"The reason why we are never happy with you, SJ, is that we believe that your beliefs are untrue. Whatever way you slice it, dice it, or dress it up, a falsehood is falsehood."

I don't think you understand my accusation.

Let's say we have two mutually exclusive propositions, A and B.  By definition, they both can't be right.

Let's say that I argue A, but you think A is no good.

So then I turn around and argue B, just to make you happy.  But you don't think that B is any good, either.

Reason and rationality would strongly suggest that either A or B should support my proposition, but you don't like either of them.  

So, why do you think its falsehood?  Because you have an ounce of reason in you?  If not, should we care what you think?  We should care if you have a good reason.

However, if your reason for rejecting A is because you object with non-A (non-A=B), than in theory, if I turn around and show how my proposition satisfies non-A, you should consider my proposition more reasonable.  However, you reject both A and B, therefore you can no longer have any objections that are reasonable.

Example:  

Proposition:  "Christianity's claim to truthfullness is strengthened by its homogenity."

A= examples of homogenity.

To which you would object with examples of diversity (non-A, or B), or perhaps argue its coercion, or collusion.

So, then I turn around and say, well, ok, maybe you're right:

Proposition:  "Christianity's claim to truthfullness is strengthened by its diversity"

B= examples of diversity

To which you would object with examples of homogenity (non-B, or A), or perhaps argue that diversity reflects ad hocness, arbitrariness, whatever.

From my point of view, it doesn't have to be either/or.  It can be both/and.

But your rejection IS either or.  Either diversity supports Christianity's claims, or it does not.  Either homogenity supports Christianity, or it doesn't.  BOTH can't be raised as falsifications by the same person at the same time, but both can be raised as support.

Therefore, a person objecting to both A and B is not proceeding from a position of reason, and we should not concern ourselves one bit with their opinion until they make up their mind which one really would strengthen Christianity's claim, if true.

"I know I said I would not argue with you further on any subject, but I can't let this one go, especially with my name on it!"

I could care less if you argue with me any more at all.  I would hope that you would still participate with others, though.

Your representation of your own position as an atheist is really irrelevant, btw.  The point is that if I argue that there is a God because of A, and you respond, "No, no, look here at 'B'" and then I turn around and say, there is a God because of 'B' and you turn around and say, "No, no, look here at 'A'" your own position is quite irrelevant.  It only becomes relevant if in fact if your argument against proposition "theism" is both A and B (mutually contradictory premises), in which case your atheism is irrational.

I suppose its up to you to clear-mindedly sort through your own objections to determine whether or not you argue both non-A and non-B as it suits you.

"Your representation of your own position as an atheist is really irrelevant, btw. The point is that if I argue that there is a God because of A, and you respond, "No, no, look here at 'B'" and then I turn around and say, there is a God because of 'B' and you turn around and say, "No, no, look here at 'A'" your own position is quite irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if in fact if your argument against proposition "theism" is both A and B (mutually contradictory premises), in which case your atheism is irrational."

I don't think I have done what you are suggesting - I would never say that there is no god for any specific reason. I feel no need to say "there is no god", any more than you feel the need to say "grass is green". Can you give an example of when I have done this, given that you call it "Stathei's Snob Fallacy"?

Ok for a moment I'm going to step out and offer the heads up by shooting striaght. I'm follower Jesus, I believe him to be the one and only son of God. A consistency in the creeds and the word would best sumarize my beliefs.

I have torn down my own beliefs and rebuilt them more then once. Each time I personaly remain in Christ.

Those are my beliefs. I trust that Jesus is Lord. I can't prove my trusts in a tangible way to anyone, including Christians. I don't expect an Athiest to be able to do what I can't do. I personaly believe theres more to our reality then we have currently observed. But our natural reality has nothing to with my trust in Christ. I still don't have any reason not to trust or reject Jesus.

God bless. Take care I'm heading back into my stance.

"Well in that case you shouldn't have called it Stathei's Snob Fallacy, should you?"

I dunno.  :)  I thought you were going to be gone.  I wanted to immortalize you.  :)  I do seem to recall you doing something similar, I'm just too lazy to go hunting.

"SJ, you are trusting your imagination, not your senses - unless you saw Lucifer on your stairs as well? "

Well, you didn't ask, did you?  You just took my very sincere remark, which I explicitly told you I didn't consider to be binding on your epistemology, and crucified it.

As you know none of the details, its probably too soon to offer a diagnosis, don't you think?

