Reply #11: One strong reason is that I left the atheist 'fold', so to speak,

[humblebum]

years ago when in college, when I realized just how narrowly focused their definition of "reason" truly was/is. Coyne makes several logical fallacies in his defense of atheism, least of which is his appeal to numbers, i.e. 90+% of scientists are atheists. All that really says is that such a percentage of scientists are dependent on what is generally described as logical positivism, a scientific philosophy. By its own admission it does not deny the existence of anything beyond that which can be observed or experienced, it merely does not consider such. IOW, narrowly focused (for a specific purpose) and limited.

Do you actually not understand that distinction?