Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A
Going to watch that one?

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].
The point is Dawkins is a scientist and the Scientific Framework and System cannot ensure 100% certainty else one who claim for 100% certainty cannot qualify as a scientist.

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.
Their concession in this case is merely showing their humility in not playing God in claiming absolute certainty.
Dawkins had also claimed despite his concession he implied on a personal basis outside his scientific constraint, God is an impossibility.

It is very common to ask for "one best argument to one's claim" but it does not imply that one's best argument would be true or real.

The video merely cherry picked without taking the full contexts of Dawkins and Hitchen's position towards theism.

Meanwhile IC is extending the deception in insisting,
"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there [size]IS[/size] evidence for God" as if it is their categorical view.

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

[Immanuel Can]

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

That's what you want to go with, is it?

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].

He's done more. He's even denied that Atheism is a rational belief. He calls himself a "firm agnostic" instead...of course, he allows himself to be called an Atheist whenever nobody's questioning it, though. (This is in another video I can post for you...and actually, already have, several times, for other people.)

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God

Oh. So you're going to claim that "may" means it's not evidence for God? "May" is your chance to get out of it?

Well, it "may" be. So if it's dishonest to imply it is evidence for God, then it's dishonest as well to decide unilaterally that it's not. A real scientist lets the evidence speak, and say what it says. Dawkins is concerned that maybe what it says is that there IS evidence for God.

In any case, you'll note that the whole reason he brings up the Fine Tuning argument is because he considers it the most troubling challenge to Atheism. That's the context HE gives it. So you're just playing semantics here, and not facing up to what Dawkins himself takes Fine Tuning to imply.

And if you understood the Fine Tuning argument, you'd know why he considers it that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

That's what you want to go with, is it?

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].

He's done more. He's even denied that Atheism is a rational belief. He calls himself a "firm agnostic" instead...of course, he allows himself to be called an Atheist whenever nobody's questioning it, though. (This is in another video I can post for you...and actually, already have, several times, for other people.)

That his 1/7 belief on a scale of 1[high] -7[low] God Exists indirectly meant he could be 'agnostic' and that his belief is 'strong atheism.'

But Where did he state directly Atheism is NOT a rational belief and that he is a 'firm agnostic'.

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God

Oh. So you're going to claim that "may" means it's not evidence for God? "May" is your chance to get out of it?

Well, it "may" be. So if it's dishonest to imply it is evidence for God, then it's dishonest as well to decide unilaterally that it's not. A real scientist lets the evidence speak, and say what it says. Dawkins is concerned that maybe what it says is that there IS evidence for God.

Point is if you exclude the "may" you are not reporting the 'truth' and that implied deception. In this contentious issue the term 'may' as used is critical for rigor sake, especially in the whole context Dawkins has such a great detestation for religion and theism.

In any case, you'll note that the whole reason he brings up the Fine Tuning argument is because he considers it the most troubling challenge to Atheism. That's the context HE gives it. So you're just playing semantics here, and not facing up to what Dawkins himself takes Fine Tuning to imply.

And if you understood the Fine Tuning argument, you'd know why he considers it that.

Nope, Dawkins is very serious with evidence-based justifications and the Fine Tuning evidence on that basis "maybe" evidence for the theists' claim but not necessary that he agreed to it.

The problem is Dawkins [not philosophically inclined] is seriously dogmatic on evidence-based justifications thus is limited, so he has to go along with that sort of arguments.

With such dogmatism on empiricism I believe one [like Dawkins] can be vulnerable to veer towards Theism [Deism] like what Anthony Flew did; note,
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
This happens when the more rational inhibitors atrophized and weaken with age and thus the emerging desperate need for consonance to soothe the [more permanent] inherent primal cognitive dissonance.

Note this!!
Whatever the fine-tuning claims they are scientific facts conditioned upon the human-made framework and system.
Whatever are scientific facts, at best they are polished conjectures and entangled with the human conditions.

In addition one cannot equivocate and conflate empirical scientific facts [human based conjectures] with the theistic transcendental [independent of human] claim 'God exists'.
Even if this is possible, on that basis your conclusion 'God exists' is at best a polished conjecture, thus cannot be ultimately real as a supposed God should be.
As such, ultimately the hypothesis 'God exists' still need to be verified, justified, tested and repeatedly confirm with empirical evidences which is an impossibility for such a claim.
You get this??

