[Goldsborough]

I would offer that you do not understand atheism because you have allowed so-called "militant" or "evangelical" atheists to cloud what atheism really is to most of the people who profess to be such. As an agnostic myself, I see atheists fall into one main camp--they do not care enough to proclaim their conclusion that there is no non-faith based evidence "proving" the existence of God. On a daily level, little time is wasted pondering the question.

Then there are the evangelical or militant atheists, who are outliers. These folks are rather run of the mill attention seekers. They have many exact counterparts on the religious side of the equation. People of faith find guys like Richard Dawkins as offensive, tacky, pretentious, and infuriating as I find Pat Robertson and other televangelists to be.

[Diamond]

... proclaim their conclusion that there is no non-faith based evidence "proving" the existence of God.

The claim that there is no non-faith based evidence "proving" the existence of God is self-vitiating because unless the claimant is omniscient, the claim itself is faith based. How could any any finite being be in a position to know such a thing with certainty?

Only an omniscient being could know such a thing, but that entails a contradiction in terms that contradicts the original premise.

Cordially,