I can see you're one of those who gets his jollies by ridiculing those who believe in something higher than themselves. [Post #11]
That would only be true if there is actually something behind those beliefs. Which seems to be the crucial point in question. And, more specifically, Dan in particular seems to believe in something apparently higher than himself which might reasonably be characterized as “Truth”.
Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to believe in atheism.
Believing in the non-existence of something is, I think, a somewhat problematic aspect of atheism. But I would say that there is far more evidence for the non-existence of, at least, the anthropomorphic Abrahamic gods than there is evidence for the existence of them. The “metaphorical and panentheistic god of the physicists” is, I think, a horse of an entirely different colour.
Funny how Nel accuses me of having no respect for Muslims, just because I believe Islam is a false religion.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that “Islam is a false religion”? Maybe because there is no evidence to justify the claims of Muslims? Presumably you, and probably even Dan, would “believe” it was true if the Quran and the words of Allah had been inscribed in an indestructible material.
But when folks on this message board refer to people like me as "whackadoodles" she is strangely silent.
Yes, people do tend to be a little inconsistent in their judgements – part of the “in-group morality; out-group hostility” problem. But I wonder whether or not you would characterize Muslims that way. And how about all of those claiming to be Jesus or the Jewish Messiah or the Muslim Mahdi? And likewise with Harold Camping and all those following Heaven’s Gate? “Whackadoodles”?
I guess Christians really are fair game. Always have been.
You might want to consider that that is something that Christians have largely brought upon themselves. As Thomas Jefferson said:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
While there might be some justification for, as I suggested, the “metaphorical and panentheistic god of the physicists” since it might have some relevance to the profound question of consciousness, when people make all sorts of, well, ridiculous claims with not a shred of evidence to back them up one shouldn’t be terribly surprised, or offended, if they are ridiculed. Wouldn’t you think it rather ridiculous if the devotees of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” [peace be upon his name] communed with Him/Her/It by sharing plates of spaghetti?