At no point I have claimed that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, mhaze.

<<I was talking about why agnosticism isn't a subset of atheism …>>

On the contrary, I have made it clear that theism/atheism and agnosticism address two different questions?

“Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions, each addresses a different question.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252481)

When I spoke of subsets, I was specifically referring specifically to atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg):

“The other definitions [of atheism] you cite … are subsets of … the broader definition [of atheism] I’ve been referring to when I speak of the dichotomy.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252769)

Furthermore, I see nothing from you that I can identify as an attempt to argue that agnosticism “isn't a subset of atheism”.

I think you're improvising now.

<<… and since you couldn't refute that based on the defintions you substitute other terms and declare victory.>>

Based on what definitions? What are these other terms I’ve used, and what were they supposed to substitute exactly?

<<Then when I point it out you go into your SOP and start muddying the water - long posts…>>

They’re not as long as they look. Quoting you takes a lot of room because there is usually something wrong with everything you say (sometimes multiple things). Furthermore, length alone is not indicative of an attempt to muddy waters. It could just mean that you have a lot of false claims crammed into one statement, just as you have in this claim of yours. Observe:

<<… false trails (define goalposts) …>>

That was not a false trail. What it means to ‘move the goal posts‘ became relevant because you claimed that I had done that.

<<… copious irrelevant links to previous posts …>>

Show me one that was not relevant.

<<Just like disprove/discredit. Again there you went into a great muddying exercise - oh they're the same …>>

No, I never said they were the same. You’re telling porkies again.

<<… oh I usually say disproven (with vaguely relevant links) …>>

Yes, I usually say ‘disproven’. The links demonstrated that. I’m sorry you didn’t understand the point of them.

Continued…

…Continued

<<… demands that I define 'the deity' …>>

Yes, and it was a reasonable request given the ambiguity of the label.

<<… attempts to saying disproving one deity means disproving all …>>

No, I never once said or implied that. More Porkies. Is it any wonder why you’re not providing quotes?

<<… demands to define 'good' …>>

No, I never asked you to define ‘good’. I did ask you to note an understanding of ‘good’ in which an unlimited amount would allow for the level of suffering and evil that we've witnessed throughout history, though. However, it was a reasonable request, given you suggested that such an understanding could exist.

<<And where did we end up? Well with you agreeing that indeed one type of deity can be disproven but that that doesn't disprove 'the deity' since it might be different to the one discredited.>>

Yes, which was consistent with my original point: that there was a version of the deity which could be disproven.

“The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit [or disprove] using logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

It was you who had wasted our time with nit-picking over different understandings of benevolence.

<<Exactly my original point.>>

No, that wasn’t your point. Your original claim was a blanket statement:

“The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251950)

Doesn’t seem to be much room there for exceptions, does there?

<<… you demand that I prove [your changing of the original terms] knowing that there is now a labyrinth of your false claims that I'd have to negotiate to demonstrate the obvious.>>

And yet after having attempted to do just that, you still haven’t pointed to a single false claim from me.

<<So no, I ain't going there.>>

You just did, and failed miserably.

<<You tried to change the terms to ones that hid your error ...>>

How?

<<... just as you tried to change the terms from disproven to discredited ...>>

Wrong: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252015

<<... or changed the terms of the great fallacy debate from misuse to misidentify just as.....>>

Wrong: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252197

Try again, mhaze.

To Toni. You responded.

//I am retelling this as a means for anyone willing to test it out on their own.//

I have.

//If you find a friend who isn't Christian, then later on becomes Christian. Notice their behavior. See if it changes for the better or for the worse.//

I've done, that too.

I neither my case nor my friend's case did Christianity make us better people. Your results were not replicated; the experimental data does not support your hypothesis.
________________________________

So far you're the only one who's responded on having tested this. For at least that much I thank you. I'm sorry seeking God while you were Christian didn't help you as it has helped me and a few others that I know. But at least you have at one time tried. As far as I'm aware, no other crititic in this conversation has, because no one else has said they tried it and it didn't work. (Or that they tried it and it did).

For my knowledge base I wish I had known this earlier instead of struggling in this conversation just to get my point across. For now I'll have to consider some of my conclusions, and why others can't find God. If it's not that they don't try then I'm stumped.

One more thought Toni Lavis.

You said earlier that you did find God. If you could say how you found Him. (Sorry I can't bring myself to calling God an "it").

I ask because it's my opinion that our experiences shape and mold our beliefs. So if you've had an experience of finding God, then that'd be something I'd like to hear. If you'd rather not say, I understand that too. Not a very good reception on this site when I've tried to do the same.

mhaze,

Since I’m a helpful kinda guy, I’ll show you a really efficient way of highlighting sleights-of-hand without going down any rabbit holes using the last two long-debunked claims you resurrected:

<<... just as you tried to change the terms from disproven to discredited ...>>

mhaze: “The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251950)

AJ: “The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit using logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

mhaze: “I say proven/disproven, you say discredited.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252011)

AJ: ““Disproven” is better, and is what I usually say.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252015)

[Then you come back for a second crack at it.]

mhaze: “The great disproven/discredited debate. I said the deity can’t be disproven (or proven). Since that is axiomatically correct you try to rebut by claiming it can be discredited…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252107)

AJ: “I already explained that “disproved” is more appropriate than “discredited”.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252117)

You then promptly drop it, only to come back now and give it a third crack.

<<... or changed the terms of the great fallacy debate from misuse to misidentify just as.....>>

1. mhaze: “I don't hate ... the way you (mis)use the fallacy table. “ (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241939)

2. AJ: “You are yet to provide an example of myself misidentifying a fallacy ... You have invented this “meme tool” line to suggest that I am abusing something [i.e. misuse], presumably because you now realise that you cannot pin me on the misidentification of fallacies.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241945)

3. mhaze: “I say (mis)use, you 'refute' by saying misidentify.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241982)

[As I noted earlier, there is no meaningful difference between 'misusing' the “list” of common fallacies and 'misidentifying' them, in this context, because the only way they could be misused would be to misidentify them.]

4. AJ: “I mentioned your talk of “misuse”, too: [I then quoted the second part of my comment above in 2]” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241990)

You see? No need to go down any rabbit holes. Just quote that line of discussion and you’ll be fine.

Now it’s your turn. Let’s see if you can do it. Or will you just rationalise your way out of it again?

Dear NNS,

My wife's parents come from Norway. In Norway there used to be a law that everyone had to go to church on Sunday. Pastors would give sermons, and people would be required to listen or at least stay awake. To assure that there would be men provided with poles to prod anyone who looked to be nodding or dozing off.

Yes, you are right, NNS. Most of the Christian authorities do not believe in "live and let live".

From prodding people with poles to massacres of heretics and Jews is a spectrum of activities covering a wide range of oppression and compulsion. In pissing on all other faiths you are part of it. In my posts which are probably ineffectual I am doing the best I can to oppose the evil.