<<These rhetorically most effective defences aren’t legitimate.>>

Yes, they are legitimate, because both unicorns and god share the same amount of evidence to suggest they exist, and they both fit the definitions of fantasy:

You may like to hold blind faith of that but most people who advance that rhetorical defence are at a minimum aware of what they would consider weak evidence. For some reason you don’t seem to be able to recall my pointing that out.

“<<The creators typically believe that there is no evidence for unicorns so therefore the absence of evidence is evidence of absence...>>

What they believe is irrelevant to whether or not absence of evidence is evidence of absence. “

Indeed they are wrong.

”<<...and that can be overgeneralised via extending the absence of evidence to an absence of strong evidence for theism.>>

Considering god would be the greatest and most significant being in all existence (and that so much horror has been committed in his name nonetheless) an expectation of strong evidence should not be unrealistic.”

Perhaps, and I am happy to discuss that assertion, but what is your comment on the reasoning before we do that. Do you agree or disagree?

“But at least you’re now admitting that the evidence for theism isn’t strong (while still referring to it as “facts”).”

Sorry you have misrecollected what I said. I said that people initiating those defences are typically aware of weak evidence. I didn’t say that the evidence for theism isn’t strong. In reality it covers a continuum. Naturally I won’t reciprocate by accusing you of sophistry because from this side we don’t need to rely on strategies like that.

<<They are typically aware of weak evidence like fine tuning of physical laws and constants, religious experience, etc.>>

So what are the “facts” then? Facts, by definition, would be pretty damn strong evidence.

Are you sure? I intend to list some facts related to the fine tuning of physical laws and constants. Although there are many such facts many people consider it weak evidence.

”Yes, without strong evidence. Not a total absence of any objective evidence. And we’re still talking about the natural world here (something we know exists), not the supernatural (something that has never been demonstrated before).”

The fine tuning facts are both evidence and from the natural world. I note your inclusion of the word ‘objective’. I avoided it because it fits better with facts rather than evidence. Sometimes the same evidence legitimately evidences opposing things. If you meant objective facts then again that applies to the fine tuning evidence.

“Attempting to answer the big questions by appealing to the supernatural doesn’t accomplish anything because it’s an attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery (something Catholics are very fond of). That’s not an explanation, it’s a gap-filler. It doesn’t solve a mystery, it obscures it in an attempt to ease our discomfort with the unknown.”

That is an interesting philosophical position but I don’t believe it is very helpful for the reasons below.

<<Many physicists believe in things like string theory or parallel universes without strong evidence.>>

Yes, but they don’t let their lives be guided by that belief nor do they believe with absolute certainly and conviction.

You seem to be side tracking with the thing about lives. The point is that physicists believe in something without strong evidence. Whether or not it guides their life is another issue. It is reasonable to guide your life by a belief in God but nonsensical to guide it by string theory. And are you sure about the certainty and conviction thing?

“<<If the absence of strong evidence made it ridiculous to believe those things we could pronounce those beliefs must be false and as absurd as unicorns.>>

Absence of strong evidence does not make the belief in something ridiculous and I never said it did.”

But unless you take that position or pretend there is no evidence of theism then unicorns and God wouldn’t be compared.

”What makes religious belief absurd is the certainty … not yet been demonstrated in any way, shape or form, coupled …“

Surely evidence demonstrates it. It is then a question of opinion whether there is sufficient evidence. Ideally it would be approached objectively and evidence for and against competing possibilities would be considered and the most compelling conclusion reached.

“… no one has launched a war in the name of atheism…”

Great but like I said the track record of atheist societies isn’t good and that is the alternative. And do you believe that religion is necessarily the real reason for those wars? You don’t reckon it might be about power or wealth? Even Hitler used religion as a tool to work up the masses in spite of his own personal beliefs.

Is the phrase “proven itself to be dangerous” in conjunction with “apocalyptically dangerous” allowing for the alternative to be more dangerous or can it be confined to certain historical situations or something.

’History is a litany of proof. The fact that you have to ask this is simply astonishing. Terrorist attacks on Western targets, the shooting up of abortion clinics, wars, you name it.’
Please reconsider your assertion that that is proof that religion is “dangerous, even to the point of apocalyptically dangerous”. You are taking the historical things associated with religion to show that religion does bad things. However all those examples show is that religion is a powerful force. Sexual instinct and love are also powerful forces. Do we need to eliminate them? It has been suggested that good people use powerful forces well and bad people use them badly. In any case, condemning the religious impulse because it has lead people to blow themselves up is no more sensible than condemning love because it leads young men to kill themselves when it is unreciprocated. Also, if that proved religion is apocalyptically dangerous then the great good resulting from the religious impulse would prove that religion is essential. The fact that those two conclusions are inconsistent demonstrates the error of that type of reasoning.

Why is there a need to consciousness raise? You are seeking converts? Are you still worried about hell? I bet Pericles doesn’t need other people to share his beliefs.

I didn’t just deny Maher proved anything. I pointed out that he contradicted himself. But okay I won’t go on about it.

“This is how I can know that you’re not really busy and that you don’t have any evidence for the existence of God. Because if you were really that busy, and you had evidence, then you’d channel all this energy and precious spare time into shutting down this debate once and for all, and showing me up by simply presenting it.”

I very much doubt that I can shut down the debate by simply presenting evidence. This doubt became particularly strong when I referred to evidence of fine tuning of laws and constants and religious experience in the posts you are replying to. These exchanges between us are getting larger and larger. However before answering the rest of your posts may I please interject with some facts on the fine tuning aspect to get it out properly and so perhaps this time you’ll notice it. Because even that has relevance to your extremist position. You keep saying no evidence at all.

As a philosophical position many have said that every design has a designer, the universe has a highly complex design and so the universe has a designer. A Nanoscientist James Tour once said “Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.” Exaggeration acknowledged (there are many atheist scientists) the designed appearance of the universe is more than the lovely looking night sky. There is a fine tuning that provides supporting evidence for design. Numerous facts hang off that. I’ll give some examples that enable life on earth:

CONT

mjpb,

I’m happy to wait until tomorrow so that you can finish posting, but please, tone it down a little. You’re starting to sound unbalanced.

By the way, "fine tuning" and physical laws and constants aren’t evidence for god since presenting them as such is an 'argument from ignorance' - a logical fallacy.

I already know what you’re going to say. I used to use those arguments myself all the time and they’re all easily discredited.

But hey, let’s see what you’ve got to say anyway...

A.J.Philips:

My ethos has always been - "Live and let live." Believe in whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I find it amazing that mjpb has gone to the lengths that he/she has to try to justify to you his/her beliefs. Many people don't like what organized religion has done to the world. However, many have also seen that true religion is internal, not external. The spirit within
people can't be blamed for the blasphemies carried out in its name. What some have done in the name of religion, projecting their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the world, does not make religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid. Many have turned away from religion, found that life without conscious awareness of God is difficult, and now they're back to religion. But they're not back as the spiritually, half-interested, complacent congregants that many of their parents were when they were growing up. They're back with an interest in actually having a religious experience. Organised religion will not be the same as a result. It will have to step up to bat, religiously, or wither away. I believe that organised religious institutions are in for a huge transformation, for the simple reason that people have become genuinely religious in spite of them. Anyway - whatever floats your boat A.J... I have seriously evaluated the role of faith in my life - and I want to keep hope alive - I want to believe that my Church is willing to confront both the difficulties and the opportunities that it now faces. You believe whatever you want, and the rest of us will do likewise. See you on another thread.