I would not think you are in this group, but it surprises me how some defenders of atheism continually overlook the inherent stablemate, as if what you are saying doesn't apply to the chance suppositon.
At this point I figure it's because such individuals are if the same fundamentalist bent as their "religious' adversaries The chance presumptuoun is one of secular atheisms most revered Sacred Cows. The smart 'religious' atheists will rarely admit to that, because they know that once they do they will be exposed as being just as Fundamentalist and unscientific on this matter.
And so they only attack the other side, typically flaunting their academic credentials in an effort to make that the focus. The less intelligent parties fall for these shallow games time and time again.
Pseudo skeptic.."Trust me, I have a BS degrees(s).
Religious atheist "But are you an atheist??
Pseudo skeptic.. " Of course "
Religious atheist... "Okay, then. I believe you."
The rest of us know that their real game is all about putting lipstick on a pig... At least when it comes to those religious atheists who would have used believe that there's any empirical-rational cause to assert that broad categories of mysteries must be due time chance. They rarely state their article of faith directly, only implying it by rhetorical devices.
Fact is they are on a secretive crusade that ultimately centers on the universe being the result of one Big Accident, nothing more, nothing less. I'd try to hide that too, if I was try to sell myself as a priest of rationality and reason.
Yes, Matt, this sort of thing also works both ways. No argument there. The rest of us can and should aspire to move beyond such blind allegiance, and I believe many have, to the point where we can discuss mysteries without all of the dogmatic noise. But here's an excellent article by a skeptic, one whose writings have struck me as being of a generally much higher quality than the sources to which he refers below...
"Over the years, I have been critical of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP) and its parent organization, the Center for Free Inquiry. As a result of the particular interests of its founding generation, notably philosopher Paul Kurtz, CSI has routinely conflated scientific skepticism with secular humanism, going so far as to ostracize those who aren’t atheists from the skeptical movement. This tendency will only grow worse now that CFI has officially merged with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, another group that is officially dedicated to science and reason but is informally an atheist advocacy group. "
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 13-Apr-19 17:08 by Poster Boy.