Merry Christmas to you and yours also. Children an absolute blessing for sure.

I, like you, do not view passionate conversation as adversarial in any way. I welcome anytime I can learn anything meaningful. I believe this conversation to be just that. Thanks.

The reason why I framed the two quotes above in that fashion is simply in an attempt to impress upon you the stark differences between the two world views and the fact that they are diametrically opposed. Let me clarify.

When speaking of such topics the conversation has to be completely sanitized of any emotion or feelings. Why? Because these are matters of our creation and existence and not of how one feels or "thinks". In other words, we aren't speaking of our favorite cheeseburger where we can both be right and both be wrong at the same time. I am not saying you entered the conversation with that in mind. I was attempting to get down to the root of the conversation and jump clear over any possible fluff. So when I said "we have to agree on terms" I was trying to convey exactly that in its clinical sense, in its definitional meaning.

So in that spirit let me say that Atheism, by definition, is unable to comment with regard to religion or matters of spirituality. Not because I don't think your words have value but instead because Atheism is defined by the NON belief or in more definitive words, knowledge of a "higher power". As a result Atheism is void of comment or opinion of spirituality. It simply has nothing to say about it. NOT that Atheism can't comment on spirituality but that IF Atheism comments on it, it doesn't bare meaning or weight. Again, I am not at all saying your words or this conversation has no value. In fact what I am saying is that if Atheism should have anything to say about spirituality it would be lopsided to the opposing side. Your world view, in a conversation about spirituality, only helps to sway YOU, the Atheist, towards the beleif of a higher power. Why? Since you are void of the belief of a higher power you only stand to add to your body of knowledge and not lend to anothers body of knowledge by virtue of the vacumm you posses on the topic. Not only is Atheism a vacumm but by every sense mute on the topic.

What I said above is NOT a jab or an insult it's a matter of Atheisms root meaning.

Now in regard to Christianity having sole claim on "good and bad" and that you wouldn't be able to see it and or identify it. NOT AT ALL. The fact that any human being whether Atheist or not is capable of good and bad IS a testament to the fact that a higher power exists. Why? Simply as a matter of the world view itself. Atheism, as a result of its non-belief, can not impose 'good' or 'bad' on anything. The Atheist world view in itself can not define good or bad because, well humanity simply exists and nothing else. So if it simply exists than an action or "state of being" is exactly that and nothing else. Atheism can not determine or deem anything bad or good for that matter. From an Atheist perspective, I hurting my neighbor in order to take his ration of food in order for my families survival is just that, survival and nothing else. I survive and neighbor does not. There is no "winner" or "loser", I simply evolve and my neighbor ceases to exist.

In order for "good" to exist or have meaning it would have to have its opposite, "bad". An inverse state. But you or I are unable to define it or create their meanings because we are capable of being "good" or "bad". As a result of our imperfection, we can also imperfectly define said states. As a result, the fact that those states exist ONLY lend themselves to the existence of a benevolent, flawless, all knowing and timeless higher power.

I am not arguing that you can not know or be capable of good or bad. I am arguing that without a benevolent higher power, that has defined those perameters, previous to your existence, those states have no meaning. They are simply actions.

The fact that you are able to identify those states is irrefutable evidence that a higher power exists. Once someone is able to arrive at that conclusion, and only then, can one be able to further chisel out their own belief. BELEIF. Once someone reaches that point there is no going back. THAT is what I was trying to convey. Once you know Him you can not remove the knowledge of him. Now it is only a choice whether someone wants to reject Him.

But understand my "framing" of a conversation has no effect on truth. Truth stands on its own regardless of my intent or framing.

Edit to cover your other point.

You took a really long winded, and frankly well done, way of agreeing that whatever this God thing is, it's indifferent to human suffering. He's taken a view of free will that days its super important unless evil takes it away, then it's no big deal. He'll make you whole in the afterlife somehow.

Not sure I conveyed that God is indifferent by any means. If God desired indifference than a clear path to salvation would not have been provided. But let's just entertain that premise for a second. Than what? Let's just say he was indifferent. For sport? For self gratification? If so, than why provide any evidence of His existence? And before settling on one of those conclusions, wouldn't one have to have at the very least equal the amount of evidence that He has provided for your salvation if not more? In other words, wouldn't the body of evidence AGAINST His intended salvation outcome be available or provided before one refutes His intent? Wouldn't a thief require more evidence to prove his innocence than "I was having lunch with grandma" in the face of fingerprint, video and witness accounts and evidence against him? So far as I can tell, much of what non believers provide is tantamount to the example of the thief. Yet, despite historical accounts of Jesus's life from believers, but more importantly, historical written accounts of NON believers who never met, heard of or seen Jesus wrote of the tremors and earthquake felt the moment of His crucifixion exactly as written by believers hundreds of miles away. Both of those authors had vastly different beliefs, yet wrote of the same event.