= new reply since forum marked as read
The sacrament will take place Saturday evening at the pub.
to make some theists happy 
Your response.
Above, you natter on about how atheism is easy to attack, an demonstrate that by attacking atheists, not atheism. Lets review, shall we?
For one thing, the innate pomposity of many atheists is an obvious target.
Seems more like projection from where I stand.
How about you practice controlling "innate pomposity" before accusing others.
On a side note, why didn't you use your deep knowledge of "the league of militant atheists" in the other thread about militant atheists? It was the perfect time, and you didn't bring it out this time.
Faith means you will accept that something is true because someone or something said it's true. You don't question what was said and just accept it.
Science is NOT faith. You don't understand that. Science questions everything and seeks out explanations why something is. You CANNOT have faith that gravity works because it DOES work. You WILL fall off the cliff if you don't have proper equipment.
Theories are supported by mountains of evidence and observations that can repeated over and over again. There is NO need to have faith because you KNOW an experiment will produce the same results over and over again. You don't understand that.
These are concepts I understood in high school. Gah. 
Okay, I've done some searching and I was wrong about gravity being a theory. In fact, it's a law, hence the Law of Gravity, but it's still no different than a belief that there's an almighty god. NEITHER ARE PROVEN BY SCIENCE, which means you have to have faith that there is such a thing as gravity because you see the effects of it when you fall off a cliff.
Mathematicians and physicists have created formulas that project the behavior of gravity, but all have still been reluctant to produce any physical evidence that gravity really exists. It has ONLY been proven that things are affected by gravity, and that's why it had been recategorized from theory to law. The problem with science is that it relies ONLY on physical evidence.
However, you can also attribute the same rules to "proving" that there is an unseen almighty god - through the effects of one around you, for example, the mysteries of the human brain, and the many writings of a supreme being among all ancient people all across the globe.
Look, if you DON'T WANT to believe in god, just say so, and stop hiding behind "well, if it ain't supported by good and enough evidence, it ain't true". This rigid position is in direct opposition to your willingness to believe that gravity is real although there's no scientific evidence to support it, and you base this belief solely on the effects that gravity produces.
And next time, just tell me upfront what your personal definition of faith is. It would save us both headaches from banging our heads against brick walls.
Here are the two official definitions of the word:
faith
/fāTH/
Noun
1: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. {As you do in, for example, gravity}
2: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
No evidence, yet it's a law?
Those scientists are real dumbasses.
a belief in Science. The pragmatic idea that we are only about what we can know for sure through the senses. This belief approaches the fervor and faith of a religion these days--a natural outgrowth of the pressures of the 20th century. The speaker in the film does make good points about why it makes sense to be anti-religion. Atheism is a critical stance toward religion. But it is still a belief system.
I see no problem with atheists organizing as a group around a belief. Atheists have been much maligned in our culture and deserve respect. These are skeptical people. Traditional religions may have damaged them personally or they may see the hypocrisy in religions that support wars and inhumanity. At any rate they do not believe in worshipping gods. I submit that Science (& Nature) is their "god" in the sense of a positive force. Atheists in general have definite moral and ethical principles, I have observed, and I know a lot of them (surrounded by scientists). I have no problem with atheists as a visible group. I think it's good for EVERYONE to have a philosophical support group in this difficult earthly existence. This is no threat to any other organized religions. They should be welcomed, not cast out as lost souls. Diffrent strokes...tolerance...
Personal disclaimer--I am not an atheist, not even an agnostic. I'm a definite believer in higher powers, afterlife, no death (just transformation), spiritual beings, the power of faith (or prayer whatever word you give), the possibility of enlightenment, creative change, heart opening--all that. I even like the Hindu multiplicity of gods, where there's a spiritual guide for everybody (and incorporates women and elephants into the symbolic hierarchy). The traditions and music of the old Christianity (that simple kind that was mixed with paganism) I find beautiful and inspiring. I love chants in any language or belief (and almost all religious traditions incorporate chanting) ETc Etc ---------However...I am not aligned with any organized religion because I prefer to be open to all, but tied to none. One thing I know as a (lay) psychologist--people NEED beliefs to get by. No positive beliefs--you get depressed and die. So I submit that atheism IS a life-affirming belief. It is a positive belief in Science and empirical knowledge--ie. that what is before us, all that we experience--is all that we can know. Must have reality-based hardcore evidence. I don't know, maybe if the monster meteor hits...
Anyway I guess you could say I've created my own belief system, cobbled together over the years, that makes sense to me. Wanna join my religion? 
cease & desist
I'm like, okay snooper, it's just the internet
"The pragmatic idea that we are only about what we can know for sure through the senses."
"I see no problem with atheists organizing as a group around a belief."
I'm pretty sure if you got 100 atheists in a room, they would organize according to profession and hobby/interests. So if you want to call the group of six that are all into muscle cars as having a belief system. I'm all for it 
--I think atheism has benefits for the atheist. It's not just Nihilism--ie. don't know, don't care." Athiesm is a clear decision to reject any and all notions of the metaphysical and live well anyway. That is not a default position--that is a way of life, a point of view, a bold perspective. It is one solution to the age old questions of existence. A solution to the questions of right and wrong, a personal set of ethics suited to some people and not others. Unless you want everyone to stop wondering "what IS this place?" which I don't think is possible, you have to see it as a conscious choice to go through this experience we call life without answers. Actually I think atheism might feel different to different people--we're all stuck in our own little perspectives in the end. So I don't see a need to reframe it unilaterally except to agree that it can have positive benefits for adherents. I see atheism as close in philosophy to Taoism, though without the teachings. Wordless acceptance of what is. It is life-affirming in the sense that if you could not affirm life (ie. "our common humanity and empathy"
, psychologically speaking, you would die.
or an incarnation of it. let's see how long it lasts..
not long is my guess.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576037
... try to get you to come to their meetings?
... try to help you "save your soul"?
... try to get you to let them in so they can read to you from their book?
... ask if you have a personal relationship with Jesus or some one / some thing else?
Me either.
