Objectivity is subjective.

Can you be more categorically wrong?

My ignorance? I've asked many times why atheists are against God, I never get an answer beyond 'there is no empirical evidence'. My ignorance is based out of the stupidity of the atheists with whom I engage in discourse.

You are confused. Ask an atheist why de doesn't believe in god, and you will get (in most cases) a reply along the lines of "there is insufficient evidence or reason to believe."

You can't accept this so you portray them in your mind as being vehemently against god for an unspecified reason.

But if you ask an atheist why he is against god, he'll give you reasons why god is a bad idea.

That does not prove his nonexistence.

Nor does that prove the nonexistence of God; perhaps a lack of progress is a good thing?

That example does not prove the nonexistence of God.

That argument does not prove the nonexistence of God.

That argument does not prove the nonexistence of God.

'God does not exist because I don't want to have to hear about him.' Yup, real logical argument.

That argument does not prove the nonexistence of God.

I wasn't making arguments for nonexistence. I was arguing why god is a bad idea.

That works quite well if one claims that everybody who claims to have experienced 'answers-to-prayers', 'personal-relationships-with-deity', or 'miracles' is delusional. Who is one to say that they are delusional? Perhaps they are the accurate one?

A group that is accurate or right will have a consistent story. Ask anyone who's seen god and they'll give you entirely different answers based on their cultural heritage. It's the same with prayers, and "personal relationship."

Prayer is a text book example of confirmation bias. The "personal relationship" is a delusion that is related to an imaginary friend. They just believe that their imagination is real. Call it the power of self-suggestion.

perhaps a lack of progress is a good thing? If any form of man-made apocalypse ever occurs, survivors - if there are any - will realize that progress is not always the best thing. Bioweapons, nuclear weapons, many things can lead to the death of humanity.

Humanity will die if it doesn't develop the technology to leave this planet. Humanity might die if it develops more technology.

We are a flicker of light on a ball in a vast vacuum, full of lethal, exploding stars, asteroids, and electromagnetic waves. We need to use our brains to survive.

What does that matter? You are so humanistic that you want peace and love all around, some hippie-world.

Right. So people blowing themselves up in a crowded area is a good thing.

Without exception? How many religious leaders? A few? All of them? Perhaps one only hears about the few who object, whereas there are those who welcome such advancements?

Without religion these people would be far fewer, or perhaps not even exist after centuries. At the very least they wouldn't have the authority of their religion to ride on as they make nutball claims like "smallpox is god's creation and we must accept it." Do you realise that the church was against vaccination? It was against evolution. Against geology. Against heliocentric theory. Against women's rights, and so on.

Of course not! A woman should have the right over her own body - up until the time when her body is not exclusively her own! When she has a foetus in her, then it is no longer only her body.

A foetus isn't a person.

Regardless of the religious objection, is there not also a logical reason to oppose such things? Omnicide, for one. An humanistic reason - one which an atheist should comprehend - is that it can harm humans, the main reason why cloning is illegal !

We already have regulations in place which seek to keep experiments from killing everything. Religious nutters simply go one step further and say "this is and forever will be wrong because it's new."

'God does not exist because I don't want to have to hear about him.' Yup, real logical argument.

Even if god existed I wouldn't want to hear about him. I don't go around door to door telling you about Gliese 581-d. I don't expect it to be carved upon the courthouses. God means nothing to a large number of people, and we don't want or need to hear about it.

The vast majority of Americans believes in a deity - why should the majority have to be without such tokens to appease the minority?

It's simple really. Take a look at medieval Europe and the present-day middle east.

If that's too vague I'll spell it out: the only society that works for everyone is a secular state. A religious state oppresses everyone but a selected group, for entirely arbitrary reasons.

I have books filled to the brim about the paranormal. Millions upon millions of people have claimed to have seen these things, yet science says it's nonexistent because there is no empirical proof; people like you say that those who claim to witness such occurrences are delusional. You claiming that they are delusional does not mean that they are so.

There are many books claiming earth is hollow. Paranormal claims have been repeatedly debunked. There are even rewards to be handed out to people who can reproduce paranormal claims in controlled, scientific conditions.

Needless to say it never works. You'd think that if just one paranormal claim was more than a product of the mind, the person would go to the James Randi foundation and prove it.

If I were a ghost hunter, I'd study it. One would have no reason not to believe your claim until such a time when one has reason to question the validity of said claim.

This is the 21st century, not the 16th.

One can give evidence; though that evidence, according to people like you, is conjured up by delusional people.

No, the evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Which is?

The burden of proof. You make a positive claim, you are expected to provide positive evidence.

The brain works through biochemical processes. It is responsible for our entire personality, our feelings, our consciousness. Since death is the end of this organ, our identity must cease.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

I already know what you shall say: It's all a load of hokum.

You are as prejudiced as I.

Up is not down. Just because we are both on positions of a debate doesn't mean we both must be symmetrical in our prejudices, reasonableness, etc.

I have no personal investment in the god question. It means nothing to me, I just find it a way to waste time when I'm bored.

Did I say it was highly coherent? No.

Is it comprehensible to one who gives it a few seconds of thought? Yes.

Your atheism blinded you.

It is logically inconsistent. You are defending poor reasoning.

I don't identify as atheist. Read my profile.

Atheistic arguments will always have trouble, no matter how they are written, because they rest on faulty reasoning.

This is an asymmetric issue therefore your argument doesn't follow.