I personally never said that I think there definitely is no god, so that part is a straw man argument.

It is also not a requirement of atheism, as has been explained to you multiple times. Insisting that your definition is the correct one doesn't make it so.

Also, why is it not begging the question to say that it is out of our reach?

You say it's like blind people and colors, but that analogy doesn't work, because there are people who have seen colors, and can explain how colors work. Do you have a similar example for gods? Are there people who have "seen" gods, so to speak?

Fair enough.

It tends to lead to hyperactive minds...

Citation need, I think.

Sorry for my very late response.

In your example of color, there are people who can, and people who can't see colors.

Is there any analogy between that and god belief?

Not just belief, because anyone can believe anything. I mean knowledge, or sensory input.

If no one can sense (detect) deities, then how can anyone say that there is one?

And if we can't say that there is one, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that there probably isn't one?

That is all I as an atheist believe. That, lacking any evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that there probably aren't any deities.

All this talk about it being beyond our understanding sounds like begging the question if you can't demonstrate it.

But that's what happened here. The x-axis has been unevenly distributed.

A mention is not the same as an appearance, so the discrepancy for some characters could be even greater if you take that into account.

How else can you make it look like a linear grouping?

I would even consider watching it of they covered it!

I think you are assuming more than is warranted. Why is it beyond our reach?

There is no precedence for the existence of deities.

For belief in deities, yes, but not for their existence.

That is all we need to say if we believe in the existence of deities; prior plausibility.

Staying in the middle ground of "maybe, we don't know" makes no sense, because it puts the plausibility one step further towards "yes" than is warranted based on the evidence we have.

I'm more surprised by them referring to it as the fourth instalment at all.

This movie is supposedly a reboot, so not part of the same storyline as the previous three.

Yet, that is what those words seem to communicate.

Marketing? Sloppy writing?

Pre-Madonna, I think.

I would even go further back, and recommend Equal Rites.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there isn't even a person on the other end, but instead it's just an AI.

Looks like it's two separate projects.

Having read it again not too long ago, I was actually surprised by how much of it was not good.

The framework was interesting, but much of the actual writing wasn't nearly as good as I had thought.

Maybe it's because I had read it in a Dutch translation the first couple of times, and the translator had had improved the prose without intending to, or maybe it's because it was many years ago.

Whatever the reason, I felt like it needed another pass of the editor.

The movie, on the other hand, still thrills me every time I see it.

"The Parker's".

That is the worse crime.

Look to Windward by Iain M. Banks. Space opera at its best.

Intellectual property owners.

When you say "non-political", what do you mean?

The movie is about national division. I find it strange that any movie could do that without having any politics in it.