Cosmological: everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Argument for classical causality, cause and effect. Big Deal.

Teleological/"Fine Tuning": We exist due to chance, physical necessity, or design.

Argument for the anthropic principle. Physical necessity is the most likely answer here anyway. Contemporary cosmology holds that utter nothingness is 'unstable'. Again, design is clumsily plopped in there. And this argument might be better rendered as the argument from creativity. Again, the creativity is man's in creating this non sequitur.

Moral: Objective morals exist and must be absolutely grounded.

Objective morals do not exist, otherwise you would have moral behavior between objects, like say water and sand. This is better rendered as 'physics' than morality. Ideal, intersubjective morals can exist, and they need not require a 'grounding' in what is ultimately a non sequitur 'intersubjective deity' (brought to you by theists) anyway. Moralistic, yet godless atheists prove they agree with most of the morality of theists every day.

Historical/Miraculous:

Otherwise known as the argument from story-telling and embellishing, an utterly non sequitur and all too human activity.

Argument from personal experience:

Again, I can have my cozy little non sequitur world all to myself. Sure I look like an @ss when I try to 'share' it, but who cares? I am going to my non sequitur heaven.

Argument from transcendence:

Another permutation of story telling. Can I leave behind things that will remain past my death? Of course! Writings, pictures, thoughts that I have impressed on others, so on and so on.

So now we have come full circle. The entirety of these arguments are merely demonstrations of things that humans do. We tell stories, embellish, we create things, we can transmit our genes to the next generation, we can transcend our own life in many ways, we can cause things, we can import meaning (most of it non sequitur 'meaning' as we have seen) to things.

So where are your real positive arguments for the existence of this deity you keep talking about theists?

I am really getting tired of your non sequiturs. I already accept that humans exist (all of the aforementioned arguments campaign for is the existence of humans, not gods). I am aware of most of human qualities and faults. I also accept that many of them have delusions. Why should I go so far as to accept the *content* of their delusions (ladies, compare this to your 'selectivity' in sex - if christian women want me to accept their 'doctrine', why don't they just make a trade and accept my ****?)? Do their delusions have a will of their own (why?) and need to 'transcend' the host(s) or author(s) of them?

IYWN, "God!Why would an atheist like you care?

You don't even believe that there is a.."

I don't know why a girl would be upset if I were raping her sister. Her sister's goal in life is to transmit her DNA, and I can guarantee the highest quality sequences to enable that. Besides, it isn't her I am raping.

Garlow, WTF are you talking about?

If we revert back to the morality of neanderthals then I guess it really is relative. In the civilized world, we have a progressive morality. It has an inclination and this is where its 'metric' is derived.

To call something absolute is to make yourself an absolutist, a totalitarian. To call it objective just makes you irrelevant: Objects do not exhibit morality toward one another; they exhibit physics toward one another.

J, even if you assume that all the retarded details of these gossipy stories is true (ll historians really agree on is that the *stories* exist), all you are left with is some guy was dead and then he was alive. Where does your 'god' non sequitur come into it?

We have contemporary stories of dead people becoming re-animated. All they god too? Or is the answer "no" because 'god' does not manifest 'himself' in people who have been in hospitals?

Premises pulled out of @sses are the definition of non sequitur.

Conclusions which uneconomically add extraneous material are also non sequitur.

Any argument, however internally consistent, which adds extraneous material in this manner loses validity ultimately because it is you got it: non sequitur.