10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

[lepustimidus]

ggazoo:

Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?

Because their experiences are subjective. Granted, so are mine. But the nature of subjectivity means that from my perspective, my own experiences are more valid. If my theistic friend had objective, empirical evidence to support his subjective experiences, then my subjective experiences would be invalidated and his would be vindicated.

Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?

Entertaining healthy skepticism to something that I haven't personally experienced, and to which there is no empirical evidence to support it's existence isn't narrow minded. It's just common sense, something which theists employ when they doubt the existence of golden unicorns.

On the other hand, a significant number of Christians subscribe to their beliefs primarily due to indoctrination, not due to critical inquiry.

Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?

It's not blind faith to assume that an extraordinary claim with no supporting evidence is false.

Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"?

Nested hierarchy, a clear indicator of common descent via modification.

Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?

Ahh, but science isn't completely partial to all ideas. In order for certain 'ideas' to be considered scientific, they need to fulfill certain criteria (for example, they are falsifiable).

How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war,

I don't. However, disagreement between religious factions, and quarreling over religious ideology, has led to much bloodshed.

Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?

I don't? However, if a site claims that it rejects scientific evidence if it conflicts with scripture (eg. Answers in Genesis), then I would rightfully conclude that said site is unscholarly.

Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?

I don't? Atheists do tend to protelyze when they gather in significant numbers. However, they often don't seem to see themselves as aggressors because they are usually a minority (and according to liberal dogma, minorities by definition can do no wrong).

Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?

I don't? I do think that I have a firmer grasp on reality than some other people though.

And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?

I don't?

Some of those questions seemed awfully leading.