OK, that's enough.

Look, you guys have never have heard of an inductive argument and think that you can deflect any attack on your beliefs by being really pedantic.

Unfortunately, that doesn't increase the probability of there being a God at all.

I will put you all on notice:

I AM IGNORING ANY RESPONSES THAT MAKE ANY MENTION OF LOGICAL FALLACIES. ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO ARGUE ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES IS ADMITTING HE OR SHE IS AN IDIOT WHO DOESN'T WISH TO ENGAGE MY ARGUMENT.

OK? No more.

Now, other than "religions don't make arguments", does anyone have any responses that are NOT based on alleged "logical fallacies"? Or is that idiocy the only thing you've got?

Suppose you have an acquaintance who constantly lies about minor issues. You notice these lies and never say anything about it. Then, when you need to buy a car, he offers to sell you his used car and assures you it will give you no problems. Now, are you telling me that you will not give ANY weight at all to the person's previous, minor lies in determining whether he is telling the truth about the car?

This argument proves too much. If this is correct, then there is no such thing as religion.

If you want to say that, fine. Any intelligent person can see that this "logical fallacy" crap is a dodge. I want to know if you guys have anything else.

Translation: "I'm going to insist on starting threads with fallacious arguments. If you call me out on my sophistry instead of taking my poopy diaper seriously, I will throw a self-righteous tantrum and ignore your objections."

Quick, someone call the wambulance!

You already saw what's happening. Honestly, it looks as if you're covering your ears and just yelling lalala. It was pointed out already, and I gave you some direction on where to go from here. Hint: central, not peripheral, claim.

(By the way, if my argument is fallacious, than this jury instruction, a version of which is given in all 50 states as well as the federal system and which is supported by more than 200 years of caselaw, is based on a logical fallacy:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/Civil/part2/2.5-2.htm

Of course, it isn't. So stop whining about fallacies and tell me what else you have.)

I answered that (and appreciate that you had something more constructive to say than a whine about logical fallacies).

Stop whining about fallacies!?! Amazing. Wow.

For one thing, a fallacious argument is really no argument at all, so there is nothing (of substance) there to address anyway. Pointing out the fallacies in an argument cuts to the chase and saves time.

Yes, with you.

Such as who, and what things?

Which teachings, the one by the divinely inspired or not divinely inspired? The source is key. If it's the former, then it cannot be peripheral teachings. If it's the latter, then those teachings have no impact on the central teachings, rendering the second premise - the meat and potatoes - incorrect and the entire argument invalid.

And there was no need to invoke any fallacies there.

Fallacies are not the conversation stoppers you think they are.

In any event, if your only contribution is to whine about fallacies, stay out of the thread.

Hardball:

There's a lot that can be said about your third point (your first two points don't really say anything) but the simplest thing I can say about it is that a lot of the things I mentioned certainly were based oon claims of divine inspiration. Galileo was charged with heresy, IOW, espousing false religious beliefs. Catholic sexual morality is claimed to be part of divine plan. The Mormon stuff was claimed to vome from divine inspiration. So that counterargument doesn't work.

Once again, though, I appreciate you engaging rather than pretending that shouting 'fallacy' ends the argument.

An OP with fallacies is a non-starter, as has been explained to you several times already. There's no there there to argue against, which explains the responses you have been getting.

This problem with illogical OPs is very obvious to those who aren't stuck in the magical thinking that causes one to simply ignore logic while expecting everyone else to say, "There, there; what a charming child."

The first point is in agreement with yours. The second point isn't; I'm questioning you. I could have just pointed out that it's a compositional fallacy, but I opted instead to engage further and ask you to clarify.

There can be claims of divine inspiration made, but they will not pertain to a religion's central tenets. They will always be classified as peripheral claims and be subjugated to the core doctrines. In some cases it results in a completely new religion, but in most cases this kind of secondary or tertiary claim to divination will be sidelined as heretical and be forgotten/ignored - or kept around as a history lesson.

Anybody can stand up as a member of an existing major religion and claim divine inspiration. This does not mean that the central tenets of that religion will somehow be less credible due to this new revelation/prophet. Take Ismaili Muslims (they attach the term Muslim to themselves for political reasons, FYI), for example. They are considered heretics and non-Muslims by mainstream Shia and Sunni Muslims. If you were to show that some claim or another made by the Ismaili prophet is false, you're not making any claim that weakens the central tenets of Islam. You'd be far off from it.

Or take Mormonism, for a different example. If my understanding of it is correct, the Mormons had a prophet of their own with his own big ideas. Mainstream Catholics don't (correct me, if I'm wrong on this) consider them to be Christians. If you show that Mormonism makes some false peripheral claims, that says absolutely nothing about Catholicism or their peripheral claims, let alone their central ones. What you'd have done is simply show that only Mormonism's central claims are likely to be false, given that such and such peripheral claims are false. Even then, it's not a closed and shut deal.

You're also claiming, based on the argument in the OP, that due to it you can generalize across the board to all religions. This is where you're not acknowledging (one of) your big mistake(s). The objection remains valid.

There's a special fallacy for that, as well. LOL

Such...irony...

I noticed that also.

Someone who believes in superstitions criticizing an agnostic for believing in "magical thinking".

Knowing the source of the "central story" and how it was derived makes the "central story" more likely. DUCY?

"Peripheral claims" lol. You're making a peripheral claim right now.

What? If I know the source of a great science fiction novel (the author), does this make the fiction more likely?

If you knew the author, it would make an argument for a particular theme of the novel more likely (considering there are multiple themes).

Since the subject was the truth value of the central claim based on the soundness of peripheral claims, I don't see why you're introducing themes here.

The theme supports the truth value of the central story. You have to work your way backwards here.

We've went from sources to themes here.

I think we're discussing past each other.

lol, this thread took a funny turn.

I finally took the time to follow the link (I didn't know it was going to be so short), and apparently it's equally "valid" to simply accept the rest of the testimony as true. I don't think this supports your position in a useful way.