You’re not worth my time. Plonk!

The URL itself directed you to point 9:

http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/archives/79#9 < — see the 9?

If you cannot make heads or tails of a simple URL, then I don’t know why I would expect you to take the trouble to understand my actual arguments, or Dawkins’ for that matter.

Enjoy yourself back at Pharyngula, or wherever else they will have you.

I’m not even going to read past the first two sentences of your comment. My link pointed directly to item 9 of that article, “Airtight Belief Systems.” If you can’t be troubled to read even that one section, I won’t be troubled to read your tedious paragraph.

Bye bye.

[Ranting deleted by moderator]

I already linked to my explanation of the level of evidence I would require. Did you follow the link? The level of evidence I describe is already cast in terms of general conditions.

Logic and science cannot refute all religion, and I have never said that it can.

Indeed I do use logic and scientific evidence to back up my atheism. Perhaps you have something additional I can use?

You seem to have an idealistic notion of religion as a separate “magisteria” from science. But, religion as it is practiced today is often in legitimate conflict with reason and the findings of science, because religious believers routinely make scientifically or logically testable assertions. They also assert that their beliefs have grave consequences for the lives of others, and they act on the implications of those assertions. Such behavior removes religion from the purely mystical, abstract realm in which you seem to think it belongs. If they did not do these things, then there would be no quarrel coming from the likes of me.

Finally, you say “I mostly don’t agree with your argument.” In the interest of mutual understanding, with what parts of my explanation do you agree?

I mostly don’t agree with your argument. I think religion would not be religion if it does not at points directly challenge reason, logic and observation. So if you discard religions as false on these attributes, you would end up discarding all religion. Your “acceptable” religions are a façade for rationalism, a mockery of a religion, constrained by reason and lacking true faith and mysticism

I re-wrote my previous comment. Read and enjoy.

I was simply going to ban you for trolling (you do have a reputation), but I’m going to try to make my position very clear in a small space, and we’ll see how you like my reasoning. I’ll also decide whether you’re worth my time.

1) I do not personally claim that science proves that no god of any description exists. You will not find that claim anywhere among my writings.

2) However, I do claim that logic and/or science can prove that gods of some definitions do not exist. For example, if you assert that you believe in a god that can do a logically self-contradictory thing, I will have no trouble denying the existence of that god.

3) On the other hand, if you define “god” so broadly or so specifically that it obviously exists, such as saying “God is all that is,” or “God is my cat over there,” then I will agree that “god”, by that definition, exists. But I won’t worship it.

4) God, as defined by the world’s major religions, is either highly improbable based on the available evidence, or logically impossible based on the assertions made about it by believers.

5) Therefore, I have no problem asserting my lack of a belief in God, i.e., atheism. I also have no problem using logic and the existing state of scientific knowledge to back up my claim.

6) I agree with Dawkins, Stenger, et al that religion makes testable, i.e., scientific claims. Such claims (such as the efficacy of prayer) should be tested, and not dismissed out of hand.

7) I can imagine a confluence of evidence so compelling that I would ineluctably become a believer in some kind of “god.” This is purely analogous to the mountain of evidence that has already led me away from being a believer in the first place. Even though I do not think it probable I will ever see that kind of evidence, I do not consider it any kind of concession that I remain open to it, and not being open to new evidence is something I fault many believers for.