Is science atheism?

Does it ever occur to you how rude it is to tell people they're demon-possesed?

When I mock your ability to judge something as real or fake, I have evidence. "Demons" is not an attempt to explain anything. It's an excuse for not bothering to look for real explanations. Sure it does. You're rejecting the evidence that explains your experiences. Rejecting evidence is always invalid. Which I don't have. I have more respect than you do for His words as recorded in the Bible. It isn't "disdain". It's recognition that He isn't necessary. His message is beneficial, if not indispensible. He himself is no more necessary than any of the other messengers who bring the same message. Any rational person sees that. Theists can be rational.

As I have told you many times, we are not "in love" with the idea - we're stuck with the idea. It isn't that we "can" rule - we HAVE to rule because there's nobody to do it for us. And there you go, slamming Jesus again.

The default is that if they never heard of leprechauns, most people would not make them up. Quite easily. If my leprechaun traps are empty, I don't need to concern myself with leprechauns. See above. There is no need for faith when we have observations.

So you're admitting that gods are made up. And don't miss the plural there. A lot of gods have been made up, along with leprechauns, fairies, bigfeet, etc. People making things up is not an argument for the existence of those things. The same way that believers "confirm" the existence of their particular gods - by making up the data. See above. The victory conditions are made up by the individual believers. We know what we know. The mistake you make is adding in a lot of things that you don't know. Bingo. That's exactly my stance on the existence of gods. Of course, I can't speak for any other atheists because we have no organization, no doctrines and no articles of faith.

Because he isn't plainly visible to anybody.Edited by ringo, : Sbelling.

That's dishonest. Mormons, Pastafarians, etc. can pray and talk with their gods and you consider them weird and fantasy-driven. You do not identify with them and you do not agree that their version works. You certainly do have dissonance with them.

That's exactly the point. You do consider "other" gods weird and fantasy-driven. You only identify with "other believers" who agree with you.

Of course it is. If you think there's anything objective about your views, you have to demonstrate that.

But of course you can. There is nothing objective to distinguish one from another. You can't possibly know that.

So you reject progressive knowledge based on evidence - in favor of the absolute knowledge that you already have. How arrogant.

You can't be objective all by yourself. Every religion thinks they have the clarity that you think you have. Objective reality is something that people with different religious beliefs can agree on.

Pretty much has to be. Nobody can see past the beam in their own eye. I call you arrogant because you think you know better than everybody else.

And once again your post has nothing to do with what you quoted.Try again. I said, "I call you arrogant because you think you know better than everybody else."

There's no "yet" about it. There is no objective way to distinguish one god from another. There is no consensus on which god is the "right" one.If you can show us how your god is objectively different from the others, DO it. I know what you post here.