Where do your morals come from?
- Culture, myself and reading and reading tons and deciding in what I believe instead of letting some decide it for me.

Where do your morals come from?
-Life has no meaning. If you want a meaning you give it one, but generally speaking, no, there is no meaning at all why something must exist. The single reason it exists it's because it exists, no more than that. I have always been an existential nihilist and it feels empowering.

Is atheism a religion?
- No, because it lacks in terms of political mobilization, dogma and various other ways which claims that behavior x would be better than behavior y, one of the defining critera of religion. Further it also lacks any form of institutions dedicated to this idea (akin to churches, mosques) and falls therefore rather weak within each area as people don't generally exclaim that their atheism is important when it comes to any form of mob-thinking.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?
- Don't care, or try to do something about it. Generally the former unless it impacts me directly.

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?
- Should and should… I think people can believe in the hell they want, but at least it would be a nice courtesy of religious to stop pushing their religious beliefs on others who obviously do not share them. I will not try to convince people this generally, unless they would somehow run up to me and try to have a conversation, then I will express this view just as they express theirs. Expressing this view actively does make me a hypocrite quite fitting into the category I just outlined, so no thanks.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?
- No, Hitler was a Christian, and none of his acts can in any whatsoever way be linked to Christianity, so I'd find the whole question asked quite in the wrong way. What does it matter if a bad person goes off to kill a bunch of people and that person happened to be an atheist or belief in any other form of religion? Doesn't make the act less bad or good in any way.

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?
- Wrong and wrong. They are very free to discuss to themselves within the various groups which group happened to be more right. It turns out they cannot agree, so I let the matter be. We cannot be 100% certain god exists or doesn't, and I am not interested in proving neither the former or the latter.

Why does the universe exist?
- It just does. Why is it so hard to grasp for some people that there might just not be a meaning at all?

How did life originate?
- We don't know, and I will quite frankly not try to answer that question until science properly can.

Is all religion harmful?
- When organized and spreading dogma, then yes it is.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?
- I don't find them bad and they are free to speak as much bull as they want as long I am free to speak as much bull as I want opposing those beliefs.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?
- No.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?
- What god? What about gods? Or just nature itself? Why necessarily a sentient being? I call this a false dichotomy.

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?
- Respect me and I respect you. Somehow though it seems very hard for people to understand the former, therefore I don't feel they deserve it.

Are atheists smarter than theists?
- No. There are idiots on both sides of the fences.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?
- I don't believ he existed at all because evidence seems to suggest so. So I just don't deal with it, it's a non-issue.

Would the world be better off without any religion?
- Pretty much. Then maybe we can start focusing on real issues instead of "you stole my land, now you pay!" sort of mentality.

What happens when we die?
- My body will turn into energy, feeding other lifeforms when it decomposes and I am quite happy with that.

The number of planets estimated to be in the known universe varies from source to source, but tends to start around ten quadrillion. That’s 10 million billion planets. Taking that into account, even if you went out on a limb and claimed a 500 trillion to 1 ratio (which is quite high) of life coming into existence, that means that it would happen on 20 different worlds. Obviously, since we’re here talking about it, we would be one of those twenty. So even playing with ludicrously high stakes there would in fact be more than just us alive in this universe. With those kinds of odds it would reduce our chances of meeting or discovering said life to nearly zero, but it would still exist.

The other perspective is almost a bit of a cop-out, but it’s just that statistics aren’t really all that important. Just because on paper it wouldn’t seem likely that life could have developed on multiple planets – or one for that matter – does not mean that it couldn’t or won’t. Statistical anomalies are not uncommon and it could just be that our galaxy was particularly fortunate and formed a plethora of worlds suitable for the development of life, one of which would be ours. Even if you reduced the “possible” life-infested worlds in our universe down to a few dozen would not mean that those worlds are evenly spread amongst the stars and galaxies. There could in fact be a cluster of solar systems which all managed to develop nearly ideal planetary bodies in which life could take hold. In other words, just because an event isn’t likely to happen doesn’t make it impossible.

* Why do you not believe in God?

I do not believe that the Christian “God” is the One True God. He is merely a power, not necessarily a HIGHER power, just outside of human experience and not necessarily native to this plane. The god I do believe in is not a sentient, anthropomorphic being but rather a more collective-intelligence unified-spirit model. However in this sense the title “God” is rather misleading, for it really isn’t a “God”, if that makes sense.

*Where do your morals come from?

Within. I strive to act in ways that will better myself and my own spirit, and either help or cause minimal harm to others. I use my own judgment to determine what is right and wrong, though I find that my views tend to line up with societal standards to some degree anyway (such as, I don’t believe it is ok to go around molesting children). The difference is that I reach my conclusions by deciding for myself, rather than reaching the same conclusions because a book or law says I should.

