Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.

[The Grand Nudger]

According to you how we reach conclusions on everything else should apply to God.

To do otherwise is to be guilty of special pleading.  But hey, if you have some other system, some other way..that's cool. Own it. If you're "faithing" some "spirit wisdom", don't claim rational justification for knowledge. This will cut down on confusion between all parties.

So why don't we dismiss it?

A wonderful question.  I don't think we'll see resolution on that anytime soon.  You'd be the only person between us capable of answering........and you're asking me.

[Mystic]

I'm showing you how your argument is flawed by analogy, with working with your own assumptions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you?  Is that by reason or by faithing, then?  I just want to be sure what standard we're using.

[Mystic]

Your argument was this:

Atheists use their reason to accept all sorts of reasonable arguments for other things.
They don't accept it for God, it must be because those arguments don't work in the case of God (ie. they aren't reasonable)

I'm saying applied to Theism:

Theists uses their reasons to dismiss all sorts of things like invisible dragons.
If they accept God and don't dismiss it for those reasons, it must because those reasons don't apply to God.

W/E it is an analogy to show you have double standards.

[The Grand Nudger]

If that's the purpose of the analogy, then..predictably, you have failed to establish that which you set out to prove.  You will not be able to -use- reason...to show that the conditional fallacy is flawed.  You either adhere to the rules of the system, or you don't use it.

It's that simple.  You have just -explicitly- used a logical fallacy as your entire argument, congratulations.

Stop whining

[Mystic]

Argument by analogy is often used to shows why a person's argument is flawed applied to another situation with same structure but different variables.

In other words, yes both are flawed reasons. That is the point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bullshit.  You understand what a conditional fallacy is, correct? This, right here, is a great example of precisely the question you posed. So let's get a little closure, eh?

[*Deidre*]

I've played both roles. lol And that sounds about right, Mystic.

I think that if you just be yourself, share your experiences, that's all that really matters to the 'dialogue.' If converting people is what you mainly seek, you might end up disappointed because in truth, people tend to come to or leave faith, all on their own. In Christianity, Jesus tells His followers 'Go and make disciples of all nations,' but even He stresses to them that if people don't accept your stories as truthful, then keep moving. Not to battle, and argue over the points. Not that you do that, I'm just giving you that as a reference.

If faith is meaningful to you, then it doesn't matter if others believe you or not.

[Simon Moon]

Your argument was this:

Atheists use their reason to accept all sorts of reasonable arguments for other things.
They don't accept it for God, it must be because those arguments don't work in the case of God (ie. they aren't reasonable)

This is incorrect.

The other existential claims I accept I do so based on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic.

The arguments for existence of a god does not meet the above criteria. 

If the existence of a god met the criteria that I use for other claims, I would accept the claim.

[/quote]

[The Grand Nudger]

Gotta give him a pass on pitching straw in service of his fallacy.  Baby steps.