thanks for being selective in taste and desire to have readers and reviewrs of your personel choice.i am surprised that ordinary persons like me could disturb you much less to say over ride your privilege of being critical thinker within limits.since; you have opted not to publish my full post; you were otherwise then under obligation not to publish half of it.sooner u delete better it is. thanks for rationale patience.

thanks Mr. paul rhodes. this also includes the response to other friend.well; athiests base their arguments on rationality and much more on science and scientific terms.the science itself being always changing; athiests as such have moral obligation to hold their ideas on adhoc basis?

[snip]

i regret my previous response was probabaly deleted.thanks

[yes, it was, and future responses will be deleted as well. --ESY]

Mr.paul Rohdes: thanks this may include the response to other friend.the athiest belives in rationality much on scientific terms and desires to see GOD as easy as some physical thing in hand. it is appreciating that athiests are not common belivers and do claim to have the force of critical thinking behind in testing the things. assuming in their favour as crude as scientific argument to disprove the existence of GOD; athiest fails to appreciate similar kind of test to prove the existence of God.for instance on the discovery of "gravitation"newton just assumed on facts that gravitation could be there which was neither seen nor touched. he said"it is incomprehensible that inanimate and insensitive matter can exert a force of attraction on another without any {visible} contact without any meduim between them"{ refer worksof bently vol:3rd.p.221}in the sphere of critical thinking one can say that universe being so designed without error must have its designer; which theory of theists depend much on the same lines of scientific observaton as relied by athiests in other matters.however; from the post"crisis of faith" the learned author had already criticised such of those scietists who inspite of being scientists do belivein God.and finally; for athiests if science is the measuring rod; which is constantly going unde change; the athiests never hold that their scientific beilve is adhoc as on date to disblieve in GOd; may be the same science and criticl thinking tomorrow hold that GOD exists they shall have to beilve in it; then why propoganda on finality of argument? thanks

before i could post my little comment being beliver in faith; do not you think your identity stands because;there are theists and as such you are athiest? if this is your permanet identity; then is it not necessary that thiests must exist? thanks