Throughout my respective conversations with Atheists, I noticed
something plain in their staidly faded argument. They base their major
premiss on the assumption that God doesn't exist. If something isn't
empirically examined, for them, it just doesn't exist. They solely
presume that science is merely experimental. Thence, they basically
devote themselves to empiricist philosophy. It is the doctrine which
preaches the subsequent effrontery. Science is only derived from
physical observance. For certain, this is fairly inaccurate and
intemperately belies with fundamental facts as it disposes crucial
disciplines such as humanitarian fields. And well, theology is indeed
at the top of the list. So, if you study theology, that is wholly
insignificant for them. Because they prejudiciously assume that faith
is essentially based on fairytales. Nonetheless, they would still seek
refuge with the big bang hypothesis to somewhat fathom the commence of
the universe. Leastwise, none of them is able to empirically prove the
initial cosmic detonation that theoretically marked the nascence of
the universe. So, they perfectly contradict their own principles that
are based on essentially empirical tenets. So, the existence of God is
not rationally impossible. It's just not so favourable for many. The
prominent English theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking who died
recently, admitted in a broadcasted interview with CNN, that "God may
exist but science can explain the universe without the need for a
Creator". This is how he answered the question posed to him by his
inquirer. "Do you believe in God?" His answer is what has been quoted
above. The video is on Youtube for people to check it out. So
basically, the existence of God is not rationally impossible nor
scientifically insufferable. So in basic terms, there is nothing in
science that directly prevent the existence of God. This is just a
theory, likewise the big bang one. I could therefore define this
manner as left-wing fanaticism. I wouldn't deny, that in various
instances, hate is the outcome of faith based incorrect zealotry. This
is equally true for Islam, Christendom and Hebraism. Concurrently, it
wouldn't be so fair if we scold faith for what extremism does. The two
are utterly severable. Otherwise, they would have not relegated people
as religious extremists, moderates and even nonbelievers. This
assortment is primarily affiliated with the individual's discernment
of certain text and thus, his practice based on that. We gave an
example before about the second amendment. The jural essence of that
text doesn't incite nor promote gun violence. However, it has been
deliberately misconstrued by certain people to make it suit their
private interest. Could we still blame the wrong practices of some
people on the second amendment? No, it'll be fair if we loosely
implemented this logically ingratiating conclusion. Religion is
broadly practiced. Therefore, the discernment varies, depending on
social scope and other major factors. We need to be absolutely fair as
we address this subject. I personally encountered some Atheists who
are respectful in their views. I'd conversed with them and still
strongly dissent with what they assert. But, it'll fair to denote,
that they worthily have earned my deference despite our major
divergences. Carl and Miriam are among them. Each and everyone of us
has envisioned the concept of faith and God's existence based on his
intellectual nurture and experience. How has faith been introduced to
him?, how has he interacted with religious communities in his
neighborhood? and overall, how is faith generically viewed on the
rather broader scale of his culture? This is why views on this subject
are often static. Consequently, they ought to be respected along with
the situations associated with them. Thank you.
