This is what you said:

We're talking philosophy
>>>here, nobody is "wrong."

The first rule in philosophy (logical truth-value) disagrees with what you said.

>
>But seriously, you argue that if you say God exists, and I
>say God doesn't exist, then one of us must be wrong. That
>statement is simply . . . um, what's the word? . . . wrong.

that was stupid and unnecessary.

>First of all, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>"God."

Here's mine:

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

Second, neither of us has defined what we mean by
>"existence."

I think, therefore I am.

Third, neither of us has defined what we mean
>by "truth."

Exact accordance with that which is.

Is a true statement provable in principle, not
>disprovable in principle, verifiable in principle, not
>unverifiable in principle?

Nothing is provable by principle. I cannot prove to you that there is a God, but the question of God's existence is either in accordance with that which is or it is not. I believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living if there is not.

>Logic is a serious business. People shouldn't attempt to
>use it as a weapon until they are sure they can handle it.

If this was an ambiguous reference in my general direction, I do not care.

>>>The common bond among all humans is pretty clear from
>>>ordinary experience. If I see a dude on the sidewalk, walk
>>>up and crack him in the jaw, he'll crack me right back.
>>
>>Are you sure?
>
>As sure as I need to be.

So you aren't sure.

>>>It's better for all of us, including me, if I just smile and
>>>keep walking.
>>>
>>>The "common bond" among all of humanity is that we're all
>>>stuck here together. We have to cooperate, or rather, in
>>>the long run, we want to cooperate.
>>
>>So your morality is a based on your own survival?
>
>Not only that. My own happiness and well-being, those of
>the people I care about, etc.

>>I don't
>>believe you. Would you rather walk up to the dude and crack
>>him in his jaw than keep walking?
>
>Why would I? Maybe that lack of inclination bothers you.

Not really. You could be lying.

>Okay, let's not talk about cracking a dude in the jaw, let's
>talk about stealing his wallet. Sure, I might like to have
>that money in the dude's wallet, but I know it comes at a
>serious price. If I was to take the wallet, first I run the
>risk that he might notice me and retaliate. But more
>importantly, if I was to steal the man's wallet, I would be
>contributing to a society in which I do not want to live.
>If I take the man's wallet, I am inviting him, or others, to
>take mine. Or even if they don't do that, they would at
>least lose trust in me, and lock me up for their own
>protection. My fear is not that God would judge me, it's
>that society would judge me, and that I would judge myself.

And what basis would you or society judge you on?

>>I was an atheist... I know atheists are not childish.
>
>You say you don't think atheists are childish, but you also
>said that there is no reason an atheist should care if the
>world continued to exist or not. Those statements, it seems
>to me, are contradictory.

Throughout the duration of this argument, you have given me no reason to think otherwise.

>>I
>>just couldn't ever answer the "childish" question when I was
>>one.
>
>So you distrust all other atheists because you weren't
>successful at it yourself.

No. That's not what I said at all.

>But that's the thing. I'm not validating a damn thing! On
>the contrary, I'm the one saying those acts are despicable.
>Not because God told me so, just because it's clear to me.

But you stated their actions are as validated as your own previously. Are you going back on this statement?

>>Then we have no right to judge them.
>
>Why not? I'll do all the judging I want. God sure isn't
>gonna stop me.

No, He's not. It's your choice.

>>I'm not
>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>
>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>"believe" to exist.

OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.

Also, you said that your morality is based on your own survival... what is the point of survival without God?