Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The skeptic is too skeptical to be ojective, that is the problem I have with skeptism...

I fail to see how this can happen. It just seems like this idea of 'too skeptical' you have is quickly becoming a hyperbole if it hasn't been already, not that there aren't nihilists or solipsists as it is.
Not htat I don't find solipsism entertaining.

A majority? I've seen conflicting statistics on whether religious scientists are statistically in the majority or minority, but regardless, I see that a fair consensus amongst all of the studies I've seen appear to come to the following conclusion:

I mean in the 17th and 18th century, not recently.

Then you should have given some hint as those centuries being that part of the topic, in which case not only do you have no evidence of any of that from those centuries but even if, during those times, religious scientists were in the majority, there's no reason to believe that scientists wouldn't still have been more secular than the general public. Particularly when the general public did much worse things to people who ideaologically disagreed with them or believed were against god.
I point to Salem for evidence of that.

Its all about world view, it would not matter if everyone was a theist or atheist, its all about ones world view...

... which explains why scientists tend to be more secular/non-religious than the genral public. How religion tends to dominate in areas with the least scientific literacy, and so on and so forth.
A worldview based on anything other than empirical evidence and scientific/secular views tends to be as irrational as it is religious.
Irrational views on the world are not conductive to being a good scientist. It is the opposite. There is a reason, after all, why there is a correlation between secularism and the scientific community. The more professional the scientist, the less religious scientists of that 'level' tend to be.
Even those who are religious scientists often have to change their views from the religious dogma to which they are accustomed in order to do their world without conflict between their beliefs and their work.

This is a post-reformation idea, an idea which is wrong. People like John H Walton (an expert on Genesis) and N.T wright (NT scholar) is showing us how the people back in the day read their Bible or their Torah. I dont see why one should take everything literal...

I don't see why people should waste their time on irrational beliefs at all - but what I think on the matter is irrelevant. It doesn't change the facts of the matter.
And the fact is that despite what a few 'religious scholars' tell you, everything I said in my preivous post regarding your religion and religion in general is still true.

I see the origins of sin to be much more complicated than some eating a piece of fruit from a tree, it doesnt make ruin any core beliefs, instead of giving an answer, we say; 'I dont know.' That is all we can say at the moment.

That may be how you rationalized it, but the origin on sin is still written in the manner to which you disagree with in the old and new testiments - it's how it's being taught now by and large to the general public and that's how it's been taught - regardless of just about anything and everything - since your faith first begin being taught.
I don't see any science textbooks teaching alchemy but a few 'scholars' quietly telling some people with certain degrees or prominant positions in their respective hierarchy that alchemy is actually just a primative precursor to modern chemistry (which classrooms teach as blasphemy.) No.
You'll see alchemy as a historical footnote in history textbooks. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Plenty. If you are interested you should, 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' by N.T wright, one of the greatest books defending the Resurrection...

I'm sure he made a very convincing arguement. I'm certain he may have even said there is proof. I'm also certain you just said that he's a New Testiment Scholar. I'm sure he's very christian. I'm quite certain he has no actual empirical evidence. I'm certain he made it seem like he did as best he could. I'm also certain that, as a religious scholar specifically for the New Testiment and as a Christian, that his religious views precluded any chance he may be wrong.
That's why you're only going to hear about the truth of Jesus' resurrection only from Christians and Christian scholars - because it didn't actually happen. There's no evidence of it. None. Zero. Zilch.

I dont take the bible as being metaphoric. I believe the Jews literaly believed that Genesis 1 was literal, that God gave the Earth a purpose and existence. But I believe the Earth came around a different way...
I dont take Abraham or Moses as being metaphoric, why should I?
At times, I will argue 'poetic lisence' when the sun stood still for Joshua or in Job 1 the meeting with the other 'chiefs' I take that as being interesting, may of happened by most likely didnt...

I think you can stop proving my point now, unless I'm wrong about the fact that you appear to be tiptoeing around my point as best you can while being vague on the point that you're still accepting some parts of the bible as literal less than others.

What is incredible about the followers of Jesus, they believed full heartedly what they believed and they died for it, not many other leaders have the same affect. Christianity received persecution from day one and continued to grow and thrive, people gave up everything for this new belief, that the Messiah had come. People were used to 'Messiahs' coming and going, but this Messiah stopped the world...

How much of that do you honestly believe is due to Jesus performing miracles and being the son of god or simply being a martyr to an opressive government over a minority (assuming those events actually happened) and Christianity's popularity being helped by a numbe of cruisades that converted many by sword point by simply being in power over a large swath of humanity for many generations?
I suppose I should already know which answer you would give but I'm already quite certain of the actual answer.