Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
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.
So you're saying I should accept some lunatic's word that he spoke with God? Why should I? At least if there were ashes I would know that there was a burning bush. Wouldn't mean God did it, though.

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.
But if a god were to intervene in the natural world, science DOES become involved. That would be something we could measure, classify, study. And if the gods do NOT intervene in the natural world, then their existence doesn't matter to us anyway, does it?

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?
Yes, you can hold negative beliefs. The question then becomes, is NOT believing something the same as believing something is NOT? I contend (though denuseri denies it) that claiming, "I do NOT believe in gods" is very different from saying "I believe there are no gods."

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.
Scientists invent explanations to describe how things work, then search for evidence to support those explanations. If they find evidence against the explanations then they have to either change or scrap the explanations. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations. Religions provide explanations, yes. But where is the evidence? And how many of those explanations have been shown to be false? (Hint: Damned near all of them!)

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.
I was saying that your comment implied that, yes. And that's where we differ. I can accept that someone could make up a more believable story, but without proof, or at least confirming evidence, it's just another fiction.

Maybe, as a start, we could ask God to heal a couple amputees?