Ah, the “I win the argument just because I’m an atheist argument.” I’ve become very familiar with it in the past few days. It typically means “I’m not going to answer your question, but take this opportunity to point out my superiority.” I assume this is part of the attitude that people refer to when they accuse Sam Harris of being “just as fundamentalist” as the religions he opposes, although in fairness I have not seen him personally engage in this line of thinking.
It’s also part of the reason that this is largely a theoretical movement chasing it’s own tail on message boards. Again, not that I agree on that whole God part (silliness intended, thanks), but in some ways that’s a shame. Intellectual rationalism has a lot to offer with proper, useful application, which is a gigantic boat being missed here, I think.
Yes, it is superior to base one’s relationship with life on facts that can be substantiated and not rely on the myths of one’s ancestors.
There is a world of difference between a belief structure that is based on the foundational assumption that a supernatural creator god exists and a belief structure that is based on observable facts.
You claim to believe in a creator god.
Do you have anything to support that belief?
It may appear to you that I am not being polite my approach.
That is one of the ways that the delusion of religion sustains itself.
A god without qualities is no god at all.
What are the qualities of this god you believe in?
Is it a male or female?
Is it omniscient and omnipotent?
Does it have a mind and a will?
Does it have a plan?
Does it exist outside of time?
Does it intercede on behalf of those who pray?
I am not picking on you.
When and if my grandchildren inquire about the Easter Bunny,
I will ask them the same questions.
Believing that a large bunny brings eggs helps to create a mind that lives in a
magical thinking shadowland is the breeding ground for more even Democrats.