The fiction of abusive atheism

I have included at the end of this post the entire text of our closing e-mail to DoesGodExist.com after a range of emails discussing the unconvincing "proof" on their site.

The response from DoesGodExist.com was "I am sorry you decided it was necessary to become abusive..."

We were shocked. I don't think we could have worded this email in a more considerate and respectful way, given our disagreement on the issues.

This is a clear cut example of people who feel that their claims about God don't need to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. When arguments can be classified as abusive just because they dare to disagree it is clear that any disagreement will be seen as an abusive attack. This is another reason why dependence on faith and dogma is so dangerous - any rational discussion can be characterised as abusive simply by virtue of its being rational.

Here's the full, unedited text of our "abusive" email:

"Thanks for this John. I won't take up any more of your time with my questions, but I really do appreciate the time you've put into answering them. For now, we'll have to agree to differ on some of these points (although if you have the time, I'd be happy to continue this conversation - I just don't want to abuse your good will).

Your site claims to present a layman's practical overview of a scientific proof of God's existence. What has become clear to me from your answers is that that "proof" is logically unsound; dependent on unstated ontological, not scientific, arguments; dependent on circular reasoning; and dependent on apologetics, not science. I think taken together this shows that your claim to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective is, at best, misleading.

I don't think God needs us to mislead people into believing in Him. If you have a sophisticated proof based on ontological arguments, the properties of superstrings and branes, apologetics and unstated other steps e, f, g, h ... n, o, p ... by all means publish (or refer people to) that. But you simply have not provided what you claim to provide.

I'm sorry really. I'd like to have believed that it was so easy. But thank you again for your very prompt and courteous replies - I will certainly now go and investigate the works of Mr. Zacharias and Mr. Ross as you suggest."