The Sects of Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

My reasons for not believing are a settled fact and not a 'cover story' and the insinuation that atheists are using 'cover stories' to hide their real reasons for not believing is insulting, uncharitable, and IMHO, trolling.

I hope you aren't referring in any way to me here. I thought I was demonstrating epistemic humility while at the same time suggesting to Helios that what he presented as fact was properly an opinion. The idea I was suggesting, that it is okay for people have different belief thresholds for various kinds of evidence,...that idea sounds very tolerant to me. I expected a little debate but intended no insult to Helios in particular or other contributors in general. Please help me understand how my words may have offended so I avoid doing so in the future.

Or if you you want to debate a little about whether it is in fact okay for people to have different belief thresholds....if you want.

If you want to defend Ahriman accusing atheists of using 'unconvinced due to insufficient evidence' as a cover story, have at. Convince me that atheists are being dishonest in asserting that as the reason for their disbelief on those occasions when they present that as their reasoning. And be sure to use reasoning that couldn't equally allow me to accuse theists of being dishonest about their own reasons for believing, or accept that it's just as justified to insinuate that theists are lying about that. Looking forward to your input.

Where you got the notion that I or Helios claimed that it's not okay for people to have different belief thresholds is a complete mystery to me.