How rude of me!

Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
How rude of me!

 I forgot to introduce myself!

Hello all, my name is Drake (which I take great pride in, it's an awesome name). I am currently a high school running start student in the Pacific Northwest (the most fascinating place in the world). I have pretty much been an infidel since I can remember, although I do know as a baby my family went to church. Luckily, my parents weren't hooked. My dad having a rough upbringing had no reason to believe in a god, realizing he himself worked hard out of his unfortunate reality.

As of yet, I'm a militant atheist relative to most teens I know, although I don't feel cool about being the "rebel". Ignorant people frustrate me, but more so do irrational people. People say I need to talk less, but only because I speak blasphemies. I'm currently trying to get involved with the atheist community and working to educate myself in the scientific field. Any questions, ask away!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to Rational

Welcome to Rational Responders, Infidelis!

I'm a physics major at the University of Washington, Seattle. Where are you in the Pacific Northwest?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Welcome!I'm an old, old man

Welcome!

I'm an old, old man from Alaska, currently residing in Ohio (which sucks like a Hoover).

I hope to see you around a bit.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ohio.... too hot for

Ohio.... too hot for Alaskans? I think it would be all the way down here I live.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote: I forgot

Infidelis wrote:

 I forgot to introduce myself!

Hello all, my name is Drake (which I take great pride in, it's an awesome name). I am currently a high school running start student in the Pacific Northwest (the most fascinating place in the world). I have pretty much been an infidel since I can remember, although I do know as a baby my family went to church. Luckily, my parents weren't hooked. My dad having a rough upbringing had no reason to believe in a god, realizing he himself worked hard out of his unfortunate reality.

As of yet, I'm a militant atheist relative to most teens I know, although I don't feel cool about being the "rebel". Ignorant people frustrate me, but more so do irrational people. People say I need to talk less, but only because I speak blasphemies. I'm currently trying to get involved with the atheist community and working to educate myself in the scientific field. Any questions, ask away!

Well, Drake... I see you like standing in the shadows. I wonder if you like living amongst them...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Ohio.... too

Kapkao wrote:

Ohio.... too hot for Alaskans? I think it would be all the way down here I live.

Nope. It was a pretty mild summer, and this winter hasn't been too cold. I'm pretty comfortable.

Where do you live, again?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The same state

The same state RoyfuckingMoore-on lives. I believe there's a thread about that down the forums list. Something about the Establishment Clause and what have you...

What is exactly so bad about Ohio?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
im not in the shadows.

I stand in a particular light, actually. "Black" light, as it's known by you mortals. haha

And I'm like 35 minutes from Seattle.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote:As of yet,

Infidelis wrote:

As of yet, I'm a militant atheist relative to most teens I know, although I don't feel cool about being the "rebel". Ignorant people frustrate me, but more so do irrational people. People say I need to talk less, but only because I speak blasphemies.

Welcome, Drake! I sympathize. In highschool I pretty much adopted a 'silent atheist' approach, which I now see was a mistake. Didn't want to bother people, and as long as they didn't bother me, I kept my mouth shut about religion. But the irrationality constantly irritated me. I wish I'd had more confidence back then and spoken out more. All I could do was sigh and mutter, "Idiots" under my breath.

Today it's a different story, and I adopt the unapologetic atheist approach. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, being outspoken about it, and criticizing faith, religion, and other irrationalities without feeling defensive or apologetic about it. What do we have to apologize for?

An ironic side-effect of not holding in my frustrations is that I no longer sigh and mutter "Idiots". Instead, I just honestly say what I think is wrong with people's ideas without making it about the the people directly. (Unless they bring it to me first. Then I'll let loose.) As a result, the frustrations are diminished and I don't feel as negative about irrational people; I focus my attention on irrationality *itself*. Instead of calling someone stupid, I might call their ideas stupid instead. It's an important distinction, IMO.

Another side-effect of speaking out is that you develop better tools to express yourself. My ideas about the irrationality of religion haven't changed at their foundation since highschool, but I've certainly vastly improved my ability to articulate why, specifically, I think religion and irrationality are dangerous and need to be criticized. So, instead of just calling someone's ideas stupid, I might now say, "I think that's a stupid idea, and here's why ..."

