>>>>>You say you're an atheist - I'm sure you would say that you do not know everything. Would you at least admit the possibility of a God?
>>>>
>>>>Admitting the possibility of a God, no matter Its scope, (in)capacities or morality, would imply that I'd have to formulate answers to at least some of the beforementioned quests. I think that would be a tour de force that I'm not capable of. It is far easier to explain things if we dismiss the existence of a God. Do you know of a quest that can easier be answered by a believer than by an atheist?
>>>
>>>Sure. Where did we all come from.
>>>Atheist: Well, see there was this primordial soup and in a confluence of coincidence, luck, and physics, there was an explosion. And then.. and so on.
>>>
>>>Believer: It was God's doing.
>>>
>>>I still go with the Atheist answer, but almost any question is more easily answered by a believer.
>>
>>Here you got me! :)
>>
>>But... (I don't give up so quick, as you note(d)) when asking for more and more details, in the end the believer has less and less answers. I hope.
>
>No, see, that's the point. The believer always has the same basic answer. As far as I can tell, there are really only about three answers required to be learned. They can be used to answer just about any question you ask.
>
>Answer #1. It was God.
>Answer #2. Because the bible says so.
>Answer #3. God works in mysterious ways.
>
>As an atheist, you have to come up with entirely different answers for every different question.
>
>Nope, sorry Peter, for ease of answer, the believers have it all over we atheists.

That kind of depends on how you define "believer'. If it just includes fundamentalists like Howard, then you're right. But when you accept the broader definition of people who believe there is a "God", then you have to recognize that many of the leading scientists in the past century were believers. And few of them would use such simplistic answers.

Regards,