Delicate Offers a Truce

[Delicate]

Well you claim you have valid objections to theistic arguments. I want to see your objections. Any objection to any argument.

Then I can either admit it's successful, or refute it.

Without you being able to provide an objection, we can't have a conversation.

1. What theistic arguments are you referring to

2. How can I object to theistic arguments that don't exist

3. A confident person does not require someone else to make arguments for them, in order to reply to objections.

1. Assuming you claim to have valid objections to theistic arguments, I'm referring to whatever those arguments are. I don't know what arguments you have come across. Only you know that.

So tell me which argument, and tell me what the rebuttal is.

If there are multiple such arguments, pick any you like.

2. I never claimed you have objections to theistic arguments that don't exist.

3. Or maybe I just don't know what theistic arguments people have run by you.

I'm sensing you're reluctant to come up with an argument. Why the reluctance? Are you not confident of your objections? Are you afraid I'll make an example out of you and embarrass you? Have you genuinely not seen anybody make a single argument for God before? Or perhaps you've forgotten?

Can you point to where, specifically I'm wrong and why?

Everywhere, duh.

LOL 

As solid as an air guitar.

I think 1 and 2 are false. I've explained why elsewhere.

You are sincerely wrong then, and I would like a reference to your explanation so I can correct you.

I don't feel like hunting for the links either, so I'll just lay the most salient considerations out here based on how you've laid your position out.

1. I don't believe atheism is the default position, while theism needs to be proved because I take atheism and theism to be epistemically on par. One makes a claim, another makes a contradicting claim. If one doesn't make either claim (that God exists, or that God doesn't exist) they can rightly be thought of as agnostic. This triad is a perfectly adequate, well-established, and widely-accepted survey of the various positions and I haven't seen enough reason to change it.

2. Like I pointed out in (1), I think atheism makes a claim because atheism and theism are on par with each other epistemically. The only way you could say atheism makes no claims is if atheism were in fact a default position. 

But why think so? In fact, if not believing in x is a default position, then isn't "not believing that atheism is the default position" itself a default position? I think more work needs to be done here to explain why you believe in this kind of default position and why it's needed. 

There's more to say on this, of course, but I want to keep the post concise and focused.

I disagree and I've laid out why elsewhere.

Very well... Mind giving me a link to that place?
I'm on my phone and searching with little more than your username is a pain.

See my above response. Hope it helps.

Well you claim you have valid objections to theistic arguments. I want to see your objections. Any objection to any argument.

Then I can either admit it's successful, or refute it.

Without you being able to provide an objection, we can't have a conversation.

It's not up to us to bring up a particular argument then refute it.

It is up to you to defend your claims with evidence and reason, then it is up to us refute them, or concede.

Every time, and I do mean every time, I ever attempt to define the god a theist believes in, then refute the arguments for that god, the theist will claim that is not the god they believe exists.

You do know there are 33,000 Christian sects, right? How are we able to guess which flavor you follow and how you define your god?

Well, you are making the claim that you have valid objections to theistic arguments, aren't you? 

Or is your position something like "I have no refutation of a single theistic argument."? In this case, you're obviously not making a claim to possess any objections.