From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:43:42 +0000, 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]    
   >   
   >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.   
      
      
   Your understanding expressed above completely misrepresents what   
   "they" say. There's a difference between "there's no evidence of X"   
   and "X doesn't exist".  How is this simple distinction still beyond   
   your grasp?   
      
      
      
   >========================================   
   >   
   >[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).   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)