Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of 'faith'?

Well, you don't know what "faith" is.

And while that's more tragic than hilarious, it's funny how it puts the shoe on the other foot.

It's always amusing to me how Atheists want to tell you a) what you believe (as if they either know or care), and b) how you should believe it (while they don't even realize they have a belief at all). It's a kind of strange jig of lack of self-awareness they routinely go through, totally unaware of the spectacle they're actually creating.

It looks quite different to what they imagine, from where I'm sitting.

What a dick. I understand the English language perfectly well, you fucking religious nut job.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand the English language perfectly well

You have, obviously, zero grasp of the concept, or of how people actually apply it. But I admire the confidence, if not the good sense.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I understand the English language perfectly well

You have, obviously, zero grasp of the concept, or of how people actually apply it. But I admire the confidence, if not the good sense.

Delusional, conceited dipshit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I insist the term 'atheist' is still a pejorative term thrown at non-believers

It's not, actually. It's a Greek term, applied first to those they regarded as insufficiently reverent to their many "gods," including the Christians.

You are deceptive again or you are ignorant.
Read this, note "god(s)";

• The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".
  -Wiki

In the 5th century BCE, there were no Christians yet!

• The fool has said in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
  They are corrupt,
  They have done abominable works,
  There is none who does good.
  Psalm 14:1

Yep, that's absolutely right. Atheism is very foolish.

That prove my point, i.e. the term 'atheist' is used pejoratively as it had been used and you are using it in 2022.

It has, and can have, no evidentiary basis sufficient to its central claim. So it always ends up speaking out of both sides of its mouth, just as you see with Dawkins. I'll stand by Scripture on that.

And did you notice: by quoting Psalm 14, and accusing it of indicting "Atheists," you've just conceded the rightness of my definition of "Atheism" yet again?

Or did that fact escape you?

If, as you think, it insults "Atheists" in particular, then "Atheist" means the same as one who says, "There is no God." You just gave away the game there.

What is silly point.
It is because the term 'atheist' had been and is used pejoratively that I don't want to use the term but rather prefer to be not-a-theist.

As far as Dawkins in concerned, he had explained why he is agnostic by degree of 6.9/7.0.

If you insist to label the term 'atheist' to everyone who is anti-God and do not prefer to associate with the term, you are merely doing kindergartenish philosophy.

In some countries the term 'atheist' when labelled on someone could even land one to be killed by a mob.

In the same countries, being callled a "Christian" will get you killed even faster.

Strawmaning again.
My point is 'atheist' is pejorative term and carry very evil connotations to theists whereby in the extreme being labelled 'atheist' can get one kill.

That is your business if you think "Christian" has pejorative connotations but I don't think so in general.

If that's so, they he's got no basis to insist that belief in God is a "delusion."

But he does. So he's an "Atheist." He just doesn't want to own up to it.

Note,

• "delusion" is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

It is a delusion from Dawkins scientific perspective

There's nothing "scientific" about Dawkins perspective on that.

How come you are so blurr.
Dawkins is a scientist who must comply with the conditions of the scientific method.
To him the idea of God cannot fulfil the conditions of the scientific method. God is theology not science. As such for Dawkins and in his scientific perspective, to belief in a God is delusional [as defined].

He became an Atheist at age 17. And there is no scientific evidence sufficient to warrant Atheism, even today. He knows that, too.

Repeat again, Dawkins never agree he is an atheist but rather a 6.9/7.0 agnostic.
Listen to the video you linked again.
Show me evidence where Dawkins claimed he is an atheist contrary to his explanation in that video?

Before you argue "atheism is irrational" you have to define and qualify the context of which form of 'atheism' you are accusing of being irrational.

I did that, in my last message. I stipulated the exact definition of "Atheism" in my usage.

Did you take a nap?

Nope, you define the general definition of atheism but you ignore contexts of the individual's specific attitude in denying God exists.

That's not correct. He had several lines of extremely cogent reasoning.
Read the book, and you'll know.

