"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal
intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between
them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

This is absolutely true. Since Dawkins book, The God Delusion, is quite loaded with anti-logical arguments that have been proven invalid ( if you don't believe me pick one). Yet, he disregards the logical proofs that support the existence of God (kalam, ontological, moral, and design arguments.Dawkins provides NO logical alternative.

"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and
parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable
determining your re...

read more»

"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal
intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between
them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

This is absolutely true. Since Dawkins book, The God Delusion, is quite loaded with anti-logical arguments that have been proven invalid ( if you don't believe me pick one). Yet, he disregards the logical proofs that support the existence of God (kalam, ontological, moral, and design arguments.Dawkins provides NO logical alternative.

"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and
parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable
determining your religion is the accident of birth."

This may have some validity, but it is not proof. One of the most prominent themes in the Christian Faith is the doctrine of sovereign election. Dawkins is clearly not theologically or logically proficient.

"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence
for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be
agnostic with respect to fairies?"

Again, true. But logically invalid as it applies to Christian Faith. There IS evidence, massive amounts of evidence. There are the logical aguments presented above, there is revalation, eye-witnesses, biblical/theological consistency, personal experience, Apologetical works, and more.

"It has become almost a cliché to remark that nobody boasts of
ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast
ignorance of science."

This is a deceptive device used by debators to appeal to authority. It is logically invalid because science has never disproven the existence of God.

"There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an
injection of morphine would be comforting... But to say that something
is comforting is not to say that it's true."

This is not the claim of Christians. Being Christi

PS: I think you meant: "There has never been a logical proof for the existence of God".

Not only is there no logical proof for the nonexistence of God, there is no logical argument. On the other hand, I could list a dozen logical arguments for the existence of God.
Sincerely TCW, I do not know how you make it through the day. On the one hand you defy logic, while at the same time critcizing and bashing me for my valid reasoning and opinions. You should think it through before you just haphazardly criticize and bash.
God cannot be proven and cannot be disproven. So logic, faith, action and evidence must be considered in order to accept one or the other alternative. I am simpl...

PS: I think you meant: "There has never been a logical proof for the existence of God".

Not only is there no logical proof for the nonexistence of God, there is no logical argument. On the other hand, I could list a dozen logical arguments for the existence of God.
Sincerely TCW, I do not know how you make it through the day. On the one hand you defy logic, while at the same time critcizing and bashing me for my valid reasoning and opinions. You should think it through before you just haphazardly criticize and bash.
God cannot be proven and cannot be disproven. So logic, faith, action and evidence must be considered in order to accept one or the other alternative. I am simply pointing out that you can offer no logically valid evidence against. I can offer much valid evidence for and have done so.
So, as you were, continue on with your hateful and inane rhetoric.

God cannot be proven and cannot be disproven.

Dawkins gets into this in his brilliant (and very funny) TED lecture.

However, he doesn't follow that up with:

So logic, faith, action and evidence must be considered in order to accept one or the other alternative. I am simply pointing out that you can offer no logically valid evidence against. I can offer much valid evidence for and have done so.

When you say you've provided it, you're using "evidence" in the scientific sense of "proof" rather than the day-to-day nailed it sense. Obviously there is a metric ton of valid evidence (again in the scientific sense) against.

And, also, in the day-to-day s...

God cannot be proven and cannot be disproven.

Dawkins gets into this in his brilliant (and very funny) TED lecture.

However, he doesn't follow that up with:

So logic, faith, action and evidence must be considered in order to accept one or the other alternative. I am simply pointing out that you can offer no logically valid evidence against. I can offer much valid evidence for and have done so.

When you say you've provided it, you're using "evidence" in the scientific sense of "proof" rather than the day-to-day nailed it sense. Obviously there is a metric ton of valid evidence (again in the scientific sense) against.

And, also, in the day-to-day sense of "proof", when exactly did the burden become disproof, rather than proof? And of precisely what utility is any system of thought in which I am allowed to make any initial postulates at all, as long as they cannot be disproven? Of what utility a system of thought which gives credence to the teapot orbiting around Mars?

You stated (all of which I quoted before):

God cannot be proven and cannot be disproven. So logic, faith, action and evidence must be considered in order to accept one or the other alternative. I am simply pointing out that you can offer no logically valid evidence against. I can offer much valid evidence for and have done so.

I pointed out that defining "evidence" is critical to making those four sentences hang together, if it's accepted that a god or gods cannot be either proven or disproven. Under a definition where a proof is something that goes in the credit column, both positions can claim arguments and evidence. As, for some reason, I'm sure you know. Unless by reject...

You stated (all of which I quoted before):

God cannot be proven and cannot be disproven. So logic, faith, action and evidence must be considered in order to accept one or the other alternative. I am simply pointing out that you can offer no logically valid evidence against. I can offer much valid evidence for and have done so.

