"If you want to present your “facts” that support the existence of god on the other thread, then by all means, go for it. I’ll keep an eye out for them. But I’m, still intrigued as to why it’s taking so long to mention them."

I'm very short of time. Even my recent comments which attempted to avoid getting to the meaty discussion have resulted in 3 posts of comments from me and 4 from you. Given that a discussion cuts off in 21 days and I have had the experience of trying to get back to something when I have finally had time but being unable to, the last thing I want to do is start something I can't finish. It is better to wait until I can give it attention then find myself in the position of a caller debating with a talkback radio host who cuts them off and keeps debating with them. In other words it is better to risk being cut off before starting then being cut off without having a reasonable conversation after starting. The God thing is close to my heart and I thus don't want to support Christianity with the effectiveness of Fred Phelps.

I have been meaning to put something in the other thread to ensure it keeps going as I was concerned it might expire soon. I thought the final posts here would be suitable with a brief introduction explaining why I am putting them there.

However I just went in and the button has faded. The most recent post was on the 16th August. It happens quickly.

Now I propose that we conduct our discussion in here. The other one is clearly not an option.

I thought I'd drop in to try to keep this going long enough that I have time to get into it.

I meant sound byte the way it is commonly understood ie. a brief comment/something "rattled off" quickly. Yep I said reasoning instead of facts but the mistake hardly looks sinister. Your first two sentences were "You’ve spoken a lot about not being able to accept non-belief and religious belief being based on facts and good reasoning, but you are still yet to provide one single solitary bit of fact or reasoning." Is it really implausible, even to the point that you need to make assumptions about deceiving, that I associated the 2 and put in the wrong one?

Should I associate your drawing the first ad hominem blood with your claim that theists have the onus of proof to infer a lack of confidence in your argument?

Given the qualification you had built into the sound byte thing so that it didn't mean the way it appeared on my quick reading I looked for any qualification in your quoting Maher (I just looked at your link). I didn't spot any so it looks like you accept it. You also claimed to read my mind suggesting that it appeared that not quoting you perfectly was using deliberately invalid arguments in the hope of decieving someone. Not only are you wrong in your mind reading but you aren't even discerning when looking at Maher's arguments. If you don't show a strong ability to even be discerning you might as well give up on considering yourself a mind reader.

Perhaps I can help. It isn't a long quote but perhaps putting certain sentences side by side you will spot something without me commenting. What do you notice?

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live."

"Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions, limitations and agendas."

("And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't.")

"those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken"

cf.

"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt."

How about:

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live."
"by religious people, by irrationalists"
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."

cf.

"the true devils of extremism"

Anyway this should be an interesting discussion eventually. Sorry to take so long.

mjpb,

<<Yep I said reasoning instead of facts but the mistake hardly looks sinister.>>

Of course it doesn’t look sinister. Sophistry would hardly display ingenuity in reasoning, or deceive if it was blatant.

Don’t feel too bad about me pointing it out. Every theist does it. It’s a necessity when defending untenable beliefs for which there is no evidence, that need to be held even if the face of evidence to the contrary.

<<Is it really implausible, even to the point that you need to make assumptions about deceiving, that I associated the 2 and put in the wrong one?>>

I don’t “need” to make “assumptions” at all. The total lack of any evidence is sufficient by itself. Not to mention your dodging and weaving here.

Besides which, my accusations of sophistry aren’t mere assumptions, but observations based heavily on past experience in debating this topic with a wide variety of Christians - and with all due respect, yourself included.

Of course, it’s possible that you simply slipped there and if so, I would suggest that you be a little more careful in future with your wording. But when these kinds of tricks are employed on a regular basis, my accusation becomes less of an assumption and more of a recognized technique.

No mind reading required.

<<Should I associate your drawing the first ad hominem blood with your claim that theists have the onus of proof to infer a lack of confidence in your argument?>>

Firstly, my accusation wasn’t an ad homimen because I addressed the issue. I didn’t just “play the man”.

Secondly, I think you’re just playing dumb here. You know precisely why the onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence.

Either way, the total lack of evidence for any gods becomes my evidence, and the further you drag this out, the more you solidify my unnecessary case.

Should I associate your dragging-out of this with a lack of confidence in YOUR argument? After all, you are the one who needs to refer to your position as “faith”.

Continued...

...Continued

As for your Maher quotes, I have no idea what you’re intention is in quoting them. Especially since there’s no sophistry in what he’s said given that it can all be backed by examples and reasoning. If your motivation for quoting Maher was to make a point about my alleged “mind reading”, well, I trust that I’ve demonstrated above why attempting to read minds is, not only something that I’m not doing here, but isn’t even necessary to begin with.

But even if there was sophistry I Maher’s arguments, that wouldn’t weaken my main claim here: That there is no evidence for the existence of any gods.

So this is a mere (and I would suggest deliberate) diversionary tactic used to steer discussion away from your inability to point out any facts supporting the existence of any gods.

Sorry, mjpb. It’s back to the drawing board for you, I’m afraid.