Of course you can abandon "religion", but you will never abandon reality. Dan Barker's walk of faith has obviously been polluted with another reality opposite the goodness of God.
Dan is not unlike many of us who have lost our faith. We developed the habit of examining our faith critically, and so it faded as we came to understand that there was no good reason to continue believing in the doctrines of Christianity.
And no, I'm not confusing refusing to listen, you are literally refusing to listen to the truth of the world. Atheism is rampant in "civilized" cultures because they are comfortable and ignorant. They misplace truth with media and everything society tells you. It's interesting that "uncivilized" cultures who are truly in the "real world" are convinced it has a designer. People who live in nature, who understand that nature more than science ever will, because essentially they are a part of that nature.
I think you are equivocating on the word 'nature.' Those who live "in nature" (technically, all of us) don't necessarily have a better understanding of it than those who study it in detail. Living "in nature" does not mean understanding it.
Similar to "human nature", one who takes active part in the community understands dissecting a human will never take into account their emotions, their consciousness. And neither does any scientist, the conscious and emotions of love are the biggest proofs that God exists but scientists are satisfied with not knowing that truth because it doesn't fit in their box of understanding.
How are our emotions evidence that God exists? This seems like a non sequitur to me.
I'm not "pretending" that others are being unreasonable.
It seems that you are.
But the very moral foundation of human life and your beliefs of right and wrong indicate that their is a God.
How so? Moral claims need not appeal to deities. I would argue that moral claims based on religion are sitting on a weak and shaky foundation.
By atheistic views, we are all stardust.
Yes, we are stardust. That is true even if there is a God. We are not just stardust though. We are stardust that can think and feel and love and write poetry and do calculus.
Where do we get morals? Are they defined by what society views as right and wrong? Where do we get that sense of justice? How does non life create life? Particles created by the big bang being joined together enacting survival of the fittest to ultimately create sentient thinking being? So from survival of the fittest we evolved into having compassion towards the weak? Knowing that it's wrong the oppress others? You have absolutely zero truth behind the theory of something coming from nothing. In fact, it goes against the scientific communities logic.
This seems like an argument from ignorance (God of the gaps) to me.
I also find it ironic when Christians berate the notion of "something coming from nothing" when the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo posits exactly that.
Every known great thinking mind has come to the conclusion that there has to be a grand intelligence at work when they trace our "origins" to the big bang. God is scientifically proven, now they are left with what that God is.
That simply isn't true. If I recall correctly, the great majority of scientists in the National Academy of Sciences are atheists/agnostics. That says nothing about the truth or falsity of theism, but it does refute your claim that "every known great thinking mind has come to the conclusion that there has to be a grand intelligence at work."
The big bang theory is scientifically debunked, as soon as they realized that everything had a source of creation, then once they got to the big bang theory they realized that the very essence of that theory defied every method of how we perceive things, so instead of calling it God, they call it "the great mystery".
Why should they call it "God" instead of acknowledging that we do not understand what happened in the very early universe? This seems like another argument from ignorance.
I think you should stop thinking of the Christian God immediately when these findings require questions, instead you should research a bit deeper and realize what I'm saying is true. That science points directly to a creator and the very basis of your belief is being abandoned by the very ones who created it.
Once you establish that there has to be a creator, a grand design,
You have yet to establish that there has to be a creator/designer.
then you can study religions of the world and then, if you are truly a truth seeker, will come to know and love Christ.
Of course. If I am a truth seeker, I will come to assent to
your theology, right? How predictable.
Instead of being so convicted with your beliefs, you should read what the scientific community says about the big bang and the contradicting philosophy behind it. So many scientists have said that we have come to the point in science where we have to start considering a God.
I have read and considered exactly that. In my assessment, it does not support your assertions.
It's 2015, update your philosophy.
By adopting the beliefs of ancient Middle Eastern pastoralists?