So, don't let those people get you down, or intimidate you into shutting up. If you feel it's important to speak out, who are they to tell you not to? You've done nothing wrong in being an atheist or in criticizing religion/irrationality. You've got nothing to apologize for.

Welcome, again!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote:I stand in a

Infidelis wrote:

I stand in a particular light, actually. "Black" light, as it's known by you mortals. haha

And I'm like 35 minutes from Seattle.

"heh"

Isn't that the same kinda "light" that gives us "mortals" cancer? Or is it... a different range of photon wavelengths I think of?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote:I have

Infidelis wrote:
I have pretty much been an infidel since I can remember, although I do know as a baby my family went to church. Luckily, my parents weren't hooked. My dad having a rough upbringing had no reason to believe in a god, realizing he himself worked hard out of his unfortunate reality.

Hmmm..... why would he work "hard out of his unfortunate reality"? NO ONE could ever succeed in taming me by the time I was.... 8. I even had my "health and safety" centric, control-freakish maternal grandmother slap me on the thigh because I didn't want to go to a game with her (I *fucking hate* baseball), and these days she inanely tries to warn me, my mother, and even my uncle, of the inevitable health & safety risks we expose ourselves to. I don't know what her problem is... aside from possibly losing her gulliver over the loss of her own mother (about a year and one month ago), but she could have made a good Rocket Test Inspectorsomething just before the Challenger event... if she actually had esteem in her own intellect. She comes from a primitive era of time in the Southeast where women were not allowed to have esteem in their mental abilities. (I actually thought Helen Keller put a stop to this, but whatever)

 

EDIT: as an additional note, she often seems convinced that the same fate that has fallen over much of her friends and family over the years is going to befall her children and GRANDchildren.

 

And on the other hand, there is my PATERNAL grandmother. That one is it's own riveting story (including some of the things I inherited from her) for another day....

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote: I forgot

Infidelis wrote:

 I forgot to introduce myself!

Hello all, my name is Drake (which I take great pride in, it's an awesome name). I am currently a high school running start student in the Pacific Northwest (the most fascinating place in the world). I have pretty much been an infidel since I can remember, although I do know as a baby my family went to church. Luckily, my parents weren't hooked. My dad having a rough upbringing had no reason to believe in a god, realizing he himself worked hard out of his unfortunate reality.

As of yet, I'm a militant atheist relative to most teens I know, although I don't feel cool about being the "rebel". Ignorant people frustrate me, but more so do irrational people. People say I need to talk less, but only because I speak blasphemies. I'm currently trying to get involved with the atheist community and working to educate myself in the scientific field. Any questions, ask away!

There is nothing wrong with "blasphemy". But you are young and please understand, no matter how rough your dad'd upbringing was or how good or bad your life is currently, those events are not a reason to accept or reject a claim, (ON ANY ISSUE), not just that of god claims.

The bad that happens can be an argument against the concept of an "all loving god" but that is ONE of many illogical claims about the omni=god. The core reason I reject all god claims, past and present is simple, evidence. We have no evidence of a non-material brain with super powers floating out in the cosmos anymore than we have evidence for a non-material super villain fighting in the cosmos with the super hero over control of our brains.

One thing that always concerns me, having been an uneducated atheist for some time, is that when I hear young people use that word, many times they just use it to "stand out" without having any knowledge of what goes behind the atheist position. I call these people easy pickings for slick theist marketing.

There is lots to learn if you haven't learned it already.

Things like Occam's Razor. Bentrand Russell's "teapot". Fallacy of Pascal's wager. Law of probability and infinite regress, for starters.

I myself don't like arguing the "history" of any holy book because it is a distraction away from the magical claims. For example, some like to argue that Jesus was a real man. In reality it is marginally debatable at best. In any case even if the atheist decided to agree with that claim for argument's sake only, it wouldn't make a zygote coming about without two sets of DNA magically planted in a womb of a virgin via "poof" ghost magic. It wouldn't make surviving rigor mortis after 3 days possible.

