Someone who may or may not be an authority argued that “we ought to believe that things are as they seem to be, until we have evidence (proving) that we are mistaken… If you say the contrary – never trust appearances until it is proved that they were reliable – you will never have any beliefs at all.”

We know that a number of people have had religious experiences. On the above reasoning religious experience makes theism properly basic.

”Probabilities just don’t seem to be a friend of theists now, do they?”

Positive statements can often be expressed as negative statements and vice versa. What is the difference between “everything happens for a reason” and “there are no coincidences”? If the burden of proof is logically on the positive statement would the burden of proof reverse depending on the way things are expressed. That seems rather improbable. Your sneer above invites a comment that “logic doesn’t seem to be a friend of atheists” but that would be unfair based on such a small discussion.

While we are at it I’d like to throw another clue into the mix. I appreciate that it might not be appropriate to add something new that you haven't discussed when you want to leave. I’m not trying to lure you in but I want to add the pure reasoning approach to the evidence before the thread stops and this is an example of what I meant a long time ago when I mentioned something like standard proofs that I said I'd get back to. Perhaps clues might be a better term.

Theists have argued:

1. Something is caused.
2. It is impossible for everything to be caused (there can’t be an infinite regress of causes)
3. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause.

God is believed to be the uncreated creator of the universe. Therefore this gives an argument that supports God’s existence. In addition to the evidence and related reasoning there is other reasoning that affords us a clue.

”This just leaves us now with your “Atheists have faith too” claim.

You never even addressed my example of absurdity using your demonstrably false claim that you didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You didn’t make any effort to explain how it really happened in order to correct my scenario and prove your point. Why? Because you know your claim isn’t true to begin with.”

I wasn’t trying to upset you by not responding to that. You have indicated that there is no evidence or reason for theism and I was attempting to address that. Much earlier in this discussion I mentioned that I converted. You tried to ridicule me by assuming that I converted on the basis of fine tuning alone. I thought you were just enjoying yourself by bringing those things together in an attempt to make me look silly and thought I’d leave you to it. I’ll go back and find it and try to give a response if you like.

”Instead, all you did was waffle on about how you’d hope things would be in a court of law, demonstrating that you have no idea of how they actually are.”

Just because I don’t feel confident reading the mind of juries and I recognizing that logically meeting the belief of a group of humans doesn’t need to equate to truth doesn’t justify that conclusion. Yes I can’t read the mind of jurors etc. if that is what you mean but it sounds like you are saying more being that somehow the comments indicated a more deficient than average knowledge of courts of law.

”Unfortunately though, in amongst all that waffle, you failed to realise that whether there is a presumption of innocence or no presumption at all, both scenarios still work fine in my analogy that discredits your claim that atheists have a faith.”

Could you please unpack that a little.

At the moment I don’t know which analogy you are referring to but while I am re-reading old posts I’ll try to work that out.

And this is exactly why I don’t want to continue.

All that waffle and yet my points still stand - regardless of what angle you approach your arguments from. And if you want to argue the philosophic burden of proof then find a philosopher - they are the ones who came up with it, not me. Perhaps they can explain the most basic of basic logic to you better than I can, but I give up.

Yes, mjpb, with all due respect, you do sound “slow” (as you have put it) and if using an analogy with cute little characters doesn’t even help you understand why your argument doesn’t work, then nothing will.

But I don’t believe you are quite as “slow” as you’re make out here. You’re either poking and prodding to see if you can find a weak spot in my arguments, or you are trying to obfuscate things by burying my points in an overload of questions and irrelevancies (such has your ridiculous rebuttal of “my” burden of proof equation) in order to fool yourself and/or others into thinking that things may not be quite as simple as they seem.

I’d say it’s a combination of both; you ask for clarifications on points that are lucid and you clearly have no intention of ever finishing here - no matter how much of a pounding your arguments take. So long as those poundings can be further buried by even more questions and irrelevancies, you’re happy.

Well, I can spot a pattern when I see one, mjpb, and I’m tired of it. I’m not going to waste my time on someone who continuously plays dumb just to conceal my arguments in layer-upon-layer of obfuscation.

If our little discussion here at least makes you think twice about making such patently absurd claims from now on, then my job here is done.

But only time will tell I suppose.

AJ Philips,

"And this is exactly why I don’t want to continue.

All that waffle and yet my points still stand ...

Yes, mjpb, with all due respect, you do sound “slow” ...

But I don’t believe you are quite as “slow” as you’re make out here."

I'd like to think I'm not but if I keep talking you'll probably change your mind. Just on the Foxy thing:

“Do you know how I can know that you knew Lexi was Foxy?

Because I know you’re not a complete ‘head case’ ... and the following two posts, that were subsequently deleted, would have just been downright disturbing.”

That paragraph is the key to me understanding our misunderstanding. At the time I believed that I could finally be more engaged in our debate but was concerned readership might have worn out by my delay. Suze who appears to be a very progressive atheist seemed to hold Lexi in high regard and said that Lexi never loses a debate or something. Lexi had the appearance of being on your side due to Suze’s support and surrounding comments. I thought she would spice things up by adding such a good debater into our discussion even if it makes things harder for me and the interest that would attract I thought would generate supporters of both sides anyway as that was a busy thread and our type of topic tends to attract a response. Before posting I checked her previous comments a little and found her to be theistically inclined but I invited her anyway because either way it flagged our debate to many readers.

I note your reference to subsequent comments. Lexi was flattered by my complimenting her debate ability and it wouldn’t have been polite to remind her that I didn’t know her and was relying upon Suze’s assessment particularly since she complimented me and was obviously familiar with me so again good manners precluded bluntly pointing out that I don’t remember her. I can see now why you thought what you thought.

mjpb,

I’ll see you on another thread.

Dan,

I owe you some thanks.

For the first time in months, you had the courtesy to address me directly. So as a gesture of goodwill, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and go by the assumption that you are sincere in your beliefs and the arguments you present, regardless of much I feel I’ve discredited them.

Thanks, AJ, for your gesture of goodwill.

To what degree you've discredited my views might not be for me or you to judge. It would be quite a luxury to be able to judge one's own argument.  

But I welcome any probing responses to my comments if they help in focussing an issue and stimulating further discussion.