I’m afraid mikk’s right, JBSH. When you claim there is no god, you saddle yourself with a burden of proof. Which is a rather unfortunate mistake for an atheist to make in debates given that theists are the ones who, by default, have the burden of proof.

To some extent, it is also a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof to then demand that theists prove there is a god, after making such a strong assertion that there isn’t.

Like mikk, I prefer to say that I don’t believe there is a god, or to point out that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a god or gods. There is nothing more frustrating than saddling one’s self with a burden of proof one should never have to bear to begin with.

Not that it’s actually possible to prove a negative, mind you.

That being said, if the god in question is the classical omnipotent Christian god, then that’s easy to disprove. So, there should be no issues there.

--

Do you have a specific example of my alleged waffle and pseudoscience, runner?

*Crickets chirping*

--

Speaking of tornados randomly assembling 747s (*Snigger*), social media is abuzz with the recent discovery that life may be an inevitable consequence of physics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/life-inevitable-consequence-physics

About mystery and God. I study Baha'i Faith teachings. My big picture view from that study is that the Baha’i Faith (perhaps therefore, all faiths) is an ontological thing, calling to the nature of the human being as it is, not as an endeavour to convince anyone of itself in a rational way, although it can, but rather ‘knowing’ that human beings will continue to increasingly ‘feel’ the call as the bringing of the Baha’i Faith into the world through all its aspects brings signs of a transformed global society into being. I note some of the comments here refer to the disappointment many feel, being let down by religion because religion didn't stop wars, and sometimes even made wars. I guess it is because people believe religion made that promise to them and didn't keep it. However, the founders, the great educators of religions gave us a promise that we could keep ourselves safe and one day we will be safe. I note that, if we were to evaluate safety as by wars and losses, then non-religious wars have been far more devastating than religious wars. That might raise an inquiry, "why?" Could it be that, though not entirely preventing war, religion somehow ameliorates the effect of war. I have come to see that atheists are among the most committed people to the teachings of the founders of religions, demanding that religious people and leaders stand up fully for the teachings of their founder. I find myself in wonder at this, and right there is a wonderful thing. Around the world, we now live in the most safe time in history. We are all, from all faiths and none, beginning to step up to our promise for ourselves, and that is the mystery of God in the world.

It seems to me that the article by Sellick has expanded his instructions to the wretchedly rational to include the eternality of "mystery". As if it is another nail in the coffin of atheism, he exudes pints of intellectual perspiration and gallons of fond hope, that the doubting reader will be swayed by emotion, forced elegance and shallowness of scholarship......that same combination of twisted pseudo-logic that he fell prey to in his youth.

Science's unerring and implacable determination to eradicate "mystery"
apparently has him and a few of his ilk concerned. And rightly so, for if all mystery is resolved what abode is left for the trinity? Sellick proudly [resorting to understatement for emphasis] announces; " Frank declares that he is on the side of mystery." Which is a euphemistic, self-deprecatory surrender to a preference for ignorance and a renunciation of pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a shameful and contemptible attitude to be exposed and dealt severely with at every opportunity.

To Jon J, Monday, 31 July 2017 10:04:47 AM [p.1] do we owe the exposure of the lie that Albert Einstein believed in god, i.e. the christian god. The great man revered, held in awe, that which he knew of in his imagination but which eluded his powers of deduction and analysis. He expressed himself thus; "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Einstein worshipped at the altar of intellectual enquiry and later in his life lamented how humbling is a contemplation of the vast body of knowledge humans are yet to learn. His "illimitable superior spirit" reified that as yet unnamed and possibly limitless realm. Cont...

Cont...
Sellick writes: " This mystery is not the kind that exists at the edge of knowledge,.......It is an openness to questions that lie at the heart of our humanity, who are we, why are we here, what is the point of human life?" Of course, these questions' answers must remain an eternal mystery for without the mystery and the romantic fantasy that humans attach to said mystery the questions become meaningless in the same category as...........while walking along a beach one stubs a toe on a rock peeping out of the sand and one ponders; What is this rock? Why is it here on the beach? What is the point of the rock's existence? If there were answers to these questions it would change nothing and one's toe would still be hurting. Professing to know or to be in search of the answers is an exercise in futility. Declaring the answers to be important to a fulfilled life separates the declarer from the mundane and elevates him/her one position up the religious pecking order. It promotes one's self esteem and sparks that inner glow that stems from approval from a higher authority. That kind of stuff we bestow on children and pet dogs.

He writes further: "I suggest that those embarking on a scientific career should do some theology first in order to define what their subject is capable of and what it is not. In this way, many scientists would escape hubris." Let us be fair about this. A significant number of scientists hold firmly to faith while remaining true to their science. A significant number of clergy have in the past and still today remained true to their science while holding firmly to faith. Both groups could be regarded as experts on any problems that may arise. Sellick's attribution of hubris solely to scientists is partisan and unmerited. Evangelical groups in christianity cater to many who work hubris into a virtue. Cont...

Cont...
And further: "Thus, the person of God was recognised to be hidden in deep mystery or, as some would have it, in "unapproachable light." This finally robs the atheists of their target." It matters not the depth of the mystery as far as atheists care. You are simply increasing the fantasy content of your faith at the expense of whatever credibility it may have had.

And further: "We all encounter grace in our lives....." What Sellick calls "grace" the atheist may substitute "awe" and "wonder". Understanding the science behind the numinous in no way inhibits my joy, awe or wonder. In fact an understanding can contribute another aspect to these emotions. Thus is the theist deprived and is the lesser for it. The mathematics of flight never has deprived me of the emotional rush in admiring a great bird in flight soaring on rising currents of air.

Mystery, whether holy or not, invites intellectual lassitude from those who would nurture it for its own sake. It enables escape from responsibility.

God, the mystery of the world : Comments By Peter Sellick, published 31/7/2017

Owen59 writes: " I note some of the comments here refer to the disappointment many feel, being let down by religion because religion didn't stop wars, and sometimes even made wars."

DISAPPOINTMENT is hardly the word to use in the presence of genocide and the enthusiastic ferocity of the wars of expansion by christianity and islam. Even less is it appropriate when extermination is conducted on an industrial scale as in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Further: "I guess it is because people believe religion made that promise to them and didn't keep it."

How is the above passage anything but an admission of failure, an admission of utter ineffectiveness of religious promise, whether by great religious educators or by the asses on whose backs they rode? The history of humankind is riddled with failed promises from great religious teachers of special safety from disaster, cataclysm and depredation. If you are guessing then you lack the erudition to dissert on matters such as these.

And further: "However, the founders, the great educators of religions gave us a promise that we could keep ourselves safe and one day we will be safe."

That great furfey of religious recrudescence, HOPE?
Such a fraud implies a criminality of monumental proportions. It speaks of the unspeakable, it cowers great nations, it enslaves and betrays, it cripples turning a confident forward step into a grovel. It is inimical to curiosity and enquiry and thus it is the opiate of humankind distributed by Earthly representatives of the holiest of holies.