Oh dear, mjpb. This is getting painful to watch.

<<I noticed your (Philo’s) comment and it stuck in my mind. It has such a ring of truth.>>

That’s a pretty bold statement considering Philo was unable to back the claim or demonstrate why I was wrong.

<<I previously pointed out to AJ that "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods" but he prefers to rely on some silly atheist porn definition.>>

This is a pretty rude and unfair comment considering I demonstrated why your ‘CS Lewis’ definition is not as accurate or honest has my definition.

If you want to continue referring to my definition of faith as “atheist porn”, then at least have the courtesy to demonstrate why it’s inaccurate rather than simply making unfounded assertions.

<<Ironically I think he proved your point.>>

And how is that?

Yet another assertion that you don’t provide any reasoning for.

<<I suspect no matter how many people professing a religious faith explain their faith he will be effectively blind to the ramifications.>>

I never said anything about the ramifications.

<<This thread must be pretty unlikely to encounter by now...>>

Yes, and I think that’s been part of the reason for your stalling.

Never fear though, mjpb. I will link to this thread in the future if necessary. Not to embarrass you, but to ensure you don’t make such wild assertions that cannot be backed such as your claim that there is evidence for the existence of god.

<<The issue of whether it is worth debating this topic with someone who quite seriously says that there is no evidence of God and accepts a rather ludicrous concept of faith has crossed my mind recently.>>

Ah yes, another ticket to a possible withdrawal now that I had downgraded my accusation of sophistry.

Sorry, mjpb, but this excuse - if you ever use it to cut and run - won’t work unless you can demonstrate why my views are extreme and why my definition of faith is “ludicrous”.

Continued...

...Continued

So far you have failed to do this. Mere assertions don’t cut it I’m afraid.

Referring to my views as “extreme” and my definitions as “ludicrous” without demonstrating why, is below the belt and just plain rude. So much so that I’m astonished that a person as distinguished as George is quite happy to voice his support for your posts.

<<What can I hope to achieve with someone with such extreme views? Conversion? Now that I know it isn't a one on one it increases my enthusiasm.>>

If you consider me an extremist because I don’t believe there is any evidence for the existence of god or because I don’t think religious beliefs deserve respect, then you consider many, possibly even most, of the people on OLO to be extremists.

<<I'm not sure how long they took to think up but continuation is an issue when one is short of time.>>

Irrelevant now. You just wasted a whole lot of time writing this when you could have provided me with these facts.

<<I explained before that the worst thing is starting something that gets timed out without my response.>>

I’m a patient man and you have my word that I will prevent this thread from closing when you get too busy if that is a concern of yours.

<<I can never work out whether these types of things are just some taunt to get me going or whether you believe them.>>

It’s simply an observation that would be obvious to most who are still reading. Do I really have to spell out the reasons why to you?

-You conveniently post a response weeks later after the filter setting needed to be switched to “One quarter back”;
-You continue posting on other threads (I’ve explained why your excuses don’t cut it);
-You find the time to drop in again (yesterday), yet apparently don’t find an additional minute to properly read my brief post.

Continued...

...Continued

Of course, you can claim that the circumstances are - at no fault of your own - playing out badly for you, and that’s not entirely impossible either. But when you weigh it all up, it doesn’t look good.

It’s been months now and you haven’t found a spare hour or so to list your facts. No one is that busy.

<<Given the other things you believe I give you the benefit of the doubt.>>

What’s this supposed to mean? Considering I am able to back my beliefs with solid reasoning rather than mere assertions, this is a pretty cheap shot.

<<You are still going on about that [sleight-of-hand]?>>

No. That was over a month ago.

<<All I see is people convert to atheism when they worry about the burden of carrying the cross.>>

Well, I know this isn’t true because, not only did I never see that in all my years as a Christian, but the threat of hell and/or the promise of heaven is too strong for anyone to give up just because there might be something hard about being a Christian.

What kind of an idiot would trade an eternity of bliss for an eternity of torment just because of a temporary difficulty?

<<I’ve never seen anyone come into religion in the circumstances you outlined.>>

This isn’t just something I made up on the spot. Many people of all beliefs know that people only take up religion because of an emotion need. So I don’t know who you think you’re fooling with this. Despite knowing otherwise you’ve just said this so that it becomes a ‘your word against mine’ issue. Very slack.

