[Catphish]

“Atheism is dependent on an unsupported belief: “There are no gods”.

This cannot be known with surety”

One cannot be sure of of Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

[ClearCase_guy]

People can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they want to. I don't shout them down. I don't chase them out of schools. I don't ban them from the public square. I'm secure enough to let them have their beliefs and go about their business.

But evangelical atheists are on a mission to stamp out Christianity. It would appear that, as a Christian, I'm a bit more enlightened than the religious fanatics who obsess on the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> One cannot be sure of of Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

This is true. There is no proof of either God or the monster. But, the aforementioned monster is not supported by the circumstantial evidence which weighs in favor of the existence of God ...

... such as the 66 books of the Bible, by different authors, spanning thousands of years documenting eyewitness and historical evidence of the existence of Him and His Son; or,
... the archeological evidence demonstrating the existence of Biblical places, events and practices (which lends voracity to the accuracy of the Bible); or,
... the scientific evidence which suggests to me a system so complex that it cannot be written-off to random chance; or,
... the personal experiences of million-upon-millions of individuals who have seen the Holy Spirit at work in their lives.

When your “spaghetti monster” can cite to circumnstantial evidence if its existence from historical, archeological, scientific and personal records ... I’ll take it more seriously. Until then, it is but a ridiculous straw-man constructed by desperate athiests.

SnakeDoc