XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:00:32 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   . . .   
   >a shift in the burden of proof of a claim away from the claimant.   
      
   "If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be   
   physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually   
   non-existing." - Malte Runz   
      
   "As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition   
   were true, then means the proposition is not true." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"   
      
       WHAT type of evidence do atheists think there "should be"? WHERE do   
   atheists   
   think the evidence they beg for "should be"? WHY do atheists think it "should   
   be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular evidence   
   they keep on about?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)