>> PB: There is nothing at all remarkable about a Christian who used to by an atheist. Every Christian is a "former atheist".....Christian believers rarely, if ever, understand the difference.

I would say that agnosticism is probably the default position, and many notable atheists would agree. When we say atheist, we mean someone with a disbelief, not merely a lack of belief - a "hard" atheist, if you will. A person who was actively atheist, promoting arguments against theism, is not a child without convictions. The former atheist mentioned here is of the second type, and that type IS remarkable.

>>PB: This type of atheist lacks belief because they have critically examined their previous faith or the dominant faiths of their community.

Not all atheists formerly had faith. This is even the case with Morgan, I think.

>>PB: The more fundamentalist the Christian, the more ignorant they were found to be about the content, basis and background to their beliefs, including what is written in their holy scriptures.

I don't think so. I'd say that liberal believers probably know much less about the Bible than their fundamentalist counterparts. Fundamentalists may lack true skepticism, while liberal Christians may willingly entertain doubts, or even not truly believe. It sounds like you have a grudge against fundamentalists.

>> PB: Progression from default or apathetic atheism to religious belief may be two-way.

In this case, it was progress from default to active atheism to faith.

>>PB: On the other hand, progression from religious belief to an informed loss of belief appears to be a one-way street.

Not so in my case. I went from agnostic scientist to believer to unbeliever and back. Many people, once they get informed, still find faith more likely than unbelief.

>> PB: Informed atheists do not regress back to their previous religious beliefs unless they suffer from some kind of brain impairment:

Actually, I think that most atheists suffer an impairment of their intuition - they override their intuitions that God may exist with intellectual arguments. Or as scripture might say, they "suppress the knowledge of God."

>> PB: There do not appear to be any exceptions to this rule.

You are not looking for them.

It's just a cover! I'll be excited when there's something complete inside!

OK, enabled the Intense Debate plugin for comments. I prefer it to Disqus, but they all have faults! Thanks for commenting.

WA...I'm not following you. Preaching is by definition motivational. What other methods are there besides carrot or stick? If you want to be purely 'informational' you still have to decide if u inform merely about god's goodness, or if you include his justice and mercy. The crucifixion makes no sense without our universal guilt and the coming day of judgement.

Read the book of Romans, Paul's extended explanation of the gospel. The first three chapters are about one thing...the guilt of all mankind. That's all stick.

>> ROBIN: I imagine Seeker’s great‐grandparents doing similar concern trolling

This is the problem with liberalism - living in the realm of imagination instead of fact. In actuality, my family has been involved in both environmentalism and feminism since before I was born. But the hateful, bitter, anti-masculine feminism went too far in establishing women's 'rights', as the pro-gay lobby does today, imo.

>> ROBIN: Seeker, your opposition to equal rights disqualifies you from any authority on morality,

I don't oppose equal rights, I only oppose the tacet approval of an unnatural dysfunction as normal. It's bad for children and society. So is abortion/infanticide.

Your accusation is like me saying "because you oppose polygamy/polyamory/bestiality (consensual), you have no room to talk about morality since you are against equal rights."

I would heartily approve of such a statement, however, applied to those who are pro-choice.

Rather than using the genetic fallacy to dismiss arguments (the guy works for XXX, so he is biased and therefore his conclusions don't follow), we should look at the data. In this case, the claims made are not from one small study, but an analysis of many studies done. In some cases, perhaps the original samples were not big enough to be conclusive, but they may actually be right, and deserve more investigation. Dismissing them as spurious because they are small is a dangerous game of bias to play - it shows that you are more interested in dismissing their conclusions than the truth.

Not so. See these results (note: LIBERALS trusted the other outlets, but because liberals are a minority in our country, the MAJORITY of Americans, meaning conservatives, most moderates, and some liberals, trust FOX.) :
Fox leads for trust (Jan 1020)

This report shows NPR as most trusted, but the questions cover ALL of the programming, not just the news, which is why fox shows up as more conservative.
PBS THE MOST TRUSTED AND UNBIASED SOURCE FOR NEWS AHEAD OF FOX NEWS CHANNEL, CNN AND OTHER COMMERCIAL NETWORKS (June 2010)

As you can clearly see by the poll below (May 2010), CNN and FOX are neck and neck for the lion's share of trust, the other networks barely registering. The poll below is interesting because it shows breakdown by political affiliation, with no surprises. I think CNN is the only MSM other than FOX that has an honest and fair approach to news, though it does lean liberal on some things.
The 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll

Now will you please move on?

Again, objective surveys, as opposed to your quote-mining article, show Fox to the most watched, the most trusted, and the most fair in reporting. I admit, the opinion shows skew right (Hannity, etc), which muddies the water.

The sad fact is, the other MSM outlets, even in their news reporting, are often unabashedly left, as opposed to fair and balanced. I don't think that the University studies I cited had the same poor methodology as the other study you cited, I think you just don't like the data.

Naturally, this is humorous, and you make my point - we can't have signs for every gender-confused variant out there. Those who are truly hermaphrodites get to choose, I suppose. The rest should respect their biology - if you got a weenie, use the boys room.

Regarding men being predatory towards men (or women towards women), a separate bathroom won't cure that. That's what gun ownership is for ;)

At least two university studies have shown Fox News (which does NOT include Beck or Hannity - they are commentary) to be the most fair and balanced compared to other networks.
Another University study finds Fox News fair compared to liberally biased MSM