I'm curious: at what point do you think it was used for people's selfish desires?

Sorry, but the burden of proof isn't on anyone to 'disprove' an invisible man in the sky.

But the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If I claimed that there were rainbow unicorns in the forest by my house, it wouldn't be up to you to prove my statement false.

In a court of law, sure. In terms of personal beliefs in mainstream society there are no burdens. The fact that I believe in God does not mean I have to prove to you there is a God. I have my own evidence of a non material world nature, you don't have to know about or believe any of it. What I can't do is try to make you out to be a bad person because you have different beliefs than I do, not my place to judge. In my world view, God will let you know when you are ready to hear nobody is forsaken and life gives us lessons every day, we progress at our own pace in accordance with doing the best we know at the time that's all.

Of course. That's very true. I was only responding to the commenter request for proof that there is no God.

Of course there isn't a method to prove that there is no God. Or gods. As there is no method of proving the non-existence of anything.

there kinda is, it's called Bayesian reasoning. What is the probability of this piece of evidence or this theory, given prior theories and evidence?

Exactly. But anyone should be able to do a probabilistic estimation

"...there isn't a God?" is a very different proposition than "...there isn't a god?". In western societies, the capitalized "God" refers specifically to Yahweh. That god has attributes and acts ascribed to it that can be proven/disproven.

Religion literally IS human dogma. The assumption that religion is, by itself, good, or at least tends to try, is a dogma that isn't very well supported either. Also, as already mentioned, the burden of proof is property of the claimant. What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If religion explained the world any better, any more sense-making, any more accurate - that would alter the case entirely, but it does only add questions even harder to answer.

The claimant will tell you that for them they have their proof, this is not a science experiment or a court of law, there is no burden, you can take it or leave it as you choose.

This is not an experiment, but it is a scientific claim about the universe and its origins. There is a little bit of knowledge about this, and it contradicts every claim about how the world has come to be made by any and every religion. There are not "non-overlapping magistrata", that in itself is a concept aiming at the avoidal of asking questions that are uncomfortable for the side that defends religion in a debate. Religion, or its representatives, make scientific claims. The experiment that would have to be undertaken accordingly would be to set up start conditions for a universe, which at least exceeds what I can do at home. But, that already happened, continues to happen, and happens observably. So, yes, there is a burden of proof, either for the religious claims like the earth being 6000 years young, or for the method of including, excluding and interpreting religious sources.

It is not a scientific claim, believers are not claiming to be scientists. Those that make scientific claims without using the scientific methods do not account for the vast majority of those with faith, science deals with the material world there is no current scientific method to deal with the spiritual realm.

There is no commonly ACCESSIBLE spiritual realm - if there was, there'd be a science to discover more about it. MANY Believers don't claim anything, that's right ... but, their churches do. The bible itself contains a lot of scientific claims, beginning with Genesis, the creation of the world. I can't really get how a story about a sentient entity creating everything is NOT a scientific claim. What one makes of it - just a story to literally truth - is another question. But, as a rule of thumb, the more sane a religious person is, the less literal he/she takes their holy book. The majority isn't the question here, but the book and its implications. A boy born by a virgin is a scientific claim - that humans can get knocked up even unplugged. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many societies in which you'd be seen as the same kind of unbeliever as me, with varying implications from nothing at all to death penalty. The method can only be applied after a claim is made ... this might get a bit long - you still interested in a debate? Not meant to offend, or anything similar, not at all, just asking before proceeding. Someone literally calculated the date of the creation of earth, some day in october 4006 BC or so was his result (could look it up, but those nutheads usually make me angry, and I have nicer things to do ... still a few paintings in progress, a guitar on the wall, ...). Anyway, first of all - have a nice day!

I already said I had no interest in dogma but I am curious how did the author of Genesis make a scientific claim in an age where science was not in existence and the scientific method had not been invented? You're reaching if you are gonna complain about that but if you want to scientifically examine the claim, as though it was some ancient hypothesis made by a scientist, you do you. Same for the virgin birth etc and yes I would,d be considered a heretic in ancient and frankly modern times, likely burned at the stake. I see more parables than factual history in the Bible frankly and don't consider the 7 day creation any more literally accurate than the world being carried on the back of the shell of a turtle. However the point about there Being a fall from Grace into a material world of good and evil aka duality is pretty evolved and discernable in the story even though there is clear mysoginy infiltrating the tale by the author in so many ways.

please explain through your refusal of the divine how a 3000LB van traveling at over 60MPH downhill on ice strait at a pond stops in less than 40FT

What do you even mean by that?

The point is, that the divine, meaning God, can not be denied when events take place that simply break the laws of physics outright. Miracles happen all the time. It is just that far too many people refuse to see them, so they can continue their delusion of there not being a God