I think anyone who practices an 'organized' religion is an idiot and automatically write them off as so.

You should be able to know what is 'write' and what is wrong.
You all are a bunch of farking stupid arse hypocrites anyways, the whole stinking lot of ya.

/looks like jesus wasn't an Indian

amanogowa: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong, on many, many levels. Lose the capital 'G', and you might have a leg to stand on.

/a close minded, simplistic, and wrong leg
//but at least you could make a reasonable argument.

If you prefer I'll continue the discussion with lowercase 'g's and an (s). Now care to at least make some kind of argument other than capitalization?

I've often wondered if how one comes about ones beliefs has anything to do with one's tolerance level. I was raised by early-fifties bohemians - beatniks, basically. I was never taught any sort of religion, and religion has always struck me as mildly absurd - but I have never felt any hostility towards religion or religious people, unless you count stuff like Fred Phelps, suicide bombers, or the Kansas School board - and most people of faith seem to share my feelings on those matters.
I've got no basic problem with people of faith. I'm happy to argue the epistimological issues with them, of course, provided it stays civil - but I just can't muster any wharrrgarrrbl on the subject.
Now while I have never met an "angry atheist" IRL, I would have to say that I have met a few of them here on Fark, and elsewhere in the media - and to the extent that they relate their personal stories, they all seem to have one thing in common - they all seem to be apostates - people who were raised in faith, had bad experiences, and left it.
I wonder if that's the difference.

Funny headline. Has nothing to do with the article's point though.

Turns out you can be a confident agnostic, as in confident the "fundies" and the "atheists" have it all wrong.

The farkers who claim to the "most open minded" are the ones who obviously have had their brains slide out through that opening.

SobrietyFighter: /looks like jesus wasn't an Indian

He was inspired by one tho ;)

emkajii: Blind_Io: Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

Are you agnostic to Leprechauns? Unicorns? How about centaurs or dragons? Fairies? Ghosts? Russel's Teapot?

The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence. As an atheist, I'm not saying that there will never be evidence for a god. Rather, what I'm saying that until that evidence presented, the only logically defensible position is the that which I would take with any outlandish claim: disbelief.

I guess that is the disconnect. What you call disbelief to me is the logical acceptance of the null hypothesis (ie, that X does not exist). To me, there is a difference between the belief of non-existence and disbelief. The problem is that, for many, disbelief in X means the same as belief in the non-existence of X.

The acceptance of the null hypothesis (disbelief in X) when the hypothesis (X exists) fails to be supported is not the same to me as belief in the non-existence of X. In the case of disbelief (acceptance of the null), there is room for more data and the idea that with new information the result of the test can change and the hypothesis can be modified to include new discovery. For me, belief in the non-existence of X closes the door on discovery because the person has faith in the absence of knowledge. To say that "There is no X" would indicate that the person knows everything there is to know and can say with certainty that X does not exist. Since no one can actually know everything there is to know, no one can say for certain that there is no X. However, one can say, "I have failed to find X by looking here in a given way, that does not mean that X does not exist, only that I have not found X."

This is why so many hard core anti-gay types turn out to be gay. Duh.

There lots so examples that simply represent people battling their own demons by crusading against them in a public way.

Shakespeare said something like "me thinks thou dost protest too much. Same deal.

So what exactly are all the fundies so upset about when they are constantly complaining about the war on Christians?

(I see what I did there.)

servoled: If you want to take it that way sure... but even under a split like that antitheism would qualify as an atheistic position

I can see that point of view, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

servoled: amanogowa: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong, on many, many levels. Lose the capital 'G', and you might have a leg to stand on.

/a close minded, simplistic, and wrong leg
//but at least you could make a reasonable argument.

If you prefer I'll continue the discussion with lowercase 'g's and an (s). Now care to at least make some kind of argument other than capitalization?

Sure. I can do it in one word.

Agnostic. You know, the main key to this thread. They have completely separate meanings. To be an agnostic simply means that you believe that there is not enough evidence to concretely state there is a god. Atheists on the other hand believe there is enough and that there is no god.

