My point is that we seem to be speaking in two different languages. More than that, even. It's almost as if we live in different, but over-lapping worlds. We simply don't have a belief in a higher power. That's it. It seems so incredibly simple to me, yet time and time again it gets twisted and distorted by people who do.
Well, when it comes to some of our new friends in A2K that certainly is the case.
Some of them speak the language of pretentious would-be mystics, and the rest of us (though often wrong) get more to the freakin point.
You needn't have a belief in a higher power. It can't be proven either way.
My issue is with atheists who have come to their "disbelief" through dissapointment rather than reason.
It seems to me that people who insist on advancing the case for atheisim are unsure of their disbelief and want to prove it to themselves. I don't, for one second, believe that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are trying to save the world from irrational belief in the divine.
If someone came to you and insisted that dragons are roaming the earth, you might attempt to disabuse them of their irrational belief, but I would expect and hope that such efforts would be very limited. At some point, early on, you would conclude that the person is irrational, that you knew full well dragons didn't roam the earth, and that there was no point in pressing on with your argument.
If you were not sure, though, and the possibility of dragons roaming the earth disturbed or alarmed you, you might easily continue to vigorously dispute the person's claim in order to support your own.
Don't believe. I'm not going to try and convince you to believe.
I feel sorry for you that you have reached this point (and truly not in a condescending way) but totally respect your call. Only you know how you came to the conclusion.
What I can't abide are atheists who insist on trumpeting their disbelief with a fanfare that declares believers are irrational idiots.
I'm also not too keen on believers that insist on trumpeting their belief with a fanfare that declares non-believers are defective sinners.
Too often, in my opinion, the atheist's argument is inextricably woven with his or her argument against religion. Once again, such arguments seem to be a function of dissappointment. Religion has never and will never be the salvation of humanity, because it doesn't exist outside of humanity. It can and has been a vehicle for the worst of human intent, but it has also been a vehicle for the best. It is a BIG thought for humans and it will invariably have big consequences, but not only have they not all been bad, it is difficult to imagine how the good consequences they resulted in would have manifested without them.