True, just as critics will create them when they don't really exist.
Are you saying the Bible is without contradictions and inconsistencies? It isn't. Critics don't need to go making any up. There are enough real problems with the Bible where we don't need to go making any up. Of course there are some that have a misunderstanding of what the Bible (or some other religious text says), but on the whole most Biblical critics don't go around making things up to criticize. Scientists, historians and reputable scholars in every field start with evidence and work from that to conclusions. If subsequent evidence doesn’t fit, they adjust their conclusions accordingly. Defenders of the accuracy of the bible, however, start with their conclusions (the Bible is inerrant) and invent whatever evidence seems necessary to support them.
I'm not assuming anything. I never said all athiests do this. I am merely stating what I have encountered. Admittedly I only know about 4 staunch athiests, none of whom have ever even so much as read a single sacred text.
I doubt you're correct. I bet your four staunch atheist friends are plenty familiar with the beliefs of a few religions. But even if they aren't, this makes them "pacifist atheists" that are "just kind of resting on some notion that if the evidence was there that "science" would find it"?
I know many others who call themselves such becuase they just don't have any formed beleif structure, but when you get down to it, they are not true athiests.
They're not true atheists? If they are without belief in God/gods, they're TRUE atheists.
I don't agree that a Buddhist must necessarly disbelieve in a God, but I see your point and generally agree.
I never implied they did. That's one of the things that separate Buddhism from religions. Buddhism is more accurately described as a philosophy as their are no rigid set of tenets or necessary belief in a deity that must be adhered to.
and atheists have embraced (almost as a religion) the ever changing and fallable theories of science to the exclusion of all else.
No, not "almost as a religion". Belief in science has zero in common with belief in religion. I embrace science because it works and is the best system of finding truth mankind has yet to find.
As I said in my first post, there is no common ground with which to have any kind of meaningful discussion.
Yes, there is. A search for truth is common ground enough. We don't have to have common ground to debate ideas. We shouldn't have common ground to debate ideas.
You never answered this question:
Can you be more specific? What sort of exploring might lead me to evidence of an intelligent being that is responsible for creating everything, punishes and rewards, has no limits, knows all, etc.?