If you had actually read the posts, you'd know that those arguing the theism
side were not trying to sell belief in theism. Again, it's the difference
between Theism says... and What theism says is true, the distinction you
have never been able to make.
What started this discussion was
It's important to understand the context in which he said.
Most theists believe that their version of God, in that
particular name is true, and they dismiss all other versions
as false.
As Xeno mentioned, their belief is anthropomorphic in a
sense, each theist sticks adamantly to his
Fair enough. I like the arguing as it gives me a chance to try and get things
straight in my own head, I like pondering the eternal verities but am much more
a Darwinian thinker, but no tub thumper as I don't go around trying to convince
anyone, except on message boards where people ask
I know what the context was, thank you. The point is that his argument doesn't
come anywhere near refuting classical theism. As I told Salyavin, you can't
hope to eliminate religious belief altogether unless you refute classical
theism, which is sort of the granddaddy of all other forms of
