You say: “what we now call science used to be called natural philosophy. That’s because science is just a Latin word for knowledge. Almost all the modern ‘sciences’ were an effort to ‘know’ what their Bible meant. ”

My response: Natural philosophy is a fascinating subject, and I agree, this was a precursor to science. I don’t know if I quite agree with you that modern science has been an effort to “‘know’ what their Bible meant.” I profess I may be lacking in the history you are alluding to. From my readings, modern science has been an attempt to explain the world and physical properties, regardless of what their particular religious text says. This becomes especially difficult when describing the words of Jesus, who spoke in parables instead of what we would call “science fact”. At least, this is my interpretation. I know that some religious folk like to describe certain modern discoveries, such as equating the expanding nature of the universe with the passage of god “spreading out the heavens”. However, the key difference between science and natural philosophy is the scientific method, which goes beyond observation and conclusion – the armchair theories of Aristotle that you mention.

This brings us to Darwin’s theory. It’s quite true that many scientists opposed his ideas, especially Richard Owens, a renowned anatomist and naturalist. However, the scientific process is not a democracy; just because more people think something is true does not make it so, or vice versa. There are many examples of scientific ideas rejected (and even vilified) that were later proven true: the sun-centered solar system, germ-theory, and continental drift. I don’t believe it’s a very good argument to say that someone was wrong because others did not accept their ideas.

Theologians and scientists alike have made contributions to our body of knowledge, I do not discount them. What Darwin’s (and Alfred Russel Wallace’s) theories lacked were a mechanical process of change, and without this many scientists were reluctant to accept it. However, with the science of genetics, archaeology, molecular biology and the like, the more it has become apparent that the theory is correct.

In a similar way that the word “science” coming from Latin’s word for knowledge, but encompasses more meaning than just knowledge (the scientific method), the meaning of atheism similarly different than its origins. I suppose that “without god” cannot exist without the “god” component. That proves only that there is a concept of god, not that god itself exists. This is a semantic dispute and a separate area of debate.

You say: “If that last statement were true, then why are you proselytizing to your religion”

My response: I think there is a difference between a discussion and proselytizing. However, I will say that if they weren’t out there I wouldn’t have been either. I think it’s a distinct difference, but I understand not all would chose to accept that difference. I don’t challenge others unless they pretty much get in my face. I do not sneer at people who display their faith with shirts, icons (crosses, rosaries, etc.) because I respect their rights. The street preachers weren’t there saying “I believe in god! God exists! God is good!” they were telling people that they were sinners, needed to repent, must believe in the bible or burn, etc. Since we’re a society of free speech, they can voice their opinions but that doesn’t mean nobody should respond in turn. Things like belief in Nessie, Santa Claus, and god in general are harmless and I would be a dick if I felt the need to confront anyone displaying their belief. I do not do this, but I’m sure there are some dick atheists who do.

I’m sorry you did not pick up on the fact that I was using “my people” in a facetious manner, as I do not consider all atheists as “my people”. Like the example above, some atheists have differing views and approaches to life in general that I do not share.

I will address your other comments in a separate reply below, to keep things more organized.