Atheism is what you call someone with no belief in a higher power,god. etc

By definition atheism is not a belief. Stop trying to turn it into one.

"Science is self correcting, meaning it is flawed. "
no. that's why it isn't flawed. Science is self correcting based on new data. A scientific field isn't complete, but science as a field and method isn't flawed. It would be flawed if it didn't change based on new information.

haha. no, read the references. They are pretty much excuse making and cheery picking to confirm their belief.

" And wouldn't the existence, and even the sometimes contradictory accounts of the Gnostic gospels, provide a more evidence of an actual historic figure whose image was "stomped over", rather than one made up out of whole cloth?"
No, why would you think that?

Nope. In fact it looks like 'Jesus' is an combination of at least three people. Based on dates of events, location, from different letters.
Of course the bible was written by men how said 'These 12 people are honest, wouldn't lie or make things up, and never checked them.
If you look at cults* and their behavior, you see striking similarity with the apostles, and other religion older the Christianity.

Then it gain political power and the rest is bloody history

Which is why it's alarming that the religious right is gaining so much power.

*for brevity, cult will be short hand for small start up religion

But we do not have anything similar when it comes to what caused the Big Bang, ranting about 14D planes colliding and creating ripples like on a pond, without any idea how those planes existed in the first place does not really strike me as a particularly sane argument

If you walked out an say the side of your car smashed in, would it not be reasonable to conclude you had been hit by a car even if you can't 'prove' a car did it?

It's like that, but with math. The fact that you can not understand it, doesn't make it insane. It makes you ignorant in that area.

Another excuse for people who can't actual base there idea on informed information.

So you attack him personally, because you got noting else except the incorrect idea that anyone gives a crap about you, and that you won't be anything but a whisper in a few decades. SO that leads you to post ad homs in what is a basic debate, that adult do.

Just because a bunch of morons had the expectation meant, doesn't make it an attack, or an insult.

News to Christian: YOU DON'T FUCKING OWN DECEMBER 25th.

You can stick you fake outrage your your ass.
It was not an attack. He used wording that made people expect one statement, then through an surprise ending.
That is not a fucking attack, and you can take you fucking outrage and shove it back up your ass.
I do note that every mouth breathing stupid ass xtian used it as an excuse to verbally attack atheist.

To be clear, I am not calling Christians mouth breathing stupid ass's. just ones like you.

That you don't know what the word 'newsworthy' means.

. A scientist's argument when dealing within their scientific expertise is more likely to be valid, yes.

It's an an appeal to authority when it's a direct refutation withing ones expertise. It's a appeal to authority if I say, he said it, he is an scientist, therefor I am right.

Thomas Aquinas? seriously? have you read his works?

Do you also thing he levitated?

The god aspect is unprovable, uuntestable so you have to ignore it. Just like a child learns to ignore the monster in the closet.

good and evil is just perspective, and yes you can be an atheist abd have good and evil.

""survival of the fittest", or "thou shalt not kill""
why do you think those are mutually exclusive, pal.

good and evil is far older then any religion, pal.

This has been well covered in philosophy and many writings, PAL.

Incorrect. See: klachakra

Also there are some follower that have to addition tenants that involve Karma; which also required an outside actor(s) to keep score.
And they have sins. If there is no outside actor then who are they sinning against? Again this seems to e a knowing universe that can portion out forgiveness.

There is no God as in the creation of the universe. but there are other spiritual(unprovabale) actor involved.

"A scientists view of claims that "science proves religion" however, is likely to be *far* more valid."
Note: It says religion and not god.

Religion is provable. Easy, go to a church, see religion in action.

God is a different matter.

It's his retort on the science that's valid, Not the exists of and un-provable concept.