Ditto.
Sometime back before he passed, Mr. Robinson had posted something and had expected it to be of interest to those in the forum. I responded, but that thread was 'unproductive' in terms of length and cogent responses.
As to those who so energetically use "God" -- Theos -- to be anti-Theos busy themselves with contemplating God, even if in the negative. So the ardent atheist busies himself with no-God! With a rather singular goal, to tell others of his faith in no-God. It is a belief, simply because "proof" ( or lack thereof ) is a decision made by belief.
Sometimes, I substitute "Being" because relatively few resent being itself. Of course there are maladies in which this is true, but ultimately they are self-destructive. The phrase, "in Whom we have our Being," can be written without capitalization. In whom we have our being.
A great challenge for any of us is to use science and secular philosophy ( think, proof or evidence ) to explain how consciousness forms out of matter. How does our awareness of being erupt from mere matter? Here, science fumbles big time. The rather unpleasant Dennett from Tufts talked a good game, until one found his own statement that among his goals was the destruction of religion, a foolish notion. It made his "Consciousness Explained" from 1991 ( which I read on a transatlantic flight after buying it in an airport bookstore ) an academic marvel; all sorts of examples leading to no real conclusion. Rather ¯\_(?)_/¯.... This is one reason why thinking LLMs will answer deep question is a losing proposition.
Thread lengthens in part by an exchange of "yes, there is" in response to "no, there isn't" and back and forth. It has been my experience that the "blind watchmaker" argument ( trotted out by Dawkins in 1986 ) and similar gambits fail to 'evangelize' for evolution as belief as opposed to just theory. Lots of "sciency" talk like Dawkins' and lots of philosophic chatter like Dennett's do little more than bounce back "belief."
Belief in no-God -- mired in our language itself -- is faith of its own. In part that is why its proponents need to say it again and again, as if repetition is some form of progress towards a conclusion. But like a webpage with a counter for 'number of visits' or a litany or repetition of "beads" and the like, it is simply repetition.
This forum is mostly political, though of broader impact than that. One finds differences between faiths, and the avid atheist is among the "believers," as they can only believe -- in the cognitive science sense / definition -- in their unsupported proposition. As we express faith as well. Stringent proofs are not for us. That "leap of faith" -- to use Tillich's phrase -- is required. The atheist leaps too. And to use Buber's phrase, sometimes it is goo counsel to treat others not as "it," but as in relation, "I and Thou," as worth being in relation. Using capitals, even if old-fashioned, Worth Being in Relation, by a leap of Faith. Therefore, at the minimum, trust -- Trust -- is wise. And there still will be disputation between those who wish to fight about it....
Best wishes.
Yes, and thus a question to ask one who defines atheism as the "absence of belief in any supernatural God" would be, "on what basis did you come to hold that position, or at least sustain it? To which they likely would respond with arguments that spell "faith" as to conclusions of data.
As we express faith as well. Stringent proofs are not for us. That "leap of faith" -- to use Tillich's phrase -- is required. The atheist leaps too.
While God can make His reality undeniably incontrovertibly manifest (though the universe et al leaves man without excuse) as He did to the Hebrews of Exodus, so that even old pharaoh had to concede the God of the Hebrews was real, yet as he and they exampled, that did not make most to be true souls of faith. And so while God can basically force one to believe that He is real, that would not convert the anti-theist (accurate term for most all atheists, though all of us are enemies of God if not of faith), who demand God perform what they say would require.
Which is akin to rape, and if God performed for such persons then He would not be appreciated like a cheap women, or at least not prepare the heart for effectual receiving. For Divine Truth is like a veiled women, not a cheap bare all, but with enough revelation to elicit further investigation of heart, and warranting it, yet only those who enter into covenant will receive the fullest revelation. (Psalms 25:14; Exodus 33:18; John 14:21; 1 Corinthians 13:10; 1 Jn. 3:2; Revelation 22:4: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there...(Revelation 22:4,5)
Thus the degree of divine revelation one is given is an inducement to pursue more, and a test of what that souls really wants, and if at some point, this is pursued, then more shall be given, leading to The Light (as explained more in post 110)
For earnest seeking prepares the heart for effectual receiving.