I wanted to post a quick reference to a couple of blog posts from my own corner of wordpress that are relevant here. While perusing wordpress, I found a blog by a gentleman who had some comments about atheism, so I read his latest (at the time) post and replied to it. Here is a link to the post
My comment to his post has not (as of now) been allowed, but I fortunately have a subsequent post of my own that follows the subsequent email correspondence.
My point is this: you are going around in circles, as am I; however, I am allowed to be circular in my reasoning, whereas you are required, because you claim ultimate authority over knowledge, to get behind an original thought and break the circularity of your reasoning. But you cannot do this because you always come back to your presupposition “God does not exist,” as if this is a priori, but it is not.
Several times in our correspondence I reminded him that my proposition was not that god does not exist, but rather that I simply didn’t see any reason to believe one did, and several times (including the one above) he ignored this.
This conversation, linked above in its complete form, is a prime example of apologist’s argument tactics, led by projection, straw-men, and special pleading.