An agnostic is not a weak atheist, as they are a separate entity, completely unrelated by definition. An agnostic is no more an atheist than they are a theist.

joonyer: Milkbeer: All I gotta say, is where would LAPD be without rodney king? Agnostics want to take christian's "Rodney King", call him the cause of all world problems, and at the same time, say that Obama is "Rodney King"

//that was a metaphor for all the useful idiots in here who think Obama is the messiah.

Which is like, zero. You dickshaft.

He's a known troll. But the 'messiah' meme always struck me as odd, because the vast majority of people who believe in the messiah in the first place are on the far right and despise Obama.

Brainsick: Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

Awesome.

CrankMyBlueSax 2009-07-02 01:38:26 PM
Lord_Baull: The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

It's a joke.


An obscure joke. Like mine, and, I thought, yours.

edmo:

So what exactly are all the fundies so upset about when they are constantly complaining about the war on Christians?

(I see what I did there.)

I don't see what you did. Is the answer buttsecks?

I'll believe in almost anything if you pay me enough.

I guess I could be considered a close minded atheist. My mind was once open, I considered carefully and debated the opposing viewpoint for a decade or so. But I recognized a common pattern after a while. People stick to their faith for various reasons. I'm not sure I'd call it stupidity or ignorance, but the debate consists more of post hoc rationalizations than accepting the results of a priori (common sense) principles. On the other hand, it was the a priori application of common sense principles to religious beliefs that led me to atheism in the first place.

Anyway, I'd say I respect religious beliefs about as much as any sort of fantasy belief, such as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and leprechauns. The reasons for rejecting one are the same as the reason for rejecting the others.

Agnostic does not equal atheism. Or, are you all too closed minded to accept that?

rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

And that supreme being, he is tiny and simple? If not, then what or who was he created by? The whole "complexity points to a creator" argument leads to an endless chain of creators, unless you posit that the creator has always existed, and in that case, why couldn't you say the same about the universe? If it's okay for the creator to be eternal in all his complexity, but you don't hold the same to be true for the universe without a creator, then you are just being arbitrary.

It's okay for you to believe these things. Just don't try to pretend they are based on logic.

Milkbeer: t3knomanser: Milkbeer: useful idiots

You must be a useless idiot.

lol, uh, I didn't vote for a guy who believes white people started the AIDS virus, and also are trying to find a cure... Oh yeah, and had to hire ACORN to committ voter fraud on his behalf..... then got indicted, then is now going to become a national partner.....then is going to begin collecting data from all citizens, then is going be ok with Iran killing people who protest to not be ok with overthrowing dictators in Honduras. LOL, you're a useful farking I spit on your face idiot.

Needs more cowbell.

I only came into this thread looking for funny pictures.

/disappointed

wmoonfox: servoled: If you want to take it that way sure... but even under a split like that antitheism would qualify as an atheistic position

I can see that point of view, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

Or, to break it down more succinctly, reverse your logic: if one is not an atheist -- if one does not believe wholeheartedly in the non-existence of a deity -- then one must be a theist. I think most people would find fault in this line of logic.

wmoonfox: I can see that point of view, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

I'm not so sure that "Do you believe god(s) exist" is the greatest question of the universe. "Do god(s) exist" may be, but that is different and much more difficult (if not impossible) to answer than your own personal belief on that matter. Subtle distinction to be fair, but its an important one. Atheism/Theism are nothing more than categorization tools and ultimately don't have any impact on the truth regarding the existence of god(s).

Milkbeer, do you believe that adolf hitler was a horrible person, or that because he did what he did(hero tag?), it stopped a future 'hitler' from being 10x worse because we are now informed?

Lord_Baull: CrankMyBlueSax 2009-07-02 01:38:26 PM
Lord_Baull: The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

It's a joke.


An obscure joke. Like mine, and, I thought, yours.



Well played indeed.

jso2897: they all seem to be apostates - people who were raised in faith, had bad experiences, and left it.

