Faith is when you believe something despite a lack of evidence. Atheists do not have faith. There is substantial evidence against any sort of omniscient, omnipotent presence in this universe.

Substantial evidence against an omniscient, omnipotent presence? (Perhaps I'm just disagreeing with your word choice, and not what you really meant.)

EDIT: If you threw in omnibenevolent as a qualifier I would of agreed with your word choice.

You should try being an atheist who doesnt think about this sort of thing at all. Ticks all the boxes, it seems to me.
Odd.

Yeah. Flame bait. This is going nowhere.

You know, OP, everyone is attracted to a flame, but if you don't stoke it into a bonfire, people just leave.

You suck at this. Try harder next time.

You think Rommel would be better at tactics.

If you're not here for discussion, then don't make threads. No one will care if you just go away.

lolz nice

It scares me that there exists people who consider their faith "done".

The only good that can come out of this thread is a reasonable dialog as to why so many people like Rommel don't grasp what atheism is or means. Or if they do understand, why they think it takes any effort at all to not believe gremlins exist.

I think he's still wrong, but I suspect his point was slightly more coherent than "it takes effort to not believe in something".

I think he meant that, if atheists really didnt believe in God they wouldnt be posting on RGT. He is taking our presence here as indicative of a hidden faithin God trying to assert itself which we drown out by arguing passionately about how silly religion is. (At least that's the most charitable reading I can give it - shades of Stu Pidasso's 'closet theist' if you ask me). It's not an uncommon view amongst Christians, in my experience, although I suppose that might mean I'm reading the familiar argument into Rommel's posts where it really doesnt exist.

The impact religion has on the non-believers is, of course, the motivating element he's ignoring.

There's some truth in it. When I started posting on RGT I was semi-hoping that I'd hear good arguments and regain my faith. Now I'm a metaphysical-naturalist so... er... good job theists

What do you mean by metaphysical-naturalist? Personally, I view the metaphysical in the same way that I view alternative medicine.

Alternative medicine usually either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. Alternative medicine that has been proven to work is called - medicine.

The metaphysical usually either hasn't been proven to exist, or has been proven not to exist. The metaphysical that has been proven to exist is called - the physical.

Can you elaborate on how wrong I am in the above?

Here ya' go:

I don't understand why they insert the term 'metaphysical' there. That term brings about a whole array of negative connotations for me, and when people use it around me, I secretly judge them.

I agree there are certain (negative, from my perspective) connotations typically associated with the term 'metaphysics', mainly due to its colloquial use. However, this needn't be the case when coming from someone who you know uses philosophical terms correctly (zumby obviously falls into this category).

Yes, I'm sure he has a suitable response, hence why I asked. But I do still question why they use the term metaphysical there.

To differentiate it from methodological naturalism.

Couldn't a different term that doesn't have the same connotations do the same thing?

Do I have this right, if atheists respond to OP, it shows they doth protest too much?

Cool.

OP, do you struggle with your faith?

A "no" answer means you're insecure and have to shout affirmations.

Not responding at all means you are blocking.

Sure, ontological naturalism and philosophical naturalism would of gotten the same idea across. Perhaps zumby doesn't perceive 'metaphysics' to have a negative connotation.

agree on bad connotations of "metaphysical".
but as others stated probably based on colloquial use.

If I was more worried about avoiding negative connotations than accurately describing my beliefs, I wouldn't call myself an atheist either.

I was going to start a thread about why atheists post myself. The impact that religion has on non-believers is why I originally started posting. However, if I'm to be honest, I suppose I continued (longer than I should have) for the game. It was fun destroying the faulty logic of unsophisticated theists. I also find it rewarding those times I won on points against the more well thought out arguments against sophisticated theists.

I tired of that (or deemed it not worth the frustration) after realizing that theism runs deeper than mere logic in many cases. Too many seem to be so mired in faith that they have a logic be damned attitude.

Now I'm back to square one and the impact religion has on non-believers. I find it incredibly sad that a sizable percentage of the world seems currently ablaze and locked in mortal dispute over differing versions of ancient fairy tales. I am almost apocalyptic in my view that something terrible is on the near horizon. That it's just a matter of time before some religious nutcase(s) gets their hands on WMDs and starts using them, while rational thinkers just sit back quietly and watch it happen. I find it tragic.

That's why I made the thread, period. (From time to time a relationship can get sour...what can I say.) I figured the best way to offend God would be to encourage atheists to not sweat "it"...atheists were just a pawn in my game vs. God, sorry.

That being said...my comment to atheists would be, "repent or perish for all eternity...things will not go well for you if you suppress the truth...best wishes"