...Continued

<<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...>>

Yes, belief and knowledge are two different things. No contradiction there.

<<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.>>

Again, it’s not arrogant if it’s demonstrable. People interpret their holy books however they want to, which is no different to interpreting chicken entrails.

<<"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.>>

We can be certain about certain things while maintaining a more humble attitude of doubt when dealing with situations that could cost lives. Like the decision to go to war because god said you should, or destroying the environment because you don’t believe we could possibly destroy it before the coming of a messiah that will never arrive.

So again, no contradiction.

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

It’s not extreme when the following paragraphs provide a good case as to why.

<<Calling people who disagree with you irrational is pretty extreme particularly when most of the world are being characterized as irrational.>>

It’s not extreme when it can be demonstrated.

Continued...

...Continued

<<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.>>

When we live in much more enlightened and scientifically aware times, yes, faith certainly does make a virtue out of not thinking. Just take, for example, the many theists on OLO who you’d think must sit there with their fingers in their ears singing: “La, la, la... I can’t here you.”

<<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.>>

No, he is not saying theism is bad because extremism is. Although he is making the valid point that moderates need to accept some of the blame for the extremists since they provide them with cover and inadvertently legitimize them.

Once again, no contradiction.

Like I said, mjpb... back to the drawing board.

Actually mjpb, after giving it some thought, I’m starting to think that I may have gone a little overboard with the accusation of sophistry (in that particular instance).

Sophistry tends to be a little more obfuscated and obscured. Often one of the intentions of sophistry is to make the argument so baffling that the intended recipient - in the end - just makes the assumption that the sophist knows what their talking about and just leaves it at that without questioning any further.

I think your (accidental?) word-switch (assuming it wasn’t an accident) would be better referred to as a verbal sleight-of-hand - another technique required by even the most sincere of theists in order to defend their belief.

In regards to this line from CS Lewis you keep repeating about faith being “ the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods”, there are two problems with it:

Firstly, “reason” isn’t always why we come to accept/believe something. On the contrary, we can see that it never is when it comes to religion: something used to fill an emotional or intellectual void or as a crutch when we feel our lives have hit rock-bottom.

Secondly, Lewis’s definition of faith could apply to a lot of things. It could even apply to explicit atheism and we know that atheism is not a faith.

That being said, I think my definition of faith (hope and desire mistaken for knowledge) is far more accurate and honest.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to what Lewis had to say though. His false trichotomy of Jesus being either liar, lunatic or lord doesn’t say much for his reasoning skills considering he left out the most obvious, rational and likely possibility: legend.

Let’s be honest here though, mjpb. There are no facts, are there? And this explains the lengthy delay, the eventual excuse for being reluctant to mention any facts, along with the preparations for a possible withdrawal from the ever mentioning them, in your statement: “I apologise if I am not yet helping but I have explained the reasons for my hesitation [in mentioning the facts] above.”

If you do have facts, then how could I possibly accuse you of sophistry (or verbal sleight-of-hand for that matter) for listing them? One could no sooner accuse another of sophistry for pointing out the fact that the sky is blue.

I should remind you too that you would be obliged, as a fisher of men, to let the world in on these facts that you have obtained. Particularly if you are the only one in possession of them - as you appear to be.

If you have indeed obtained some facts, then I would strongly advise that you let us in on them. Doing so will change the world as we know it. Text books may need to be re-written.

Mankind will never be the same.

Sorry I don't have time to read all that but I'm just dropping in to keep this ticking in the hope that it will be here when I do get time.

Well mjpb, it’s been 20 days since the last post and the thread’s about to close.

You‘ve posted seven comments on other various threads since you last posted here, and so I don’t think being too busy is much of an excuse anymore. Especially since the facts to support the existence of god are apparently so abundant and obvious that you shake your head every time someone claims there’s a total lack of it. Heck you even went as far as to say it was “extreme” to claim such a thing.

So if you’re not going to point out any facts in support of the existence of god, could you at least admit that there are none?

That is why they call it faith after all.