Atheists, you won't find God that way

[Dingbat]

by Matt Slick

In my many discussions with atheists, I am frequently challenged to prove God exists.  I can do it.  I think the cosmological and transcendental arguments are proof enough, but proof is different than persuasion.  Atheists just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists.

They can’t find God because first of all, they aren’t looking; and second they want to avoid him.  If you don’t believe me, do a test.  Find an atheist chat room on the Net and offer any evidence for God you can think of.  Then sit back and count the milliseconds before that evidence is attacked.  You’ll notice that the longer you defend your evidence, the more fervent will be the attacks on it and, inevitably, on you.  Be prepared for some mockery and ridicule.  You’ll be told you’re stupid, an idiot, and that you believe in mythology.  They’ve got it all figured out, but don’t worry.  Their insults are just a bunch of words.  Anyway, atheists make it impossible to prove God exists when they have their eyes closed, their fingers in their ears, and they’re calling you names.

https://carm.org/atheists-you-wont-find-god-that-way

[Dingbat]

Suppose a theist doesn't want to avoid the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That eliminates the 2nd obstacle mentioned above, to finding FSM. Now, how would the theist go about looking for FSM?

[yarrido@aol.com]

  Any record of eye-witnesses that were arrested, given the option or recanting their relationship with the FSM, and then, having been witnesses to miraculous deeds of the FSM actually...refusing to recant to the point of being brutally executed?

 Do any of the accounts of the FSM meet the kind of critical criteria for historical accounts as this example in the bible?

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/05/22-historical-confirmations-in-two-verses.html

[Dingbat]

It says: "This is not the way you would make up a story if you were going to make it up."

Why would one not make up a story by setting it in a real historical setting? Try reading a Sherlock Holmes story some time. London really exists as does Scotland Yard, Baker St, Tottenham Court Road, Goodge St, etc. Do these prove that Sherlock Holmes existed?

[e_space]

why don't you post your own thoughts?

secondly, not all atheists call theists names, so you can stick a fork in that argument ... and btw, theists also call atheists a lot of names ... so what? what does that have to do with evidence or the lack thereof? 

and what "proof" is slick providing? ... he says he can do it, but doesn't offer anything ... put up, or shut up ... 

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:41:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

[yarrido@aol.com]

  Yes, but there is no historical context...that is, you cannot pin down individuals in the story and find any corroborative historical information to support their existence. Were such things as the mother of Sherlock mentioned...his brothers....his sisters...the Chinese guy that washed his laundry? In the biblical account....we know the name of the servant of the high priest that had his ear cut off...Malchus. Really? Who would include such a detail if he was making it up? The servant...an insignificant? How about Simon from Cyrene that helped Jesus carry the cross? Not only was his origin specifically mentioned, but also that he was the father of Alaxander and Rufus. Why would one include such clearly identified details that could be checked for accuracy back then with those who knew Simon and his family? What other reason would one have to include such details if he was making things up? It would be counterproductive as it would expose his lies with ease and show him to be an abvous fake.

  So, do we really have any such clearly identifiable details in Sherlock Holmes? Only in the most superficial sense of it and that is not enough to sound convincing to me.

[LL]

You say,  "This is not the way you would make up a story if you were going to make it up,"  but it's exactly the way one would try to make a story believable. 

People making up stories are notorious for injecting items about which there is no controversy in order  to make their stories more believable. It's called "setting the stage" and it's been going on probably since the dawn of man. Look at any work of fiction  and you will see such extraneous items on every page. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[LL]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:41:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

by Matt Slick

In my many discussions with atheists, I am frequently challenged to prove God exists.  I can do it.  I think the cosmological and transcendental arguments are proof enough, but proof is different than persuasion.  Atheists just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists.

Like theists who can't or should I say won't, accept critical thinking? 

They can’t find God because first of all, they aren’t looking; and second they want to avoid him. 

They can't find reason not to believe in fairy tales because, first of all, they aren't looking and second they want to avoid anything that interferes with their gullibility. 

