But all you are doing is asserting as well to make a flawed argument seem logical. You are expecting one thing of a Creator and, because that one thing was not satisfied, concluding that a Creator cannot exist.

I also like when atheists throw around the idea of objective evidence. If you were to accept that a Creator existed, what kind of "objective evidence" would you be looking for amongst the creation?

No.

?? What am I, as a non-theist, asserting?

Uh, no, you put a definition on god by saying:

I destroyed that definition by reminding you that all you've done is assert it.

All I've said is that your definition is unsupported and unproven. Nothing more.

Okay, but you also must assert a definition of God if you wish to disprove God. I was also just pointing out that your definition of God was an assertion as well.

I don't really see where you're going with this...

What do you mean where am I going with this. This was all a reply to your claim that "this analogy fails miserably"

I just showed that assertion to be frivolous, that's where I'm going with this.

It makes it much more likely.

You guys are forgetting that not believing in the Leprechaun might make you miss out on a pot of gold. Also, a ton of people in Ireland used to believe in Leprechauns...are you telling me all those hamlets back in the day just accidentally started believing in the same thing?

Also, if you define Leprechaun as "force somehow capable of working the same miracles as a boxed leprechaun, but not necessarily being material" it becomes self evident that there is great likelyhood of a leprechaun being in the box.

We also shouldn't forget that we have proof in the form of stories:

Me too.

See, look at that, those who don't believe the leprechaun is in the box will look for any reason to discard these miracles.

As I was looking at the box, I was overcome with these strange feelings. I was filled with a sense of bliss. Then I sort of blacked out. When I came to, my wordpad was open in front of me, and the following appeared on the screen:

1. I am the leprechaun of the box. The one true leprechaun.
2. You shall never open the box.
3. Any who believe in me will receive untold riches after they die in the land of the leprechauns.
4. Those who do not believe will spend eternity digging the gold for the blessed.
5. They won't like it very much. It is much better to be with us in the land of untold riches.
6. You should be nice to each other, but if you have to choose between being nice to each other, or believing in me, I'd really much prefer that you choose to believe in me. But I really don't mind if you're nice to each other. Just don't stop believing.
7. I will contact others to share more of my Message.


I then felt compelled to forward this one to you all. I'm very confused right now and don't know what to make of it. But I know that I believe there is a leprechaun in that box. It costs me nothing to believe, and if I'm wrong I end up mining gold for eternity. So I'm playing it safe. I'm not sure who he's going to contact next for more revelation. Maybe some of you will be lucky enough to be his scribes. I know its changed my life.

I've studied Leprechaun history extensively, including this story, which was told to my great grandfather by the leprechaun himself.

http://www.highlightskids.com/Storie...echaunTrap.asp

and since we know that leprechauns never lie, we can only presume the story is true, therefore, the leprechaun exists.

Yesterday I was looking up at the stars, and I saw the Big Dipper. I thought to myself, "no ****ing way that's there by chance."

Seriously guys, just look around you, isn't it obvious that there's a Leprechaun in the box?

rize


Those who demand physical evidence of the leprechaun in the box are being narrow-minded in their epistemology. Why can't other 'ways of knowing', like my personal intuition, be accepted by their fascist-inspired ideologies? I just know in my heart that there's a leprechaun in that box and that he loves you.

omgomgomgomg

FIRST!

People who don't believe in the Leprechaun are smarter. Here's my study to prove it. Therefore, people who believe in Leprechauns are stupid idiots.

Additionally, Leprechaun believing has indeed lead to people killing each other both in the past and today. This is totally different, however, from people in the Gulag who misused Aleprechaunism to justify killing people. They weren't doing it because of Aleprechaunism, they were just bad people. Those other Leprechaun-believers though, they did it because of Leprechaumism.

It's a faith thing, DUCY?

Why didn't you suggest that atheist argue the position that God exists and theists argue the position that God does not exists?

The fact that you chose something ridiculous only shows that your real intention is to further your atheist religion(atheism is a position for for some...but for you Rize its a religion and everyone here knows it).

While this is more fun, I do think that would be an interesting thread. Jib has said its been done before round here, but certainly not since I've been around. As long as theists actually participated I would be interested in that kind of thread.

We've tried it before and it fails. The problem is its impossible to come up with a credible/consistent argument for the atheist's position.

lol

You get three or four theists to actually agree to participate I'm sure we can find 3 or 4 atheists to (obviously all are welcome but we need a few to commit to the thread or else it will fail).

this doesnt make the analogy fail. all youve done is given an example of a way we could know if there was a leprachaun or not. the only reason it seems to fail is that god doesnt bother to show himself in any ways. that doesn't mean he couldnt.

take all the night stars and spell out the bible, letter for letter, one page per night, over and over. and id be just as likely to believe in god as i would be that a leprachaun exists if i heard him talking through the box about his lucky charms.

but no no, too many people would believe then prolly. would be too darn easy!

actually it really doesnt

You give x definition of God.
I give y definition of God.
You claim that y definition is wrong and my point is invalid.
Why does this logic affect x definition of God?

Your definition dramatically conflicts with the definition actually held by theists, but tries to attack the same idea. It's essentially a strawman argument.

In.

i think it lasted about 40 posts and it was just between Jib and ILOVEPOKER...