We can prove that George Washington existed, but no sane person would claim that he could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass.

You have come to a great website with lots of brains here, some are into debating scripture, others are great at pointing out scientific absurdity, and others like me, merely cut to the chase and attack the magic.

WELCOME

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:There is

Brian37 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with "blasphemy". But you are young and please understand, no matter how rough your dad'd upbringing was or how good or bad your life is currently, those events are not a reason to accept or reject a claim, (ON ANY ISSUE), not just that of god claims.

The bad that happens can be an argument against the concept of an "all loving god" but that is ONE of many illogical claims about the omni=god. The core reason I reject all god claims, past and present is simple, evidence. We have no evidence of a non-material brain with super powers floating out in the cosmos anymore than we have evidence for a non-material super villain fighting in the cosmos with the super hero over control of our brains.

One thing that always concerns me, having been an uneducated atheist for some time, is that when I hear young people use that word, many times they just use it to "stand out" without having any knowledge of what goes behind the atheist position. I call these people easy pickings for slick theist marketing.

There is lots to learn if you haven't learned it already.

I myself don't like arguing the "history" of any holy book because it is a distraction away from the magical claims. For example, some like to argue that Jesus was a real man. In reality it is marginally debatable at best. In any case even if the atheist decided to agree with that claim for argument's sake only, it wouldn't make a zygote coming about without two sets of DNA magically planted in a womb of a virgin via "poof" ghost magic. It wouldn't make surviving rigor mortis after 3 days possible.

We can prove that George Washington existed, but no sane person would claim that he could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass.

You have come to a great website with lots of brains here, some are into debating scripture, others are great at pointing out scientific absurdity, and others like me, merely cut to the chase and attack the magic.

WELCOME

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:There is

another double post

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Today it's a

natural wrote:

Today it's a different story, and I adopt the unapologetic atheist approach. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, being outspoken about it, and criticizing faith, religion, and other irrationalities without feeling defensive or apologetic about it. What do we have to apologize for?

1. Apologetic and Apologizing are two separate word-meanings

2. Apologize for? Nothing except a bit of banal vanity. I don't care to be told I hold falsehoods because I believe one or two things which some of you do not. At some point, when the day is over and the consummate atheist is tired and needs a break, s/he doesn't  want militant christians shouting "ABORTION IS MURDER" outside their door.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


illicitizen
illicitizen's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-10-21
User is offlineOffline
  <--drake

  <--drake


Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Infidelis

natural wrote:

nstead, I just honestly say what I think is wrong with people's ideas without making it about the the people directly. (Unless they bring it to me first. Then I'll let loose.) As a result, the frustrations are diminished and I don't feel as negative about irrational people; I focus my attention on irrationality *itself*. Instead of calling someone stupid, I might call their ideas stupid instead. It's an important distinction, IMO.

 

 

I completely understand the distinction. As a christian would put it - Hate the sin, not the sinner.


Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
illicitizen wrote: 

illicitizen wrote:

  <--drake

 

 

Drake ^


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
WoW players.... pffffffttt.

WoW players.... pffffffttt. What a terrible waste of money... and time. And social life...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's beside the point of the thread

Infidelis wrote:

natural wrote:

nstead, I just honestly say what I think is wrong with people's ideas without making it about the the people directly. (Unless they bring it to me first. Then I'll let loose.) As a result, the frustrations are diminished and I don't feel as negative about irrational people; I focus my attention on irrationality *itself*. Instead of calling someone stupid, I might call their ideas stupid instead. It's an important distinction, IMO.

 

 

I completely understand the distinction. As a christian would put it - Hate the sin, not the sinner.

