Why do so many christians claim that outsiders believe in their god but are "suppressing the truth"?

     It's not as though anyone has ever presented any evidence of the christian god. To me, it looks like a snow job. It is most likely that there is no being corresponding to the christian god. Next is the possibility that there is such a being, but that he is a fraud. It is incredibly unlikely that the character described is as described as such a being (who supposedly desires that we know him) could easily make himself known.

Ah, It looks like Ray has recruited some people to pose as "atheists."

     Naturally, Ray from "Atheist Central" wishes to create an illusion that non-christians are childish people who would rather taunt and insult rather than argue points. Enter Fullcircle. He claims to be an atheist. But he criticizes anyone who exhibits rational thought. He only has praise for those who throw playground taunts at Ray and his followers. This is exactly the portrayal that Ray wishes to make. There is no question in my mind. This is an imposter.
     Here are some recent examples of this characters style of argument: "You bleating ignoramus! By the way it's 'grammar', Puffy, not 'grammer'. Got that?" "Loafie--Do you actually think anything you might say'd be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain?" "Tuber Q Losis, is there no end to your sycophancy? If I were Ray, I'd find your obsequiousness galling." (granted, he had to look up a few words, there) "Lisa darling, you tender soul, I'm sure we'll all take your sweet words under advisement...NOT."
     Look all you want. He does not say anything that even pretends to be a rational, coherent argument. It's all name-calling and insults. It might be understandable if, say, the quotes I gave were lapses of frustration. They aren't. They are his standard fare. He is actively trying to discredit all dissent to christianity by portraying his act as representative of said dissent. He also criticizes any who uses a rational argument against christianity. This is not an atheist. This is someone trying to create a false image of atheists.
     Now, I realize that, since I don't rule out the possibility of some god existing, I am not an atheist either. One might wonder why the charade upsets me. It upsets me because it feeds Ray's con. Ray doesn't distinguish between atheists and anyone else who disagrees with his sales pitch. This character doesn't either.

He's not even a good liar.

     Daniel is at it again, predicting the imminent destruction of California. You will excuse me if I don't make travel plans. However, that idiocy is not the point of my post. My point is that on this thread he makes the following comments: "Also Oranges, this proves that if you have a serious question, and are not simply chanting your nonsense, your posts will get thru." "I repent of letting your posts thru, since I trust you will only return to your liberal useful idiocy. You were not banned before, you were just boring.
Now you are banned."
     It seems obvious that Daniel had already banned Oranges (for being inconvenient to his lies) but made an exception to "prove" that he hadn't engaged in such nonsense. Seriously, if you take Daniel at his word, he changed his mind because Oranges made a post that he considered valid.
     Still, I wonder what lies he will come up with on the morning of the 29th when California is still standing. I really don't think he will have the courage to admit that he was only speaking for himself. After all, he already hides from truth, banning those bloggers who expose his lies. He seems to be a frail little shell of a human being. Of course, I don't know him personally. It could all be an illusion. But it is a running theme of his known actions on his blog.

A passed test of loyalty? Or a failed test of ethics?

     Genesis 22 tells of a story about the biblical god commanding Abraham to offer up his son as a sacrifice. Now, I have heard many people point to this as a demonstration of admirable qualities of loyalty and obedience. But it has never sat well with me. This seems exactly the sort of order that one should never obey.
     Among human rulers, only the pettiest want such devotion. If there is a god and there is any truth to the story, it seems much more likely that the god would be testing to see if Abraham would have the courage to say "no" to a blatently wicked command. Perhaps we need to learn to be able to refuse even an "ultimate authority" when we know the command is no good. If that is the case, Abraham was simply not ready. I look at the world and see that many people are not ready.

Wow, it's like Randall Munroe knows me.

     Except that I don't drink alcohol at all. I guess he changed details to avoid any threat of a lawsuit.

On censorship

     It is often difficult to navigate the boundary between when someone should and should not be able to block certain types of discourse he may find offensive. The extremes are easy. Anyone should able to block the hurling of epithets in his own home if he finds it offensive. Contrariwise, no one should be able to block any type of speech that he would not even know about if he were not looking for an excuse to be offended.
     On my own blog, I will delete any comment in which the language turns blue. (I delete all of Clostridiophile's comments because it reached a point where everything he posted was a foul-mouthed string of personal insults. Someday, he might put forward a decent post. But I will not know. I have no desire to sift through that and will delete them without reading them.) But on other blogs, I do not focus on language turning blue for how it turns the language blue. I will note, for example, when it is turning an "admission of a mistake" into sarcasm. But then I am calling on the inappropriate sarcasm.
     There are some people whose idea of entertainment is a 30-minute, non-stop barrage of four-letter words. I have even been told that I have "no sense of humor" because I am not impressed with that sort of thing. Now, I do wish that that wasn't quite so prevalent. I like sublety and depth to my entertainment; and it is just difficult to find. The people who like that sort of thing are welcome to have it. I do not begrudge them their tastes. I just don't like the way it has become so ubiquitous that finding anything else is nearly impossible. It is as though the entire artworld were taken over by nothing but "the blue duck."

Copy of post at "Atheist Central"

Ray:

     I see you deleted my comment again. My comments have, of course, never violated your stated rules. But I do realize that you use pretense because you know that Jesus is just a lie you use to make your money.
     If someone gives an answer that you consider wrong, that is something to refute. Showing an answer to be wrong is a refutation. So, if you acknowledge that answers have been given to your "nothing created everything" play on words and you state that there is nothing to refute, you must believe the answers to be correct.

-------------

     I mentioned a play on words in my response to Ray. There are two possible meanings to the expression, "nothing created everything." It can be an assertion that there was no creation event to the universe at large, with which most atheists would agree. Or it can state that first there was nothing and that somehow that the nothing was an active creator, which is what Ray lyingly insists it means, once he hears no objections.

=============

     I am reprinting this here as Ray is likely to delete the post again.