Sapient. I want it NOW!

I want two moderators for his side. tonyjeffers and Atheistextremist.

Moderators for my side . . . [shudders] Ax and Jean Jean.

There it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down.

Great for ratings.

What say ye?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwFo4x6eDkU

I'm not sure if you've seen this, but I've been getting mixed answers as to whether it is true or not. Some say they were there and it was floating, others state the explicit opposite.

Thoughts?

There are two types of people. Those who think they know it all and are very difficult to introduce anything new or opposed to their belief; they have a difficult time accepting new and opposing ideas, these are most of us. And then there are the other types who have no choice but to absorb information like a sponge no matter what. The latter are predominately known as Geeks. I'm in the first of those categories. Its difficult for me to accept something which opposes or differs from what I already think I know. I am aware of this flaw and I will eventually get it, but it is difficult for me.

When I realize I'm talking to one of the other types its kind of a thrill, because you know that the person listening is actually listening. The majority of people, like myself, tend to hear what we think the opposition is saying whereas the the Geek listens to the information with a fresh perspective. So when Luminon posted this video I didn't want to respond to it because I knew the atheists would gobble it up like candy and not listen to anything I say, but since it was Luminon I have decided to respond to it. My thinking is that there is at least one person out there capable of actually listening.

 I'm not sure where to post it. But Tony Jeffers asked and it's such a good resource for everyone. These two videos explain the origins of Yahweh and Satan. Watch them and see how people gradually made up both of them. For good measure I add the previous proverbial incarnations of Jesus Christ. You know, Dionysus, Mithra, Horus, Attis, Krishna and who knows who else. The purpose is to cut the crap, get to the point quickly and bring theists on a whole new level of discussion. 

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39KxTciPRrw
Just wondering what you guys think about this guy, his "argument" and how you would answer the question.

My answer was of ignorance, which he does not accept. The beauty of atheism is that we aren't trapped, because although deism is irrefutable, it is simply not necessary as it explains very little and begs an even more difficult question.

As you may have guessed, he does not talk about anything besides this silly argument, not about evolution and creationism, not about the nature of God, the legitimacy of the bible and Jesus, nothing but his little argument, which in the end, what does it prove?

   This is a challenge to anyone who wants to defend the proposition that an Intelligent Designer does not exist.  I will defend its negation in a LOGICAL, RATIONAL manner.  There will be no arguments made on the basis of faith.  Considering the location of this forum, it would seem reasonable to expect the same type of argument in return.  However, in my limited experience with atheists, I've yet to witness one who could actually produce this type of argument.  Nonetheless, I am optimistic that I may encounter a worthy foe eventually.

Hello everyone,

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

I'm a theist and I don't think I'm irrational at all.   First, here are some definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com (thank you Dictionary.com.  All copyright for these belongs to Dictionary.com!):

the·ism
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).


ir·ra·tion·al

adjective

1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.
not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
5.
Mathematics .
a.
(of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers.
b.
(of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials.

rea·son
   
noun
1.
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3.
the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4.
sound judgment; good sense.
5.
normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.