Like Zlinq said, it seems unjust to let someone have a disability that they cannot control whether or not to have it. Zlinq basically already said everything I agree with besides the part about homosexuality. I believe it is a choice people make, but that's just my opinion. I would type much more but I'm running out of time so I'll just leave this post at that.

Sword legion :  "If God knows everything you are going to do, before you do it, then that means you were going to do what you were going to do before you were even born. You can't have free will then, everything you were going to do was preregistered. It's impossible for us to be held accountable...

God ordains future events in such a way that our freedom and the working of secondary causes, for example laws of nature, are preserved.  Theologians call his "concurrence".  God's sovereign will flows simultaneously with our free choices in such a way that our free choices always result in the carrying out of God's will.  By "free" it is meant that our choices are not controlled by outside influences.  It is a complex interaction of wills and choices, but God the Creator can handle any amount of complexity.

Also, if by "free will" you mean that God gives us the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then yes, we do have free will.  Like I have already mentioned - God created us with the ability to choose.  However, free will does not mean that we can do anything that we please.  Example - There's a puddle in the road.  You have the choice to jump over it, walk through it or around it.  What you may not choose is to fly over the puddle (superman style - don't cheat and use a chopper ).  Your nature prevents you from flying.  In the same way a man cannot choose to make himself righteous.  Your (sin) nature prevents you from cancelling your guilt.  So free will is limited by nature.  Now this limitation does not lessen the gravity of your accountability.  The Bible is very clear that we not only have the ability to choose, we also have the responsibility to choose wisely.  In the Old Testament God chose a nation (Israel), but individuals within the nation still had an obligation to choose obedience to God and individuals outside of Israel were able to choose to believe and follow God as well.  The story of Ruth comes to mind.  In the New Testament, sinners are commanded over and over to "repent" and "believe" (Matthew 3:2;  1John 3:23).  Every call to repent is a call to choose.  The command to believe assumes that the hearer can choose to obey the command.  
Jesus identified the problem of some unbelievers when He told them, "You refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:40).  They could have come if they wanted to, but their problem was they chose not to.  "A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians 6:7) and those who are outside of salvation (the act of God's grace in delivering his people from bondage to sin and condemnation) are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20 - 21).

So how can you and me that is limited by nature ever choose what is good?  It is only through the grace and power of God that free will truly becomes "free" in the sense of being able to choose salvation (John 15:16).  It is God's Spirit who works in and through a person's will to regenerate that person (John 1:12-13) and give him / her a new "nature", "created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (Ephesians 4:24).  Salvation is God's work.  At the same time, your motives, desires and actions are voluntary and you / we are rightly held responsible for them.

So to lay it down simply, I do not believe in a god simply because it seems illogical to me.
I am also an Atheist who has grown into a christian family and it is still hard to this day for them to accept it.

The main points I bring are as follows: 

If the bible is the true word of god, there is no evidence of it. The bible contradicts itself many times, saying that rape, genocide and shunning of people are all okay things.
Then christians will ask what gives Atheists morals if they do not believe in a god?
The answer to that is the mere fact that I have humanity withing me. I can become emotionally attatched and learn to do the right things because our brains are made to feel empathy. It is all nature and evolution.

Also I agree with your points on disabilities. There is just too much evidence against the bible and all gods & religions for me to say I believe in anything other than nature. But those are just my opinions. One quote I love to live by is-

Christians have something to die for, but Atheists have everything to live for.

cylonbait :  "If the bible is the true word of god, there is no evidence of it."

The bible contradicts itself many times...

Bold claims about Christianity and the Bible.  Can you back these up?.  I'm asking sincerely - Is this something you genuinely researched and found out yourself or did you get this from an Atheist website?

"Christians have something to die for, but Atheists have everything to live for."

This is so true, but do you truly understand it?

SoL@R : Yes, I can back them all up. I have been researching for four years. First off, the bible states that earth is only 6,000 years old. Due to this, that would mean humans only appeared 1000 years after earth fully formed. This is highly illogical because in the span of 1000 years, the earth would have to have been formed from molten rock and asteroids clashing and cooling and hardening. Then humans would have to have just been "placed" upon the planet by God. I find it highly more likely that the earth evolved over hundreds of billions of years at least. It takes 24 years for a human man to fully mature. I doubt it took the earth only 1000 years to form into a habitable planet.

