For the record, I don't care about belief vs non-belief in the supernatural. The arguments are old and tired, and uninteresting. The interesting part of this interview is in the arguments over whether thoughts are material or immaterial. It's worth reading for that.
Yes, and bananas are "made" in the perfect shape and convenience for human consumption, therefore they are evidence of god as well.The universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. For example, if the force of the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10 to the 60th, life of our sort would not have been possible.
and to build on what you have said - Of course our universe is fine-tuned for life as we know it. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it, or we'd be unrecognizably different.
No. Such a silly article. Alvin is just making atheism seem more complex than it is because he can't even fathom the concept of not believing in a god. That's all there is to it. It's not irrational when he even admits that there is evil in the world, which contradicts an all-powerful, all-LOVING god.
It's mostly crap, as all arguments over atheism vs. something else are. What I find interesting is the debate about materialism vs. non-materialism in regard to mental states and memories. It is taken as a given in most neuroscience circles that for you or I to think X, that there is something like a neural configuration (typically called a 'neural representation') of X in our brains. The problem is that there is no evidence that this is the case, and no one has ever really even defined what a 'neural representation' even is. I've never heard a theist speak on this, so I was kind of caught off guard by it, but in a good way. The theist at least recognizes that he's a dualist; the materialist does not. That's the part I was struck by. But for that, I wouldn't have posted it.
I don't think irrational is to be confused with unreasonable. Reasonable people can obviously hold a lot of different beliefs. I personally think that atheism is a quite reasonable position. I think the interview subject in this piece means it's irrational in the strict meaning of the term. That is, it doesn't follow logically from the premises. In the end, it's a silly thing to argue anyway. I just thought the guy had some interesting things to say about the nature of mind, which is an infinitely more interesting debate.
Right, because it's not at all arrogant, to believe you have a supernatural friend, who created everything, but has the time and inclination to listen to your every thought. No. Atheists may be arrogant as individuals, but atheism itself certainly is not.