What is critical is one need to be seriously evidence-based and [imperatively] plus serious philosophical reasonings, thus my,
God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Immanuel Can]

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

That's what you want to go with, is it?

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].

He's done more. He's even denied that Atheism is a rational belief. He calls himself a "firm agnostic" instead...of course, he allows himself to be called an Atheist whenever nobody's questioning it, though. (This is in another video I can post for you...and actually, already have, several times, for other people.)

That his 1/7 belief on a scale of 1[high] -7[low] God Exists indirectly meant he could be 'agnostic' and that his belief is 'strong atheism.'

No, actually. Dawkins himself says, in the same video, that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that. Want the video to prove it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4&t=31s

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God

Oh. So you're going to claim that "may" means it's not evidence for God? "May" is your chance to get out of it?

Well, it "may" be. So if it's dishonest to imply it is evidence for God, then it's dishonest as well to decide unilaterally that it's not. A real scientist lets the evidence speak, and say what it says. Dawkins is concerned that maybe what it says is that there IS evidence for God.

Point is if you exclude the "may" you are not reporting the 'truth'

You misunderstand what "evidence" means. "Evidence" is always indicative, always inductive, always a pointer-to something. It's not slam-dunk certainty. That's why, in a court of law, they call for "evidence" from both sides: they are looking to see what the preponderance of available evidence indicates. And there is always some "evidence" on both sides, no matter how final the judgment rendered.

So all evidence "may" indicate one thing, or "may" indicate the opposite. A bloody glove, a pattern of times of day, a possible motive, and so on, are all interpretable by both sides -- but if the case is good, then one side has much more and better of the evidence than the other.

And there is evidence for God. But there is none for Atheism, because Atheism is just blank disbelief. It cannot show that there is no God; it can only petulantly insist upon it. That's why Dawkins doesn't want to be caught being called one.

Dawkins arrived at his Atheism at age 17. Just how smart do you think 17 year-olds are? And how rebellious and hostile to authority are they? So what was driving him, long before he became a biologist, to choose Atheism? Do you think it was evidence?

In any case, you'll note that the whole reason he brings up the Fine Tuning argument is because he considers it the most troubling challenge to Atheism. That's the context HE gives it. So you're just playing semantics here, and not facing up to what Dawkins himself takes Fine Tuning to imply.

And if you understood the Fine Tuning argument, you'd know why he considers it that.

Nope, Dawkins is very serious with evidence-based justifications

He's not, actually. He hasn't got any "evidence for Atheism, and admits it, as you can now see.

With such dogmatism on empiricism I believe one [like Dawkins] can be vulnerable to veer towards Theism [Deism] like what Anthony Flew did; note,
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God

Flew's an interesting example. Once the leading Atheist apologist in England, he converted to deism in his later years. Of course, Dawkins and other such cowardly sorts immediately accused him of "losing it" in his older years. This cheapshot was proved wrong when he wrote his refutation of it, Titled "There Is A God," which I have here, on my desk. If you read it, you'll find that Flew is totally cogent and gives good reasons for his change of mind.

So much for that excuse, then.

Even if this is possible, on that basis your conclusion 'God exists' is at best a polished conjecture,

So you think.

I cannot help it if you choose to assume that. You are free to be wrong.

As such, ultimately the hypothesis 'God exists' still need to be verified, justified, tested and repeatedly confirm with empirical evidences

The Fine Tuning argument is one of the various arguments that do exactly this. Here are others, in scholarly terms: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/boo ... 1444308334

But it seems most Atheists don't read those arguments, because they don't want to have their minds changed, or their smug worldview shaken. They prefer to throw out knee-jerk skeptical probes, and stay well distant from the evidence.

And I get that. People don't like to have to leave one worldview and move to another, especially when that new worldview entails moral claims they fear or think they may fail.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's what you want to go with, is it?

He's done more. He's even denied that Atheism is a rational belief. He calls himself a "firm agnostic" instead...of course, he allows himself to be called an Atheist whenever nobody's questioning it, though. (This is in another video I can post for you...and actually, already have, several times, for other people.)

That his 1/7 belief on a scale of 1[high] -7[low] God Exists indirectly meant he could be 'agnostic' and that his belief is 'strong atheism.'

No, actually. Dawkins himself says, in the same video, that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that. Want the video to prove it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4&t=31s

What??
Did you listen to the video fully? You are trying to be deceptive again.
In the video he admitted his view is agnostic; BUT he denied it is 50/50 agnosticism but rather 6.9/7.0 which is highly improbable.
As I had explained Dawkins basis is scientific and evidence-based which cannot claim 100% certainty.
I believe he meant he does not want to be associated with 'strong atheism'.

