I recently watched the documentary The Unbelievers where the reknowned Atheist, Richard Dawkins posed this question.
sort by best latest
lone--One can say anything, but it does not make it so. It is not reasonable to claim somethings exists without evidence to that claim. To claim that there was, no before, as a fact, is equally without foundation. You do not know.
He has all the time in the World to roll; well really he has infinite time (since he indeed is outside time and He is no sundial!...
JR--I have always thought that the stupid question was the one not asked. How do we learn if questions are labeled stupid by such as you or by others?
Sorry I wasn't politically correct. But when a confirmed atheist asks a question about a God he doesn't believe in, and about a period of time that is unknowable - it is in fact a STUPID question that merely is posed to puff up his ego.
So the question would be more valid from someone who does believe in god than from someone who doesn't? What sense does that make?
I don't think it's stupid at all. As a very open-minded agnostic atheist, I LOVE thinking about this kind of stuff. I want to put the pieces together whether they fit into my beliefs or not. So I enjoy new questions that call for insightful answers.
At some point you must explain to me what an agnostic atheist is. It sounds like being just a little bit pregnant.