I think god may have misplaced a decimal point or something because the closest star is 4.2 ly away. There's no way to possibly get there. Forget about other galaxies, even if you could travel at light speed you would need a lifespan greater than 100,000 years just to go from one end of the milky way to the other. nice pics though.

Well, I'm certainly no expert on this but when I was at the pool hall last night somebody told me that habitable planets usuall orbit stars. So if you're going to a planet you have to go near a star and the closest one after the sun is 4.2 ly away.

Did you mean uninhabitable? Because if it's inhabitable I think that means you can live there. That would make my reply not really appropriate.

Ok, I understand now. That's a horse of a different color isn't it?

See below point 

^ This 

When atheists ask this type of thing, they are refering to theists who believe in a personal religious god. Mainly because most gods, of most religions say specifically they created only the earth.

Example, christian god takes 5 days to create one small, unimpressive planet(Earth(dunno why a lot of people like to argue about this, only thing we got going is life, planet itself sucks)) but took 1 day to create 185 billion+ galaxies. Now theists say a day for god is not 24 hours. Who the fuck cares? It's god, it should take a planck second for the entire universe. Yet he takes 5 units(I don't fucking care how long) to make the earth, and 1 unit to make everything else. Also, he refered to the rest as "lights hung in the sky" he does not mention other planets etc. It's the same with most religions.

When talking about a deists god, or other non-religious non-personal god, atheists can not say that. Since a deists god is not perfect, a non-personal god is not perfect. He is not all-loving, he is not all-knowing. By standards, all he did was create the universe. He is not bound by logic to disprove he created other planets then our own. You can hold any claim, because deism is not a religion, it has no dogma. Most deists I know were once religious, they could no longer believe the bullshit and droped it, but they had to hold on to one thing, which was god. I kind of respect deists more then religious, because at least they can see as far as, these silly incohearnt stories are not true, but god still might be true, just not this god. I wish everyone could at the least be deist, then we would not have religious wars. No one would fight for their beliefs. You'd have atheists and deists, both would still argue, but at least deists would not have a reason to justify killing an atheist for argueing etc.

Myself, if a deist type god existed, great. He created the universe, left it alone, and does not impose his morality. He let evolution take over on whatever planets it could, and it progressed while he moves onto something else to create. No heaven, no hell, still believe mostly what an atheist believes except for that one thing god.

Hope that answered the question, probably not though. :\ 

I think i meant pantheism.. I think deism is actually a religion. Not sure though, I probably meant pantheism. 

So the purpose of such a vast universe is so that we can look up and say, "Ooooohhhh, pretty!"?

 Seems like an awful waste of space to me, a nice looking ceiling would serve the same purpose.

Don't worry, yellow, I'm sure listening to an Ashlee Simpson CD will serve a similar purpose for you.

 Fear not the finest pantheistic physicists and psychogists are working on that very problem.

(Ashlee Simpson is a red flag it's time for a thread-jacking)
Threads like this tell me we need to nail down beliefs before beginning any kind of discussion or debate. Without exception, every person on this board with a "Theist" badge has had little in common every other one. (Goes for atheists as well, but that's not counterintuitive.)
Within Christianity, there's a continuum of approaches to the actuality of biblical claims; and myriad responses to individual claims: based either on interpretation, or seemingly determined arbitrarily.
Some people believe in the historicity of all biblical claims, and some reject the stupider ones as they see fit. Some take unappealing or dumb parts of the book, and arbitrarily deem them metaphoric. Then there are the mainstream believers, who couldn't care less about the content of their religious books, following a path of blind obligation to tradition. Then there are the eccentric believers: they arbitrarily alter the defintion of words like "religion," and heap on kludge to support ad hoc positions.
Unlike the existence of deities themselves, we can test what the term "theism" means to individual believers. If we did so, I think there'd be little justification for the portrayal of believers as this big, homogenous glob. 

No, all theists have to do is when making an arguement STATE WHAT RELIGION IT BELONGS TO.

When someone states "what if your wrong?" which is the first religion you think of? Someone asked me this and he was a buddhist. I did not expect that in the least.

I sometimes forget there is other religions when debating, and always resort to christian god, since the majority where I live is christian. However I have met Islamic people, and they disregarded my arguements 30 seconds into it because I mentioned the christian god, they said I was labeling them. Which I was.

If you state pantheism, or deism the arguement applies to people won't think your a fucking moron. Not that anyone thinks that, but if you made this arguement about the Christian god, everyone would stare at the text, laugh and about a couple million of there brain cells would commit hiri-kiri simply trying to understand how you could state such a thing. When however you state deism, or pantheism people step back and say "Yeah I can see what he meants, those don't contridict evolution maybe if god in those terms existed, he might of created the universe for evolved species to co-exist and expierence it.". Although even then it would be a waste of space. I think a lot of atheists have a problem arguing against this, simply because your definition of god is subject to interpretation, while other gods are not since they say they are not in their holy text. 

My idea is better. Then in everytopic I would have to state which God I'm talking about.

They're atheists, they don't believe in God so should be able to come up with arguments against this God or any other God.

I created a topic about that:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7137

Hopefully the link actually works this time.  

Bump

But, even if someone has a more specific badge, I won't be able to tell what parts of their religion they actually accept or reject. I once proposed a model for flagging posts to establish the tendencies of posters toward certain ideas. There'd then be a publically viewable table that listed those tendencies, so everyone could know where they stood.
You would be able to look at my profile, for instance, and know that I'm a "weak" or agnostic atheist, so I'm immune to the "ahetsim is teh relgons lol" argument. It might also list that I was raised Catholic in a half-assed way, and dabbled in thought experiments, blah blah blah.
Anyway, nobody wanted to do it.
What religion are you two "Theists," anyhow?

Bump

Pantheist. However some deist qualities.....

What a minute what am I  

Some Pantheists use 'God' as a metaphor for the universe itself. I don't.

See the topic link I posted on the first page.