The number of religious 'nones' has soared, but not the number of atheists. Why?
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
But I have a harder time thinking that even over a period of billions of years DNA can suddenly exist and do what it does - let alone for the physics of it all to allow all this to happen, and allow private thinking, etc... I don't think this is designless.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40101290
And you can't opt out of "something from nothing" thinking - you have to choose between "DNA from nothing" or "intelligent DNA-designer from nothing".
The problem is, people can't comprehend the complexity that can result in millions or billions of years of iterations, so they assume it must be magic, because that seems simpler and more intuitive. But nature is rarely intuitive at the scale of human understanding.
It's like everything in the universe wants existence and to be felt by something. I can't just assume coincidence because of that.
We have one example of life existing anywhere in the universe, our own biosphere. Everything else in the universe that we observe appears dead or hostile to life as we know it. If it's the case that "everything in the universe wants existence and to be felt by something" it seems weird that this universal cosmic need expresses itself through mostly insects and bacteria and a few primates on one planet, and everything else is mostly dark matter and gamma rays and black holes and burning gas.
There is infinite stuff which does not exist.
I was an atheist, but had no issues with my children becoming Christians. I think today's atheists think they need to be Richard Dawkins.
Aggressively supporting of a political or social cause; adamant, combative. [from 17th c.]
That seems entirely apt to me. It's a metaphorical usage, rather than a literal one, but it has been used that way for centuries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
Not sure that matches my live and let live.
There's more of that 'life and death' terminology.