Apologies for biting on the troll, but ...
<<< 1 You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique. >>>
It's called reductio ad absurdum, dipshit.
<<< 2 You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative", then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, "Well, prove Christians don't lie!" >>>
Nothing about the second half bears any resemblance to reality, and the first half by itself is true.
<<< 3 You adamantly believe that the "God of the gaps" idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history. >>>
Strawman. No one here believes that all Christians think that, we just take care to point it out when idiots use such arguments.
<<< 4 When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites....all that is except for your friend who died. >>>
Strawman again.
<<< 5 You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense". >>>
Common sense is a misnomer, because it's anything but common.
<<< 6 You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing." >>>
Strawman again. We're atheists, not emo.
<<< 7 You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the "belief that there is no god", calling them "liars," and state that, "I do not deny the existence of any god. I just don't believe in any." Then you tell someone that their God is "made up." When someone calls you on this, you state, "I never made such a claim." >>>
Yet another strawman. At best, you're describing an agnostic who believes that if there is a God, he's nothing like yours - and there is nothing inconsistent about believing that there may or may not be some sort of god, but your particular version is extraordinarily unlikely if not logically impossible.
<<< 8 Going with the definition of "without a belief in God", you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, "My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief." >>>
Show me one atheist who would claim that dogs are atheists and use this as some sort of argument. Just one. I dare you. (In a technical sense, they might well be since they probably don't have the cognitive capabilities to even think of such a concept, but that's not much of an argument.)
<<< 9 You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded". >>>
Strawman yet again. Very few atheists would say it *can't* exist simply because it cannot be observed; most would say that if it cannot be observed there is no reason to believe it exists.
<<< 10 You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith. >>>
No, it rests on parsimony. Given no evidence to suggest one way or the other, the more likely answer is the one that does not invoke an unproven (and unprovable) entity. And if said entity has characteristics that are logically impossible, we can safely conclude that it does not exist.
<<< 1 While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness! >>>
False. Studying Greek mythology but not believing in the Hellenistic pantheon does not mean you are insane. Our discussions of God are similarly academic - we are discussing others' beliefs and hypotheticals.
<<< 2 You complain when Christians appeal to their emotions when justifying their belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to your emotions for lack of belief in God. >>>
Strawman. Arguments for atheism very rarely rely on appeal to emotion - and those that do are generally rejected for the same reason we reject religious appeals to emotion.
<<< 3 You blame God for the starvation, sickness, pain and suffering in the world...when, indeed, it is MAN's greed, politics, selfishness and apathy that not only causes, but also ignores the sick and the starving masses. We aren't our brothers' keepers....but we should be. >>>
If your God exists, he's aware of evil, isn't he? He's able to prevent evil, isn't he? Then why doesn't he?
Incidentally, most atheists don't blame God for it. We tend not to put the blame on a nonexistent being. We blame humans for evil, because there's no one else to blame for it. And we believe humans ought to fix it, because no one else can.
<<< 4 You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed. >>>
Planes, computers, calculators, and compasses do not have the means to reproduce themselves, introducing small changes in the process and selecting for changes that are beneficial. Organisms do have those means. The analogy fails.
<<< 5 You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two? >>>
Every one of them that doesn't conflate the two as part of an agenda to discredit both, despite all known evidence. One tends to fall into biology classes, the other in astrophysics.
<<< 6 As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution. >>>
When the processes indicated by those claims have been observed in progress, and every single prediction made by the theory has been borne out, it's quite silly to disagree with those claims. (BTW, a "skeptic" is not one who refuses to believe anything, it's one who refuses to believe without evidence. There is evidence for evolution. And we don't intend to silence creationists. We simply don't believe their "theories" have any place in a science classroom, because they contradict all available geological and biological evidence.)
<<< 7 Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published. >>>
Congratulations. You finally managed to find an argument that I've seen used by an atheist (rarely, but on a few occasions) that isn't a valid argument. You're now 1 for 17.
<<< 8 When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it. >>>
Strawman. Atheists don't blame God for anything, as it's rather silly to blame something on an entity you don't believe exists. We grew out of blaming things on our imaginary friends when we were 5.
<<< 9 When you're discussing the origin of the world, the phrase "uncaused cause(God)" is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for "uncaused effect(the world without God)". >>>
Not quite. The biggest problem with the cosmological argument is that there are no grounds for exempting God from requiring a cause, so if you believe everything must be caused, you are merely pushing the problem back a step. Evidently there is something that must "just exist", and given the lack of evidence for any sort of deity and the abundant evidence for the existence of the universe, I'm more inclined to take the latter.
<<< 10 You descended from apes.(Think about it, but not too hard.) >>>
According to your definition, pretty much every member of the primate family (including yourself, unless you are claiming to be a rodent, mollusk, insect, reptile, or some other sort of critter) is a "fundy atheist". Since no reasonable person would consider this to be true, your definition is flawed.