It's probably because they are more disillusioned than people that were atheists from the get-go, and feel that religion has wasted a significant portion of their life.

vertiaset: Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

The world is not bleak and hopeless, it is not anything.
Why make morals and ethics where none need exist?
It's only alienation and dissociation because the rest of humanity is wrong.
What makes secular humanism's moral basis better than any others?
Why would it be well?

vertiaset 2009-07-02 01:45:53 PM
Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Sorry, I don't need to believe in a supernatural force to blame for all life's ills. I also don't need a supernatural force to enjoy life.
And your painting of atheists as amoral is just....stupid.
Here's an example of some religious types that have less morals than your "tiny minority."

Ted Haggard
Gov. Sanford
Jimmy Swaggart
Hitler
Larry Craig
Fred Phelps
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

ScotterOtter: Agnostic does not equal atheism. Or, are you all too closed minded to accept that?

Go easy on them, they both start with an A. I doubt they really understand that different words mean different things.

All they know is, it's different and therefore must be hated and feared.

Blind_Io: emkajii: Blind_Io: Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

Are you agnostic to Leprechauns? Unicorns? How about centaurs or dragons? Fairies? Ghosts? Russel's Teapot?

The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence. As an atheist, I'm not saying that there will never be evidence for a god. Rather, what I'm saying that until that evidence presented, the only logically defensible position is the that which I would take with any outlandish claim: disbelief.

I guess that is the disconnect. What you call disbelief to me is the logical acceptance of the null hypothesis (ie, that X does not exist). To me, there is a difference between the belief of non-existence and disbelief. The problem is that, for many, disbelief in X means the same as belief in the non-existence of X.

The acceptance of the null hypothesis (disbelief in X) when the hypothesis (X exists) fails to be supported is not the same to me as belief in the non-existence of X. In the case of disbelief (acceptance of the null), there is room for more data and the idea that with new information the result of the test can change and the hypothesis can be modified to include new discovery. For me, belief in the non-existence of X closes the door on discovery because the person has faith in the absence of knowledge. To say that "There is no X" would indicate that the person knows everything there is to know and can say with certainty that X does not exist. Since no one can actually know everything there is to know, no one can say for certain that there is no X. However, one can say, "I have failed to find X by looking here in a given way, that does not mean that X does not exist, only that I have not found X."

I think these conversations get derailed a lot once the god discussed becomes "any generic god" when really we're talking about many many specific and established gods. It makes the discussion a proof thing about hypothetical abstracts and that makes people type long paragraphs explaining simple things. While these arguments have merit, the reasons to not believe in the existence in gods are much easier to talk about when a specific god is picked since it can then be applied to all others since they're basically all the same thing. I dunno, I just feel like i've seen this argument before a lot and it never goes anywhere interesting.

My lord there's a lot of dumb in this thread.

SobrietyFighter: This thread is way too serious.

Lighten up Francis.


Who cares what someone believes as long as it is not oppressive? The only person you should judge is yourself.

/atheist
//beliefs mean you are decider of what is right and what is wrong. ( " I BELIEVE THAT... yadda yadda ")
///don't tell me what to believe ( or whether i can or can not do something)
////because i won't be listening
// we are just vibrations anyways right?

// oppressive has two s 's

-because you'll go to hell
-try that one on in traffic court
-most of us are
-God is the decider and that is the whole point, you didn't decide you were right, but you definitely decided we were wrong
-if we don't tell you what are the chances you'll evolve it on your own?

God is the decider and that is the whole point

Prove it.

amanogowa: Agnostic. You know, the main key to this thread. They have completely separate meanings. To be an agnostic simply means that you believe that there is not enough evidence to concretely state there is a god. Atheists on the other hand believe there is enough and that there is no god.

An agnostic is not a weak atheist, as they are a separate entity, completely unrelated by definition. An agnostic is no more an atheist than they are a theist.

See, you don't have to "concretely state" one way or the other to believe that god(s) exist or not. Evidence is not required for belief. You are trying to treat it as a question of knowledge requiring proof, however it is a question of belief which doesn't not have the same standards.

