rational-debate,

<<I ...  generally find it sad that most [atheists] are so angry.>>

Perhaps the ones you've encountered are fed-up with the damage religion has done and continues to do; everything from trying to teach nonsense in school science classes to acts of terrorism and everything in between?

<<I have a strong and rational basis for my faith.>>

Faith is belief without good reason. If religious belief had a rational basis, then it wouldn't be referred to as "faith". 

You theists always seem to forget this, but are very fast to remember it again when you feel the need to accuse atheists or scientists of having a faith.

<<Bottom line is that I can't prove any of this to you but even the best efforts (and there have been many) of great minds throughout history have put not even a dent in Christianity.>>

And yet li'l ol' me can debunk the Abrahamic god in one post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398#248464).

As an atheist interested in counter-apologetics, who was once a Christian interested in apologetics, I'd be fascinated to hear any arguments you could provide that go to demonstrating any god at all.

Dear AJ Philips,

As one who aspires to deserve the title 'religious', I tend to agree with your last post.

Belief, whether with or without good reason, is always related to facts about the material/objective world.
Faith is not a belief - faith is an attitude and has nothing to do with facts about the world.

Attempts to base faith on science or to mix up the two, only demonstrates the perpetrator's lack of faith.

Why would a wo/man of faith be interested in science and waste their time on it in the first place (unless they need to make a living out of it)?

What saddens me is that religion is wrongly attacked and degraded, as in "fed-up with the damage religion has done and continues to do", for the actions of some fools who dare call themselves 'religious'.

I sometimes wonder if we don't all get a little confused about atheism. There are apparently so many Gods in this world that millions of people have faith in, that I wonder what someone is called if they believe in one God, but none of the others?

What are you called if you believe in multiple Gods?
Who is to say that one God, or one human-written book about that God is more 'believable' than another?

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
&#8213; Richard Dawkins

Thanks AJ Phillips, I needed a good laugh. I assume you were joking with the amazing, God disproving link you posted? If that's the best you can offer, I think you may have put the cause of atheism back 50 years.

The reason the Atheists are so angry is that deep down they know they are wrong. Much easier to get all angry than to admit the truth. Ask any teenager...

.

Dear Suseonline,

.

"What are you called if you believe in multiple Gods?"

You are called a polytheist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism
.

" ... I wonder what someone is called if they believe in one God, but none of the others?"

That "someone" is called a monotheist.

.

"Who is to say that one God, or one human-written book about that God is more 'believable' than another?"

The believers in that one God.

.

rational-debate,

There was nothing amazing about that post of mine that I linked to.

<<I assume you were joking with the amazing, God disproving link you posted? If that's the best you can offer, I think you may have put the cause of atheism back 50 years.>>

The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god of the Abrahamic religions is very easy to debunk. Take the problem of evil, for example. This is such a problem for the Judeo-Christian religions that they’ve had to invented an entire study devoted to skirting around it called Theodicy.

But instead of shooting off a nervous and uncomfortable-sounding jibe, could you explain to me why my points in the post I linked to failed? Did I miss something? Was there an error in my reasoning anywhere? Can you explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing God, who has an important message for us all, would be stupid enough to convey that message to us through texts written in languages that die-out?

I don’t think you can, hence your snide and evasive response.

<<The reason the Atheists are so angry is that deep down they know they are wrong.>>

And yet you are unable to provide a rational basis for your, um... faith.

How do you know this? And how can they know that they're wrong when theists can't even explain why they're right?

<<Much easier to get all angry than to admit the truth. Ask any teenager...>>

Who are these teenagers and what are they saying? Or are you comparing atheists - of all ages - to teenagers in general?

Let’s get this straight... I’ve given you a rational explanation for the anger some atheists display, along with examples of why my explanation could very well be the case (i.e. creationism, terrorism), and all you can come back with is some mysterious teenagers; or a bald-faced assumption about the psychology behind atheism, based on how some from a narrow and irrelevant demographic think and behave.

Poor form. Very poor form indeed.