IM3RD:
I see now.
As stated at the end of the post, you are more interested in “winning a debate”. Good for you.
While I enjoy to debate more than I should, my remark was intended to maintain proper form. Alas, you have not acknowledged, much less apologized for resorting to ad hominem.
Given that the initial question concerns the kind of proof that an atheist would accept as a proof of god’s existence, I find it strange that you object to “winning a debate”. After all, what other motivation does the opening question have?
I’ll concede a tie, and for this very reason… You stated, “*it is up to you to rule out a coincidental origin.” *It is no more up to me to rule it out, as it is up to you to prove it is.
I am sorry, but while you can evade the argument you cannot concede a tie. Among others, you have stated that “Why is our solar system specifically set up to “guard” the earth? Did you know that Jupiter is set up in just a way and orbits in a pattern that protects the earth from incoming debri from our galaxy?”. You volunteered that positive claim, hence you assume the burden of proof.
Having said that, neither proposition can be ultimately proven, but a coherent and consistent explanation without invoking design or purpose is possible and the simpler explanation is much more rational to me. If you chose to flat out deny the potential validity of such an explanation, so be it.
You are not the end all, be all, authority on atheism. Nor am I the end all, be all, authority on theism. Whereas I have no inclination to change your mind, I also have no further desire to continue with your pointless banter.
You are putting words in my mouth; I never claimed that distinction. Likewise, I never assumed that you are “the end all, be all, authority on theism”. Further, you are again resorting to the ad hominem fallacy by dismissing what I say as “banter”, while ignoring the questions you cannot comfortably address.
Lastly, you stated, “*I simply wish to address the misconceptions that many Christians exhibit regarding atheists.” *If this is truly your intent, you failed miserably with me as all you have done here is to further entrench any beliefs or “prejudices” I may have already had regarding atheism.
Maybe I should rephrase my position as the desire to present my personal opinion as an atheist to contrast prevailing Christian prejudice. Make no mistake, prejudice it is. In all fairness, the reverse is true, as well. I try not make hasty generalizations, but the impression I get is that you fit a commonly held stereotype of Christians. While this doesn’t affect the validity what you say (or the lack thereof), it puts a damper on the expectations of having discourse with you.
I find nothing but “spin” and hyperbole in your entire post. Forgive me for calling it like I see it.
I realize that my opinions are uncomfortable to you and contradictory to your belief and that it is thus much easier to dismiss them as “spin” rather than face them head-on.
I can understand the frustration that Christians have with atheists that refuse concede the evidence and arguments in favor of theism, but what they fail to acknowledge is that from the atheistic point of view, doing so would be fallacious. The theistic end-run is always the argument from ignorance - you cannot explain this, therefore god exists. In return, I admit to my frustrations with theists, particularly their willful rejection of any evidence or argument that contradicts dogma. It is very difficult to present your position if the other side steadfastly presupposes the opposite.
To sum up the thread up to this point, most atheists will require evidence that measures up to their sceptical position before there is any point in attempting a proof.
