User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1777104-20100706203425

Feg, your "brand" of atheism is harmless along as you don't force it upon everyone who comes along - which is what is being done via the public schools and most news and entertainment media out there in the name of evolution. Then it is "war." Such a battlefront in the war presents a huge advantage for the "atheist" side, gaining recruits from the ranks of the enemy.

Should we on the "observational science" side surrender to a barrage of "theoretical science" just because there are more "thinkers" on that side? Should we accept their ideas as "plausible" and admit that our time-honored observations are but "myth"? I don't think so.

The popularity of Dawkins and others in book stores make it clear that this is a war, and evolution - as Darwin envisioned it - is the battlefront. Even the counter "attack" of "Intelligent Design," which is backed by much more evidence and impeccable logic, is totally rejected. And ID does not require allegiance to any particular higher power (it could be aliens, as some atheists have conceded).

Zack, that brings me to your point. Your brand of "anti-theism" is actually an agnosticism, a confession that you just don't have enough information to make an intelligent decision on the matter. Many atheists are atheists for the very reason that you state - they don't want there to be a god, a "higher power" that demands obedience "or else." Such anti-theists are the resistance movement in the "kingdom of God," in rebellion against the King who has declared that he will have His way in the end. The ranks of the resistance largely outnumber those on the battlefront -- on both sides.

The question is, IF the King does exist, wouldn't you really rather be on HIS side when the final battle is fought?