But atheists are not trying to prove that gods do not exist. They simply lack belief in the existence of gods. If we lay out the interesting options in doxastic logic they are:

1. p:G - a person has belief in the existence of gods

2. p:~G - a person has belief in the non-existence of gods

3. ~p:G - a person lacks belief in the existence of gods

Of these, the first probably does not exist since the majority of believers either believe only in a single or a particular panoply of gods. They are making an ontological commitment and they have a burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of the particular god or gods they believe in.

The second sentence is probably fairly rare. Again they are making an ontological commitment and must demonstrate that no god exists. Since it is impossible to prove an open-ended negative like this they are in a difficult position (what about the god that the sentient gas bags of an unnamed planet in IOK-1 worship).

The third is the majority atheist position. It doesn't make an ontological commitment, it is merely sceptical of the evidence that believers supposedly have for the existence of the particular deities they worship.

Given the reports of Christian fundamentalism in the American military I would have to wonder whether this was a religious motive behind the action by these marines.

I was fortunate enough to have a couple of lessons from him here in the UK before he emigrated. A great coach, he will be sadly missed.

Ah, a report of a possible sexual abuse or at least a child pornography case with an associated cover up. So don't accept that people, especially those of us with children, might be concerned. Instead make an ad hominem attack on those who are concerned. Not only that, make sure it is a good straw man as well. Care to name this "near radical atheist group" or any of its members and to say how they have been radicalised and what acts they will commit as a result of this purported radicalisation?

Something called "evidence" or "justification" might be useful here, otherwise it sounds as though you are just making it up

Ah, the "cosi fan tutte" defence. Yes, other people besides Catholics abuse children, people who are members of other organisations abuse children. But do these other organisations cover up the abuse? Or do they report it to the civil authorities?

Essentially what you are saying is that canon law has precedence over civil law.

As ever given the choice between reporting possible sexual abuse or attempting to safeguard the name of the church the bishop has gone for the latter. Fortunately after all the reports and convictions in the USA, Ireland, Germany and Belgium and the courage of the abused, people are no longer afraid of bringing cases forward.

So will anyone go there? If you like a drink, are female or gay, Christian or atheist is there any way you would go there unless you were forced to do so on business?

And once the oil does run out the reasons for doing so become even more remote.

Or even better, when it can cope with an attack from Pozdniakov - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1478623914238877457

Bob Anderson wasn't a fencing choreographer. He was actually the British and Canadian national fencing coach.

One of the people responsible for making injunctions against websites is Adnan Oktar, AKA Harun Yahya. Just another creotard but seemingly with a lot of power. Question, where does all the money come from to publish his "Atlas of Creation" and give it away free?

Said by Comte in 1842. There is a difference between unknown and unknowable.

Not quite, the Catholic church promotes "theistic evolution" or "evolution with added god". This isn't compatible with the TofE in that it isn't naturalistic and it is teleological. Catholics are forbidden to believe in "atheistic evolution".