Book Burning

[MMI]

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.


If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).


As for the book burning issue - remember that? - we do see Moslem fanatics desecrating Christian and Jewish places of worship, and I expect they would happily burn the Bible. Those Moslems are behaving in exactly the same way as Pastor Jones and his crew: fanatically, in a way each side would characterise of the other as evil and satanic. Such behaviour is deliberately provocative, and a violent reaction is the least they are hoping for. It is neither Christian nor Moslem. That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.

[Thorne]

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.

Exactly my point! Except to say that many of the things which were once presumed to be actions of gods have been explained as natural processes, ones which do not require the assumption of a god to occur. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes were all once thought to be manifestations of the gods. We now understand the natural forces which cause these phenomena much better, and nowhere do we require the actions of a god for them.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.

Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

[MMI]

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

I'm not really attacking you on this one, Thorne. I'm on your side, but less vehement in my denial and less contemptuous (seemingly) of those who do believe. We are, after all, talking about nothing.

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.


Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

I can't think of any instance where anyone has kowtowed to Moslem fanatics - enlighten me, please. Certainly it is wise to take steps to protect oneself against future terrorist acts by such fanatics, but that's not submission. It is also true that we make arrangements that involve arming and financing them, but that's only done to further our own interests, so I don't count that as being subservient to them in any way, either.

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled. I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

[Thorne]

We are, after all, talking about nothing.

It's truly a tempest in a teapot!*

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

It shouldn't be at all necessary. One of the maxims of the scientific method is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to make the extraordinary claim that an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the universe in six days (though we're not sure why it took him so long), created men and women (though why women were needed at that point, since they weren't having sex, we don't know), placed them into a garden and told them they could have anything in that garden except that tree (Oh, now I understand why the woman was there!), then tossed them out when they ate from that tree (even though he knew they would do so even before he made the universe), then he'd better have some damned extraordinary evidence to prove his assertions. Otherwise it's not more factual than the story of Hansel and Gretel.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

Yes it does, but while the consequences of this book burning were definitely foreseeable, they were anything but reasonable.


* (See Russell's teapot)

[leo9]

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled.

As I've noted before, if I were to ceremoniously and with great publicity burn a Bible in Pastor Jones' parish, I doubt if all his followers would politely agree to respect my right of free speech.

This is also a fine example of the way enemies co-operate to stir up a war. Despite his best efforts, Jones would probably have failed to cause an incident if Hamid Karzai hadn't helped him along by shouting outrage over Afghan radio. (This is why it took so long for the riots to happen.) Which incidentally shows that whatever other kind of rogue and fool he is, Karzai is no Western puppet: his US minders would certainly have stopped him if they could.

I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

It's a judgement call, figuratively and literally, and one that gets regularly tested in the courts both here and in the US. An episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on our networks recently dealt with the dilemma where a US Nazi had been making speeches telling his followers to kill gays, and one of them did: could the leader be indited for murder, given that he hadn't named the actual victim, and should they try, given the implications for free speech?

[thir]

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

[Thorne]

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their god as the one TRUE god. They are constantly trying to create a theocracy in the US, one which I believe would rival the Taliban in barbarity.

It's important because of the amount of harm done to people in the name of religion, from cults which kill their children because they disdain modern medicine, to those who destroy children's lives in the name of their gods.

But since we cannot prove that gods don't exist we have to be happy with exposing those who perpetuate evil in the names of those gods, and show people that the religion which tries to maintain a hold upon them is far more evil than any demons or devils that religion claims to fight against.

[MMI]

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

You have responded to my other points in detail, Thorne, and while I personally do agree with your sentiments in general, I still think you have missed the point, and because of that, you persist in your Quixotic tilting at religious windmills. Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

That, really, answers your objections as to proving the existence of gods or otherwise completely.

Gee. I never get compliments like that!

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den

I AM accepting and tolerant! Until they start trying to force their beliefs on me, or anyone else. Until they start using those beliefs to justify the harm they do to others. Until they refuse to accept and tolerate my LACK of belief!

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Excellent question. I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise. The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

[MMI]

I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise.

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.

[Thorne]

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.

Perhaps you are right. And if religion were not so pervasive, here in the US far more than in the UK as I understand it, I might agree that it is foolishness. But as things stand I feel it is an important question with far-ranging effects on everyone's lives. As for proving something does NOT exist, it will always be impossible. I can't prove a three-legged flapdoodle doesn't exist somewhere in the universe. All I can ever say is that there is no credible evidence that one DOES exist. And the same is true about gods. (Though given the immensity and complexity of the universe, I rather think a three-legged flapdoodle is far more likely to be real.)

[denuseri]

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den

Your ever so welcome kind Sir.

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.

[Thorne]

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.

Ahh yes, those old bogeymen. Those were COMMUNIST governments, not atheist governments. They banned religions because religions usurped too much power from the state, reducing the control the PEOPLE running those governments could impose upon their populations. They simply replaced gods with their Supreme Councils, or whatever title they gave them. Just as Islamic governments ban all non-Islamic religions in order to maintain control. Just as some Christian nations once banned all non-Christian religions. In every case it was an attempt to maintain control. These are very different from SECULAR governments. I don't want to BAN religions, just remove their influence from the government.

