@Finn dAbuzz,
Much of what you say I strongly agree with, Finn. I don't think that the way religious people go about acquiring knowledge about the world is on a par with the scientific approach, however.
As for going after the low-hanging fruit, yes, that seems to be the most common behavior in such threads. I know that Frank and I and a few others have tried to take it deeper, but the theists that I've had exchanges with haven't shown much, if any, interest in exploring that depth. I would love for these discussions to involve in-depth discussions about epistemology, for example. I would also love to have a more collaborative atmosphere instead of the prevailing combative one. However, I find myself drawn again and again into acrimonious exchanges.
In my experience, I try to point out flaws in arguments, but such statements get mistaken for or twisted into personal attacks. That is, my theist interlocutors take it personally and get angry when I point out, say, logical fallacies inherent in their premises or the fact that there's no credible empirical evidence for religious claims.
To be honest, I've pretty much given up all hope of having an open, honest and mutually respectful dialog with any of the theists I've found here to date. (I'm not saying that all us theists are poster children; it's just that I don't debate against them very often. We tend to agree on most things.) In giving up, I just resort to sound bites and aphorisms. Rhetoric, but rhetoric based on deeper observation.