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time. Moreover, it is postulated that there may be many more universes, each as extensive as our own. Now, infinity. This is a concept that human beings have a hard time grasping. Even mathematicians and physicists deal with the concept symbolically in the abstract. Infinite means that anything with a probability greater than zero, no matter how improbable, must necessarily occur. Now, this idea of improbable events occurring over time is the very argument advanced by science to explain the highly improbable occurrence of the DNA molecule just "happening" in the same space of time that a cellular structure also just "happened". After all DNA is useless without such a structure. So, why then is it inconceivable that there is some sort of entity, very different from us, which has structured things the way they are? This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

So, "There's a god because stuff is totally complicated."
Also, what god do you subscribe to?

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

None of these things require a god - that they happened spontaneously isn't evidence that an intelligent being caused them to happen.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time.
This is false. Science tells us that space and time are both finite. The rest of this paragraph was too long so I ignored it.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless.
Ignoring the fact that this is merely a matter of opinion, just because something is unpleasant doesn't make it less true.

It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

I know a number of atheists and no reasonable person would consider any of them amoral. It may be true that a small minority of atheists consider themselves secular humanists, but that doesn't mean that the rest lack morals.

i like to believe i'm self aware. but who knows? maybe i'm not?

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time. Moreover, it is postulated that there may be many more universes, each as extensive as our own. Now, infinity. This is a concept that human beings have a hard time grasping. Even mathematicians and physicists deal with the concept symbolically in the abstract. Infinite means that anything with a probability greater than zero, no matter how improbable, must necessarily occur. Now, this idea of improbable events occurring over time is the very argument advanced by science to explain the highly improbable occurrence of the DNA molecule just "happening" in the same space of time that a cellular structure also just "happened". After all DNA is useless without such a structure. So, why then is it inconceivable that there is some sort of entity, very different from us, which has structured things the way they are? This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Ya its a belief system (rolls eyes). Just keep telling yourself that as you pattern your believes on someone else's pure fantasy. I don't care how many theologians think about something and discuss it out loud and try to convince each other its real...it doesn't make it true. No matter what you think about the complexity of the universe no amount of believing in something just makes it real or even explains anything.
I'm sorry you think that just existing is somehow bleak and without purpose, and that you are only here to serve a deity forever and ever, or that you are here on some test or something. What an empty life you must have, to have to 'imagine' it will be better after your dead.

Wow, there are some seriously shocking revelations in those studies. Like, people gravitate to the familiar, and, like minded people congregate to reinforce their beliefs -Incredible stuff!

Whatever. Its ridiculous how identifying yourself as an atheist or agnostic means having to be compared to some caricature drawn up by people who fear and despise you. I'm not an agnostic because I think I'm some super duper enlightened renaissance man open to entertain anything and everything; I'm agnostic simply because I can admit that I am unsure of our origins and purpose, and popular religious explanations just don't jive with me.

So... f@*K off!

Lord_Baull: God is the decider and that is the whole point

Prove it.

I thought W was the decider.

wmoonfox: I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

No.

The greatest question in the universe is as follows:

"Do you really want to?"

To answer this question, you'll need currently non-existent solid ground in ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, semantics, theory of language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics.

The only correct answers are:

"I guess."

and

"Maybe not."

servoled: amanogowa: Agnostic. You know, the main key to this thread. They have completely separate meanings. To be an agnostic simply means that you believe that there is not enough evidence to concretely state there is a god. Atheists on the other hand believe there is enough and that there is no god.

An agnostic is not a weak atheist, as they are a separate entity, completely unrelated by definition. An agnostic is no more an atheist than they are a theist.

See, you don't have to "concretely state" one way or the other to believe that god(s) exist or not. Evidence is not required for belief. You are trying to treat it as a question of knowledge requiring proof, however it is a question of belief which doesn't not have the same standards.

There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

TFerWannaBe: I know a number of atheists and no reasonable person would consider any of them amoral. It may be true that a small minority of atheists consider themselves secular humanists, but that doesn't mean that the rest lack morals.

Also religion serves as a vessel for whatever morals the people in it feel like. They may be nice or they may be totally awful assholes, the fact that it's religion only makes the people involved believe that they are right, it in no way whatsoever ensures the moral code is a good one.

Tartha De Tear: wmoonfox: I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

No.

The greatest question in the universe is as follows:

"Do you really want to?"

