> ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. Your faith however ACCOUNTS for nothing. All you are saying is 'logic exists because it exists,' hardly an argument.

Neither does yours. Just because you derive something from something else that is implicitly assumed does not make it any more true than just implicitly assuming it directly. You still have to assume. And an argument does not become more valid by being more complex.

That is to say: An argument is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in both cases is taking anything on faith, and thus both arguments are just as valid, or invalid.

> You of course don't want Him to exist because you want to be your own god, and don't like the thought of accountability to Him. If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.

Entirely true, but I fail to see the relevance, unless you wanted to add another ad hominem fallacy to the list.

I'll give you one more: If I did believe in your god, I would not obey him, because from reading the bible, he sure is one big asshole and is not worthy of respect, much less worship.

(Incidentially, am I to take that argument as meaning that you refrain from sin merely because of fear of punishment, not of your own free will? Because I refrain from doing harm of my own free will.)