Doug,
snip
>
>Athiests can no more prove the absence of the existence of god via intellect only that believers can prove his existence by intellect only. Both sides require a postion of faith. Faith equals religious belief. That is, a position held to by more than raw logic. Athiesm is a religious system, just as much as we "Bible thumping maniacs" <bg> may have. There does exist an athiest dogma you know...
>
>The participants all should at least have the honesty to have a level playing field don't you think?
>
The above has been playing on my mind since I read it a few days ago.
I think that your assertion that "Athiesm is a religious system..." is incorrect, though it is a slick way to get to your argument.

That's like saying that anyone who does not program a computer in VB or C++ or VFP or ASM or any of the host of other languages, and who indeed doesn't even care to touch a computer as s/he lives his/her life, is, nevertheless, a Computer Programmer! And even more so if they declare that they hate computers and that they will do their utmost to never touch a computer through their entire lives.

Athiests, though I too feel sorrow for them, are NOT practising any form of any "religion". To twist things to say that they are is nonsensical.

And by the way... introducing the requirement to disprove God by intellect only is also tampering with the playing field. Athiests seem perfectly happy to look for real PROOF of the existence of God and use its absence to prove their point. Because believers can only 'prove' His existence through intellect only (any "proof" requires faith) then you mandate that the athiests must also play in that field. Seems unfair to me.

Jim