Frankly, what I have found curious is that atheists love to shout from the roof tops that they came to their conclusion strictly as a matter of reason, yet they deny that a person of faith could come their conclusions as a matter of reason. They whine and moan that people of faith won't consider a contrary view, yet they exclude themselves from the requirement to be "open minded". What proof of God would be acceptable? Posters on this site have said that if Noah's ark were found, they would figure out a way to explain it away. Or if He stood in front of them, they would figure it was a halucination.
The strident accusations and distortions hardly do anything to help their cause. Anyone who has actually studied the Middle Ages knows that it was plagues, famine, and the Norse invasion that caused it. If anything, the Catholic Church held society together. The Norse invasion was so bad that gold and silver became scarce to the point that they had to revert to using grain as a currency. There is another thread going here that the poster says that the fact that there are differences among the Gospels proves they are all false. Really? These differences arise from different perspectives of the writers. Let's be real here. If these differences didn't exist, they would be complaining that they were all written by one person.
I have high regard for people like LWT who come across as reasonable. Many of you are just as bad in your attitudes towards persons of faith as you complain of them.
