Ritesign

I think a lot of people today are equivocating 'belief in God' with 'belief in and/or support of dogmata', and 'faith' with 'belief in God'. For starters, bashing faith isn't an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist, or that organised religions are wrong, or anything of that sort. I think the definition of faith most of the 'pro atheist' camp address is the "belief that is not based on proof" definition. If you're not going to support (and participate in) a search for truth, because you feel that interferes with faith, you may be well intentioned, but you are actually supporting 'blind faith'. Blind faith in God, logically, makes about as much sense as believing in unicorns simply because you can. However, if you're going to blindly support atheism, you're in the same boat, possibly trading good intentions for an unhealthy dose of cynicism. Ho, hum, what to do, what to do...

The teams:
ATTENTION CRAZED RELIGIOUS FANATICS
(A.k.a. emissaries of truth, scarecrows of Romney Marsh, or those of us who aren't doomed for eternity)
Lo, though, I spake unto thee, while you might not be able to make the logical arguments these truth seeking agnostics demand from you, countless philosophers from the past have resurrected your inane ramblings into polished, coherent documents. And you guys and gals are all about resurrection, n’est pas? Out of the goodness of my heart, or possibly under the direction of some omnipresent being, I will attempt to play the role of your champion of logic. And sorry for calling you fanatics, it will simply draw more of the heathens’ attention.

ATTENTION MORALLY BANKRUPT ATHEIST HEATHENS
(A.k.a. the enlightened, the atheist agnostic alliance (AAA), or the A-team)
Now then, my fellow well intentioned truth-seeking companions, I feel it would be uncharitable of us to “dissect” counterarguments to Penn’s statement without at least helping build up those arguments, as per traditional Socratic dialogue. So, not unlike the two hundred and something brave souls in the new movie, 300, I will be the doomed Spartan to your Persian horde.

The rules:
Try to keep in mind that you’re charged with discrediting all defences of a belief in God not for your own good, but in order to better educate yourselves and the masses, so be as polite as possible. Try to keep your arguments concise, and save time by stating commonly known criticisms of God if you know of any (such as “the problem of evil”). Every step of the way, I will helplessly move to stall what appears to be the inevitable conclusion that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being does not exist, or, if it does, it cannot possibly be considered “good” according to common definition. Possibly, I will baffle the combatants one and all, and create a defence that cannot be discredited, utterly proving God into existence. (Be warned that this will crash your computer, the server, and the universe as we know it.)

The prize:
If a belief in God is found to be illogical, all participants must spread the word by participating in actions such as but not limited to:
- burning churches
- destroying religious artifact
- assassinate religious leaders
If, however, is it discovered that logically, God most likely exists, rules for round 2, “which (if any) religion is right?” will be drafted.

Anyone willing to take up the sword alongside my cause would be welcome, but please, if you’re simply going to appeal to the church, your gut, or anything else literally or figuratively ‘full of crap’, go preach on a street corner where your talents are needed. May the most accurate, and not necessarily best worded, argument win.