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.
-wiki

My view is that as 'positive atheism' but I don't like the term 'atheism' since it has a pejorative meaning from theists. I have always claim myself to be 'not-a-theist' or a non-theist.

Point is if you exclude the "may" you are not reporting the 'truth'

You misunderstand what "evidence" means. "Evidence" is always indicative, always inductive, always a pointer-to something. It's not slam-dunk certainty. That's why, in a court of law, they call for "evidence" from both sides: they are looking to see what the preponderance of available evidence indicates. And there is always some "evidence" on both sides, no matter how final the judgment rendered.

So all evidence "may" indicate one thing, or "may" indicate the opposite. A bloody glove, a pattern of times of day, a possible motive, and so on, are all interpretable by both sides -- but if the case is good, then one side has much more and better of the evidence than the other.

And there is evidence for God. But there is none for Atheism, because Atheism is just blank disbelief. It cannot show that there is no God; it can only petulantly insist upon it. That's why Dawkins doesn't want to be caught being called one.

Dawkins arrived at his Atheism at age 17. Just how smart do you think 17 year-olds are? And how rebellious and hostile to authority are they? So what was driving him, long before he became a biologist, to choose Atheism? Do you think it was evidence?

Generally when one claims 'there is evidence for God' [specifically 'God'] it imply there is conclusive evidence for God.
When one qualify 'may' it meant it 'may' or 'may not' be conclusive.
In the context of Dawkins and Science, it can only meant it may or may not be conclusive unless there are evidence to justify it scientifically.

In any case, you'll note that the whole reason he brings up the Fine Tuning argument is because he considers it the most troubling challenge to Atheism. That's the context HE gives it. So you're just playing semantics here, and not facing up to what Dawkins himself takes Fine Tuning to imply.

And if you understood the Fine Tuning argument, you'd know why he considers it that.

Nope, Dawkins is very serious with evidence-based justifications

He's not, actually. He hasn't got any "evidence for Atheism, and admits it, as you can now see.

I have explained above why Dawkins [in his approach as a scientist] do not accept atheism which I believe he meant 'strong' atheism.
I don't think Dawkins is so irrational to attempt to prove a negative as in the case of theism.

With such dogmatism on empiricism I believe one [like Dawkins] can be vulnerable to veer towards Theism [Deism] like what Anthony Flew did; note,
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God

Flew's an interesting example. Once the leading Atheist apologist in England, he converted to deism in his later years. Of course, Dawkins and other such cowardly sorts immediately accused him of "losing it" in his older years. This cheapshot was proved wrong when he wrote his refutation of it, Titled "There Is A God," which I have here, on my desk. If you read it, you'll find that Flew is totally cogent and gives good reasons for his change of mind.

So much for that excuse, then.

But the fact is Flew only turned to deism [not theism btw] when he was nearly in his 80 where by then most of the neurons of his rational brain would have atrophized.
Humans evolved from their beastly ancestors where the rational brain is the late comer and the weakening of the brain is Last In First Out. This is so evident.

Note the supporting research
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God

In the case of Anthony Flew, his rational brain was heavily atrophized and weaken to counter the irrationality of theism, so his conceding to Deism [not the more irrational theism]
There are many other non-theists like Russell, etc. whose rational brain in countering theism held till their last days.

Even if this is possible, on that basis your conclusion 'God exists' is at best a polished conjecture,

So you think.
I cannot help it if you choose to assume that. You are free to be wrong.

Note my argument.
You did not counter it rationally at all.

As such, ultimately the hypothesis 'God exists' still need to be verified, justified, tested and repeatedly confirm with empirical evidences

The Fine Tuning argument is one of the various arguments that do exactly this. Here are others, in scholarly terms: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/boo ... 1444308334

But it seems most Atheists don't read those arguments, because they don't want to have their minds changed, or their smug worldview shaken. They prefer to throw out knee-jerk skeptical probes, and stay well distant from the evidence.

And I get that. People don't like to have to leave one worldview and move to another, especially when that new worldview entails moral claims they fear or think they may fail.

I have downloaded the book and noted,
The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe pg 202
Robin Collins
I will have a look at it.

