Comment 214 by Guadeloupe :

Problem with these kind of texts and opinions is that the writer assumes a god that has certain properties. That is a theological opinion. The other problem in this text seems to be that the writer also assumes that the god (with the properties he has assumed) would create a world where there are no risks and everyone would never die because of the nature. And maybe also that all us would be so loving and peaceful that there will be no wars or violence.

Peoples 'assumption of god' is always an 'emotional logical fallacy'. It always includes a set of mental rules that are unsustainable and can be shown to contradict themselves. This is the individuals emotional slavery to ill-logic. This is the individuals self-doubt. This is the individuals hatreds and wishes - their vengeance and their dreams! Hence it lives in them as a fiction they are emotionally bound to defend and even to hate any who highlight its nonsense or point out its flaws. They are likely to despise the teacher of reality and love the friend of make-believe for it affords them a way out of the trauma of the mind and the often tragedy of life.

This is the sad paradox of us humans who very often are trained and brainwashed to deceive themselves that they are seekers of truth when they are seekers of cravings of emotional succour.

It is a sadness that Hitchens well describes when he suggests,

"You can point it out to them but they will not thank you for it!"

Which is why I feel indebted to him for having done so and for doing it so well - I truly do!