rather I made an existential statement with no mention of the validity of religion or God, but apparently terrified you, nevertheless. Like I said, I am an agnostic, and feel that it is impossible to observe evidence of "God" and meaningless to make arguments for "God". I cannot resist, however, to dispell these asinine "proofs" for God's existence.
For yours, there is hardly reason to counter it, as you fail to prove that form requires a conscience to create it.
As for the step by step "Proof that God Exists":
- the denial of absolute truth does not have to be either an absolute truth or a falsehood, this is what is called a false dichotomy
- logic and math describe mental concepts, not entities, therefore they do not describe reality, but describe our interpretation of reality; it is impossible for logical and mathematical concepts to not be true, is their very definition is how concepts relate, for example 2 + 2 must be 4 because it is the definition of 4
-the laws of science are not laws, but theories, they are never accepted as absolute truth and it is acknowledged that if it was impossible for them to be proven wrong, they fail to be scientific
- morals are dependent upon the subjective individual perception of an action, it is not determined by society; it is a matter of personal preference that one says an action is wrong
- it inserts this completely superfluous "truth" (without establishing any sort of acceptance from the reader) that "Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature."
- even if it were a valid proof of the necessity governing force to be rational, it hardly provides any evidence as to what that force is
I don't want to waste more time on the other one.