The existence of God.

Godsands succumbs to the same error judgement as a lot of theist attacks - what constitutes as 'atheistic'. At its base and core atheism is simply non belief in god(s). That's it. There is no additional doctrine, command, ethos, principle or proposition included with being 'an atheist'. As such statements such as 'atheist believe' and their ilk are largely devoid of meaningful relationship to the terms employed. "One of my largest problems with atheism is that if there is no God, how does one know what is true and real?" Before any exposition on my side we must address the premise you purport. That belief in god is knowledge (a true claim). The same issue you purport is upon an atheist is not removed from your position simply because you have a belief in god. The exact same relativistic arguments can be applied, with the exact same intent. Namely, simply because the belief is held, what constitutes that belief as true - simply holding that belief is not enough. While your belief may detail what is *supposed* to be true *in context of* that belief, it does not however support that such additions are true (i.e it begs the question). On the atheist side the retort is simple. It has nothing to do with atheism at all. I/you may use logic as foundational or not. I/you may use empirics as foundational as not. I/you may be a Cartesian dualist or not. I/you may be follow some hybrid of positions and so on it goes. Simply, 'what is atheistic' is this regards is a nonsensical question since atheism does not address it. I am happy to provide a model where 'knowledge = true, and is knowable', however that is not an atheistic claim, though I as an atheist may regard it as true. As such my model is not 'the atheists model' nor is any model as such. "Because their foundational belief is that there is no God" Incorrect. Atheism is a conclusion. "believing in God does not and cannot modify anything to make it's self a fact, for the belief in God or in no God requires a will to accept what already is has a meaning for you or for God." Incorrect. It's called confirmation bias, i.e. your belief may predispose your analysis of an event in a certain direction (e.g. prayer works). "Hitler" What? "Music volume" Perceptions are relative by definition, yes. "How do you know what good and evil is without the notion of God?" There are many moral systems. Good and bad are defined within those moral systems themselves. A moral system only needs god as an arbitrator of good and evil if it posits god *as* the arbitrator of what is good and evil. Otherwise there is no internal inconsistency of a non god required moral system and the notion of good/evil (moral and good are synonyms after all). "And by believing that you are the decider of what is good and what is evil, given the situation would simply wipe out all your arguments against God, not including God at all is different to refuting God's existence." Atheism =/= moral relativism. A moral relativist may be atheist, sure as is some modern interpretations of Christianity. That's not the same thing though. The notion of 'evil' under subjectivism is not self refuting anyway, it simply has no standard outside the subject - which doesn't make it incoherent, just not universal. Do non god based objective moral systems exist? Yes. Is your moral system arguably subjective? Yup. "To refute God, you must first acknowledge what God is, otherwise you don't fully understand what you are refuting. You might say, "I don't believe in anything objective, only subjective."" To refute a concept of god requires a definition of god. 'God doesn't exist' is an empty statement devoid of conceptual meaning. "you believe that God does not exist which is objective" Objective in metaphysics means independent; epistemologically, that knowledge is meaningful in relation to reality. Again, what any one atheists epistemological stance is, it is not 'atheistic'. "So by refuting morality totally as an objective truth rather than subjective truth will only lead you to have no other choice but to completely strip you from your faith in atheism. That is because if there is no God, we do not know good from evil, not because there is no God but we still can know good from evil subjectively." 1. God is only source of good and evil 2. Atheists claim to know good and evil 3. Atheists must believe in God. Complete non sequitur I'm afraid. === Godsands, despite his opening spiel has not set about to show 'that God exists and that God created the universe' at all. All that has been presented is epistemological/ethical concerns over relativism none of which relate to either god's existence or the universes.