Hello

[DeistPaladin]

It does sound rather like the Argument from Personal Incredulity to me "I find it unbelievable to believe that the universe can work without a mind so I therefore think it is so much more likely to have one". Where is actual evidence that any such mind is required at all?

Hence why I'm an agnostic deist. I intellectually recognize there's not much to go on. Even if God were to appear and speak to us, how could we be sure it was really God? Star Trek V was a terrible movie but it did have an interesting point at the end. Kirk, of course, figured it out, that it was a powerful alien trying to get aboard his star ship. I've prefaced that I may be deluded here but that's how I genuinely see it.

P.S: I thought Einstein is more of a pantheist ("sexed-up atheism" as Dawkins would say) than a deist ("Watered down theism").

EvF

Yes, he was. I said "closer". And I don't think Dawkins understands what deism is. His description in The God Delusion that you quote seems to rely too heavily on the dictionary, which also misrepresents atheism.

The only thing I have in common with the theist is that we both use the term "God", and even here there's a chasm of difference in what we mean by that term. What I have in common with the atheist is everything but that. I think "really, really sexed-up super hot atheism" is a better definition.

---

Oh, just to add, I have more than just that watch to bring to the table.

I have come up with one argument that atheists will find wholly unconvincing but it is an argument that fundies aren't likely to hijack anytime soon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQJWjYZLEcs

Enjoy.