On top of this, The bible says many things about how rape is okay as long as you stay with the woman and raise the child if you conceive, the bible tells Christians to love all people as god does, yet they shun all of the LGBT community, Other religions, and non believers etc.

I mainly find fault in the bible and catholicism, more than christianity or simple belief in deities. Islam, Catholisism, all the extreme religions I really find to be the main cause of war and violence. People not agreeing with opinions, forcing their own down others throats, all examples of how religion causes problems. Did you know that Greenland has a primarily Atheist population and they have one of the the lowest crime rates and violence worldwide? That isn't SOLID evidence but it is pretty strong.

People with simple beliefs don't usually cause issues as I have personally witnessed at least. Even so, my best friend is Roman Catholic, and I am Atheist yet we have never fought once. We accept our differences just as the world should. It is truly sad to see people kill each other over the belief of a giant supernatural god in the sky.

And yes I understand the quote. It basically means that While christians and other religions live for their god/deities, Atheists take every moment on earth as a gift to cherish because we believe that when we die we will no longer exist.

There is one valid reason for atheism, and it is simply this: " I do not find any evidence of a God."

Any other reason is rubbish. And honestly, there is so much evidence it's ridiculous.

However, there are plenty of reasons not to believe in God. Maybe you think God is actually an enemy to humanity or liberty or whatever. Or that no think deserves to be worshipped. Or something else. Those are better reasons not to believe, but no one in their right mind can deny the existence of God.

Txgangsta : Do you know the difference between evidence and speculation? There were records of a man named Mohammed who lived in the city of Mesa, and was praised as a religious figure. That is evidence. Now let's say he preached about Allah, which he did, that isn't evidence that Allah existed just because Mohammed existed. His word is based on his credibility. EVIDENCE of a god is when god physically proves his existence by either appearing in a human form, or at least showing the majority of humanity he is here. That is why it is called a BELIEF. If god proved he was real, there would be no reason to be atheist or agnostic other than personal agenda. That is why people nowadays are becoming questionable of the whole "godly" concept, because a miracle has not happened since the days of "Jesus." And I don't mean miracles as in a family survived a tornado, I mean a miracle as in a man splitting an entire sea with the power of god to allow eqyptians to pass through safely. The seven plagues of eqypt, the burning bush, etc. 

No one should be ashamed of their beliefs be they theistic or non-theistic. Though there's a certain aspect that can make both sides seem to be absolute a**holes and that is intolerance. I mean it is so stupid to fight for ages about entities that may or may not exist. Personally, I see no point in even caring about such things, and if God exists then good for religion if not good for irreligion. Course either way one side is going to rub the opposing side's nose in it.

Supergamer : I agree. In the end I will always believe what I wish, however it is quite irritating that certain religions primarily try to convert other religions or atheists such as myself. If I choose to believe there is no higher power, then leave me be. I know they are simply practicing their religion but some do it just to make people convert. I don't usually try to convert people to atheism unless they are truly mislead and unintelligent to where their arguments make no sense. At this day and age, everybody is stubborn, myself included as nice as I can be. Everyone wants the last word and won't be satisfied with realizing they can't win an argument. So yea I agree. The subject is stupid. It is no doubt that religion causes more war than anything else.

cylonbait : I usually blame at humanity's own arrogance instead of religion when it comes to war as religion is a concept made by humans.

cylonbait :

I mean there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the existence of God as you read this post on your computer screen. I do not claim that the bible is proof in and of itself.

Txgangsta : There is no evidence that a supernatural being in the sky or heaven exists. If there is, then bring me proof.

cylonbait :

Define "evidence", "supernatural being", "sky or heaven", and "proof."

What you'll notice is that you're making a ridiculous demand. You mean this: "Bring me physical, demonstrable knowledge of a thing that isn't physical or demonstrable from a place that isn't physical or demonstrable." It's like asking to prove that 2+2=4, when all I can show you is that 2 apples and 2 apples make 4 apples. I can't give you a magical free-floaing '2' to play with.

You should have better qualifications for what counts as evidence. There isn't physical, demonstrable knowledge of evolution, yet I'm sure we both believe that.

Txgangsta : My point exactly. God is a belief, not a physical being. Therefore by the laws of science God is unable to be proven to exist. Evidence by definition requires 'physical or demonstrable proof' so that basically means you cannot prove God in any other way than making someone believe that he exists through other means.

