As I explained above, it is not a claim that WLC's arguments are necessarily valid, nor an argument from authority.

Then why did you bring it up?

You bought it up, because you ARE using it as an argument from authority:

No, but it ought to give a moment of pause to wonder if the pros see something invalid in the amateur arguments that the amateurs cannot see.

The implication is obvious. Or at the very least you should be able to see how someone could draw that implication and admit to a mistake in communication.

As I said - I'm still waiting for Andrew to respond to my argument ;)

So basically you can't pick out an unbeatable WLC argument because you haven't finished a discussion with someone else on the Internet, that's what your excuse boils down to.

And?

How does that validate WLC arguments?

You're trying to make an appeal to authority. Not only that, but it also seems to be an argument from ignorance.

"The 'pros' don't even refute this argument, so it must be true!"

Again, maybe the argument WLC makes is so evidentially false it's not worth arguing, or more likely it's a formal debate so time is limited and they have to work through so much of his crap they don't have the time to get around to it.

The problem with formal debates, is that one side can throw out unchecked facts, and essentially throw up a smokescreen.

So, why don't you ante up and present what you think is WLC's best argument, something that can't be refuted.

Can't refute? He doesn't bother refuting WLC's arguments, because it's kinda obvious where WLC's arguments are wrong.

They've been refuted before enough times before.

The moment I heard you talk about "Jewish roots bring together skinhead neo-Nazi couple", made me think about the Dave Cheppelle sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITchV88Gjk

Don't forget the "moral" story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son.

But it's very interesting how your complaint about the tract being "disgusting" is only directly relating to suicide and the man killing his family.

I have to ask, do you not find all those things that Nathan pointed out just as disgusting, even more so?

From your reply, are we to believe that you don't find, for example, Isaiah 13:15-18 disgusting?

Is the rape and killing of a society not a disgusting act when ordered by your god?

You find that disgusting?

Interesting, Have you read the bible?

If you don't know about the Great Old Ones or Cthulhu, you're in luck, here's a Cthulhu tract for you:

You've obviously never heard of the Great Old Ones, or Cthulhu then?

They have books on them too.

Just because there are two choices, it does not mean that there is an equal probability between the two choices.

Besides, if you want to start talking about probabilities, you also have to pick the "correct" god. And if you don't pick the "correct" god, your fate is just as bad as picking no god at all.

So by your faulty logic, you say that choice between god and no god is 50%. Well, after you pick the god option, you have, lets say a 5% chance of picking the correct god after that. (I'm being very generous, there's so many religions it would be much lower.

So lets see the math...

No god - 0.5 = 50%

God - 0.5 x 0.05 = 2.5 %

Geez, the god option doesn't look so good now.

I have books from Hitchens, et al, because I enjoy reading them, and my money is, unfortunately, limited. However, implying that because I only own those books that somehow I'm avoiding the other side of the argument is a false.

Yes, I know, and have seen debates of C Hitchens with his brother, I have also read as many arguments from theist side as I can. Not one argument so far has come close to giving me pause. The best theist arguments can, at best, only argue for a deist god.

If you are willing to show/tell me the best single argument you have for the existence of a god, I'm more than willing to investigate.