Miloping

I don't know how homogeneous the atheist collective is, but among the religious it seems as if only the dolts band together against something. The ‘no God’ campaign reveals that there may be such sheep-like idiocy even among atheists.

Ok: there is no current evidence that there is a God. But isn't it a bit early in our research to claim arrival at a conclusion, even if only calling it “probable”? Wild claims from the Church and its zombie supporters are expected. The Church has been on a marketing campaign since its inception; they call it evangelism. But now a marketing campaign from people who call themselves scientists?

You don't need to evangelize facts. They can be demonstrated, which is hopefully when they become obvious. But there's nothing to demonstrate in this campaign because it is not selling fact. It is selling an anti-idea that, like Christianity's idea of God's existence, can't be proven.

What we can say with our evidence is that maybe there is no God, or maybe there is one. But given the current pool of evidence, who can say for sure? Intelligent people of the world: the most appropriate place in this continuum is agnosticism.

If you really believe there is no God…why? Do you know something I don't? What evidence have you that there is no God? I neither have the evidence that there is one, which is why I am unable to believe in one or the other. However, if you have arrived at a belief, you have done so not by evidence but by something else: a feeling; maybe intuition or what have you; or let me suggest one more, something that the religious call faith.

The atheist collective has come together in support of an idea (not a fact). There is another group which also comes together in this way, they are called the religious. Is it not surprising that these two groups are fighting, probably vying for the same pool of idiot followers? It just goes to show that when you bring yourself down to argue with a fool, the tendency is that you too will appear foolish.