The point of this discussion is about the Fine-tuning Argument or the Design Argument

Look at the headline of this thread.

I raised the OP or I know the essentials.
The 'evidence' re this thread is related to the Fine Tuning Argument.

I have read the book...Whatever the cogent reasonings, the issue is Flew relied heavily on the Argument from Design aka the Fine Tuning Argument.

The Fine Tuning Argument is only one of the set of arguments that fit under the larger category of "arguments from design." There are a bunch of them. If you actually read the book, I think you'd know that.

You need to read the book again.
I said flew relied heavily on the Fine Tuning Argument as a part of the Argument from Design.

Flew thereby relied on scientific facts [at best polished conjectures] to arrive at the conclusion that God exists.
Thus his conclusion is merely at best a polished conjecture.

So now you want to say that "scientific facts" are nothing more than "polished conjectures"?

I have been saying that all the time and in this thread plus 000s of times in this forum.
Show me scientific facts are at best NOT polished conjectures?

It wasn't an "argument." It wasn't a "syllogism." If you think it was either, then you obviously don't know what those things are. I can't make it valid for you, because it wasn't valid in the first place. It also wasn't true. It was just gratuitous.

Suggest you reproduce my argument and show why it is not logically.

I can't.

There was no argument to reproduce. There was just a claim, unsubstantiated by anything.

If you don't like the term argument, just reproduce my statements and show me why they are not logical?
You were ignorant that I had raised the point scientific facts are at best polished conjectures.
Where theists rely heavily and critically on the Fine Tuning Principles, i.e. scientific facts, the conclusions theist arrive about the God is grounded on polished conjectures.

it is impossible for God to exists as real.

You keep saying that. But you still have no evidence to warrant it.

What?? Surely you cannot be that unintelligent on this matter?
How can one produce evidence when the argument is
'it is impossible for a square-circle to be real'
this is the same with 'it is impossible for God to exists as real'.

What I done is, I have provided the justifications.

It is you who do not have the intellectual integrity to read it

Like I say, I have it right here. Page number and quotation, please?

The original point I raised was questioning the Fine Tuning Argument [FTA].
You then ask me to read the Blackwell Guide, which is intellectual cowardice.
If you want to claim the FTA is valid, you should present a summary of the argument from the Blackwell Guide to support your point.
I am still waiting for it.

I have read Chapter 4 in anticipation to counter whatever is your claim the FTA therein is valid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...Now if Dawkins could provide a truly logical explanation for, again, the pre-existing "MIRACLE" of this amazing setting that made our coming into existence possible, then he might be worth listening to.

Until then, he is nothing more than a sledgehammer wielding member of the abovementioned demolition crew.

Dawkins as a scientist is restraint by the Scientific Framework's maxim, "conclude as far at the evidence takes" based on a rigorous scientific process. This is the 'top-down' approach with the objective of producing knowledge that will be of high utility to humanity.

Since Dawkins is restraint by the above maxim, there is no way he should justify your flimsy 'jumping to a hasty conclusion' i.e. God exists....

Likewise, the same applies in the opposite direction, in that because Dawkins is "restrained" by a scientific (materialistic) framework, he should not be jumping to a hasty conclusion that God is a "delusion" simply because God does not present himself (herself/itself) as something that is scientifically measurable.

It is well accepted scientific facts from the scientific method are the most reliable truths, facts and knowledge. The other is from mathematics.

When theists make the claim God exists as real is truths, facts and knowledge unscientifically, their claims are not reliable in contrast to the standard i.e. scientific facts.
Dawkins [as a constraint scientist] in his book and demonstrated why 'God exists are real' is highly improbable with only 0.1/7.0 probability or rather 0.00000000000...1/7.0.

Thus when theists insist their claim god exists as real despite no justification, theists in this case are delusional [as defined above].

As I had suggested, you MUST review your own psychological state [common to the majority] on why you desperately jumped to the conclusion God exists without any follow-through rational argument and evidence.

