Testimony is always misleading. Eye witnesses can be wrong. They generally can't be counted on for veracity in legal proceedings. DNA and other methods of scientific
verification can.

There are no eye witnesses among those who are testifying. They are speculating after
the fact.

I agree with Steve Shaw about agnosticism. It's from a position of denial, I think, by not wanting to make a clear appraisal.

I also agree that atheism doesn't deal in absolutes. There are too many different kinds of atheists.

I think that a Freethinker has given intense thought to the idea of whether a god exists or not. I like this designation rather than the term atheist. It means to me that the question of the existence of a god has been thought through and conclusions that are reached
are that there is no god.

We are a species and not a machine. If the species in our world were "designed" than the
"designer" would have to be relegated back to the drawing board. Evolution, not "design"
explains how sometimes inefficient biology is prevalent in all species and genus's. There are examples of this in Dawkin's book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" which may be his best.

Being a Freethinker or an atheist includes compassion for fellow human-beings and
high moral standards. It also means that you can be kind and understanding to others.
You can be empathetic and sympathetic to people and other animals. The idea that religion is necessary to do this is specious.


From: mauvepink - PM

"So you believe you know there is no God. That is your own decision. Do allow other's theirs without insulting them as Dawkins did and then used words like "there probably is no God". Such commitment!"

I see no insult in Dawkin's statement. This is the kind of ultra-sensitivity that causes problems when broaching this topic. People take this examination personally. "Probably" is the key word here. The insult is insisting that there is a god. That violates free thought.

Anyone can have an opinion. It doesn't have to be agreed to. I see no more insult to this statement than those of a political nature. The GOP probably will mess things up in November. Notice I said "probably". Would you have a problem with that statement?

Dawkins when he offers a critique of religion is immediately accused of insulting someone. The supreme insult is denying the critique at all and assuming that this is
not a topic for conversation. The supreme insult is the argument from ignorance.