[Thorne]

Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

Then why do theists keep trying to do so? I'm not defining gods, after all. I'm trying to find evidence for them, or not. Regardless of their nature, if they are of any import in the physical world they have to have some impact on that world. Something which has happened which cannot be explained in any other way. If they do not exist then there are no impacts and no reason to worship them, as all evidence to date has indicated. If they DO exist and they still do not impact our world, then what is the reason to worship them? Their existence is moot.

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

On this site, no. But look at some of the legislation being put forward in the US right now. Look at the Texas Board of Education. They are aimed directly at non-believers, or different-believers. They are attempting to force faith-based laws onto everyone. And look up information about Atheist Advertisements, and how those ads are vehemently denounced by (some) religious people, and how they are defaced by "good" Christians around the US. A simple message such as, "It's OK to be Good without God!" has these "loving" theists gathering the wood for the witch burning.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

I do post my opinions elsewhere, true. But this is one of the few places where I can get reasonable and intelligent arguments from believers of such diverse faiths. Besides, I like it here!

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

Absolutely. People are people, everywhere. But as I see it, this kind of person finds it easier to manipulate people through their fears of their own mortality and lack of understanding of reality. Religion has always been used as a tool for suppression. It's simply my belief that removing religion from the political landscape gives that kind of person less room to maneuver, makes them easier to identify for the vile person he or she might be.

[leo9]

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.

Science has nothing to say about any assertion that can't be tested. That's why scientists have no quarrel with mainstream religions, which long ago gave up making claims about material things, but are head to head with those, like creationists, who assert that their religion requires that certain material things which science denies must be true, such as that the world and everything on it were created a few thousand years ago.

If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).

That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

[MMI]

That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

Possibly so, but that's because of my inability to express my ideas coherently. What I had in mind was that people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god. They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that. If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.

[Thorne]

people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god.

Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.

They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that.

And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.

Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.

But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[MMI]

Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.

And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist. Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be. Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.

Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.

But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question. To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods. The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.

[Thorne]

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.

The majority consensus doesn't mean anything except that many people believe in something that may or may not exist. What you are saying is that, since Christianity is the largest religion (according to Wikipedia) then everyone should be required to accept Christianity or justify why they do not.

And I, and atheists in general, HAVE justified our position. The is NO evidence for gods, none, nothing, nada. Not that there are no gods, which we cannot, can never, prove, but that there is no evidence for gods.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist.

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be.

Yes, inferred from evidence which doesn't fit the established theories.

Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.

We've been doing the same for gods since they were first dreamed up in some shaman's drug ravaged brain. "The gods live in the volcano," they said, so we studied the volcanoes. No gods. "The gods live in the sky," they said, so we studied the skies. No gods. "The gods send lightning to destroy the unfaithful," but the faithful get destroyed just as readily. Every testable claim for the gods has been tested, and the gods have come up short. So the theist claim that "The gods are unknowable, untestable. They must be taken on faith alone." And that lets science out. ANY test or evidence which fails to show the existence of gods will be either ignored as not relevant or shrugged at and a modified definition of gods will come out. It's called shifting the goal posts, and theists have had thousands of years to become masters at it.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.

And that just more clearly illustrates my point. There will NEVER be enough evidence to convince the faithful that they are wrong. They will ALWAYS find some way around reality to justify their beliefs.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.

And yet the evidence for unicorns is just as compelling as the evidence for gods.

You ignore the fact that most people are brought up in cultures which promote belief in gods. You ignore the fact that most people are not taught to be skeptical of everything they see, or to be wary of authority, especially religious authority. You shrug off the fact that humanity is still struggling to cast off the superstitions of thousands of years of ignorance.

At one time the majority of reasonable people believed the Earth was flat. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people thought the sun was made of coal! It's not.

People will believe what they have been taught to believe, what they want to believe, what they think others want them to believe. It's not reasonable, it's just the way we are made.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.

I don't blame theists for anything. But as I noted before, science cannot examine something which is not there! And every time science has looked and shown that the gods are not here, theists have come back and said, "Of course they're not there, stupid, they're over here!"

And science will ALWAYS accept the possibility of gods, because they can never prove anything other than the improbability of them.

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The gods, as defined by theists, are not testable by any current scientific method. When we develop new methods and, presumably, show that the gods don't appear there either, the theists will move even further away from reality, requiring science to start all over again.

To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods.

Absolutely. And I have said this repeatedly.

The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.

I disagree. The evidence is quite conclusive. The entire structure of the universe, everything from the first few milliseconds of the big bang right through to the present can be explained by evidence without recourse to supernatural beings. Nothing we have studied shows any evidence of being anything but natural. You want to say that God guided it? Be my guest. But if you can't prove it, your belief is worthless. Everything we know to date says that no gods did anything.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.

Magic, like the gods, is a supernatural explanation for something we don't understand. If you don't have the understanding of the technology, how do you differentiate the real from the unreal? Try explaining television to a primitive culture. To them it will seem like magic. Hell, even some "civilized" people don't understand it, even though they use it every day.

And yet again, magic, like the gods, fails in the face of knowledge. It's a trick, a sleight of hand designed to fool the believer. Once you understand the trick the magic, like the gods, dissolves.