It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.

The basic issues are inherently insoluble.

Evolution, Science, and Rationality in general cannot explain the "why" behind existence. Despite the power of science to describe and validate much of what has happened since, the origin of things boils down to "it just happened."

Religion, and Christianity in particular, answers the "why" with certitude -- "because God loves me." However, no positive proof can be proferred for this belief system. One can say that the "Big Bang" had to come from somewhere, but data is clearly lacking.

Both belief systems (which science is, though it is clearly NOT a religion) proceed from largely irreconcilable premises.

So why, having decided for yourself that a lack of verifiable data/proof indicates non-existence, does it become important to hammer someone of the opposite view -- as opposed to noting that you simply disagree with their premise? What exactly constitues the "threat?"


I would assert that the fact that some individuals take their belief too far is cause for wariness -- fanatics can be disconcerting -- but why assume that those of the differing opinion support the most fanatical of those who share their basic system of belief? It's not as though a fanatical "science at all costs" type is any less dangerous than a "my way or the inferno" religionist.

Oh well, just wanted to get that off my chest.

Seamus