There is no contradiction in what I said because I was simply pointing out that you can’t go about answering the question of faith by throwing up endless, dead-end arguments.

I’ve yet to see an argument FOR God that didn’t end in either a dead-end or a logical fallacy.

I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “the question of faith.” If I’m wrong, please correct me.

I’ve actually seen folks here put forth arguments for unicorns without any hint of irony.

You need to adjust your irony meter, Tim.

The arguments atheists put up for the existence of things like unicorns are intentionally formatted just like common theistic arguments for God. They serve to point out the flaws and bizarreness of arguing for God, not to seriously argue that unicorns exist.

On the other hand, if anyone is seriously arguing for unicorns, please let me know. I need a good laugh.

Now, assuming you are really seeking God and a potential relationship with Him, you have to answer questions about which one to believe in.

See, here’s the problem, Tim. It’s ok to actively seek something when you have a very rigid definition of what would constitute evidence for the thing you seek. When my uncle at Fermilab was on the team hunting for the Top Quark they didn’t just run around randomly experimenting until they found something they didn’t expect. They made detailed mathematical models and were able to predict a method that could conclusively tell them if they’ve found the top quark or not.

The problem with the search for God is that theists approach it without fully understanding all of the natural phenomena that might confuse the search for God. There are very few agreed-upon phenomena that would constitute evidence for God. Because of this, theists just wait around until something happens that can’t be immediately explained and then they blithely declare that God was there altering the outcome instead of sitting back and thinking “why did that happen?”

The right way to approach it would be to run tests on the effectiveness of prayer (already did that, they’ve always failed), or find examples of the truly impossible happening (has anyone regrown an amputated limb yet?), or find some other agreed-upon phenomena and test it.

So far, all the tests have failed. The safe bet is that if a god does exist, it’s behavior hasn’t been accurately predicted by humans. Ergo, the Christian God (and all the other gods that have been described sufficiently) probably doesn’t exist, or at least has been described very very poorly.

Unitarian-Universalism — like Ethical Culture, Humanistic Judaism, and the least doctrinaire flavors of Buddhism — are the least theistic of religions. Their institutions explicitly dissociate themselves from majoritarian Christianity.

Their numbers are tiny compared to atheists and angostics who’ve broken away from organized religion. And they ride on the coattails of religious privilege instead of trying to function as educational nonprofits. But they’re still fellow travelers in freethought activism.

I for one would be interested in reading more about the note the gunman wrote before committing this horrible crime.

Of course, one should consider the possibility of drug or alcohol abuse or some sort of psychosis or other mental illness.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Of course, one should consider the possibility of drug or alcohol abuse or some sort of psychosis or other mental illness.

Being religious isn’t mental illness enough?

I also don’t think it’s safe to call UU members ‘Christian.’ Sure, some of them are, but not all of them. My gay atheist cousin is a UU member.

My best regards to the victims.

I wonder if Phreedum is going to make bail.

Even better, just look at the mug shot they’ve got of the shooter. I, for one, have a new mental image to associate with Phreedm’s screeds.