Research them if you want to know their meanings. These proofs are heavily based off of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

“Ignoring the reality of a causal agent based on an elementary understanding and reinforced by theologians like Hitchens and Dawkins is ever bit as blind and immature your perception of other worldviews.”

For someone who pretends to be so clever, you aren’t particularly bright. You either think that they are/were theologians or expect us to believe your lies about them. Regardless, I became an atheist long before I ever heard of those two. As a matter of fact, at that time I was much more familiar with the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

“For you, there is no evidence strong enough. There is no mountain high enough and there is not argument valid enough. This litmus test in the despair of life separates the wheat and chaff.”

All of your pompous posturing can be reduced to two simple to understand words – bull shit.

It’s a thinly veiled way for you to say – “I have no evidence for god.”

You lie about what constitutes evidence for god in order to avoid presenting it. Like 40 year-old dumb-ass, you define god in a way the prevents any evidence being presented.

But I’ll listen, go ahead and tell me – what is your evidence for god? Don’t define what is NOT evidence FOR ME, define what is evidence FOR YOU.

BTW, despite your long-winded, bull-shit reply you didn’t answer my question, not an argument – Do you “rationally deny the existence” of Santa Claus?

It’s a simple question with a simple answer – yes or no.

This tired old argument is used as a means of antagonism and on a surface level seems to be profound. This site is full of regurgitating other ideas without fully understanding them and this is another example. I’m surprised you didn’t also point out Icarus, Zeus, fairies, or the Easter Bunny.

I would suggest that you do your homework on this issue and quit reading snippets from the home team, then reconsider God, removing the traditions of man and your own bias. Consider the possibility of a causal agent of information.

The ramifications of our consciousness riding the seas of randomness ultimately bankrupts the concept of logic itself.

Atheism is an irrational religion of humanism repackaged for “intellectual” consumption, freeing the heart to follow it’s desires to the darkest pit of indulgence and rebelling against the reality of information needing a catalyst beyond the scope of randomness. Ignoring the reality of a causal agent based on an elementary understanding and reinforced by theologians like Hitchens and Dawkins is ever bit as blind and immature your perception of other worldviews. The followers of your religion refuse to acknowledge they are kicking, screaming children mad at a God who refuses to follow their preconceptions of what God should be.

For you, there is no evidence strong enough. There is no mountain high enough and there is not argument valid enough. This litmus test in the despair of life separates the wheat and chaff.

So by John’s definition..any (and therefore all) gods are real. Including all of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities
and countless others.
Rational huh?

“The only way to rationally deny the existence of any god is to claim absolute knowledge and the only way to possess absolute knowledge is to be god. It’s a good thing you guys aren’t delusional.”

Do you “rationally deny the existence” of Santa Claus?

(1)Define God. Do not use weasel words or circular definitions.
(2)Prove that that definition is not a logical paradox
(3)Show proof that differs from the other ten thousand dieties man has worshipped, again without committing a logical error

Until you do those three things….your worship of that deity is the intellectual equivalent a gibbering tribal primitive bowing before their god, UGABUGA.

As to your list Patrick

Hate Religion
-if we believe it is a harmful force, why shouldn’t we?

Use the word Delusion
-since it actually meets the definition, as per this article, why shouldn’t we?

Liberals
-Like Ayn Rand?

Obsessed with Religion
-there are plenty of those who aren’t. They aren’t here. They are often referred to Apatheists. That’s actually the goal for a lot of atheists. Do I spend much time arguing about the many tailed fox spirits in Shintoism? I don’t believe in them any less or more than the Christian God, so why do I spend time on one and not the other. Because there isn’t a huge number of believers in many tailed fox spirits that are willing to harm people or abrogate their civil rights based on that belief

Consider yourselves highly intelligent
-nah just smarter than you. We figured out Christianity was a magic trick, and you didn’t

Refuse to admit Communist are atheists
-some are, and some aren’t. Look up Liberation Theology if you are capable of letting fact peirce through your delusions

Relative Moralism
-Yup. Because it is. Absolute Morality requires and absolute authority, there isn’t one, despite you thinking there is.

Pro Abortion
-If you mean “right to Choose” use the proper term and not be a dick about it.

Democrats
-again Libertarians and Objectivists are mostly atheistic

Defend all atheists
-wow this is completely and verifiably WRONG.

Intolerant
-I can tolerate things, just not people insisting made up things are true. I am intolerant of Bullcrap.

more diversions from a moron……Show me this, show me that.

No, idiot. show your proof. who gives two shits about the rest of that crap? where, what, who is your god and why do you keep defending it?

why do you even give two shits about atheists? do you feel threatened?