And you have not provided any evidence which suggests it is more
reasonable to disbelieve in Last Tuesdayism than not.
>All you have done is sit back and
>try to poke holes (quite ineffectively) in the case for Christianity.
I haven't even *seen* a case.
>This
>makes you more of a surly agnostic than an atheist.
I'm not "surly"; I'm pissed. You have done nothing but distort my
words, misrepresent my intentions, and avoid every attempt I have
made to have a consistent, rational discussion. It truly is people
like you, Jim, who give Christianity a bad name. And the irony of
it is that you still wonder why so many atheists are antagonistic
towards your religion. And now you are inexplicably stuck on wedging
me into your convenient categories. Fine. If you want to believe
that I'm a "surly agnostic", then go right ahead. I know who I am,
and I am secure in my beliefs. And I certainly don't have time to
waste on people like you.
>If you want to be a true atheist, then tell us why it is more reasonable to
>accept the non-existence of God than His existence.
Simple: because there is no evidence for His existence. Why is it
reasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence?
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.