On the basic thrust of your argument, I would agree that there are probably hundreds of thousands of people, out there, who identify themselves as atheist simply because they are too lazy to get out of bed on a Sunday morning, or indeed think about any of “it” for themselves.

But if it is your intention to prove the larger philosophical tract of a-theism, per-se, merely a lazy means of persecuting the religious, I might argue you’d have to go a long way to find a more efficient means of achieving this; absolute hatred of other people’s beliefs, than religion itself.

If that reads like a cheap shot, go to LiveLeak and search for Martyrdom Videos. Find me a video of someone blowing themselves and everybody else up in the name of free thinking secular humanism and you’ve won yourself an argument. You’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath eagerly awaiting your response.

I spent years researching the book that I just wrote. Its’ about the studies that I talk about, the studies you don’t know anything about. your little hogwash bigotry is all you have to back your insane lunatic hate monger crap about good people whom you detest.

you have to mock and ridicule others to feel good about yourself and like a drug addict you can’t get enough.

Why the hell can’t a company as big as microsoft make a fuck’n browser??=

IE is an abonmination

It needs to die already.

IE.. Driving web developers insane since … (fill in the blanks)

I agree, FUCK IE!

@Starchasr, on the other hand, simply doesn’t think before he posts. If I posted something like, “All scientists are right and all sceptics are wrong”, that would be something I should expect to be challenged on. But with @Starchasr and all too many like him, there is an expectation that simply because someone asserts something on religious grounds, they are automatically entitled to be taken seriously—even though they have no idea how seriously they would be entitled to be taken, if what they had to say actually made any sense. It is the fact that they have no idea how far they have to go in proving their opinion valid, which makes them such easy game; it is not what they say, but why they say it.

Turning this fact around upon those who cite scientific evidence as their authority upon which to speak, is a logical fallacy. Because it assumes that superstition and personal opinion are equally valid starting points upon which to build a working theory as are scientific falsification and arithmetic logic. Which is the very presumptuous arrogance “they” so readily accuse in others and completely fail to see in themselves.

In regards to ‘Starchasr’, is it really necessary to resort to ad hominems when somebody expects clarification over such a grand and over-arching, generalised question? I think that is a little unfair over a platform like twitter which is designed for conciseness.

For JuanitaBerguson, by ‘Haldane and Oparin experiment’ do you mean Miller-Urey? At least this is more focused than just name checking various fields of scientific endeavour as if that alone proves your point! However taking into account the fact that ‘chemical evolution’ is only necessary to provide the atheist with a mechanism which could potentially account for the origins of life via a naturalistic process can you not see how that (extremely flawed btw) experiment would be utterly irrelevant to a Christian?

In a way it is akin to a Christian sending you a link to a ‘Genesis’ webpage! You would both ultimately be making a mere assertion… ‘See, it COULD have happened like this!’
(and this is without taking into account the fatal problems of the aforementioned experiment, such as the flaws with the assumptions made in the chosen ‘early atmosphere’, the unnatural conditions set up to isolate the products, the fact that the amino acids predominantly produced were dextro-isomers, the absence of a mechanism for polymerisation etc etc)

I fail to see how a reluctance to be drawn into such an irrelevant debate over twitter denotes dishonesty?

However…

For the treatment Megan & Fred Phelps………Fair play, your comments are no worse than the kind of things they say all the time :-)