As I had argued, note my argument in the previous post [which you did not counter], the FTA is based on scientific inferences which are at best 'polished conjectures'.
Based on these polished conjectures, theists merely made inferences from these conjectures.
So 'God exists' is merely a conjecture upon polished conjectures.

The FTA is all about 'IF' if, if, if and ifs, so it is a very conditional inference that cannot be tested for repeated confirmation.
In contrast to the scientific fact 'water is H2O' the FTA [polished conjecture] is very speculative thus has very low credibility.

Theists are relying on this conjecture to "infer" God exists on such low credible conjectures.

In general, theists are relying on scientific "farts" [facts] as their "perfume" to smell [infer] their God exists as real.

Note Robin Collins define God as,

• 6The Theistic hypothesis (T). According to this hypothesis, there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting or eternal, perfectly free creator of the universe whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself.

When I argued God is absolutely independent of the human conditions as with Collins' above point in another post, you do not agree with me.

I believe the best argument theists should cling to is the Ontological Argument which do not depend on the "farts" of others but by their own pure reason which is;

• "God is a being than which none greater can be imagined* (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined)."

* should be 'conceived' or idealized.

However I have trounced the ontological argument;
God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The point is why theists should produce direct evidence to justify God exists empirically, rationally and philosophically. But this is an impossibility because the idea of God is merely a reification of an illusion [a balm, security blanket, crutch] by theists to soothe the terrible subliminal pains arising from an existential crisis.

Unfortunately many ignorant non-theists has to resort to pain-killer drugs and other dangerous irrational means to soothe those existential pains.

However, the Buddhists [and others] recognized the really real terrible existential pains and establish rational strategies and practice to address the associated sufferings [dukkha].

[Immanuel Can]

That his 1/7 belief on a scale of 1[high] -7[low] God Exists indirectly meant he could be 'agnostic' and that his belief is 'strong atheism.'

No, actually. Dawkins himself says, in the same video, that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that. Want the video to prove it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4&t=31s

In the video he admitted his view is agnostic; BUT he denied it is 50/50 agnosticism but rather 6.9/7.0 which is highly improbable.

That's the point. He's denying he's an Atheist. He knows it's irrational. And "Atheist" by definition, has to believe that the existence of God has no probability at all. Agnostics come in a range, from high to low estimation of probability. But they admit their ignorance...which is the literal meaning of "agnostic" : it means "not + know."

I have always claim myself to be 'not-a-theist' or a non-theist.

That's weak. If you think about it, you'll realize it makes your position only private.

If all one is is a "non-theist" by probability, then it means that all one is saying is "I think, and it seems probable to me, that there's no God." And it's weak in two ways: one is that one can be asked for your evidence for one's non-belief, and secondly, the fact that one makes one kind of probability estimate has no implications to suggest anybody else has to regard that as correct or true.

It might well be true some individual knows of no God; I have no doubt that's the case. But it doesn't even remotely suggest nobody else can.

But an Atheist wants more. He wants to say, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either." If he says less, then he's weak, too...maybe his ignorance of God is real, but it doesn't mean anybody else's has to be ignorant of God. If he says what he wants to say, though, he's going to get called for his evidence...which Dawkins and others do not have, so they don't want to be called "Atheists."

All this is very obvious, if you think it through.

I have explained above why Dawkins [in his approach as a scientist] do not accept atheism which I believe he meant 'strong' atheism.

Wiki is wrong (as it frequently is: it's not an academic source, but an "open source"). There is no range in Atheism: if there is any kind of God or gods, Atheism is wrong. That's why agnosticism is their fall back position, as it is with Dawkins. Agnosticism has probabilities built in: Atheism admits of no degrees.

I don't think Dawkins is so irrational to attempt to prove a negative as in the case of theism.

Well, he plays both sides on that one. He has to.

When nobody's interrogating him, he allows himself to be called an "Atheist." When he's being pushed, he falls back to "firm agnosticism," just as the video so clearly shows. He wants the strength of the Atheist position, because he knows agnosticism has no implications for other people; but he doesn't want to have to "pay the toll" of having to produce evidence to warrant Atheism, so he slides back to an agnostic retreat.

But the fact is Flew only turned to deism [not theism btw] when he was nearly in his 80 where by then most of the neurons of his rational brain would have atrophized.

You're totally wrong. Go and read his book, and you'll realize his mind was just fine. In fact, he was writing for PN until just shortly before his death. So unless you think the PN editors are idiots, you'd have to realize that Flew had all his marbles. Not everybody suffers dementia, you know.