I pointed out that defining "evidence" is critical to making those four sentences hang together, if it's accepted that a god or gods cannot be either proven or disproven. Under a definition where a proof is something that goes in the credit column, both positions can claim arguments and evidence. As, for some reason, I'm sure you know. Unless by rejecting them, you deny that they even exist, right? I'll admit that, even unheard, in all likelihood I would find your "evidence" to be loony, though I'd accept it as evidence which you find acceptable. To quote Richard Dawkins: "Religion is unusual among divisible labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them, we might have to respect them in spite of their concomitant unpleasantness. But there is no such evidence. To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic."

Personally, I see the non-theist view as more compelling. As I imagine was obvious when I clipped the top ten list of indications that you’re over-obsessed with religion...

A Sagan quote, which I believe in quite strongly: "Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."

I like sl0wdjin. He hasn't given up on argueing with a you yet, he hasn't realize that you don't listen and wouldn't change your mind if the truth smacked you over the head

I've never once seen you change your mind, regardles of how many others brought forward valid points, the obviously counter yours. At most you leave the discussion and don't reply.

You resort to telling us we are idiots (maybe not in those owrds, but in the "I don't know how you make it throught the day..." sense... you tell us we don't know what we are talking about,etc...

I dont's think you are capable of having a rational discussion, therefor I think i'll stop conversing with you at all. You can call it whate...

I like sl0wdjin. He hasn't given up on argueing with a you yet, he hasn't realize that you don't listen and wouldn't change your mind if the truth smacked you over the head

I've never once seen you change your mind, regardles of how many others brought forward valid points, the obviously counter yours. At most you leave the discussion and don't reply.

You resort to telling us we are idiots (maybe not in those owrds, but in the "I don't know how you make it throught the day..." sense... you tell us we don't know what we are talking about,etc...

I dont's think you are capable of having a rational discussion, therefor I think i'll stop conversing with you at all. You can call it whatever you want, I really don't care. Have a nice life.

No, I think Dawkins covers the field even better than well. As have most others I've read heading back to nearly a half-century ago when I first read Paine's The Age of Reason.

As for citing logic and evidence at each other, here in ClipMarks, the idea and the utility of engaging in something that overly familiar would serve to make my incredulity meter pop a rivet. I went through that in high school, and in college bullshit sessions, and in casual bar conversations. Moving forward through the decades, more recently I've been through it in Usenet and in mailing lists.

Maybe you haven't got moss and barnacles like I do at age 63, but I'd be willing to bet hard cash that at your ag...

No, I think Dawkins covers the field even better than well. As have most others I've read heading back to nearly a half-century ago when I first read Paine's The Age of Reason.

As for citing logic and evidence at each other, here in ClipMarks, the idea and the utility of engaging in something that overly familiar would serve to make my incredulity meter pop a rivet. I went through that in high school, and in college bullshit sessions, and in casual bar conversations. Moving forward through the decades, more recently I've been through it in Usenet and in mailing lists.

Maybe you haven't got moss and barnacles like I do at age 63, but I'd be willing to bet hard cash that at your age of 39 you, too, have heard all the arguments before. Or at least enough of them.

Earlier you wrote:

I am simply pointing out that you can offer no logically valid evidence against. I can offer much valid evidence for

Despite a limited curiosity to hear you offer up just one or three, I'm reasonably certain that at best we could only amuse each other by the content of our reasonings. At base, I'll admit that I think you have only faith.

Stephen Roberts said it well when he told someone:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

Epicurus did well in pointing out the illogic:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Justin Brown explained behavioral differences:

An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered,

At base, I'll admit that I think you have only faith.

slowdjin, you have faith too. We just have faith in different things.

Fair enough. For the sake of clarity, and to avoid the risk of a "dumbing-down" of the meaning of faith, I would just like to point out that faith is more involved than just belief. It involves three components: noticia - knowledge, sensa - ascent, and fuducia - trust. Each component is endless in the amount of philosophical, apologetical, theological, and personal truth, evidence and revelation that is to be taken into account.

I admit, I am disappointed you dismiss my points on Dawkins illogical statements. He really did not apply reas...

At base, I'll admit that I think you have only faith.

slowdjin, you have faith too. We just have faith in different things.

Fair enough. For the sake of clarity, and to avoid the risk of a "dumbing-down" of the meaning of faith, I would just like to point out that faith is more involved than just belief. It involves three components: noticia - knowledge, sensa - ascent, and fuducia - trust. Each component is endless in the amount of philosophical, apologetical, theological, and personal truth, evidence and revelation that is to be taken into account.

I admit, I am disappointed you dismiss my points on Dawkins illogical statements. He really did not apply reasonable discipline to his statements and that was my whole point of engaging on this clip.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

I dismiss other Gods because I agree that God is rational and the arguments for God's existence are overwhelming logically, ethically, morally, scientifically, philosophically, historically, rationally, theologically, and revelationally. The God of the Bible answers my questions and is theologically airtight.
So, you are right. I know why you dismiss God. You won't find God for the same reason a theif won't find a cop.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he
both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor
willing? Then why call him God?

Very good challenge. It is answered by Christianity ONLY.

An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a
church. An Atheist believes that deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.

Subjective. Not valid.. and untrue. Especially when you consider Christians have been more responsible for hospital