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to suggest to you that any form of scientifically verifiable "evidence" for the existence of God, and, more importantly, any form of "verifiable evidence" that our lives will continue on after death, might possibly result in the end of humanity on this particular planet?

As stated above scientific [+mathematical] facts are the most reliable at present.

I'll repeat;
you MUST review your own psychological state [common to the majority] on why you desperately jumped to the conclusion God exists without any follow-through rational argument and evidence [scientific the most reliable].

Btw, your "EYE" thingy that you drew in most of your images are similarly drawn by those with mental disorders and those who do trips because evolution had hardwired humans to always look [sight & eyes] outward to facilitate survival.

As I have stated over and over again, the attenuated level of consciousness that humans must function at in order to make the "strange reality" of this universe seem "natural" and "logical" to us, is what lies at the root of the problem of you, Veritas, not being conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to understand what my "EYE thingy" represents.

I wish I could wake you up, but the "illusion" of objective reality is so perfectly executed (designed), and so utterly convincing that it causes most humans to be unknowingly relegated to deep levels of somnambulism (some deeper than others), which, in turn, perpetuates their problem.

Now, of course, in your inevitable blusterous response, you will unwittingly demonstrate to me the depth and degree of your own particular level of somnambulism.

And that's because the revealing of your own particular level of somnambulism will be proportional to how "cocksure" you are in your defense of your "God is an impossibility to be real" codswallop.
_______

You should do more research on the above issue to free yourself from such entrapments.
The fact is those who have the strongest experience with a God are psychiatric and mental cases and many of them drew the 'eye' thingy.

Here is one example among the thousands;
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

I am very confident of my "God is an impossibility to be real" because I know the idea of God is an illusion that is conceived to deal with [soothe] the terrible cognitive dissonance driven by existential crisis.
Are you even aware all humans are infected with an existential crisis which is very active in the theists' psychological state.

[Dontaskme]

Well, you don't know what "faith" is.

''faith'' is known only as a word.
Man comes to know the known from the unknown.
The source of the unknown is the unknowable. So again, you are only clutching at a 'strawman position'.

And while that's more tragic than hilarious, it's funny how it puts the shoe on the other foot.

It's always amusing to me how Atheists want to tell you a) what you believe (as if they either know or care),

People do care. They care about the relentless ritualistic mental abuse that is indoctrinated into the minds of innocent children. For example: The claim made by theists that there is a God who is a sadistic cosmic abuser, since He not only makes us suffer but also requires us to kneel down and give thanks for the suffering.

and b) how you should believe it (while they don't even realize they have a belief at all). It's a kind of strange jig of lack of self-awareness they routinely go through, totally unaware of the spectacle they're actually creating.

They're not doing any such thing. Rather, they are attempting to lance the poison that continues to linger in the hearts of believers. Such poison should be kept in the domain of ones private thoughts of imagination, and refrained from being preached as an actual reality.



So you are wrong IC...because logical rational intelligent intellectual human beings do not poison other people.

The religious person is an addict to the existential stockholm syndrome that can be seen to manifest as abuse in religious apologetics.

You are more than welcome to your beliefs IC...but just know them for the illusions that they are within your own hominid brain.

[Immanuel Can]

In the 5th century BCE, there were no Christians yet!

I didn't say that was the first time the word was used. I said it was one of the times.

Gee, you're gratutiously hostile.

• The fool has said in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
  They are corrupt,
  They have done abominable works,
  There is none who does good.
  Psalm 14:1

Yep, that's absolutely right. Atheism is very foolish.

That prove my point, i.e. the term 'atheist' is used pejoratively as it had been used and you are using it in 2022.

It's not pejorative to non-Theists.

People like Harris and Hitchens wear it proudly. Even Dawkins does, at a times when he doesn't feel called on it.

I don't want to use the term but rather prefer to be not-a-theist.

Okay, "Not-A-Theist."

