From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   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 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.   
      
      
   >>   
   >> ========================================   
   >>   
   >> [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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)