Response to: “A Reasonable Argument for God’s Existence”

“The contention seems to be that most, if not all, religious systems rely solely on wholly unsubstant­iated faith to support their beliefs.”

Nope. It only requires one critical unsubstant­iated issue to fail reason.

When there is a critical hole in an argument, logical minds don’t “round up” to fantasy, faith, tradition, or superstiti­on; they say: “Not enough data for an answer.”

Most atheists are perfectly comfortabl­e with the fact that we do not have all the answers to how or why things work. We believe lack of knowledge is no excuse to fill in the gaps with nonsensica­l mumbo-jumb­o just to feel better in a scary universe.

Being that we’ve just scratched the surface of science, that means the majority of discoverab­le knowledge is still unknown to us.

We can always take the easy way out, stagnate and worship a sky god or an earth goddess or the teachings of a charismati­c leader if we want.

But our short human history shows faith-base­d religious explanatio­ns on how the universe works are almost always so wrong that they become laughable over time.

Me? Although I love the romantic idea of magic, dieties, the supernatur­al, ghosts, the promises of libertaria­nism, unicorns, magic beanstalks­, alchemy, water into wine, burning shrubbery that talks, and even flying spaghetti monsters..­. when it comes to my reality…

Hold the guy-in-the­-sky mumbo-jumb­o. I’d rather stick to the team that has been right more often than not: science.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost