>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.

I suppose we might disagree here. The 'trick' IMO Jim is the definition of that word - 'religion'. I see mine not restricted by the 'traditional' points of view. Personally, I think some folks worship on the golf greens. <g>

>
>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.

No.. That's like not thinking that embedded systems is programming. Rather than an Apostle's Creed it may be the NBA rule book for example.

>
>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.

Sure they are. It's ordered, it has its dogmas and is a position held by faith, not pure intellect. They can no more prove the absence of the existence of god via intellect alone as one can provr his existnce by it. IOW, theirposition is faith-based. Challenge those dogmas and I dare say the reaction is as virulent as many in the various religious orders and camps.

>
>And by the way... introducing the requirement to disprove God by intellect only is also tampering with the playing field.

Not really. If you make an assertion you should be either willing to prove it or be honest enough to admit it's still a theory. Like evolution; it's taught as fact but it isn't when you look at each piece.

>Athiests seem perfectly happy to look for real PROOF of the existence of God and use its absence to prove their point.

So, the world really is flat as we haven't discovered astronomy or speherical geometry yet? <g> This statement only seems IMO to illustrate the utter arrogance of mankind.

>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.

I cannot prove god's existence only through the use of my intellect. He's far far more than that and on the face of it it seems absurd to think that a finite mind (mine) can understand the infinite. Also IMO an arrogant stance. No.. I'd say that after looking at the alternatives my positionis the most reasonable. Are there some things I cannot prove but yet believe? You bet! Neither can the athiest prove their position.

>Seems unfair to me.

Not really. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standard as everyone else is?

Thanks for the opinions though. <s>