The Long and the Short of it.

[The Omnissiunt One]

"Peer review", that's another one, which makes me laugh, and it goes to show that it's the same in the scientific "community" (read : clique), and the way even scientists ridicule each other shows that science has been hijacked by deeply insecure individuals whose goal is a nobel prize, fame and recognition, and the validation of their equally insecure 'peers" (clique).

Oh yes, peer review's all about scientists' insecurity, and not about weeding out faulty theories through a rigorous process of empirical observation. Of course, your made-up psychoanalysis must be correct.

Many atheists lack the ability to think for themselves, which is why they constantly ask the other person to provide proof.

If 'thinking for yourself' means believing the first thing that pops into your head, then call me an intellectual sheep!

It's the same thing in debating societies, the point isn't to express your view and hear the other person's view, and perhaps learn something from each other, it is to play verbal chess, it's always win-lose, never win-win, and people who are good "debators" aren't necessarily right in their views at all. So the long and the short of it is that a lot of the atheists are deeply insecure.

As a keen debater myself, I'll agree with you on that front. Debating is about the process, not the result. How you get from that to 'A lot of atheists are insecure', I'm not quite sure. If I were engaging in a bit of pseudo-scientific psychobabble myself, I'd say that your constant assertion that atheists are insecure is a sure sign of insecurity about your own position. But I'm not, because your motivations for belief are irrelevant, and I couldn't care less about them.