*What is the meaning of life?

All Life inherently has only one meaning, and that is to propagate Life. A better and more accurate question might be “What is the meaning of consciousness?”; why are we, as a species, able to think and reason, and even pose such questions. To that, who knows? And in the end, who really cares? I propose that the meaning of consciousness and life is not to please some otherworldly deity, however, and even if it is, or was at some time, it has outgrown its purpose when we can reason that deity away or directly and consciously oppose its “Great Plan”.

*Is atheism a religion?

No

*If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

Put one foot in front of the other and keep moving. Things have a way of working out, even when you don’t drop to your knees and ask them to.

*Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

No. “Converting people” is wrong for any belief system, or lack of. The information is there, if they want it. If not, then let them be.

*Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

No.

*How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

The same way billions of people could be wrong about which system of belief is true.

*Why does the universe exist?

A mistake, I’m sure.
At this stage of existence, I’m not sure, and I’ll admit my uncertainty. However, by nature “why” questions are subjective, so anyone who claims to know is merely stating an opinion, not a fact. It is wrong to attribute any truth to definite claims or to take another’s answer as your own.

* How did life originate?

I favor metabolism-first theories.

* Is all religion harmful?

Religion itself is not inherently harmful, it is the ignorance it propagates that is harmful, and extremist interpretations. If every man merely followed the core Golden Rule morals in religion and allowed every other man space for his own interpretation of the deity(ies), there would be no harm in religion. As it stands, though… that is not really the case.

*What’s so bad about religious moderates?

They’re generally spineless and accept whatever the leaders say. Many moderates do “think for themselves” and don’t “accept whatever the leaders say”, but they’re certainly not vocal about it, and in their silence, they are “accepting”, despite what they may say.

*Is there anything redeeming about religion?

It has indirectly provided centuries worth of priceless artwork and interesting literature (No, not “the Bible”. I mean stuff like the Etz Hayim, Greek epics, the Sagas, and the like)

*What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

If I am wrong in my views about who and what is technically a “God”, and the common God is what he says he is, then he would understand my point of view. If he doesn’t, then he is not my God, and I will not bow to him, instead accepting the fires of hell with open arms.

* Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

Beliefs that oppress others, clearly promote immorality, or are jokes (sorry Pastafarians) do not earn my respect.

*Are atheists smarter than theists?

No.

*How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

He was a revolutionary with powerful influence and wisdom, but a man nonetheless. A man does not become a god by popular vote.

*Would the world be better off without any religion?

Something else would take its place, I’m sure, but the world would improve at least temporarily with the gutting of Christianity and Islam at least.

*What happens when we die?

No one can know until they cross the threshold.

The solid mass required in order to create a planet in just the right spot is still pretty remove even if you consider the fact that there might be 200 billion planets

This is a quote reserved answer. We currently know of about 80 billion galaxies and a galaxy typically contains about 400 billion stars (not even planets). Ignoring the fact that we may not see the whole universe or that there might be other universes out there, it still means that the chance of life evolving are quite large, although as Minion4Hire mentioned, it may not be life as we know/recognise it.

That’s assuming it would be “life as we know it”. Even on this planet, all different kinds of life have displayed remarkable tolerances to a wide range of environmental conditions. Taking that into consideration (admittedly a difficult thing to do statistically in this case) the so called “Goldilocks Zone” would not be as restrictive as has been claimed.

And as far as getting a planet in exactly the right spot, it would also be less difficult than you make it out to be, technically speaking. Our sun is one of the more reliable, stable and common type of star we have observed in the universe, but there are others whose energy patterns are not as reliable and can change over relatively short and relatively long periods of time. Taking this into account, such a Goldilocks Zone may be even less difficult to achieve, although this again would be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to qualify.

All I’m really saying is that there are so many variables that are difficult to account for that coming up with one statistic or ratio to give the chances of the origin of life (whether for or against) is basically a guessing game. I know of a few statisticians who would scold me dearly for that statement, but there is a lot to consider that we don’t have proper data for yet. But I will say that regardless of the exact chances of life occurring (let alone sentient life), the chances of confirming the existence of an extraterrestrial life form would be incredibly minute.

This answer is highly erroneous. You must do more research in the realms of mathematics, especially in the aspect of the Golden Ratio and Phi, and their specific relation to the universe. Also, despite the vast size of our universe, when you run the numbers the chances of life existing it is actually quite remote. The solid mass required in order to create a planet in just the right spot is still pretty remove even if you consider the fact that there might be 200 billion planets. The statistical data shows that the chances of existence are in the trillions. Given the weight of the mass of the known universe and extrapolated, this doesn’t show heavily that there are trillions upon trillions of planets that would have formed.