What I do know is that never at any point in my life have a looked up at the stars or into the face of a newborn infant and said, “Wow….. matter….”

Neither have I. I’ve experienced incredibly strong emotions in numerous situations, including the two you’ve outlined. Isn’t it good enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are faeries at the bottom of it too?

You’ve sidestepped the issue. I have asked you the same question (in various forms) at least 6 times.

PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN “REAL GOD” AND “FICTITIOUS CREATURES”.

I don’t think I can make myself any clearer. Show me a method that, when applied to God returns a positive result, and when applied to a fictitious creature returns a negative result.

The fact that we exist at all blows my mind on a daily basis… because… logically and rationally speaking…. we shouldn’t.

What seems illogical or irrational about our existence?

Atheists always want to be rational and logical and explain things away until there’s nothing left to explain. I fail to see how the things I’ve listed can’t be described as evidence of a creator.

Maybe I can offer some insight into this matter.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that there is a creator, and He has a purpose for all of us. Given this reality, my main question would not be “Why” but “How”. How was I created? How does the sun rise and set? By discovering the How, the answer to Why becomes much less enigmatic.

Back to this reality – “God did it” doesn’t answer my questions. “Lightning is one of God’s tools to punish the wicked” was a seemingly legitimate theory, but in the 1700s, with the advent of the Lightning Rod, this theory had mortal Man telling omniscient, omnipotent God to stick his whip up his ass. Clearly, the pre-lightning rod theories of lightning were bullshit.

If there is a God, we should be open to his works, rather than relying on the opinions and theories of ancient people who didn’t even know the earth was spherical.

If there is no God, then this reality is what it is or what we make it. The more we know, the more changes we can make. The more we delude ourselves, the less truth we can discover.

<blockquote>What I do know is that never at any point in my life have a looked up at the stars or into the face of a newborn infant and said, “Wow….. matter….”</blockquote>

Neither have I. I've experienced incredibly strong emotions in numerous situations, including the two you've outlined. Isn't it good enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are faeries at the bottom of it too?

You've sidestepped the issue. I have asked you the same question (in various forms) at least 6 times.

PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN "REAL GOD" AND "FICTITIOUS CREATURES".

I don't think I can make myself any clearer. Show me a method that, when applied to God returns a positive result, and when applied to a fictitious creature returns a negative result.

<blockquote>The fact that we exist at all blows my mind on a daily basis… because… logically and rationally speaking…. we shouldn’t.</blockquote>

What seems illogical or irrational about our existence?

<blockquote>Atheists always want to be rational and logical and explain things away until there’s nothing left to explain. I fail to see how the things I’ve listed can’t be described as evidence of a creator.</blockquote>

Maybe I can offer some insight into this matter.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a creator, and He has a purpose for all of us. Given this reality, my main question would not be "Why" but "How". How was I created? How does the sun rise and set? By discovering the How, the answer to Why becomes much less enigmatic.

Back to this reality – "God did it" doesn't answer my questions. "Lightning is one of God's tools to punish the wicked" was a seemingly legitimate theory, but in the 1700s, with the advent of the Lightning Rod, this theory had mortal Man telling omniscient, omnipotent God to stick his whip up his ass. Clearly, the pre-lightning rod theories of lightning were bullshit.

If there is a God, we should be open to his works, rather than relying on the opinions and theories of ancient people who didn't even know the earth was spherical.

If there is no God, then this reality is what it is or what we make it. The more we know, the more changes we can make. The more we delude ourselves, the less truth we can discover.

I don’t have time right now to respond to everything you’ve written however I would say this. I am a very simple person and don’t know much about philosophy and Ad Hominems. What I do know is that never at any point in my life have a looked up at the stars or into the face of a newborn infant and said, “Wow….. matter….”

