As to the burnt bush, there might be some ashes to sift through, but what would science learn from it? Anyway, when God left, he might not leave any traces behind, and because you weren't there, you would say, it didn't happen because there's no evidence.

You seem to find it interesting that I placed faith and belief above science. We are discussing something science cannot contribute to, so, so far as I can see, science has no place in the debate.

You ask how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith because it is neither. I know you are discussing this point with den, so I'll just say here, it is perfectly possible to hold negative beliefs: there are no honest politicians, for example. How is that different from, there are no supernatural beings?

In your description of the development of science, you allow scientists to invent explanations of how things are, yet you say religion is baloney because it is invented. I'm confused.

Finally, you suggest that someone could make up a much more believable story which would convince me, even without proof. I guess that's true, if convinced, I would believe and have faith, and the absence of proof would not signify at all. That's yet to happen, though.