You know, ordinarily I would defend theism in such a debate. In this case, however...

Let's say we have a level playing field. Atheists can't prove their point. You can't prove yours. Wow, that was very constructive.
Now why exactly should we believe you? Personally I'm inclined to agree with Stekim's Snorkelwacker. Why are you more believable than Stekim's Snorkelwacker?

I'll grant you the center of attention thing, but my parents challenged just about all my brilliant ideas.

Maybe he has only been exposed to riducle whenever he tried to challenge those ideas, so he's parroting his experiences.

__________________
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

All satire aside, it appears to me that both stekim and S-S are negative atheists as opposed to positive atheists. Positive atheists attempt to disprove the existence of God, whereas negative atheists simply see no reason to believe in God and suspend belief, seeing the burden of proof as being on theism. I'm a theist, but I have read enough about other philosophies of religion to recognize this basic difference.

I find myself leaning towards Sinanju's Flying Spaghetti Monster, although he maintained his allegiance to the heretical red sauce, when the true meaning is found in the white sauce.

__________________
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

My snorklewacker told me that humans were created for the amusement of snorklewackers and that God is merely a ruse invented by humans. I believe him.

He said we do enough stupid things everyday to keep them amused. Which is good. You do not want a mad snorklewacker.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Negative atheism is more reasonable. God as a concept cannot be disproven because God is pretty much a symbol of the unexplainable. You can only disprove things specific to a religion and not necessarily the existance of a divine presence, especially since some view that divine presence as the ultimate manifestation of the universe itself.

The skeptic position is the default position. If you make extraordinary claims, you are expected to provide extraordinary proof.

Over the years I have argued God's existance to death with theists, and their argument always (always) comes down to the same thing: Faith. In other words, you have to take their word for it.

There are alternative explanations for the things attributed to God. A lot of theists dont want to accept this fact. That doesnt necessarily mean that those explanations are correct, but it does demonstrate that God is not the only answer.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Which means your atheist beliefs are "unexplainable". . . .which reflects accurately on reality. . .not a single stitch of evidence to prove their one hand clapping. . ..and stacking the deck. . .

That is your unsubstantiated opinion. . . again. . .