The universe is amazing, physics is astounding, humans are hilarious, my girlfriend is beautiful, pain and suffering are real and not an illusion, the Big Bang had a start and so on. I tend to look at these things and say holy crap, and something within me says there has to be more. Atheists always want to be rational and logical and explain things away until there’s nothing left to explain. I fail to see how the things I’ve listed can’t be described as evidence of a creator. The fact that we exist at all blows my mind on a daily basis… because… logically and rationally speaking…. we shouldn’t.

You can’t see through things forever. I don’t have a lot of fancy answers but what I do know is this. There’s only one question. Is it possible that there is a God? Everything else depends on this.

My answer is yes.

I’ll write more later but just wanted to respond.

I don't have time right now to respond to everything you've written however I would say this. I am a very simple person and don't know much about philosophy and Ad Hominems. What I do know is that never at any point in my life have a looked up at the stars or into the face of a newborn infant and said, "Wow….. matter…."

The universe is amazing, physics is astounding, humans are hilarious, my girlfriend is beautiful, pain and suffering are real and not an illusion, the Big Bang had a start and so on. I tend to look at these things and say holy crap, and something within me says there has to be more. Atheists always want to be rational and logical and explain things away until there's nothing left to explain. I fail to see how the things I've listed can't be described as evidence of a creator. The fact that we exist at all blows my mind on a daily basis… because… logically and rationally speaking…. we shouldn't.

You can't see through things forever. I don't have a lot of fancy answers but what I do know is this. There's only one question. Is it possible that there is a God? Everything else depends on this.

My answer is yes.

I'll write more later but just wanted to respond.

When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.

Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions.

Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I’m familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist’s well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.

Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?

While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.

You’ve adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you’ve selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you’ve created god in your image. You’ve hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references – which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)

While I don’t necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?

Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.

Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this “God” you refer to?

Perhaps you forgot that I said this:

For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.

I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god’s existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god’s existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.

The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.

First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent’s position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2+2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin’s law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )

Second, I’ve asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit This link.

If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.

At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.

I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.

The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can’t judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.

The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent’s position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent’s position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.

I’ve said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction “delusional”.To date, the arguments I’ve seen used to demonstrate God’s existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?

When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.

<blockquote>Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. </blockquote>

Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I'm familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist's well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.

<blockquote>Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?</blockquote>

While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.

You've adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you've selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you've created god in your image. You've hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references – which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)

While I don't necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?

<blockquote>Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.</blockquote>

Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this "God" you refer to?

Perhaps you forgot that I said this:

<blockquote>For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.</blockquote>

I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god's existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god's existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.

<blockquote>The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.</blockquote>

First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent's position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2 2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin's law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )

Second, I've asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit <a href="http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_drago...rel="nofollow">This link</a>.

If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.

At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.

<blockquote>I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.</blockquote>

The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can't judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.

The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent's position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent's position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.

I've said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction "delusional".To date, the arguments I've seen used to demonstrate God's existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?

When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.

<blockquote>Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. </blockquote>

Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I'm familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist's well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.

<blockquote>Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?</blockquote>

While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.

You've adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you've selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you've created god in your image. You've hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references – which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)

While I don't necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?

<blockquote>Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.</blockquote>

Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this "God" you refer to?

Perhaps you forgot that I said this:

<blockquote>For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.</blockquote>

I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god's existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god's existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.

<blockquote>The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.</blockquote>

First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent's position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2 2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin's law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )

Second, I've asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit <a href="http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_drago...rel="nofollow">This link</a>.

If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.

At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.

<blockquote>I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.</blockquote>

The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can't judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.

The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent's position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent's position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.

I've said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction "delusional".To date, the arguments I've seen used to demonstrate God's existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?

When you can differentiate between your idea of God and my idea of the Dragon in my Garage, we can talk about the object of your affection.

