Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[Mister Agenda]

RoadRunner

When we are talking about a person's belief in God, their concept of God is what matters rather than the dictionary definition, since everyone has a different concept of God. It's pointless to talk about God unless you both agree what you mean by it.

Are you saying, that you do not agree with the definition in the dictionary?

What I'm saying is that it's hard to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into, and yes - in many cases they do have an ulterior motive, which is protecting the emotional value they get from their religion as described in my original post.

What it is trumping is reason, logic, empiricism. Believing in pseudoscientific woo is a human weakness - as pattern seeking mammals we have evolved to seek agency in what happens in our environment to identify danger - of our ancestors, those who heard a rustle in the grass and assumed it was a predator but were wrong were more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those who didn't think they had enough evidence yet to conclude that it was a predator, until a tiger jumped out and ate them. We have to consciously override our primitive, fallible superstitious nature of we want to have a world view that comports with reality.

Forgive me, but this seems to be low on reason, logic, empiricism; and high on pseudo-scientific woo.  My experience has been with a number of atheists, who while quick to claim victory, and logical superiority and to use poisoning the well tactics, upon further inspection and scrutiny of their claims, they turn out to be fairly hollow.

It was kind of amusing (and also a little sad), but I had a guy the one time, who kept insisting that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument was special pleading and fallacious.   I questioned him on this, and tried to reason with him.  His position was; that any statement that uses the word "everything" and then excludes some things was special pleading and incorrect.  I tried to explain to him how this argument was suicidal; but, the problem and I seen in other discussions, that this person, just assumed that he was being logical, and the Christian was illogical.  But when the claims where inspected, this didn't prove to be the case.

In your opinion. You seem to reflect the same flaws you are trying to point out in Veritas.