Jeff: "To sit behind your keyboard, knowing you were an agnostic, but morphing into a theistic position for the sake of "argument", is not in of itself a virtue."
That's nonsense Jeff. What on earth makes you think that any challenge of the definition of "Atheism" means " morphing into a theistic position". This just reveals your own prejudiced assumption that any challenge to Atheism as you define is it a "theistic" thing to do. That's as daft as claiming that anyone who criticizes America in any way has morphed into an "Islamic position", just because you may have identified Islam as a supposed primary enemy. It only reveals your own beliefs. Must all who criticize Atheism or it's claimed definitions be Theists? I never "morphed into a theistic position" in any way, because I never defended or espoused God or belief in God. I only criticized the definition of "Atheism".
Jeff "Lastly, when one leaves everything to the imagination, one deserves what various imaginations casts upon them. In this case, you left no one a choice but to imagine you were a theist apologist in this discussion. What you really were, (with all respect) was a camaflouged debater, hell bent on arguing against atheists, just because, you know, they are so hypocritical. (to that I say, whatever, with all respect)"
Sorry Jeff, but that's bollocks. There is no need to "imagine" anything unless one wants to indulge in the ad hominem, as you did. And frankly, I find the idea of you needing to "imagine" me a bit creepy LOL. It's not relevant to the debate. A pure debate sticks to the data and the facts, it doesn't require a life history or a questioning of imagined motives. Your "imaginings" are your own problem and aren't relevant. But, of course, you had a choice to imagine I was other than a theist - unless your imagination simply cannot handle the concept that anyone other than a Theist would ever question Atheism - which again, would only reveal your own narrow assumptions. It says nothing about me.
"A more honest path would have been to argue that a third possibility exists. (and it does.)"
I did. Reread. I referenced agnosticism constantly as a third, more realistic, option. But I'm not obliged to state my personal position and nor is it relevant to the debate. You are essentially arguing that ad hominem be accepted as the valid basis for debate. It's not.
"The virtue of the atheists position is....Theists on the other hand..."
I'm not really interested in the relative merits of the Atheism and Theism. If you want my opinion, theists cause far more trouble in the world. But this isn't a popularity contest. I see Atheism and Theism as suffering from the same basic error, just to differing degrees.
