I empathize. I’ve been in similar circumstances myself, although not with such longstanding friends. For better or worse, I’ve stopped divulging my personal feelings on religion, abortion, and drugs to all but my very closest friends. I am left of center, and many people I’ve found are uncomfortable with my positions on these topics, even if they’re not things I’ve personally engaged in.
</Off Topic>
Of course God has a sense of humour. How else would you account for the existence of (a) yourself and (b) Manchester City? Sounds a lot like the “extraordinary evidence” we’re always being asked for. 
Ah, so when challenged with a list of great thinkers to refute the stupid, arrogant assertion that believers are unthinking automata, you ignore the point that was being made about the intellectual capacities of the believers in question, and start burbling on in speculation of what religion must have held them back from? I admit, once the essential vacuity of the “Religious people are teh retardz!” position has been asserted you have no option but to pretend no-one was making that argument and look for another hill to die on, but I think in the interests of your own integrity you ought to make at least passing reference to what you have just tacitly admitted.
Personally I think Newton would have achieved much more if he hadn’t wasted half his working life on alchemy, but you’re at liberty to believe a persistent tendency to say his prayers was of greater moment if you like.
The good thing about being a City supporter is that when you turn up on a Saturday if you bring your boots with you you’ve got a pretty good chance of having a game.
All in all, it is remarkable how we argue about things that cannot (yet) be proved, and in truth things that are of marginal practical importance. Kissenger pointed out that arguments in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so low.
And yet, you decry (or at least question the worth of) a campaign which is promoting exactly that message.
Can I use this as my sig?
Have you really not heard that one before?
I thought the thing about Maine Road was that before the game starts they read the names of the crowd out to the teams.
Probably. That “atheists just believe in one less god than you do” bit sounds familar.
Found the original version (I think): “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Apparently said by Sir Henry Stephen Roberts.
I suppose I’ll use that one instead.
Someone already has that sig, but hey, the more the merrier. We can discuss the intellectual rigour of Sir Henry’s position some other time.
In this particular case, they are the same thing. If atheists are right, theists are wrong. There really isn’t a lot of wiggle room.
Care to take a swipe at it? I’ll argue for the existence of Santa Claus and, ummmm, Ermintrude from The Magic Roundabout. I’ve seen both of them, after all.
So you say you can prove a negative? “God does not exist?” You can certainly prove we have no hard evidence, but I do not see how you can prove something is not true.
Who’s trying to prove a negative? Who the hell has any proof that God does exist, or Santa, or Ermintrude, or the Tooth Fairy, or Vishnu, or Huitzilopochtli, or Thor, or Jupiter, or Ra, or An, or Elil-hrair-rah, or Tarhunt, or Aganju, or Richard Dawkins (ummm), or The Doctor, or Kutkh, or Ame-no-uzume, or Cernunnos, or the sound that our ancestors made by banging rocks together in order to worship the sky-pixie. Get a fucking grip.
Well I certainly don’t. Never said I did. If there was proof, it would be a matter of fact, not of speculation and faith.
This is hardly a matter of low stakes. Religion is immensely destructive.
Me, in fact. See below.
It’s your logical burden to provide evidence that he is. Or that he’s at least possible. Not for others to prove that he doesn’t exist, any more than it’s their job to disprove goblins.
You’ve yet to come up with a reason why the claim that God exists should be taken even as seriously as the claim that Bush is an alien lizard man in disguise.
But you did assert to be true, as fact. You simply want religion to be handed a special status where we ignore the fact that there’s no evidence for it. Because if we don’t, there’s no reason to look at religion as anything other than what it is; nonsense that people simply made up out of whole cloth.
I simply point out I have faith. I do not seek to change the minds of others.
(You got me on the ‘prove a negative’ thing. In my blueberry-wine drunk last night I somehow got the impression someone was claiming to be able to prove there was no God. My mistake entirely As someone once said, "Posting druk, what could go wrong?’)