How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)

[robvalue]

Before I dive into it wholesale, I'll make these comments:

Words are not as accurate as mathematical symbols. We don't always express precise meaning, as much as we intend to. There are all sorts of implications and concessions that we would assume the other person is aware of. So it's vitally important to negotiate the language, definitions and claims as much as anything else.

So it would be my way of stating it that, "It is reasonable to hold the belief that there is no such thing as gods." This isn't a statement of absolute truth, it's a probabilistic assessment of reality. I would assume this is what people mean when they say "there are no gods". I personally advise against making such statements of certainty, except in abstract systems where logic is absolute.

This stops the theist trying to raze the ground, to reduce everything to "you can't know anything for sure so I can dismiss what you're saying".

To begin with: what's a god? How do you differentiate between a god and a non-God? No theist has ever given me a coherent answer to this. The discussion seems kind of pointless if I don't even know what they are arguing for.

Secondly: when you've finished telling me what it is, if we ever get that far, why should I care? I've had answers, but they are generally either "isn't it interesting" (sure, if we could actually investigate it) or "obey or else" (mugging). Of course it would be interesting to investigate. But when someone is using arguments in place of evidence, they haven't even established its existence. See my video:

https://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU