From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-16 7:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> Thank you for keeping it brief.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where,   
   >>>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need   
   >>>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy   
   >>>> designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago,   
   >>>> say Last Thursday.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free   
   >>> avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.   
   >>   
   >> Christian Anfinsen (1916–1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and   
   >> winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:   
   >> “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there   
   >> exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and   
   >> knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”   
   >   
   >   
   > I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism   
   > in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind   
   > of God.[1]   
      
   Without some agreed upon criteria for what a 'GOD' is, I don't think   
   such atheists exist. The sun exists and some people consider the SUN to   
   be a god. So there is a god that exists, it's just that most people do   
   not think that it is a GOD. At the other extreme there may be a GOD-like   
   entity in some metaverse outside ours that did something to create our   
   universe. This is a GOD that may 'exist' but so what. Belief or not,   
   worship or not; it makes no difference. More parsimonious to just not   
   believe.   
      
   Then the more interesting presently active GODs with definite *OPINIONS*   
   and an invested priesthood. The more benign of these seem to be cleaned   
   up versions of rather vicious tribal gods requiring special pleading to   
   excuse their more callous behaviour ('mysterious ways' anyone?).   
      
   SO far, every belief I have come upon that postulates a GOD has failed   
   to provide the slightest reason to believe that their GOD exists. So I   
   think I have taken the quite rational provisional opinion that such GODs   
   do not exist.   
      
   >   
   > I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't   
   > have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a   
   > God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,   
   > that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of   
   > the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a   
   > 'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from   
   > encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever   
   > with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a   
   > perfectly rational conclusion.   
   >   
   > I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various   
   > atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is   
   > something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the   
   > people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are   
   > essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of   
   > intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot   
   > physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me   
   > an exceptional degree of hubris.   
      
   Hard to come up with a more exceptional degree of hubris than: 'There   
   exists an all-knowing, all-powerful GOD that has a deep personal   
   interest in ME''   
   >   
   > ========================================   
   >   
   > [1] I realise that there is a continuum between agnosticism and   
   > atheism but I don't want to get into semantic arguments about where   
   > people might be on that continuum; I'm using "atheist" in the   
   > generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God   
   > and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply   
   > haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not   
   > ever able to get enough evidence).   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)