Even if this is possible, on that basis your conclusion 'God exists' is at best a polished conjecture,

So you think.
I cannot help it if you choose to assume that. You are free to be wrong.

Note my argument.
You did not counter it rationally at all.

It wasn't an "argument." It was just an allegation without proof. So it doesn't need to be addressed.

I have downloaded the book and noted,
The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe pg 202
Robin Collins
I will have a look at it.

What about the Blackwell Guide? It's a much better source, and will give you a fair representation of the argument.

[Atla]

And "Atheist" by definition, has to believe that the existence of God has no probability at all.

Someone like IC knows very well that only strong atheism rejects any probability of God's existence. Most atheists aren't strong atheists. IC is intentionally lying as usual. Pathological liars may go to hell and burn there for eternity.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

And "Atheist" by definition, has to believe that the existence of God has no probability at all. Agnostics come in a range, from high to low estimation of probability. But they admit their ignorance...which is the literal meaning of "agnostic" : it means "not + know."

Then Mr Can atheist means "not + theist". So an atheist can assign any probability to the existence of whatever god you choose. The crucial thing is not the percentage, it is the belief or lack of it.

[bahman]

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A
Going to watch that one?

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].
The point is Dawkins is a scientist and the Scientific Framework and System cannot ensure 100% certainty else one who claim for 100% certainty cannot qualify as a scientist.

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.
Their concession in this case is merely showing their humility in not playing God in claiming absolute certainty.
Dawkins had also claimed despite his concession he implied on a personal basis outside his scientific constraint, God is an impossibility.

It is very common to ask for "one best argument to one's claim" but it does not imply that one's best argument would be true or real.

The video merely cherry picked without taking the full contexts of Dawkins and Hitchen's position towards theism.

Meanwhile IC is extending the deception in insisting,
"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there [size]IS[/size] evidence for God" as if it is their categorical view.

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

It is the duty of metaphysics to discuss the issue like God.

[iambiguous]

However futile it may, I would like to remind IC that he has not responded substantively to my own reaction to the video:

Again, he throws this video out at me. Practically dares me to watch it. I do. I comment on it.

Now he has the chance to give us his own interpretation of it. A chance to comment on this:

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

God willing of course.

[Immanuel Can]

Most atheists aren't strong atheists.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

[uwot]

Most atheists aren't strong atheists.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

Allow me Mr Can. For those of us able to entertain more than one possibility at a time, it is no struggle to believe that a god may exist, or it may not. Compare god with another proposition; for instance that life exists on other planets. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. Anyone can believe what they like, but given the available evidence, anyone who claims to know hasn't made their case. Nor have you, Mr Can.

[iambiguous]

And "Atheist" by definition, has to believe that the existence of God has no probability at all. Agnostics come in a range, from high to low estimation of probability. But they admit their ignorance...which is the literal meaning of "agnostic" : it means "not + know."

True enough. Given that each of us as mere mortals here on planet Earth are but "infinitesimally tiny specks of existence in the staggering vastness of 'all there is'", how can any of us insist that in fact there is no God.

Or, sure, insist on it and then actually demonstrate it.

Given the gap between what each of us thinks we know about existence itself and all that there is to be known about it going back to why there is something instead of nothing and why it is this something and not something else, agnosticism seems to be the most reasonable frame of mind. By far.

Leaps of faith or wagers seem to be our only paths to immortality and salvation.

Only IC doesn't go there. At least not with me. Instead, he claims to know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

And all we have to do to know it as well is to accept his own "standards of evidence".

And what might they be?

1] his definitions
2] his deductions

His Christian God exists in the circular logic that is embedded in the assumptions he makes about His existence. Empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that in fact the Christian God resides in Heaven?

You'll find it buried "somewhere" in these additional videos too: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

I've asked him to note the optimal evidence here as well. But he refuses to.

[Iwannaplato]

Most atheists aren't strong atheists.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

There are actually a number of choices here. But agnosticism can I mean, I don't know. It can mean, I don't think it can be known. It is not taking a stand on the issue. Some atheists consider their being atheists to mean they lack a belief in God. They are not theists. Other atheists are asserting there is no God.

I think most people who call themselves atheists believe there is no God. There are other atheists who just don't believe and focus on other things.

[iambiguous]

But, okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that IC's Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

For me, however, the existence of God -- any God -- always brings the discussion back around to this:

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

The Christian God -- any God said to be omniscient and omnipotent -- and theodicy.