"(unless of course there actually is a battle between the Almighty and Lucifer's minions for your immortal soul, in which case I'm pretty much screwed)."

I'd respond to that, but you'd crucify me.  :)

"I do take your point that if you had said you didn't believe in him someone (perhaps even I) would have been down your throat to point out the inconsistency"

heh, well YEA, you would have.  :)

"but that just means we think you are wrong about the whole concept of God and the devil, not that we are changing our stance to suit the argument. Where did the devil come from, by the way? Did God make him? If not, who did?"

Sure, perhaps in this case we can be gracious and allow its something like this.  Its a pretty common tactic in general, however.  A little frustrating on this end.  At anyrate, your question is not a worthless question.  It may very well deserve its own thread.  Who would dare answer your question at this point, though, knowing you're just going to bring the hammer down on them?

How can you expect to hear Christians themselves represent their position in a way that doesn't have them objecting left and right that you don't understand their view if you mock them once they themselves begin to represent their position?

See what I mean?   You'll just be stuck with your misunderstanding.  If you're going to reject Christianity, theism, and all that it entails, I'm perfectly fine with that.  That's your call, and I would respect it.  But reject the accurate conception of it.... a conception you can only gain by sincerely asking and then being open to a sincere answer.

I feel like using an emoticon.  hmmmm let's see......  

Not really fitting the thread, but cute and cuddly, anyway.

I have no hidden agenda, but I still want some of those emoticons of yours...

"If you're going to reject Christianity, theism, and all that it entails, I'm perfectly fine with that."

No, you're not, SJ. All of your objections to the way "a bunch of skeptics" argues are rooted in this rejection. I don't care if you believe in a fictitious God or Jesus because that is your business and doesn't affect me. However, let me give you another example of why belief in the devil makes my blood boil and causes me to "bring the hammer down":

A few years ago, we hired a babysitter from the local Christian Academy. Not wishing to offend her, I even removed the "EVOLVE" fish from the back of my car. She duly arrived, with her vanity plate proclaiming her faith and her religious tracts in hand. We went out, congratulating ourselves on our good taste in sitters. When we got back, my 5 year old son was cowering in his bed, terrified. She had told him the devil would get him if he didn't go to sleep. Thankfully, I was able to convince him that the devil was not a person - eventually.

This is, in microcosm, why I behave as I do toward Christians. I don't want to offend you, and your vanity plates and literature are your own affair (funny how they don't offend me, but I would never sport a "GOD IS JUST PRETEND" bumper sticker in case I upset someone). However, when you start talking bullsht about the devil that becomes my affair and I will protect myself and my family from it. Atheists don't believe in "moral" behavior - but we believe strongly in the dangers of "harmful" behavior. When you start with the Satan nonsense, the hammer comes down because it is harmful and ridiculous - not because it defeats my prior argument.

We don't get sitters from the Christian Academy any more.

No, I have more to say, but its going to have to wait.

You know exactly what I am saying, SJ. If my children hear your devil sht it is my business - obviously it is not my business if you talk your devil sht to another believer in devil sht.

"It sounds to me like you took a bad experience and have over-reacted." - what, I should have had her back? I don't think it was an over reaction, I was protecting my children.

"...you are only a hairline trigger away from embodying the rationale that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot employed..."  Here we go again with the Communist nonsense - I thought we'd put this to bed, SJ. You have clearly stated that you do not equate Atheism with Communism, but it appears that you reserve the right to use your now embarrassing scare tactic if it suits you.

"Thank God for the second amendment. That's all I've got to say" You wouldn't be implying that Atheism is "unAmerican", would you? Because if you are, that is definitely my business. I'm beginning to think you are Pat Robertson in disguise, SJ.

"I will protect myself and my family from YOU."  Don't worry, SJ, I don't care what your family believes and if I were to meet them they would never know I'm an atheist. Can you say that my children would never know you were a Christian?

Stathei --

The problem is -- belief that there is a devil is part of Christianity -- it's in the Bible, after all.  So it seems like you do have a problem with Christians, unless they're extremely heterodox or don't really believe.  Which means, you really do have a problem with Christians, and that problem seems to be a deep-seated, emotional one.  If I've got you wrong, then perhaps you can clarify.

Another point.  We are talking about a message board, where people are free to express their views (including you, I might add).  We're not talking about SJ, or anyone else barging into your home to talk about the devil.  

And weren't you the one to ask the question to begin with?  SJ didn't gratuitously broadcast any ideas about the devil -- you asked and thus brought the issue out yourself, right?