God is a belief as I stated, and if God truly influenced everyone and everything, there would be no debate on whether he existed. We would merely fight over what version of God they believe in as opposed to others. 

You said there is evidence everywhere that God exists?
I grew up in a christian/catholic household and was raised to be a religious person. But never in my 18 years of living have I ever witnessed God in a physical or spiritual form. I tried, I always prayed, I rarely sinned and if I did I always repented, but I realized it was all pointless because my family situation never improved, I never got more strength to deal with an alcoholic father or a mentally damaged mother, no matter how much I tried. 

I never felt God in my life, and I never see him anywhere else. He does not exist to me. I believe there is no God.
No amount of faith in the world can change my mind at this point. 

I am a happy person now that I let go of a false hope and I am now focused on me and my friends. Nothing more.

I don't debate to prove I am right, I debate to prove the truth. There is NO physical or 'demonstrable' evidence that God exists. Maybe you have seen him yourself, if so, cool. But honestly, science disproves all religions so easily that it is hard for me to believe in anything now.

Also, people always try to convince others to believe or else they are going to hell. That is false faith because they will only believe in God to protect themselves from "hell"

Others say that God speaks to them, but why them and not others? If God wanted best for us, he would talk to everyone to assure he is real I assume. If not, he obviously does not want everyone to know he exists. 

God is a foreign concept to the scientific world. 
I believe when you die, you go back to the dark nothingness that you started from before birth. I do not want to worship a non-existing being my whole life just to get a shot at a "Heaven" that is filled with worship. It is futile to me. 

cylonbait : Science cannot prove logic or mathematics. Are they both false?

God is not a belief, God is believed in. The claim of an atheist is that theists' belief is vacuous. The atheist claim is that there is no God, not that God is a belief. If God is just a belief, then he exists without debate. I believe in God, therefore atheism is wrong. That's not the debate though. The debate is whether there is an entity that comes anywhere close to deserving the title "God".

God is not physical. If you did get more strength to deal with your alcoholic father, it wouldn't have been evident it was from God. If an angel came to you in a dream, it could easily just be written off as a dream and not a real thing. The evidence you want from God isn't even concrete. In fact, I'll say that claims of "magical strength" or "answered prayers" are usually coincidence, and not divine interaction. People often see what they want to see.

Yet, there is still a God. The atheistic position is only "there is no physical data". But that is narrow minded bullcorn. That's like saying you must prove red exists while only using blue crayons. The debate is broader than science. This is a philosophical issue, not a scientific issue. If you keep inside a scientific bubble, then sure, your atheism can go "unchallenged". However, you beg the question "why stay in the scientific bubble?" And science can't answer that. Philosophy answers that. Read William James and John Dewey. These are philosophers that argue that science is the only means of acquiring truth.

To cover all of your post, let me add a bit of comment to your off topic stuff.

God is not a genie in a bottle. God does not damn people to hell (because we're good enough at doing that on our own). Knowledge does not grant salvation. Belief is not a contract for heaven.

Txgangsta : You seem to have good points and then you contradict yourself.

"God is believed in" - that is practically the definition of a belief dude.

I don't have time to sit here and defend my side all night with a long post so i'll make this short.

Outside the scientific bubble God is no where to be found besides in some peoples minds. If God did exist, who's to say your version of him is the right one? Why are there 1000's of different religions still alive today? Because people have believed in different things throughout the ages. Gods and deities were a thing made up by humans to describe the non-describable. Only a human of imperfection could worship a God of perfection, because people like you want to see a light at the end of the tunnel. You want to believe that no matter how perfect you are, you are always yearning to be a good person for your God, to prove that you are willing to try even though your imperfections are permanent.

And yes stepping aside from my previous analogies, I know God isn't a physical being, I know that there is no way to prove he exists by science. But here's the breaking point buddy, this thing you call a "scientific bubble" is as big as the universe. Everything in science is observable. If it isn't observable it doesn't exist. Take radio waves for example. We have over many years manipulated radio waves (a non physical thing mind you) and now we can listen to stations of radio frequencies on our way to work. That is non physicial but it is surely observable. Even paranormal events are studied by science. Gamma waves, micro particles, bacteria. We can literally explain how humans have EVOLVED because of scientific study. It isn't a bubble, science is the only thing, because any form of proof is scientific. You don't have to be a scientist, you could be average joe. If you can prove that a can of dogfood exists by holding it, smelling it, seeing it, then you can prove it exists. That is basic science.

