From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-19 11:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:59:12 -0600, DB Cates    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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 have no issue with you having a *provisional* position but I don't   
   > think there was anything provisional about the opinions of people like   
   > 'The Four Horsemen' - Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris;  that is   
   > the type of atheism I was referring to.   
   >   
   I must confess that I rarely use the 'provisional' term in my   
   discussions concerning atheism. It *is* the default position in science   
   but, at least in my case, atheism has been assessed so often and deeply   
   that the 'provisional' is very weak and often ignored.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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''   
   >   
   > Even harder to come up with a more exceptional degree of hubris than   
   > Dawkins accusing me of child abuse because I taught them things he   
   > disagrees with.   
   >   
   Well, he is apparently an arsehole and I doubt his particular form of   
   hubris is as widespread as my example.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> ========================================   
   >>>   
   >>> [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)