Hello Dezmodian, thanks for responding.

You said:

“….is this the first time you’ve tried to discuss this online? Kid, what you’ve done is to speak above your station: you clearly don’t know what a logical fallacy is.”

My friend, I’m well-versed in the study of logic, including its fallacies.

Including the one you’re engaging in, at present: the red herring.

You bluster and demand apologies — all the while ignoring the evidence and arguments presented against you. You bring up an unrelated topic — namely, the offense you’re claiming to take — and use it to distract from the original topic.

You said:

“Not only that, you are a liar. I made a claim and then linked my article further delving into WHY I’ve reached that conclusion at the summary of multiple decades of intensive debate/discussions/etc. There is no fallacious logic in that-because the logic follows: the claim was supported.”

Except it isn’t.

Your article doesn’t prove your point. A link is not an argument, especially when the article linked does not make the case. In the article, you state what you believe, but it doesn’t go much beyond that.

You think fear of the unknown drives religion. Okay, what do you base this on? You assert it as if merely speaking it proves the point.

It doesn’t match my experience.

It doesn’t match a vast number of writers and historians chronicling religions throughout human history, especially Christianity.

It’s also incredibly short-sighted. Read the Bible and you’ll discover the majority applies to what we do here and now, in this life. It’s not reduced to mere “fire insurance,” combatting the fear of the unknown after death.

Why should we ignore all of that in favor of your thought? You provide no reason to do so.

You said:

“If you want to attempt to have a civil and/or intelligent discussion, learn your fallacies. Do NOT invoke them ignorantly, because that shows people like me, who know the topics, that you aren’t serious. Worse than that, it shows me how much of a fraud/pretender you are by improperly stating the word “fallacy”, much less invoking any specific fallacy.”

My friend, I mean this respectfully: people who bluster about how much they know are often the least informed in the conversation.

If you can make your case, make it.

Don’t complain about how offended you are, or boast about how much you think you know.

You said:

“I will not bother with the rest of your apparently very traditional Theist nonsense response until you apologize and address the pathetic false start of your comment.”

It would be difficult to find a clearer example of the motivation behind the red herring than this.

You wield your offense as an excuse to avoid the argument: Deal with this unrelated emotional demand to keep the conversation from the actual arguments.

I presented you with a logical argument for the necessary existence of God, based on well-established observations of our universe.

You can continue to try to avoid the argument, if you like.

Or we can discuss what really matters.