Oh dear I didn't know you'd need a diagram. You said 'I've met amongst a number of atheists who fill the heads of their children with unsupportable nonsense' and this is quite typical of you. Who can forget the 'verifiable evidence for a miracle' the evidence was your testimony and you failed to provide details that we could verify.
However if someone else offers a point on the same flaky grounds you won't accept it because you need supporting evidence. Which is why I ignore 90% of your posts.
jakswan, in the case of the 'miracles' I've referred to over the years, not only did I explain what had happened, (to which no-one actually gave any answers - though I believe that there was one suggestion of the euphemistic 'spontaneous healing' response) I also explained why I could NOT provide any evidence, such as the fact that medical journals aren't very keen on publishing this kind of material, even when supported by medical records and my not having access to such records even when the patient has expressed a wiliingness to have them made public.
Obviously, reminding people about all that deatil doesn't help your case - so you conveniently forget it.
Whilst we're on the subject, how do you explain 'spontaneous healing' scientifically?
Regarding the 'I know several atheists ...' bit, this was in response to a blanket assertion by ippy about 'the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense' (post #240), which was a reply to my question in post #232 '...what would you be trying to say? That parents across the world teach their children about their own belief systems, be that atheism or animism, Hinduism or Christianity?'; itself, a reply to ippy's rather truncated comment in post #219 "If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks."
May I suggest that you take the context of posts into account rather than making up your own context, or ignoring context completely.