To answer this question, you'll need currently non-existent solid ground in ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, semantics, theory of language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics.

The only correct answers are:

"I guess."

and

"Maybe not."

Ow... my head.

So, does this mean "who are you" and "what do you want" are out of the running?

/obscure?

Of course, it makes perfect sense! People who believe in science and factual evidence are going to be more closed minded than people who believe in fantasies and fairy tales.

Brilliant!

Agnostic, atheist, whatever..your labels not mine..
Being closed minded AND analytical is your best bet not to be decieved. If you're "Open Minded" you'll buy snake oil just c'ause he's "Part of your congregation".

Fundies or not, religious types are dupes...period.

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time. Moreover, it is postulated that there may be many more universes, each as extensive as our own. Now, infinity. This is a concept that human beings have a hard time grasping. Even mathematicians and physicists deal with the concept symbolically in the abstract. Infinite means that anything with a probability greater than zero, no matter how improbable, must necessarily occur. Now, this idea of improbable events occurring over time is the very argument advanced by science to explain the highly improbable occurrence of the DNA molecule just "happening" in the same space of time that a cellular structure also just "happened". After all DNA is useless without such a structure. So, why then is it inconceivable that there is some sort of entity, very different from us, which has structured things the way they are? This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

We know that the Universe is finite in space, but it is expanding. And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Your garbage about DNA being useless without cellular structure is off the mark as well. There are other self-replicating molecules like RNA that we've shown to be able to spontaneously form given the right components and conditions.

If you're looking at a first mover argument, why does the Universe need a creator, but God does not? If something as complex as the universe requires design, why does something that's even more complex, a sentient omnipotent entity, not require a creator?

And atheism does not attempt to answer ethical or moral questions. It's an answer to a specific question, whether or not there is a divinity. We have systems of morals and ethics to answer moral and ethical questions instead.

And humanism is not such a tiny minority as you might think. It's very decentralized and not very well organized, but there are about 10 million of us in the country, with many more abroad.

proMidget:
-because you'll go to hell
-try that one on in traffic court
-most of us are
-God is the decider and that is the whole point, you didn't decide you were right, but you definitely decided we were wrong
-if we don't tell you what are the chances you'll evolve it on your own?

Incidentally, has anybody read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer? I want to read it for the "rational arguments" for intelligent design, but I don't want to waste 30ish bucks on some blatant pseudo-science BS that'll just make me angry. Are Meyer's arguments at least slightly believable?

Lord_Baull: vertiaset 2009-07-02 01:45:53 PM
Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Sorry, I don't need to believe in a supernatural force to blame for all life's ills. I also don't need a supernatural force to enjoy life.
And your painting of atheists as amoral is just....stupid.
Here's an example of some religious types that have less morals than your "tiny minority."

Ted Haggard
Gov. Sanford
Jimmy Swaggart
Hitler
Larry Craig
Fred Phelps
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It's a common logical fallacy known as a "frozen abstraction". When you hear someone say "That person has no morals", what they really mean is "That person does not share MY morals".
The fallacy lies in holding only one member of a class of things to be solely representative of that entire class of things.
I, however, have found that it is pointless to argue with people who embrace that fallacy - since they have already essentially re-defined the abstraction in question (be it morality or anything else) to exclude all but a single member of that class of abstractions, they are incapable of perceiving any that do not meet their self-imposed definition.
The reasoning process is thus:"My system of moral belief is a top down set of mandates that proceed from a higher authority. Thus, morality IS a top down set of mandates from a higher authority. Therefore, anyone who does not embrace a top-down set of mandates from a higher authority has no morality".
It's airtight logic, and cannot be disproven or even effectively questioned, and there is little point in pursuing it.

jrchan: Incidentally, has anybody read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer? I want to read it for the "rational arguments" for intelligent design, but I don't want to waste 30ish bucks on some blatant pseudo-science BS that'll just make me angry. Are Meyer's arguments at least slightly believable?

You already know the answer in your heart.

servoled: Evidence is not required for belief. You are trying to treat it as a question of knowledge requiring proof, however it is a question of belief which doesn't not have the same standards.

you're confusing "faith" and "belief."