As it Stands, Atheism is the Logical Conclusion

"you have absolutely no proof for the non existence of God. yet you don't believe in God. i question whether you understand what atheism means. most atheists when cornered say they are really agnostics. soft atheism is a phrase that means you only have a tendency to not believe in God. hard atheism means you full believe as a matter of faith andor fact etc that God does not exist. even richard dawkins would admit taht he doesnt think God's existance is false." As I said in my introduction, atheists do not need to offer proof that God does not exist, any more than Russell needs to prove his teapot does not exist. (That was the point of the analogy.) My point, as I have stated quite clearly, is that it is unreasonable and illogical to assume God exists without proof. That is why I say the burden is on the theist to prove that their God exists. My personal feelings on atheism should be clear, but I will clarify, since you asked. I consider the idea of an omnipotent deity the same way I consider ghosts, UFOs, and Santa Claus: Myths with many adherents and no proof towards their validity. I don't think about them as true or false, in the same sense most people don't think about Star Wars as true or false. "the spaghetti monster thing and teapot thing. i don't know how to make it clearer." These are two separate analogies. Russell's teapot is an example of why the "proof of absence" argument you seem to have made is flawed. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the center of a joke religion used to highlight perceived absurdities in various religions. That does not seem to be the context you are using it in, however. "that it's not necessarily the case that that intelligence made us and in a sense is random... but it's not fully analogous because intelligence is at least plausible. a spaghetti monster is completely ludicris and random, albeit admittedly there's a degree you even have to accept hat this might be true." Saying something is possible or plausible is not proof! Simply saying "Anything is possible," without anything to back your claims up does not prove your point. "God's existance can't be proven as fact. it's not demonstrateable. i understand your arguments.... yet, there's circumstantial evidence which is permissible even in a court of law. that a reasonable jury could say indicates God." This is not a question of juries or "circumstantial" evidence. You yourself said that God's existence can't be proven. Without proof, it is not a logical idea. Taking the idea on faith is one thing, but this debate is intended for logical examination. "to look at hte world's complexity... and see how intricate it is. yes i concede you could ultimately argue, it got here after much evolution and time, and the whole idea of a possiblity no matter how remote (ie existance and our complexity) is that it occur: which did here. so it's not definitive proof. " Again, you are not proving God's existence to be true. Your argument is that the universe is complex, and that it is unlikely to have formed as it did by random chance. But then you acknowledge the possibility that it COULD have happened randomly! You do NOT show why the Universe could ONLY exist as it does if there is a God. If it were impossible for the universe to exist as it does without divine intervention, your argument could hold water. But you just said that either God's hand or random chance are BOTH possible sources of the universe's creation. In essence, you invalidate your own point. And you take this a step further, and gladly share that this entire argument is NOT definitive proof, which is the POINT to this debate! "in a court of law the burden is sually... "preponderance of the evidence" ie more likely than not. given the complexity miracles visions etc, i'd say it's more likley than not. of course, as a jury disagrees,,,, you're more than welcome to disagree. bt the case has still been "proven"" I have no idea what I said to indicate this was a matter of civil law, where a "preponderance of evidence" is required. The legal system is not the same as logical analysis, and this debate is centered on the latter. The "miracle visions" you bring up are not empirical data. Antedoctal evidence is not evidence, as it is not repeatable or verifiable. I also am not sure why you say "the case has been proven" when you have offered little to no evidence, and have yourself said that God's existence cannot be verified.