Congratulations. In your one comment you managed to commit two errors of logic. 1) Quoting out of context. 2) Equivocation.

First, quoting out of context.

Sure, Victor Stenger did write that. Big deal. The overall point of his piece, however, was clearly spelled out in the abstract. Namely, Stenger’s model “serves to refute any assertions that the universe cannot have come about by natural means.”

Second, equivocation — which involves the misleading use of terms.

Faith has a number of meanings. These include religious faith, and, in addition to but not completely synonymous with, a non-religious faith. Religious faith means something distinctly different from the “faith” of scientists. The second is is akin to confidence. An example of a scientist’s “faith” would be this: I have faith that when I drop an apple it will fall to the ground, for I have observed it countless times and have equations that make confirmed predictions about it.”

The believer’s faith is something altogether different.

To better understand the “faith” of the scientist, I recommend checking out my website, “the evolving mind,” beginning with this post: “Quick Hits: The Strength of Science.”

http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2009/10/quick-hits-the-strength-of-science/

Me: Have you ever heard of laws of thermodynamics?
Have you ever heard of the most fundamental principle of science, namely cause and effect?
Have you read “God delusion” critically?
If so, name some scientific arguments Dawkins uses to support his idea of believers being deluded with God.
And again: what is the base of your criticism when reading the Bible since your thoughts are result of pure chance and chemistry?

This probably comes as a shocking idea to believers — that you don’t need the wrath of god to keep yourself in line. If you don’t need belief in god for that, what else might you not need him/her for?

You – your “freethinking has no logical base in reality.

Me – And your belief in an invisible being does? Logic must be coupled with verifiable evidence to be of worth.

You – If there is no God then everything “evolved” from chaos.

Me – That is a false dichotomy, an error in logic. If there is no God there are a whole number of other options as to why the universe is as it is.

You – Do you realize then according to materialism, that your “free” thoughts are only result of chemistry in your brain. Why then you should call yourself “free thinker”. Free from what? What is wrong what is right,what is free what is not? Again: what is the logical base of your arguments?

Me – The first part of that statement is an intriguing and fascinating topic. I have many thoughts about it. However, being a “free thinker” says nothing of free will. All it means is that a person is committed to exploring, scrutinizing and even criticizing any and ALL ideas without needing to consult religious authority. If there is truth out there, we believe that a mind free of constraints is more likely to find it. So yes, we do not prevent ourselves from reading the Koran critically, just as we don’t prevent ourselves from reading the Bible critically.

You – Say openly: you want to have sex with anything that moves and the Bible makes it clear you can not do that.Then I will understand….

Me – What kind of perverted mind would think that? My wife of over two decades is the only person or thing I want to be intimate with.

Finally, I think you have a poor understanding of atheists and freethinkers. For one, study after study has shown that those without belief in a god are no more immoral/unethical than those with belief in god. We are all people seeking to live the best lives we can. Some include religion in what makes their lives better, others, such as myself, do not.