<blockquote>Sounds like this is a view that you grew up with. God isn’t threatened by doubt, what you’re talking about here is religion and people that have a feeble faith that is too small to ask questions. </blockquote>

Your idea of god may not be threatened by doubt, but in every theistic belief system I'm familiar with, doubt is considered a threat to the theist's well being. See also: Hell. This concept is to theistic religion as sex is to humans. Without this stick, otherwise rational people begin to lose interest in the carrots proffered by religion, and the religion dies.

<blockquote>Also why do you use the term “theist” as if all beliefs are the same?</blockquote>

While the specific details of each theistic religion may differ, the basic philosophy behind each of them is identical: 1. Create god-concept. 2. Worship god-concept.

You've adopted a rather liberal attitude (for whatever reason) and you've selected religious tenets that support your liberal attitude. In effect, you've created god in your image. You've hand-picked certain scripture based on your ideals, while rejecting others. (The bible clearly and distinctly states the specific circumstances under which you may own slaves. There are numerous arguments for and against these references – which set of arguments do you choose to follow?)

While I don't necessarily have a problem with most of your actions, the method you use to justify those actions is identical to the method used by religious radicals around the globe. Considering that alternative methods (such as humanism, science, knowledge, equality, justice, and skepticism) support the positive activities associated with religion yet condemns the harmful ones, why should we use this broken system rather than a less harmful alternative?

<blockquote>Did you ask God for something and he didn’t give it to you? He’s not a genie.</blockquote>

Your question makes no sense to an atheist: what is this "God" you refer to?

Perhaps you forgot that I said this:

<blockquote>For me, lack of evidence means nothing. For the theist, lack of evidence means “God works in mysterious ways”.</blockquote>

I have never experienced anything that could be logically construed as supernatural.Even if I had asked god for something and it had not been delivered, I could draw no conclusion. Having no evidence to support god's existence, I cannot claim god does not exist, however I have no more reason to believe god's existence than I have to believe in creatures originating from my own imagination.

<blockquote>The problem with people that argue from your perspective is that you have already made up your mind and won’t listen to both sides of an argument. Your view is too narrow and will never be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.</blockquote>

First, this is an ad-hominem argument: an argument designed to discredit your opponent, rather than your opponent's position. Ad Hominem arguments are logically fallacious: Just because Adolf Hitler says 2 2 = 4 does not negate this fact. (Note: Godwin's law refers to comparisons, not simple references. I have not compared Hitler to anybody or anything. )

Second, I've asked you three times now:
Explain to me how to differentiate between your theory of God and the Dragon in my Garage. If you would care to read up on my garage-dragon, please visit <a href="http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_drago...rel="nofollow">This link</a>.

If the evidence you have to present comes from my own imagination, then yes, my mind is closed as to the existence of god. If, on the other hand, you can provide non-imaginary evidence, I will be more than happy to listen.

At present time, I have not seen any means of differentiating between God and the monsters under my bed. If you can demonstrate why I should risk misjudging fiction for fact, I will be more than happy to adjust my standards.

<blockquote>I could tell you of miracles that I have seen, and the leading of God in my life and the resurrection of the dead in African tribes but you wouldn’t listen because you already have both fingers stuck in your ears and are screaming, “Stupid Christians” as loud as you can.</blockquote>

The first part of this argument was anecdotal: I can't judge the veracity of this claim because I have only your word that it occurred.

The second part is quite interesting: You committed an ad hominem in that your argument is against your opponent rather than your opponent's position, but it is also a strawman: You attribute a fallacious argument to your opponent's position. And the reason the strawman argument is fallacious is because it is an ad hominem. In this case, you posit that our position is arguing against you, rather than your argument.

I've said it several times, but let me stress this once more: Sanity and Rationality require understanding the difference between truth and fiction. We call a person who cannot make this distinction "delusional".To date, the arguments I've seen used to demonstrate God's existence can be used just as effectively to support the existence of any number of imaginary creatures. I have not seen any argument that succeeds for god, yet fails for each and every imaginary creature of which I can conceive. I have not discovered a method to do this. Can you enlighten me?