ggazoo: Because their experiences are subjective. Granted, so are mine. But the nature of subjectivity means that from my perspective, my own experiences are more valid. If my theistic friend had objective, empirical evidence to support his subjective experiences, then my subjective experiences would be invalidated and his would be vindicated. Entertaining healthy skepticism to something that I haven't personally experienced, and to which there is no empirical evidence to support it's existence isn't narrow minded. It's just common sense, something which theists employ when they doubt the existence of golden unicorns. On the other hand, a significant number of Christians subscribe to their beliefs primarily due to indoctrination, not due to critical inquiry. It's not blind faith to assume that an extraordinary claim with no supporting evidence is false. Nested hierarchy, a clear indicator of common descent via modification. Ahh, but science isn't completely partial to all ideas. In order for certain 'ideas' to be considered scientific, they need to fulfill certain criteria (for example, they are falsifiable). I don't. However, disagreement between religious factions, and quarreling over religious ideology, has led to much bloodshed. I don't? However, if a site claims that it rejects scientific evidence if it conflicts with scripture (eg. Answers in Genesis), then I would rightfully conclude that said site is unscholarly. I don't? Atheists do tend to protelyze when they gather in significant numbers. However, they often don't seem to see themselves as aggressors because they are usually a minority (and according to liberal dogma, minorities by definition can do no wrong). I don't? I do think that I have a firmer grasp on reality than some other people though. I don't? Some of those questions seemed awfully leading.