Then let's ask these clarification questions:

Is your Not-Theism based on evidence or merely not wanting there to be a God?

Is it reflective of a hostility against God, or merely a neutral lack of any view at all on the subject?

And are you trying to convince others, or merely speaking about yourself?

We'll see exactly what it consists of, from these three questions.

If you insist to label the term 'atheist' to everyone who is anti-God...

You mean, like pratically everybody else does? It's what the term actually means.

How come you are so blurr.

How come you no write English?

Dawkins is a scientist who must comply with the conditions of the scientific method. To him the idea of God cannot fulfil the conditions of the scientific method.

That's not what he says. He says there's evidence for God in Fine Tuning. And if he ever decided to say the words you're putting in his mouth, he'd still be wrong, of course.

...you ignore contexts of the individual's specific attitude in denying God exists.

No, I don't.

I just call them "agnostics," if they are anything less than definitive in their position. So does Dawkins.

You're really alone here: not only don't you agree with me, you don't even line up with Dawkins.

I said flew relied heavily on the Fine Tuning Argument as a part of the Argument from Design.

That's not what you said. It's what you've modified your position to right now.

What you said was that The AFD was the essence of his argument, and Flew was senile anyway. You were wrong both times, verifiably.

Flew thereby relied on scientific facts [at best polished conjectures] to arrive at the conclusion that God exists.
Thus his conclusion is merely at best a polished conjecture.

So now you want to say that "scientific facts" are nothing more than "polished conjectures"?

I have been saying that all the time and in this thread plus 000s of times in this forum.
Show me scientific facts are at best NOT polished conjectures?

A "conjecture" is a hypothesis without required evidence. Science is the probabilstic verification/falsification of hypotheses through a systematic method.

'it is impossible for a square-circle to be real' this is the same with 'it is impossible for God to exists as real'.

That's ridiculous.

"Square circle" is an oxymoron, which means a double term containing its own internal denial. God is a single word, and a concept that the vast majority of the human race recognize as cogent. Even if you don't believe God exists, it's not at all true to say there's any inherent contradiction in the term.

What I done is, I have provided the justifications.

No, you haven't.

Saying you have is not the same as having done it.

It is you who do not have the intellectual integrity to read it

Like I say, I have it right here. Page number and quotation, please?

The original point I raised...

No page. No quotation.

You didn't read the book. I'll warrant you didn't read Flew's either. But if you want to prove me wrong, give the page and quotation. Otherwise, it's obvious I'm right.

[bahman]

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].
The point is Dawkins is a scientist and the Scientific Framework and System cannot ensure 100% certainty else one who claim for 100% certainty cannot qualify as a scientist.

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.
Their concession in this case is merely showing their humility in not playing God in claiming absolute certainty.
Dawkins had also claimed despite his concession he implied on a personal basis outside his scientific constraint, God is an impossibility.

It is very common to ask for "one best argument to one's claim" but it does not imply that one's best argument would be true or real.

The video merely cherry picked without taking the full contexts of Dawkins and Hitchen's position towards theism.

Meanwhile IC is extending the deception in insisting,
"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there [size]IS[/size] evidence for God" as if it is their categorical view.

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

I don't think that physics can ensure us that God exists or not. You need metaphysics. I have an argument against the existence of God: Any action including the act of creation needs time. Time is a part of creation. That means that time is needed to create time. This is a regress. Regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

As I had argued, scientific facts [physics, biology, chemistry, etc.] are at best merely polished conjectures.
Therefore it would be silly for theists to rely on scientific facts to justify their omni-whatever God exists.

Re 'time'.
Theists will argue God being the Greatest is not conditioned by time.
Thus God exists independent of time.

God might exist independent of time but any action requires time.

[iambiguous]

In other words, we may not like what we are seeing and experiencing from our lower perspective, but the Creator of the universe may have a perfectly logical reason for allowing for...

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

_______

Bottom line: No God, and all of these terrible things have to be endured as just a manifestation of an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that, for each of us one by one, ends in oblivion.

Or, how about, yes, there is a God, and all of these terrible things that have to be endured are simply a necessary part of our temporary "gestation period," so to speak, within God's "cosmic womb" (the universe)?

Okay, how about that? Back again to believing it "in your head" versus actually being able to demonstrate that it is in fact true.

And then these parts:

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

Addressed by no one in the video.

I'm talking about a temporary situation that doesn't end in oblivion, but in a second and final birth into a higher context of reality that holds a purpose for us that is so amazing and so wonderful that it must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Talk. Someone telling us what they think and believe and "just know" is true about God and religion "in their head". Me, I'm far more interested in what they can demonstrate is true for all rational human beings.

How about you? What can you demonstrate [even to yourself] is true about this "second and final birth into a higher context of reality"? There is of course what you want to believe about it because in believing it it comforts and consoles you. But that's not the same thing [for some of us] as providing hard evidence that it in fact is true.

And then the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of others out there all claiming pretty much the same thing about "I" beyond the grave. Only they assure us it's their own One True Path and not yours. That's when I interject and point out that with so much at stake on both sides of the grave shouldn't there be a way that we can be sure which path it is?

So, how can those who are able to think themselves into believing that a God, the God, their God will have an explanation for them one day in Paradise not be the winners here?

I don't quite understand that question. Could you please reword it for me?

Sure. You believe in a God, the God. And in believing it you have access to a Script. A Holy Book that tells you how to behave righteously on this side of the grave. You behave righteously. Why? Because the Holy Book assures you in turn that if you do you will be judged favorably by God. You will be rewarded with immortality and salvation for all the rest of eternity after you die.

You do not believe in a God, the God. Instead, you believe that human existence in a No God universe is essentially meaningless and purposeless. You believe that when you die...that's it. Oblivion. On your way back to "star stuff" over billions of years. "I" obliterated for all the rest of eternity.

Now, aside from what in the end can, in fact, be demonstrated to be true here, who would you deem to be the "winner" if it just comes down to what you are able to believe "in your head" is true?

[iambiguous]

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.

By the way, the fine-tuning argument also fails. No matter how improbable our universe is, using the same probability rules, a being capable of designing and creating our universe is even far more improbable. This argument wonderfully destroys itself.

More to the point [mine], if there is a God and the reality we experience around us is as a result of His fine tuning, that fine tuning also includes this...

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

Not counting henry's "no show" God or Rabbi Kushner's impotent God, how can the God many worship here not reasonably be deemed a sadistic monster?

After all, it's not for nothing that for most of God's flock, the leaps of faith include the belief that God works in mysterious ways. Very mysterious ways.

[Sculptor]

Oh let them have their beliefs.

Magic has to mean God did it, there's no other explanation out there, we all must concede to the mystery of MAGIC.

I'm not stopping them.
But they do need to keep their beliefs to themselves and stop abusing children

..atheists they truly R ...or...the stupidest KUNTS on the planet.

You never fail to make a complete arse of yourself.

[Atla]

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.

By the way, the fine-tuning argument also fails. No matter how improbable our universe is, using the same probability rules, a being capable of designing and creating our universe is even far more improbable. This argument wonderfully destroys itself.

More to the point [mine], if there is a God and the reality we experience around us is as a result of His fine tuning, that fine tuning also includes this...

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

Not counting henry's "no show" God or Rabbi Kushner's impotent God, how can the God many worship here not reasonably be deemed a sadistic monster?

After all, it's not for nothing that for most of God's flock, the leaps of faith include the belief that God works in mysterious ways. Very mysterious ways.

If we really want, we can come up with a benevolent explanation for absolutely anything, no matter how horrific. That's pretty easy. But such explanations get so crazy, they are the exact opposite of being reasonable. People who cling to such explanations and openly preach them, are weak, weak-minded, miserable. They choose feel-good nonsense beliefs over reason.

