Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
"Whatever it was, it had to be non-material (unseen), eternal (without beginning or end), and it had to be omnipotent (have the amazing ability to create everything from nothing). If the professing atheist concedes to such basic logic (which he must or he reveals that he is unscientific and unintelligent), then he’s not an atheist. He is in truth an agnostic"

I have to disagree with you there. Wherever it is we came from it doesn't "have" to be anything. For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist, and I the fact I don't agree with you does not me I am unscientific or unintelligent. You making that claim is what show those two traits. There is nothing logical about what you said. It is nothing more than speculation. For all we know, we spontaneously appeared out of nowhere. The word created implies that there was intent. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that supports that theory. Agnostics, well they are nothing but a bunc of pansy fence sitters who are too scared, or dumb, to make a decision either way. Pathetic.
Greetings IR, good to hear from you.
Of course there was intent and all you need to do is look around and you will see evidence, do you see anything that does not have a purpose? When you look at a building your intelligence tells you that there must have been a builder, the building did not spontaneously appear out of nowhere. There is more evidence to support creation, in the world around us than there is to support spontaneous appearing. Of course you do not have to agree with me but that does not make my statement illogical. Is it logical to think that everything came from nothing, that requires much more faith than belief in a Creator.