> since we simple don't have enough evidence either way. We do have much more for my claim than for yours, as presented: the specific evidence for my claim is

> since we simple don't have enough evidence either way. We do have much more for my claim than for yours, as presented: the specific evidence for my claim is even in the original article. Your claim is just completely content-free "we don't have enough." Not enough for you, but it's still many indications in the context pointing in one specific direction, and one specific claim. That's how the history works. > a self-proclaimed atheist Why did you feel the need to use "self-proclaimed"? It's not something I wasn't ready to admit. An atheist I am, and I don't see any problem with that. It's not a "dirty word" for me. It is true that it would get me probably officially killed in some countries regulated by the "perfect" law of their god. Or by some religious people taking the specific words of their god seriously. That is a good reason I prefer remaining anonymous.