YOU are the one claiming the existence of God, therefore it is YOU who has to provide the proof.

I, on the other hand, am completely indifferent to the idea of god. The existence, or non-existence of a Supreme Ruler matters as much to me as the divine,six-legged purple bovines on Uranus, which mentioned in an earlier post. They are totally irrelevant.

What DOES matter, though – and has bothered me all my life – is that many believers insist on foisting their non-proven gods on those who simply wish to live god-free lives.

Most annoying of all is their insistence on linking morality with god-belief when such belief has shown itself down the ages to be the least moral of any human invention – and, if it continues on its present path, will, ultimately, lead to the destruction of most life on earth.

I am no evolutionary biologist, and have no idea of how life came into being on this planet, or for what purpose. All I know is that before I was born I did not exist, and that, after I pop my clogs, I shall happily cease to exist.

Until that happens I will continue to cheerfully challenge the irrational wherever and whenever it crosses my path.

I leave you with my favourite definition of the fella who discovers God: He is like a blind man who enters a pitch-dark cellar in search of a black cat which isn’t there – then miraculously finds it!

Why do you think you are still not convinced about a true and living God? How do you believe that humans and animals and the world for that matter began?

I think that you are defining “scientific” to suit your need of the word. Suppose i had this approach: give me rational, reasonable, tangible proof that there is not God. If you can prove to me scientifically that there is no God, I would at once cease to be an Christian. Are you not allowing you belief that there is no God to direct your life and the lives of those closest to you? It would appear that you are trying to place the burden of proof on those that believe in God. Do you have proof that there is no God? I would be interested in hearing your scientific evidence.

“Who wrote the Bible?”

“Well, men did, but it was inspired by the Word of God.” (It is to their credit that not a single woman contributed so much as a line to the Bible.)

This is, of course, a simplistic example; there are many more convoluted ones, but are all equally unconvincing.

So we atheists don’t accept the non-existence of gods “on faith”, but through rational deduction in the absence any evidence to the contrary. It’s known as the scientific approach.

If your God was shown to exist, I would at once cease to be an atheist, but would then need evidence that it was a benign entity capable of intervening directly in my life, and the lives of those closest to me.

If the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions are to be believed, your god is a psychotic monster, and an incompetent one to boot.

Such an entity in no way deserves worship, let alone respect.

The reason I regard believers of this sort of “fairy” story as deluded is because they ARE deluded. They take on faith something which is unproven and unprovable.

Atheists, on the other hand, demand evidence, and so long as that evidence remains unforthcoming, we rightly remain skeptical. There is no question of us “believing a lie by faith.”

If for example, someone proposed the fact that six-legged blue bovines occupied the Uranus, and, that, for the sake of my “immortal soul” I should supplicate myself to these beings at the Church of Blue Bovines, I would first demand proof of their existence.

If proof were actually provided, my disbelief of the said bovines would, of course, evaporate. However, I would still have to be convinced that these creatures held some supernatural sway over my life before I stopped to worship them.

Ditto for the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God – and all the other gods that went before.

I too, appreciate engaging with you in a cordial manner.

If you do not have the Lord in your heart what good will all the wisdom and money in the world be to you?