[iambiguous]

If we really want, we can come up with a benevolent explanation for absolutely anything, no matter how horrific. That's pretty easy. But such explanations get so crazy, they are the exact opposite of being reasonable. People who cling to such explanations and openly preach them, are weak, weak-minded, miserable. They choose feel-good nonsense beliefs over reason.

When you consider just how ghastly, horrendous and unspeakably appalling human pain and suffering has been, is now, will be as a result of "acts of God" [noted by some without a shred of irony], you wouldn't think it would be easy at all.

And, I suspect, for some, it isn't. They do in fact agonize over the gap between the at times terribly cruel world we live in and their belief in God. But what's the alternative? It's either God or these gruesome ordeals have absolutely no ultimate meaning and serve absolutely no ultimate purpose. So, sure, when some human monster abducts your children and then rapes, tortures and kills them, you're going to be on Dateline talking about seeing them again in Heaven and how God gets the final word even if the monster isn't caught down here.

Only a fool wouldn't understand why some go there. And only an insensitive asshole would heap scorn on them for going there.

I'd go there myself if I could.

Let's face it there are those among us who preach the gospel of atheism. They show little but contempt for those who do manage to believe in God. And, in certain moods, I can be one of them. But there are in fact very intelligent men and women who do manage their own spiritual "leaps of faith".

Here and now I'm not one of them. But who is kidding whom regarding just how staggeringly mysterious existence itself is. Sure, God is one possible explanation for it. And if you are able to make that existential/Kierkegaardian leap of faith, or make that Pascalian wager, good for you. I only wish I could myself.

Instead, it is those like IC here that I have the least respect for. They come into a philosophy forum and actually expect us to believe that their Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. It's not a leap of faith for them. They know He exists.

But then they throw out videos like the one on this thread or the ones here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- and use them as "proof" that their own Christian God exists!!!

Their own Holy Bible "proof" basically revolves around the circular "logic" that "the Christian God must exist because it says so in the Christian Bible; and the Christian Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God".

Then when I call them on it, they pretend I don't exist.

[Atla]

If we really want, we can come up with a benevolent explanation for absolutely anything, no matter how horrific. That's pretty easy. But such explanations get so crazy, they are the exact opposite of being reasonable. People who cling to such explanations and openly preach them, are weak, weak-minded, miserable. They choose feel-good nonsense beliefs over reason.

When you consider just how ghastly, horrendous and unspeakably appalling human pain and suffering has been, is now, will be as a result of "acts of God" [noted by some without a shred of irony], you wouldn't think it would be easy at all.

And, I suspect, for some, it isn't. They do in fact agonize over the gap between the at times terribly cruel world we live in and their belief in God. But what's the alternative? It's either God or these gruesome ordeals have absolutely no ultimate meaning and serve absolutely no ultimate purpose. So, sure, when some human monster abducts your children and then rapes, tortures and kills them, you're going to be on Dateline talking about seeing them again in Heaven and how God gets the final word even if the monster isn't caught down here.

Only a fool wouldn't understand why some go there. And only an insensitive asshole would heap scorn on them for going there.

I'd go there myself if I could.

Let's face it there are those among us who preach the gospel of atheism. They show little but contempt for those who do manage to believe in God. And, in certain moods, I can be one of them. But there are in fact very intelligent men and women who do manage their own spiritual "leaps of faith".

Here and now I'm not one of them. But who is kidding whom regarding just how staggeringly mysterious existence itself is. Sure, God is one possible explanation for it. And if you are able to make that existential/Kierkegaardian leap of faith, or make that Pascalian wager, good for you. I only wish I could myself.

I disagree. Privately people can believe whatever they want, but going public with their leaps of faith, only justifies the monster's actions and keeps humanity in its current state. Humanity will never grow up and try to take its fate in its own hands.

[seeds]

_______

It appears that the so-called "four horsemen" of the new atheist movement...

(Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett)

...discussed their theories in the wrong bistro...




_______