I'm glad to hear that, Anon. :)

Thank you Anon, I really hope you are comfortable with your decision, and I apologize for my late response!

Not publicly, no.
You have many recent examples of Saudi individuals who only presented their different religious views, and yet received harsh responses and official punishment.
Thus I think it is safer for any Saudi Atheist to avoid exposing themselves as apostates, since apostasy is a crime worthy of punishment according to Islamic law.

Yes, I am alright. I've been a little busy that is all. Thank you for asking dear Anon.

Religious indoctrination works in a very similar way to brain washing.
That is primarily due to its ability to make unfounded views seem like facts, therefore affecting judgement and the general way of thinking.

I have the exact same view, you can not be a hundred percent certain of your view.
that's because I believe there is no way to know whether you are right if you never consider yourself being wrong.
So being an agnostic atheist is, in my view, the most rational.

أنا ملحد بارك الله فيك

To answer your first question, sometimes I am happy, sometimes I'm not, that depends largely on my surroundings as it does with anyone else.
I hope you can get rid of this guilt that is bothering you. Know that there is nothing to be guilty of, doubting your beliefs is only natural. Also, losing your faith is not a loss at all.
While I was gradually becoming an Atheist, I kept in my head that I was just accidentally born into my religion, and that if it was the true religion there should be clear indications for that. That way, I did not feel lost. I felt I was on a path to find out what is true, and with the help of science, I could see that my religion was like all other human made religions: subjective without evidence, superstitious, and full of logical errors.

Not my whole life, no. And sorry, I cannot answer the second question.

I'm not sure, the situation is extremely difficult for many people in Saudi Arabia.
Though I guess she can leave for education or with a partner, of course it won't be easy at all.
I am sorry I cannot help, I'd advise she does not speak about her views of God and religion except to open-minded or trustworthy individuals.

I've lived in several places, and the societies I was raised in range from secular to ultra-conservative.

I doubt it was expected. Otherwise you wouldn't mention that figure of the claimed maximum deviation from the value of the cosmological constant (Which you probably took from Rich Deem's website).
My answer may not be the most convincing. However, claiming the universe is fine-tuned based on the values of some constants (like the two I have mentioned) -is not justified after reading what I have explained. Such constants have values which are dependent either on our human units of measurement, or the terms in our physics equations. Realizing that only requires a basic knowledge in modern physics.
I do not chat on any other site, but if you think you have a good counter argument, you can send it to my e-mail: thesaudiatheist@live.com .. :)

This is going to be a long response, you can jump to the conclusion or read through.
There are various ways to respond to the argument of fine-tuning, they all either refute the conclusion that there must be a designer or a tuner behind nature's constants, or show that the argument itself is invalid. I will mention three.

First, and the simplest way to address the issue of fine tuning, is to view it from the living being's point of view. If the constants were so different to not permit the existence of life, we wouldn't be here to talk about them. Regardless of how improbable that the set of natural constants will turn out the way it is. Just like the possibility to get a certain sequence of cards after shuffling a deck -is very low, yet you still get a certain sequence. The set of natural constants our universe has, happen to be the one which allows the existence of life.

That response may not satisfy everyone, and I personally only use to show that postulating the existence of a designer is unnecessary. Another way to approach the argument is similar to the way we know a planet which supports life had to exist. In our infinitely vast universe, the probability that a planet will have the characteristics of earth which support the evolution of life is one. Similarly, if there is more than just one universe (An infinite number according to most models), then the probability that one universe will have the set of natural constants which support the emergence of life is one. And we clearly live in such a universe.

The previous arguments postulates that our universe is part of a multiverse, and despite that that is not unlikely (but rather strongly suggested by some cosmological models, like the cosmic inflation model) -a simpler response is available to show that the argument of fine-tuning does not always have a valid basis.
This final way is a more practical one, but can only be summarized in a Formspring answer box. If you would like a more comprehensive answer of this sort, I recommend reading Victor Stenger's book "The fallacy of fine-tuning". In the book he attempts to refute any argument based on fine-tuned constants, by showing that either these constants are arbitrary, or that the deviation from their value would still allow for a form of life. An example of a natural constant that is arbitrary is planck's constant, which is the product of human's attempt to establish the relationship between the energy of quanta and their frequency using human units. If we change our own human units (like the Joule or Second) we can make h=1, and therefore remove planck's constant from all quantum mechanical equations.
Another constant, which is a favorite of fine-tuning advocates, and the source of the number you mentioned in your question -is The Cosmological Constants. It is proposed to account for early cosmological inflation and current acceleration in expansion. However, the cosmological constant can have a value "zero" in a quantum theory of gravity (refer to Stenger's book for how it is done in Einstein's equation in General relativity). And all what is accounted for by the cosmological constant can be solved by what physicists call the quintessence, a form of repulsive gravity produced by negative pressure. This is just to show that our way of interpreting cosmological phenomena does not necessarily indicate the cosmos was designed.

I think the previous responses fully address the issue of fine-tuning, the first one is handy in showing that the postulation of a deity is unnecessary. The other two show how the problem can be solved by a model of many universes, or in the case of many natural constants there is no problem to begin with.

You can send it to this E-mail: thesaudiatheist@live.com

That is pretty sweet Anon, thank you!

I am planning to come out, yes. But I honestly do not know when I'm going to be ready.
Whether or not to come out is mostly dependent on how my family would take it, I care about their reaction the most.
I do not think many of the people I know would support me, at least not publicly. Maybe some people like you would, and I really appreciate that! ;)

I don't think there is much of a debate, not from the scientific community anyway.

The human soul as a life force is disputed by modern biology, which shows that biological organisms function by complex biochemical reactions which do not involve/need any supernatural force. These reactions can be observed and manipulated in any organism, whether it was a "simple" bacterium or a human being.

Moreover, postulating the existence of a soul to account for the human mind is more controversial, yet just as unscientific. Although most of how subjective experience works -is still obscure, the fields of medicine and neuroscience has helped show how analysis and relay of sensory and motor information can be explained using neuronal activity. All of that is in agreement with the naturalistic view that what were considered mental states are just brain states.
Therefore, I do not think a person has a soul. And even if there was no scientific basis for my view, the postulate of a human soul would still be an unverifiable claim.

Actually, I do not face any true hostile treatment from my colleagues..
That's not because people around me do not suspect I'm an atheist (many of them probably do), nor is it because I do not know anyone who might react hostilely to my atheism..
It's rather because I try to accompany bright people, who wouldn't harm me just for a different view on something, even if it was religion.

I'm sorry but I cannot.. I am certain you understand why I cannot just communicate with anyone using a personal account of mine..
If you want I can message you using my twitter account.
I promise I will delete the PIN you posted, and it will not be used.

I usually am, but that only encourages me to speak out, because I'm not doing anything wrong.