Articles like this scare me a bit because of who they may help damn to Hell.
So I have to ask, "why do they care what I believe?" It isn't like I'm trying to take their time to try to convince them of anything so why should they think they have the right to take anyone else's time to argue against what I might believe?
I fear for where such 'crusading' may lead the more impressionable youth of our world, especially those who tend toward the hi-tech nerdy world of science since they may allow these so-called intellectuals to become their mentors and guides without ever hearing or being in a position to hear 'the rest of the story'.
Admittedly, I didn't read the whole article to which I refer since the beginning disgusted me. The author credits the atheistic side of the argument with negating the religious side's argument very easily but the whole basis for the atheistic side is that they are not willing to take anything as fact on blind faith. That means that they can never accept some of the basic tenets of any theistic religion since every one of them requires a certain degree of blind faith. If there are any of you that don't know what I mean by blind faith, that simply means a willingness to believe in something which you cannot see, feel, or otherwise experience for yourself at that moment. Blind faith does not mean believing in one particular set of religious details or even believing in all of the details of a particular set, but it does require that one accept certain things as truths without proof.