So after we can observe everything that is presented to us, we have not come across anything unexplainable by scientific study.

God is a primitive concept, and is only something people believe in because they were raised into it or because they are interested in the concept. There never was, and is not proof of a being that governs the universe. Even if he did exist, there is no way to prove it. Therefore I have every right to say that I do not believe in him. You have every right to believe in him.

But you can not prove him to anyone so therefore this argument is completely invalid.

cylonbait :

I'll say it really bluntly, then elaborate: the understanding the universe relies on things that are outside the universe.

For example, I know that I have 5 fingers on my hand. But what is "5"? Is "5" a thing in the universe? If it is (and you must argue that it is), what does a "5" atom look like?

The same example can be used for all quantity, quality, relations, order, goodness, existence,logic, etc.

It is by using the necessary external things that prove God's existence. We must say that there is an immaterial world existing with our material world. All else is absurdity.

Here is how to get to the really good arguments for the existence of God. Does logic exist? If it doesn't, then I can just say "that means it does" because logic no longer matters. If you say it does (which is the only logical response) then, so long as I produce a sound logical argument, the conclusion must be true. Agreed? If so, you must say that empirical data isn't always necessary for proof so long as the logic is sound. Or, conversely, do you sacrifice logic for the sake of empiricism, making empiricism illogical by definition?

Txgangsta : The whole "5" argument made no sense. 5 is a count of fingers. I can't wonder how many fingers I have if I look down and see 5 fingers on each hand, (actually four and a thumb)

As for the "Logic" argument, that made no sense. The only world we can see and interact with is the physical plane. To say that god exists, you have to acknowledge that he does not show himself in any way shape or form other than in your own head. Unless you are someone who thinks everything in nature is god's doing, then in that case there is no convincing otherwise.

External things as you called them, don't exist if they cannot be proven. If you cannot interact with it in any way shape or form, it does not exist. therefor ONCE AGAIN, God does not exist.

Logic can prove a lot of things. I find it highly ILLOGICAL that a deity exists in any way, shape, or form.
Evolution is what I find to be logical through scientific study.

Let's toss aside my science for a second. Even from a personal perspective, I simply do not find there to be an afterlife, a deity, or any supernatural beings such as ghosts. The most illogical thing I believe in is parallel universes. I believe there is a parallel universe for every infinite possibility. The direction you sneezed the other day, how quickly your car burned through gas, how you slept last night, all the way into earth not existing. I believe that there is an intangible universe for every infinite possibility. But with that comes a God somewhere along the way which is where I start to lose my belief.

So recently I have come to a better more logical conclusion. The universe is infinitely wide with infinite planets and stars and galaxies, That meaning every single possibility has to happen, and has to happen infinite times. This would entail that I have been born infinite times in infinite galaxies throughout the universe. Human life exists infinitely and all our actions have been infinitely performed. However there are infinite possibilities for every event in the universe, a God simply does not fit in. This is because where my parallel universe theory entailed that there must be a universe where a God exists, this is the same universe with infinite reocurrences of the same events.

Bottom line, my logic extends beyond scientific study in ways that are unorthodox, but a God is still a foreign and far fetched concept to me that I will not believe in until he physically or mentally proves his existence to me.

If God was real and he was as amazing as people say, there would be no debate to be had between non believing if he obviously existed. The debate would be between following him or disregarding him.

LunarDarkness2 : I may be a Christian, but I understand your points and I respect your opinion for not believe in God. Not to mention your points are pretty decent, So just do your own thing and believe what you wanna believe alright ^^

cylonbait :

I'm sorry you don't understand my arguments. I mean to emphasize that quantity is not physical. Fingers are physical, electrons are physical, apples are physical, but "5" alone is not a physical thing. However, we must include it in our understanding, otherwise we must toss physics aside entirely.

Logic, also, is not a physical thing, yet we must say it exists. If it is physical, we should be able to point at logic's location and talk about logic's atomic structure.

But I'm glad to see "my logic extends beyond scientific study" because logic is fundamental. So here's the question of this post: if logic demanded the existence of a teapot on the other side of the sun, but there was no scientific evidence or could not be scientific evidence, would you believe solely based on the logical proof?