 

But I have an issue with hate the sin and not the sinner. Christians claim living without recognising god means your whole life is a sin. And then there's the issue of what constitutes sin. That's subjective and cultural. And I'm not talking about clanging great sins like tapping people walking down the street. The word sin is used too often to undermine behaviour that has no intrinsic moral component. Every time a christian uses the word 'hate' it gets my hypocrite meter jibbering.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:natural

Kapkao wrote:

natural wrote:

Today it's a different story, and I adopt the unapologetic atheist approach. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, being outspoken about it, and criticizing faith, religion, and other irrationalities without feeling defensive or apologetic about it. What do we have to apologize for?

1. Apologetic and Apologizing are two separate word-meanings

I know. I'm using them in the sense of 'being sorry for what you've done wrong', not in the sense of theistic apologetics, if that's what's confusing the meaning. Also, apologetic can mean being deferential even if you haven't specifically done anything wrong. I'm advocating against such deference with the idea of 'unapologetic atheism'. If I haven't answered your concern, if there's still ambiguity, let me know. I'm specifically interested in being clear when I use this word, so if I'm not, I'd like to know. Thanks.

Quote:
2. Apologize for? Nothing except a bit of banal vanity.

And not even that, IMHO. Nobody's perfect, and we shouldn't be expected to apologize for mere imperfection. IMO, the only time you really need to apologize in the public sphere (things are a bit different in the private sphere, where close relationships may need the extra flexibility) is when you've done something specifically wrong. Being moderately vain doesn't count, IMO. To each his own.

Quote:
I don't care to be told I hold falsehoods because I believe one or two things which some of you do not.

Not sure I follow you here. Are you talking about a specific incident or is this a hypothetical example?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:But I

Atheistextremist wrote:


But I have an issue with hate the sin and not the sinner. Christians claim living without recognising god means your whole life is a sin. And then there's the issue of what constitutes sin. That's subjective and cultural. And I'm not talking about clanging great sins like tapping people walking down the street. The word sin is used too often to undermine behaviour that has no intrinsic moral component. Every time a christian uses the word 'hate' it gets my hypocrite meter jibbering.

Good point. I usually respond with "Innocent until proven guilty. Prove I've sinned. Prove sin is even a valid concept." This will probably require proving god exists, which immediately puts them in their proper place of having the burden of proof, and being utterly incapable of meeting that burden. You shouldn't hate the sin if you can't prove it exists.

Likewise, it's intellectually dishonest to merely accuse someone of 'irrationality' without being able to back up that claim with evidence, as with all claims. Knowing how to spot a logical or intuitional/informal fallacy and find the weak points in flimsy arguments is necessary if one plans on being an outspoken critic of irrationality. If you can't specifically point out the irrationality you're bothered by, you can at least still say, "I find that argument unconvincing."

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
abit late but hey welcome!

abit late but hey welcome! And if drake is your real name let me say im jealous and your parents are awesome for calling you that! the only way it could be cooler is if they called you velociraptor clintthrust! (blatently stolen from top gear)

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: There is

Brian37 wrote:

 

There is nothing wrong with "blasphemy". But you are young and please understand, no matter how rough your dad'd upbringing was or how good or bad your life is currently, those events are not a reason to accept or reject a claim, (ON ANY ISSUE), not just that of god claims.

 

One thing that always concerns me, having been an uneducated atheist for some time, is that when I hear young people use that word, many times they just use it to "stand out" without having any knowledge of what goes behind the atheist position. I call these people easy pickings for slick theist marketing.

 

 

Well you can take that up with my dad, haha. We all know there isn't any proof of god's existence, but my dad was more so inclined towards atheism because he feels if there was a god, he certainly wasn't there for him.

people try to justify their belief in god with personal events, so i guess it would relate to those kind of people.

I don't know, his personal thing, doesn't really matter to me I suppose. 

And my life is not bad in the slightest hahaha.

okay, so what term besides "blasphemy" would you rather me use? Christians try to silence me because... the devil speaks through me? that better?

I thought i made it clear that im not an atheist cause its "rebellious". thats not what its about. its about calling out irrationality.

There isn't any knowledge needed to support the atheist position, its completely supported by the lack of evidence for god.

Easy pickings are the young people who don't care to see the irrationality of it all. 

Honestly, I'm offended you would suggest I am easy pickings for slick theist marketing.