If disbelieving in fairies makes you feel better then I also have no issue with that. 😉

Heres a fairy tale. There was nothing and then nothing designed, ordered, assembled, willed and manifested all things within and consisting of the universe out of nothing, from nowhere, for no reason and then after it did that, it just stopped doing it forever...then life impossibly formed out of that and one of those lives was arbitrarily you for no reason and then you denied your own conscious soul and got on the internet and mocked the belief that said exactly what you believe except replaced "nothing" with "something" called God.

@@KevinGeneFeldman "Exactly" what I believe? I'm not sure I see the connection between inconsistent legends of an ancient, bigoted storm deity and the singularity at the beginning of our universe.

@@aosidh Oh thats funny, the creative force of all things you would call "bigoted storm deity" but your version of it is "the singularity", not at all a weak minds need to redefine the truth into an absurdity so that your absurdity sounds like something closer to the truth. Atheism is without question the most idiotic belief imaginable. Your explanation for ANYTHING, let alone the unfathomable fabric of reality and all that is in it, existing is that it just does. You believe nothing created all this and your mind but you call nothing some vaguely scientific sounding word which makes it infinitely more something than nothing and wipe your hands like you just said something coherent. You believe in God except you believe its mindless, yet has all the same power and creative capacity. Its laughable. Yeah go ahead and call it "nature" as if that accounts for its own existence. Everything came into being all at once because of "nature" or "chance", you're describing a framework of reality pre existing our reality that can fashion and propel a new reality into existence, why don't I do what you do and call that your magical dimension fairy, whats the difference?

@@aosidhPretty tepid comeback after that haymaker.

@@aosidh Insofar as I can see, you seem to be taking the Richard Dawkins' tack of interpreting the Bible literally (a fundamental mistake all too common today) and then opting for the most illogical, inconceivable alternative imaginable just so you can say you've done away with God. If you don't see the problem with that, that in itself seems to speak to good reason why no one should take your critique of an intelligent designer particularly seriously.