It's alive!!! But still braindead.

Dinesh D'Souza is posting on the internet again. And I just cannot resist reflexively dissecting his newest inane work like I always do.

The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

Oooooo. Close. It has shown that "religious conceptions of a divine creator" are naive, unnecessary, unevidenced and occasionally based on ideas that are counterfactual given newfound scientific revelations. It doesn't refute the ideas, it provides us with a framework that makes it clear that those ideas are ill-founded and impotent in comparison.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion.”

How the hell is deciding against invoking science in a billboard whose sole purpose is to merely introduce the idea of nonbelief indicative of losing scientific confidence?

There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.

That's because they are fucking billboards advertisements, and not jargon filled formal arguments against religion. If you want to bring up the fact that atheists are engaging religion on two different levels (as scientifically devoid of merit and as a sociological hassle) then you might have a point. But you are just saying that atheists (as a unified group in your mind, no doubt) are moving away from science, based entirely on advertisements that probably could not be used as a format for those science flavored arguments even if that were the intent.

In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun.

More like: "let's not let God's hatred of the butt sex and promises to burn everyone who does not follow him to a crisp spoil all the fun". Could you be any more disingenuous, D'oucheza? Your commandments are an utter crock.

“Be good for goodness sake” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far.

And you were expecting a comprehensive moral code in addition to a scientific refutation of the existence of God? I would be surprised if it was anyone but you.

The question remains: what is the source of these standards of goodness that seem to be shared by religious and non-religious people alike?

The human conscience, which is based in certain rational necessities for our own successful function in society, which is necessary for our survival. No need to invoke Jesus here.

His “imagine there’s no heaven” sounds visionary but is, from an intellectual point of view, a complete nullity.

That's true. It is hardly intellectual to imagine that something which doesn't exist doesn't exist.

The article begins by noting “an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.” As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”

The anthropic principle. This idea is repeated so often and is so thoroughly entrenched in the belief that human life is an end in of itself that I really can't be bothered to say more to refute it.

Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot.

Unless you are too liberal with your definition of "coincidence", in which case it just implies that you are dolt who is trying to find connections where there are none.

Folger’s article shows that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would be no universe and no life.

Issue one: that's why we have a universe with those "values". Because the ones that came short couldn't exist. And the ones where life cannot exist cannot be observed as an existent universe by anyone.
Issue two: this is assuming that we are the only possible reality. That is to say, you may be able to change those cosmological constants and not be able to have a universe as we know it. But there is no reason that it might be consistent with the ability to a different form of reality with different principles to form.
Issue three: equilibrium. Changing one constant at a time might mess things up, but you might still be able to maintain existence as we know it by changing all those values the proper amount so that they can interact with one another properly.

Even Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics and an outspoken atheist, remarks that “this is fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.”

And just like with evolution, "accident" is a strawman. The universe is "fine-tuned", not due to an unknown supernatural agency, but due entirely to the fact that if it were not so, it would not exist.

They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea.”

LOLWUT? Please, I would love to hear that groundbreaking information.

Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and what could be more embarrassing than the finding that a supernatural intelligence transcending all natural laws is behind it all?

What could be a bigger waste of time than accepting that as the case? Positing supernatural agencies is ineffectual and bars progress. It is why science focuses on the natural. It sure would be embarrassing to find that a supernatural intelligence is behind all those natural occurrences. But, how that could possibly happen aside from people just leaping to the conclusion when evidence reaches a dead-end, I cannot possibly fathom.

While some physicists are hoping the multiverse will produce empirical predictions that can be tested, “for many physicists, however, the multiverse remains a desperate measure ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”

Which is a shame. It is an interesting idea. But, you see the irony of posing that a supernatural agency, with just as much of an "impossibility of confirmation" as the rejected multiverse theory, must be the case, right?

When science, far from disproving God, seems to be pointing with ever-greater precision toward transcendence, imagination and wishful thinking seem all that is left for the atheists to count on.

Of course not. Being self-aware would prevent you from your trademark end paragraph consisting entirely of smug, self-satisfied chest beating and insults, seemingly justified entirely based on the preceding few paragraphs of arguments from authority, strawmen, and dead-in-the-water apologetics. You might as well have just quoted a person saying "design design design" over and over again, because it would have just as much objective scientific content, and slightly less woo. Because, despite all your posturing, all I saw in this article was a common interpretation of physics as specifically fine-tuned for life and the universe (rather than acknowledging that life and the universe are simply the accidental products of physics, and could not exist for us to remark about for non-viable configurations). And, as usual, empty threats about there being evidence for a creative entity. But, since you restrained yourself from providing it, I will have to give you standard grade of "fail", Dineshikins. Better luck next time.