AJ Philips,

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

So appearing like a genuine mistake makes it more ingenious and more likely to be sophistry? Excuse me if that sounds a little like McCarthyism but it looks like,from theists, you will see sophistry no matter what so at least I know now what to expect.

”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.”

Well hopefully some day you will realize that it is about holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of changing moods and you won’t find the need to rationalize everything as sophistry. I apologise if I am not yet helping but I have explained the reasons for my hesitation above (even if you take another swipe in the post under reply).

“The total lack of any evidence is sufficient by itself.”

I shake my head any time someone claims there is a total lack of evidence on something like this. That is a pretty extreme position. I can’t see how you could have completely missed any evidence.

”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.”

But you see sophistry when it isn’t there so the confirmation is only in your mind. It may or may not have happened but there is no reason for me to assume that it has.

”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.”

I do try and I’m not illiterate so such mistakes are embarrassing (all the more so when discussing it with someone who will jump on them so heavily) but I knock these things out with limited time and I’m human so no guarantees.
CONT

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

There was no issue but since you have made it clear that we are working on different premises I understand what you are saying. I believe you are being sincere so I guess that makes it not ad hominem on the assumption that ad hominem needs to be intentional. Does it need to be intentional?

”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.”

I am playing a little with that bit by flagging it without further discussion and I did disingenuously tag it on but am not playing dumb. My guess is that you have adopted an evasive maneuver but your uncritical acceptance of everything from one view point means that you haven’t realized it. You deserve some teasing for being silly.

”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.”

At the moment my claim that dragging it out will actually avoid solidification appears to you as a mere assertion of mine but I nevertheless reiterate it.

Now speaking of mere assertions if Maher just gave mere assertions based on nothing going nowhere I would only be critical on that basis or perhaps even leave it alone and chalk it up to artistic licence. But his assertions are so contradictory in only a few paragraphs. He needs to choose his weapon when attacking the religious and avoid contradiction to be effectual. Instead he is enjoying the attack too much to take that step. I concede that he probably should have some licence when writing atheist porn but too much contradiction is distracting.

You seem to be taking atheist porn way too seriously. Like real porn it is purely for the entertainment value not something to take seriously.
CONT

”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.”

But you quoted it. You seemed to be relying upon it to explain why religious beliefs don’t deserve respect as if it were gospel. His comments were so comment worthy I couldn’t resist. Since you are critical virtually to the point of paranoid of theist’s comments but so uncritical with anti-theist comments I’ll explain.

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live." Religion or lack thereof relates to one of the big questions namely whether or not there is a god/s. The word must expresses certitude (cf. eg. may) and saying that a belief that differs from yours must die for mankind to live (even if it has gone from a tiny population to billions of people in thousands of years with religion) would have to add arrogance.

"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." This expresses with certitude that the big question of God or no God is answered in the negative.

("And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't.") This indirectly appears to address some big issues. It appears to be expressed agnostically but it is shortly after a pronouncement that there is no God and divine revelation is a void filled by people’s pronouncements so in reality he isn’t as open minded as he tries to suggest. He is simply trying to sound like it so that he can then claim not to have arrogant certitude and level that attack on theists. Since that is not as clear as the others I put it in brackets.
CONT

"those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken" To dismiss the beliefs of the majority of the world’s population with pejorative comparison is arrogant in the extreme and it is hard to see how it would make sense if he wasn’t also expressing certitude.

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." Compare this with the above quotes and you should see a contradiction.

How about:

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live."
Do I need to explain why that is an extreme statement?

"by religious people, by irrationalists"
Calling people who disagree with you irrational is pretty extreme particularly when most of the world are being characterized as irrational.

"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
Dismissing most of the history of philosophy, the thinking documented in the history of Christianity, and the entire discipline of theology as lacking virtue by religious standards (in the Catholic brand of Christianity those who assist the authoritative shepherds in explaining scripture and tradition are considered Doctors of the Church) and defining faith to set up a straw man is a pretty extreme approach.

cf.

"the true devils of extremism"
Devils tends to connote a negative view of the thing it is describing so I take this to mean that extremism is bad and he is saying that theism is bad on that basis. Hopefully you will see the contradiction.

mjpb,

<<So appearing like a genuine mistake makes it more ingenious and more likely to be sophistry?>>

No, not “appearing like a genuine mistake”, sophistry is designed to appear as though it displays ingenuity in reasoning.

This isn’t the first time you’ve tried this tactic either... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814#93594

<<...it looks like,from theists, you will see sophistry no matter what so at least I know now what to expect.>>

Wrong.

It’s easy to spot and demonstrate why sophistry is what it is. Pericles recently did on another thread for example... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008#184338

<<Well hopefully some day you will realize that it is about holding on to things your reason has once accepted...>>

But you can’t even mention why your reason once accepted it. That’s the whole point here.

<<...you won’t find the need to rationalize everything as sophistry.>>

Pointing out sophistry is a passing observation, not my rationalisation. My rationalisation is that there is no evidence. That’s it.

<<I apologise if I am not yet helping but I have explained the reasons for my hesitation above...>>

I promise I won’t point out your sophistry from now on if you’d prefer.

<<I shake my head any time someone claims there is a total lack of evidence on something like this ... I can’t see how you could have completely missed any evidence.

If it’s so obvious, then why can’t you just spit it out?!

<<But you see sophistry when it isn’t there so the confirmation is only in your mind. It may or may not have happened but there is no reason for me to assume that it has.>>

Wrong.

I am able to point out why my observations are sophistry every time. Of course, anyone can say it was a slip of the tongue, but that would mean that theists have impossibly slippery tongues.

Continued...

...Continued

<<My guess is that you have adopted an evasive maneuver but your uncritical acceptance of everything from one view point means that you haven’t realized it.>>

Evasive maneuver for what? What kind of evidence would disprove something that didn’t exist? What part of “the onus is on the believer to provide the evidence” do you not understand? If I claim that unicorns exist, does it then become your responsibility to prove me wrong?

You’re not stupid, so I can only assume that you’re trying to paint me as someone who needs to be evasive as yet another diversionary tactic.

It’s also a bit rich to claim that my acceptance of one view-point is uncritical when you can’t give me one single argument to challenge me with - which hardly makes my acceptance look uncritical now, does it.

<<But you quoted [Maher].>>

Yes, and you focused on it while dodging the main point. Perhaps you should re-examine your priorities here.

<<You seemed to be relying upon it to explain why religious beliefs don’t deserve respect as if it were gospel.>>

Try proving his points (which aren’t original by the way) wrong or unreasonable then.

<<Religion or lack thereof relates to one of the big questions namely whether or not there is a god/s. The word must expresses certitude (cf. eg. may) and saying that a belief that differs from yours must die for mankind to live (even if it has gone from a tiny population to billions of people in thousands of years with religion) would have to add arrogance.>>

There’s nothing wrong with certainty about demonstrable positions, and it’s not arrogance when an unfounded belief system, with no legitimacy due to the total lack of evidence, has proven itself to be dangerous, even to the point of apocalyptically dangerous.

<<This expresses with certitude that the big question of God or no God is answered in the negative.>>

Yes, and as we are demonstrating now, that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to be certain about after hundreds and hundreds of years of religion and still not a shred of proof.

Continued...