<<My experience has been either family or reasoning.>>

And yet you are unable to provide any of this reasoning.

<<I don't know where to look... there is a secular system of belief that holds onto some pretty implausible things by blind faith.>>

And what secular system would this be?

Continued...

...Continued

<<Why do you think the term "secular fundamentalist" now gets used.>>

Because theists like to portray non-belief in their chosen deity as just another religion. This is done for one of the following reasons:

1. Their minds are so consumed by religion that it is impossible for them not to see something in the context of a religion;

2. Envious of that fact that non-believers are freethinkers not bound by dogma, they belittle non-belief by (ironically) dragging it down to their belief system’s level.

<<Take Pericles. He is an atheist but doesn't seem to hold blind faith just an opinion based on his call of things (or so my experience has indicated).>>

You’ve just described every atheist. Myself included.

Atheism is not blind because there is nothing for atheists to be blinded to since theists have not yet demonstrated that anything like what they’re proposing exists.

<<I’m sure [Lewis] wasn’t ignorant of the fact that a legend explanation is implausible.>>

[I presume you mean “plausible”.]

Well, that would make him deceitful then, wouldn’t it.

<<I explained to you over and over why I wasn’t getting heavily into the discussion until I had time or at least until I can kid myself that I have.>>

Given that I’m willing to wait and have given my word that I will keep the thread going, it appears this is no longer an issue.

<<It [pointing out sophistry] is a rationalization.>>

Call it what you will. I am at least able to back my claims.

<<You are trying to rationalize your belief that theists have no argument and it is convenient to adopt a sophistry McCarthyism approach to help you feel comfortable with that belief.>>

Thanks Dr Phil, but I don’t need to feel comfortable with my beliefs (or disbeliefs) because, unlike theists, I am not emotionally dependant on them.

I have the luxury of simply changing my beliefs if the evidence proves me wrong.

Continued...

...Continued

<<[Atheists] are evading the need to defend their weak argument by trying to pretend that only theists have to prove their point. Perhaps it is sophistry?>>

Their argument is apparently so weak, yet you cannot provide one single reason as to why.

Not only is often impossible to disprove something that doesn’t exist but, as I’ve said before, it is theists who are making the original claim. Atheists are simply responding to that claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on the believer.

<<[Burden of proof] is a procedural concept not a matter of logic and it doesn’t automatically fall on someone making a grammatically positive statement.>>

We’re not talking about laws of a land that have ramifications on a whole society. You’re analogy is invalid.

<<Further, to be taken seriously many negative statements eg. "there are no atoms" require evidence while there corresponding positive statement would not.>>

Yes, because there is evidence that atoms exist. Theists are yet to provide any evidence at all, and so the burden of proof remains on them and will solely until they can provide some. Then things may change.

<<Of course even if the burden of proof fell on theists (which there is no reason to believe)...>>

No reason? Then explain to me why my reasons are invalid.

<<That athiest porn writers try to pretend otherwise says more about their argument than any real burden of proof.>>

Atheists don’t need an argument. Until theists can provide some evidence, they’re already ahead by default.

<<[Maher] says that it isn’t appropriate to have arrogant certitude on the big questions and that is exactly what he is demonstrating.>>

It may be what he’s displaying but remember, it is theists who will say that no amount of evidence with sway them, while atheists often say that all it would take for them to believe is evidence.

Besides which, no one has launched a war in the name of atheism whereas they have been launched in the name of religion.

You’re argument is invalid.

Continued...

...Continued

Anyway, I’m getting quite sick of talking about Maher, and yes, I realise your point about chicken entrails, but have you never heard of overstating something for the sake of consciousness raising?

The rest of your arguments amount to meaningless one-liners. “Are you serious?” is not and argument. Nor are smart-alec remarks like “When will that happen?”. Not only had Maher already demonstrated why, but you couldn’t counter it with any reasoning as to why he was wrong. Just a denial that he already had.

Well, mjpb, all that effort for all those posts and still no facts. Just assertions, a bit of fallacious reasoning and several attempts a character assassination.

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.

In fact, considering the seriousness of your charges of extremism, I would think you’d be obliged to present these facts in your next post.