Carm is pretty bad, even for apologetics. 

Why is it that theists imagine we haven't seen this all before?

Most likely because, if we have seen it, and refuted it, that's very troubling for you.

You might as well have left the blog entry blank for what all you said.  If this issue has been covered SO many times before, then couldn't you have left even a single link to an example? This is an example of horrible apologetics for the atheist view:

"Carm is pretty bad"

Hmm, cuz you say so? Not convinced. Carm gives much more reasonable answers, sir, please try again.

Have you tried looking around the forum?

Yeah, there's not a search function for non-contributors, but have you read much here?  Or did you just come in and start a thread?

If you've been reading, why don't we discuss what you've read and how you can refute it? 

What you should say is that I might as well have left it blank considering that you'd not read it accurately.

Which issue? Link to what, exactly? Which example? All you did was link to the site itself.

If you have a specific argument in mind, present it. I'm sure I can point you to where it's been dealt with before. Many times. Ad nauseum.

The point being made to you is that we've  heard it before. 

Sigh.I'm not trying to convince you, I'm telling you what we think of the site - You posted the site in order to convince us, so I'm telling you what we already think of it.

Hey Iruka,

Thanks for the reply...yes I have read quite a bit on the forum, although i have not written much.  And i see an overall theme.

Belief in ideas because of the populus, and because other views are ridiculed.

My stance is simple: A person's world view (that which he takes as truth without proof) will conform evidence that he sees to fit the world view.

If a scientist believes that the world is 4.6 billion years old, then he will make the evidence make sense according to his world view.  i have a completely different world view and the evidence fits much neater in mine than in others. 

But then you have people that believe what the leading or most popular scientist believes. What if his world view is based on teh wrong thing? then all those other people will follow what he says, period.

Hmm...Still trying to figure out what an Atheist sees, or doesn't see that convinces him to believe an uncaused cause doesn't exist.

Case in point about ad populum.

"so I'm telling you what we already think of it."

Ya'll, but only you glazed over it.  Let me spell it out for you: Take a moment to read each of the 14 cases and its reasoning.  I am not on the disection table here...you are on your own turf.  Tell me why you refuse to believe each of the 14, or 12 if you prefer to let the first two links speak for you.

The scientist doesn't just assume this, he has reasons for holding to it.

Only because you warp whatever you 'know' to fit the 'wordview' 

We can examine his arguments, and his data.

Now, how can you do the same with faith?

Because 'uncaused cause" doesn't make much sense unless you are talking about a vacuum fluctuation or quantum tunneling.

That's NOT ad populum. I'm telling you that numerous posters on this site, and other sites, have seen these tired arguments before and refuted them.

Carm is a collection of old arguments that I've seen before, years before you saw them, most likely.

Let me spell it out for you. Seen it. Already. Years before you did.

Let me help you grasp what is going on:

you wrote this:

And I am telling you that we've seen this bullshit before, it's irrational, illogical.

Now, if you have a specific argument you'd like to make from this moronic list, I will make this challenge for you:

Post it, and then let me know. I will then post an acknowledgement... If, after than, I don't post a refutation of it, or link you to someone who's already done so, after being aware of the claim - I will leave the site forever.

Holy Spirit- You obviously know nothing about science. People just don't come up with ideas and just say they are true. Yes, at times there are experimenter biases. However, this is a flaw pointed out by the experimenter and his critics. The basic principles of science are skepticism, doubt, and proving theories wrong. Althought a goal of science is to find the truth, the goal is not to keep looking and searching for evidence to support a theory that continues to fail in multiple experiments. Although at times theories are formed and tested, most of science is based on forming theories out of already existing evidence.

On a different but related note, in your arguement you point out that you look for evidence based on your worldview (which I agree with). So, what makes yours right???