🚀 go-pugleaf

> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote:

> >> On Jun 26, 5:05=C2 am, RobertL <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jun 26, 4:48=C2 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> > 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.'
> >
> > Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which
atheists
> > have claimed it?  Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything,
> > because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first
> > place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god
any more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of
Traal.

> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor
> a fact.

I never said it was. But I do think that if someone claims that a
supernatural being exists, then it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence
that it is actually the case.

> So it can't be proven or disproven.

Not in an absolute sense, no. What can? However the overwhelming lack of
any evidence for the existence of 'god' should tell us that the
possibility is vanishingly unlikely.

> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get
 a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less.

God of the gaps, as they say.

> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open
> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as
> something one can simply do without.

No, I disagree that atheism is 'sidestepping the issue'. Speaking for
myself I can simply find no grounds for supposing the existence of such a
thing as 'god'. If that is sidestepping the issue, then what exactly *is*
the issue?

> > Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although
actual
> > evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first
place.

> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its
a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology.

> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a
> statement about its existence, or lack thereof.

Sorry, you've lost me there. Can you explain a bit further?

Wendy