Bill S- You have made a point I have tried to make to others on this site many times. It may be a fine point (to use fine in a nice way too) but it is an important one. There IS a difference between not believing, and a lack of belief. There are many reasons for "no belief' . One being ignorance of the topic, and the possibility of 'belief' when other information is obtained when the situation is explored. However persistent "lack of belief" is just that.

Think of a dark room. If there is a light source there is a possibility of light. If there isn't, then there isn't. So it is with belief.

Atheism is not the product of belief, it is the product of a lack of belief. All religions require belief- faith if you prefer (though there is a nice difference there too). It is therefore impossible to prove there is no god- just as it is impossible to prove there is. If you believe in god, or the divine supernatural spiritual, then so it is. Lack of belief means god has no probability of ever being there. Who has ever seen god (in any of his/her/its manifestations? There is more documented proof of the existence of UFOs than there is of god.

However many people are inspired by and have comfort from their beliefs. And so it should be. No point of view has more veracity than the other.





P.S. And totally unrelated. How could Rev. have not heard of Stephen Fry? Here in Oz he is on TV somewhere every 24 hours, day and night-- and often more than once! I think he is clever, irritating and a genius, and have been a fan since Blackadder days!