re: #9 Romantic Heretic

Sorry to disappoint, but that’s how I see it.

Anything a person says about God and His/Her/It’s nature is a matter of faith. No person can know. There’s no evidence for or against the existence of deities.

There is, from my point of view, little practical difference between religion(s) and atheism. All I was trying to say, as I so often say, is that people are fond of grabbing on to belief systems not as a guideline to be better people, but as an excuse to indulge in ‘othering’ complete with the absolute assurance that they’re much better than those people. From my point of view I see little difference between Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins.

You know, in some ways it was a good thing I lost my mind for several years. Getting a semblance of mental and emotional equilibrium back forced me to look at everything I think and why I thought that. I sometimes wish I had my faith back, even if it is that minor faith that our system works, but overall insanity was a crucible that refined the person I am.

I think you’re conflating belief and conclusion and between expressing a conclusion and extremism.

The similarities between Robertson and Dawkins isn’t faith, Robertson believes in something where there is a lack of evidence where Dawkins doesn’t believe in something where there is a lack of evidence. The similarity is in the extreme attitude they each have in the expression of their beliefs. However, Dawkins has come to the conclusion that there is no god, not based not on some faith that there isn’t, but because conclusions can be drawn even when there is less than 100% certainty. Robertson’s belief is absolute in spite of a lack of solid evidence. Dawkin’s belief is based on the probability there is no god.