The Long and the Short of it.

[tavarish]

I have a few minutes. Let's do this.

In response to the opening post, I think that my total honesty annoys a lof of atheists.

I think you mean intellectual dishonesty.

As soon as a theists comes along, atheists start itching for an argument, and try to assert their intellectual superiority over theists.

This is an atheist forum built to challenge religious views. Is this a surprise that discussion and debate come up from time to time, even between atheists? It's not made to continually pat ourselves on the back.

However when the theist doesn't play along, the atheist gets angry. During the time that I've been here, I've observed the undercurrents going on underneath the surface, and really, it boils down to atheists having no intention at all of trying to understand theists.

I'll take you as an example. You made the point that something is true if it feels right to you, and it feels right if it feels right. That is certifiable, grade A, 100% horseshit. You're equating your belief system with a vague interpretation that can only be described as a tautology. If a person asks specific questions, please be honest enough to answer them specifically.

If the question is "Why do you believe in God?", an answer such as "because I do" is unacceptable, as it has zero explanatory power.

All they want to do is repeatedly play out the senario that gives them the most satisfaction, which is to affirm to themselves how clever they are.

I'll speak for myself. I strive to understand the mindset of theists in order to clarify the discussion, and assess any inconsistencies in their argument and mine. I give scenarios as guides, because some theists, as well as atheists, do have a tendency to be inconsistent in applying logic to certain situations.

I am completely honest about my reasons for believing in god, as well as my ability to articulate those reasons.

You have yet to articulate anything about your beliefs and your methodology behind coming to those conclusions.

I have no need to constantly reference other people's words to try and give my arguments credibility as I simply don't care about credibility in the slightest.

It's quite obvious you don't care about your words being at all credible. So why get mad when people call you out on your claims, since you have provided no backup or insight in a rational discussion?

It's very telling for an atheist forum to have a mechanism by which everyone can give each other "Reputation" points, it really does sum up what's really going on. Right now I have 1 point (which I wouldn't miss if it disappeared), and although I appreciate the positive comments I don't have have a psychological need to collect them.

...and? Why draw conclusions about others when it certainly doesn't apply to you? Have you ever thought that it's a method of drawing in people with like ideologies to commend others without having to post about it?

That's the difference between people who are secure in themselves, and people whose goal in life is to be validated by their "peers".

Yes, because making an intro thread saying "ask me anything" isn't seeking validation for your own biases.

"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).

You have no idea how the scientific method works. Take a research and technology class before you start talking about this, or at least look up the definition in wikipedia. Science isn't all tits and champagne, there's a lot of hard work involved, and peer review is an extremely strenuous and rigorous process for any aspiring scientist. Personal insecurity has absolutely nothing to do with this, and your assertion really does paint a picture about the simplistic and errant nature of your arguments.

Many atheists lack the ability to think for themselves, which is why they constantly ask the other person to provide proof. I say you seek it, and judge it for yourself.

You have just demonstrated that you don't know what burden of proof is.

If you don't then you have no interest in anything other than defending your view. "Defending", that's another telling word. It's really just a game, defend your view, defend your position within the clique.

The only telling words are the ones you posted in regards to your ignorance on this matter. You provide evidence for your claim, as per any rational discussion that demands it. If someone kills a person because they said it felt right to them, would you call them delusional or ill? It's the same thing when someone says a God exists on the basis of it feeling right. It makes no sense, as there are no demonstrable elements, and the person won't illustrate how he came to that conclusion in the first place.

I have not once posted a link to anything to back up anything I've said and I have no intention to do so. I have no interest in defending my view, only expressing it and explaining it as best as I can, using my own words.

Assertions are not demonstrations, nor are they relevant to anything in a rational discussion. You have yet to explain why you believe what you believe.

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.

Debating societies use logic to demonstrate their points, which often requires demonstration. In order for someone to learn from you, you have to make your case clear and understand that you have to provide evidence for the other person to even consider it. Rational discussion has nothing to do with emotions or subjective interpretations.

You bitch and moan about others being insecure because they challenge your vague and unexplained view, then have the audacity to come and say that methods of modern science are a product of that insecurity, and that atheists can't think for themselves.

I don't think you could be any more obtuse if you tried.

So the long and the short of it is that a lot of the atheists are deeply insecure.

Not at all, you're just ignorant.