Ender

Yes, MikeG, doesn't that seem to be a repeating pattern here on this forum?

Stage 1: Theist A storms infidels, makes a splash with a case that is articulated by voluble and ebullient writing which stirs up the regulars from their stupor.

Stage 2: The regulars award the new theist benefit of doubt and try tackle the theist's case with particular questions, and a potentially exciting discussion ensues.

Stage 3: Theist A pulls a Clinton and grow evasive with redirections and non-sequitors up the wazzo, and hurls ad homs at the regulars for the audacity of rasing such questions or comments that may or may not sabotage the case being presented.

Stage 4: Both the regulars and Theist A justify their cases with repeated assertions that threaten to spiral the original discussion out of orbit.

Stage 5: Theist A either joins the other former theists-of-the-month in chorus or retreats to far less challenging grounds.

Final Stage: the regulars grow content with already-refuted or rebutted previous theists-of-the-months, and await the next fresh meat to fall in their laps.

~WiGGiN~

Sandy

I just read through this thread. I was all excited! Andrew had evidence! Now, I may not be the brightest crayon in the box but am I the only one still waiting for "the evidence"?

Sandy

doodad

Same here Andrew. Atheists have a problem. They don't like to be ignored.

Dark Jedi

Actually, many of us would very much like to be ignored. But the religious right can't do that. They want their theocracy established to wipe us out, or convert us. So we stand up to be counted...

Andrew_theist

Lets cut the baloney. If you are attributing deific attributes to a Pink unicorn then it merely becomes a euphemism for God. So what would be the difference? Lets use another example I have used before. Suppose you and I are detectives and get called upon to investigate a death. Our job is to the best of our ability determine the cause of death whether they are natural causes or if it was caused by design. We both scrupulously gather our evidence. I conclude the death is caused by natural causes and you determine it was intentional. However I could just as well phrase it in the negative and not say it was natural, just deny it was intentional. This way I wouldn’t have to provide any reasons why it was natural I could just criticize any evidence to the contrary and claim if the other detective can’t prove other wise then I must be right. After all some people seem to think you can’t prove a negative. But wait a moment suppose the other detective frames his conclusion in the negative? Suppose in this case he claims to be an anaturalist and demands everyone to produce evidence to the contrary and upon failing to do so his contention of foul play should be assumed?

How does this relate to the existence of God? If I say the cause of the universe is designed by a personal agency (which would mean a supernatural cause) and you say it is not, you may just as well be saying it was a natural cause. Because as in the case of a death there simply is no other alternative it is either natural or designed. By the same token I could claim to be an anaturalist and demand over and over again for the atheists on this board to present evidence that natural causes alone are sufficient to account for all we observe. Then I could use clever vitriolic like there is no more evidence for natural causes then there is for Pink Unicorns. Or where is this invisible device that creates universes?

Lets see if anyone here is really interested in hearing my evidence for God. I will be happy to engage them in a debate. Only it will be on a level playing field. The debate would be titled the cause of the universe designed or natural? I would be happy to defend the designed side while my opponent defends the natural side. Then there would be an even playing field that would make it much more difficult to employ creative imagination. Any takers?

theophilus

This is shere nonsense.
What encounter have you had with the "religious right" that compells you to engage in atheistic propaganda, i.e, this website?

HelenM

Are you kidding, Andrew?

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." -- Acts 4:12

Is "Allah" just a euphemism for the Lord Jesus Christ?

So, all the Muslims aren't actually going to hell after all?

Have I misunderstood you?

Shoot, I did it again didn't I? But really, Andrew, what on earth are you saying, here?

love
Helen

theophilus

and you.

daemon

Your analogy fails, however, in that it is known that it is possible for the victim to have been murdered because it is known that murder is a possibility--people exist, can kill each other, etc. In the case of the theistic belief, we have no basis; it is not known that any god exists to do the designing or creating in the first place.
Are you arguing for God, or for design? The former is interesting, the latter pointless. How do you even identify the difference between a designed and naturalistic universe? What are your criterion based on?

Andrew_theist

I am arguing as a theist, not a Jew or a Christian or a person of the Islamic faith.