Ierre Il

Quit sniping at prosequence, he's without consequence =P
Now... to address TIO, of the TLA (forgive me my name japes, tis late at night and my mind rapidly degenerates into such folly...), One must wonder at the utility of a belief which is held because it is comfortable... Such a charge has been frequently leveled at religion, without a great deal of backing I might add, and here it is freely admitted by an atheist... but to the next point, or, in the order of your post, the previous point. In light of what you say concerning your wish to feel comfortable, can you accurately state that you understand your surroundings? An understanding for the sake of comfort is rarely understanding at all, and if you mean to say where you fit in the great scheme of things, what scheme is there, or any way of fitting at all? Surely there is no meaning, events are simply the results of, when you get right down to it, collisions of matter following certain laws. Yes, its an oversimplification, I know full well, I have considerable knowledge of various branches of physics if it matters, but it doesnt. The general gist of what I am saying stands, that there can be no "great scheme of things" if we take an entirely materialist reading of the universe. Nor, one might note, is there any value in understanding, or truth, if one can say there is such a thing, as all your understandings and beliefs are simply a certain configuration, effectively random, of neurons in a certain greyish mush. I think you put your finger on it perfectly when you use such words as coincidence and unmeaning. However, one wonders where, in such concepts, you find the idea of moral responsibility. This bouncing matter knows no morals, it is simply stuff (I cannot pass up the opportunity to use properly the word I abuse the most...). You can have no morals in the sense that our minds present them to us, as YOU are just stuff, and stuff, I might add, and indeed shall add, that is far less lasting than a lot of other stuff. You, in a shape that we would call you, cannot exist much longer than another hundred years or so, if you are exceptionally longlived. To address your final demand, the weight of evidence in such propositions usually lies on the positive. In other words, unless you justify your position beyond rebuttle, it is not accepted.
As an aside, XenuHubbard, you say that Atheism exists, because another entity possessing this attribute, namely, an atheist, exists. Now, does this necessarily and sufficiently imply that Atheism can exist independantly as a concept? I suppose that depends on whether we prescribe to Plato's theory of forms or not, but I imagine the question is rather irrelevant anyway, as thats not what either the original question, or your answer, meant...
Please forgive my flippancy and address the points I make, I have this irritating habit of letting my mind and fingers run when I'm tired. I imagine it irritates others even more than it irritates itself, and that is my only consolation...