Two babies discussion.

[Esquilax]

My only argument you attacked directly so far is my "told you so" argument, as if I didn't say anything else. I just gave you that one so that you'd have something to respond to and wouldn't feel so bad.

Oh, is that what you think? See, that's odd, because I could have sworn I...

Oh wait, yeah. I did:

MysticKnight's little presentation did a good job of demonstrating the close-mindedness of the the atheist mentality.

So we're close minded for not accepting a bunch of random assertions ("Maybe after this X!" is all the arguments in that example- and your own argumentation- are) instantly?

Well, Lek: Maybe atheism is true, and after death nothing will happen! What's that? You're not going to immediately accept an identical argument to the one in the parable? Oh, you're close minded! hock:

Or is it only close minded when people don't immediately agree with you?

All this even though they know that matter cannot be created from nothing,

So god is right out, then: creating things from nothing is kinda his thing, according to you.

Oh right, arguments only exist when they're being applied to positions you don't already agree with.

and if something was never created and always existed, it has qualities attributed to God.

My mother's name has an O in it, so she also has a quality in common with god. You wanna equivocate again and claim that my mother is god? Or are we just going to acknowledge that singular qualities of things are not sufficient to be that thing?

How can someone examine the origin of the universe or contemplate what exists beyond the edge of the universe and not reason out the existence of something beyond the natural world?

No evidence that the supernatural exists, beyond sophistic con games like the one you're playing here?

The only thing we responded to was the "I told you so" thing, eh?