Why do atheist try to convert Christians

Are you stating that I myself am not empirical evidence and that I do not exist? I am the empirical evidence that you claim does not to exist!

I havent seen all of them, but I find this one an attempt at picking up stones and heaving them at atheists.
Go look up some religious threads and then find some re: atheism v the believing world. The statistics heavily favor the religious as being least tolerant.

Please stop thinking this way, I care about atheist and theist alike many of my grand children may be either!
Intellectual and intellectually challenged, "it doe not depend upon your belief to fall under these categories in this day in time but I do hope to see this change in the future.

well then, just step back and review your thread with some objectivity.

You have a fuuny way of demonstrating this. You wish to give an outward appearance of analyses. (Your pen name is kind of laughable). You are, in a very quiet way, as much of a religious bigot as anyone who is a loud Bible thumper.
I hope you can try to be more objective in your posts. We are not always right and many times wrong. You have picked a thorn and are sticking folks with it. If you dont see that , then you are intellectually myopic.

Maybe I am wrong but the way I see it is, "that you say things without knowing them but don't we all?
If you knew me well you would know that I repeat very often how I do not have all the answers and how I can be wrong.
Some people think that I come across as if I am too repetitive about being wrong at times!

How do I know this ? Because people have told me that I sound like a broken record {so to speak} because I talk about how I may be wrong at times!

If you could actually read you would see that it is.

So I left out some punctuation that would help a first grade reader? Want me to try again for you personally?

"If he won't take the time to actually analyze what books he is "one staring", then why should we accept what he has to say, at all?

Nice try, but no cigar. Punctuation is as much a part of English usage as are the constituent letters of the words.

Curious, what is one staring at?

EVen with the quote marks it doesnt seem to make any sense. Is English a second language for you?

What the hell does "one staring" mean ?

Are you staring at me with those starry eyes?

I am legally blind so thank you for reminding me.

That reminds me of a song, you can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant walk right in it's around the back, just a halfa mile from the railroad track........

One staring means he is rating the book by giving it a single star rating. Let me explain further. The reason I am berating the kid is because he was giving a lecture about how he deals with writers who write about subjects he does not care about. So his attempt to discredit them by going to their amazon book page and giving the book a single star. This is what I am referring to when I say he is "one staring".

Think about it. A person who doesn't actually read a book is giving it a low rating just because they don't like the subject matter is less than honorable of a person in my opinion. Sure it's not exactly placing a dagger into someones body but still this comes from a person who is trying to push for morality! The irony alone would have to make you chuckle.

No, wait, let me explain something to you. The present participle of to stare is staring, which is why that bullshit you posted makes no sense to us. Now, accepting the dubious notion that there could be a verb "to star," meaning to rate something, the present participle for that would be "starring," with two r's. So don't try to blame anyone else here for your inability to write coherently in English. Furthermore, i seriously doubt that you can make the case that "one starring" is an accepted idiom in the English language.

And you're still doing it. This: So his attempt to discredit them by going to their amazon book page and giving the book a single star.--is not a sentence in the English language, close, but no cigar--it's a sentence fragment. And you're criticizing this kid?

I star
You star
He, she or it stars

I did not realize that there was a verb of the infinitive "to star". Having to create a special spelling for the participular form does not, to me at least, lend kosherness to the form. But what do I know, English is always revealing new wonders of spelling and word usage so that the immutable rules of yesterday dont even matter any more.

There are rules, however, for forming participles. If there actually is a verb "to star" with the meaning Krumple claims (oh please), the present participle would be starring and the past participle would be starred. I can be certain of this for two reasons. One is the English orthographic rule that a single syllable word ending in a single consonant has that final consonant doubled in order to form the participle. The second is that there is a verb "to star" which means to have the leading role in a drama or comedy. "The Rifleman, starring Chuck Connors." "Gone with the Wind starred Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh."

As I have to point out to you again because you can't comprehend anything. A person who tries to spread morality being dishonest is not a person worthy of listening to on morality.

I couldn't care less if you like or dislike my sentence structure. If it bothers you that much then simply do not read what I have to write. Problem solved.

You don't "have" to point out anything to me. The point you seem intent on avoiding is that if you can't write coherently, you can't get your message across. Having read many of your posts, i wouldn't consider that a loss.

I'll read what i goddamned well want to read. If you don't want to listen to the boy on morality, do not read what he has to write. Problem solved.

I'm only now realizing that this might have been a serious question. Just to cover that possibility, here is my answer:

Your question implies a statement that isn't true about me. As an atheist, I am not interested in converting Christians. But I am emphatically interested in the natural sciences---indeed, I'm a physicist by training. Because of that interest, I am trying to learn and discuss science with people who share it.

As it happens, the facts of cosmology, geology, and biology would leave any supernatural god with nothing to do. Similarly, the facts of neuropsychology leave any immaterial soul with nothing to do. Although none of this disproves the existence of gods and souls, Occam's razor does threaten traditional Christian beliefs, given the facts of science. But that's just a coincidence. While I don't care if Christian beliefs are threatened, that's not where my interest lies. My interest lies in the facts of science, and in the scientific process through which we discover them.

As far as I am concerned, that's only one option. I would like religious people to put up or shut up. If traditional Christians could produce any positive evidence for intelligent design, immaterial souls, and similar things, I would find that quite exciting. It is only the abysmal gap in their evidence that makes me want the literalist Christians to shut up.