If you don’t believe me, do a test.  Find an atheist chat room on the Net and offer any evidence for God you can think of. 

Well, the first problem with that is that there is no evidence for god, so such a  test fails at the get-go. 

Then sit back and count the milliseconds before that evidence is attacked.

It doesn't take any time at all to sit back and wait for the theist to present objective evidence instead of false arguments. 

  You’ll notice that the longer you defend your evidence, the more fervent will be the attacks on it and, inevitably, on you. 

Theists can't possibly defend their evidence, because no evidence is presented. They try to defend their non-existent evidence, and they fail at every attempt. 

Be prepared for some mockery and ridicule. 

He can't possibly be as prepared as atheists are for mockery and ridicule from theists. They have become experts at it.

You’ll be told you’re stupid, an idiot, and that you believe in mythology. 

 Well, he should show us that theists don't. 

They’ve got it all figured out, but don’t worry.  Their insults are just a bunch of words. 

Unlike his? 

Anyway, atheists make it impossible to prove God exists when they have their eyes closed, their fingers in their ears, and they’re calling you names.

No, if he  had the proof atheists would accept it. What we don't accept are empty arguments. We've heard them all thousands of times and we can see them coming from a mile off. 

Slick is the perfect name for him, even though, slick he is not, he only thinks he is. It should be "Dupe." 

--------

https://carm.org/atheists-you-wont-find-god-that-way

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:

On May 25, 2015, at 8:02 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7:04:45 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:41:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

by Matt Slick

In my many discussions with atheists, I am frequently challenged to prove God exists.  I can do it.  I think the cosmological and transcendental arguments are proof enough, but proof is different than persuasion.  Atheists just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists.

They can’t find God because first of all, they aren’t looking; and second they want to avoid him.  If you don’t believe me, do a test.  Find an atheist chat room on the Net and offer any evidence for God you can think of.  Then sit back and count the milliseconds before that evidence is attacked.  You’ll notice that the longer you defend your evidence, the more fervent will be the attacks on it and, inevitably, on you.  Be prepared for some mockery and ridicule.  You’ll be told you’re stupid, an idiot, and that you believe in mythology.  They’ve got it all figured out, but don’t worry.  Their insults are just a bunch of words.  Anyway, atheists make it impossible to prove God exists when they have their eyes closed, their fingers in their ears, and they’re calling you names.

https://carm.org/atheists-you-wont-find-god-that-way

Suppose a theist doesn't want to avoid the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That eliminates the 2nd obstacle mentioned above, to finding FSM. Now, how would the theist go about looking for FSM?

  Any record of eye-witnesses that were arrested, given the option or recanting their relationship with the FSM, and then, having been witnesses to miraculous deeds of the FSM actually...refusing to recant to the point of being brutally executed?

 Do any of the accounts of the FSM meet the kind of critical criteria for historical accounts as this example in the bible?

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/05/22-historical-confirmations-in-two-verses.html

It says: "This is not the way you would make up a story if you were going to make it up."

Why would one not make up a story by setting it in a real historical setting? Try reading a Sherlock Holmes story some time. London really exists as does Scotland Yard, Baker St, Tottenham Court Road, Goodge St, etc. Do these prove that Sherlock Holmes existed?

You say,  "This is not the way you would make up a story if you were going to make it up,"  but it's exactly the way one would try to make a story believable. 

  To whom? People two millennia removed? It wold be completely unconvincing to those who knew the people spoken of in that time...or knew they didn't exist. On the contrary, such details would, if they were not based on fact, simply cause them to end up in the trash heap of history...like so many other things that we no longer have in print.

 No, authors write to specific audiences of their time because they understand them and how they think. If they wish to write fiction, they would take that into account. Realistic fiction was not invented until millennia after this was written. I think this is just an example of our imposition of the views of our times on documents from history that is completely inappropriate. We should not be asking how WE would do things, but how the folks of that time were actually doing things.

 

People making up stories are notorious for injecting items about which there is no controversy in order  to make their stories more believable. It's called "setting the stage" and it's been going on probably since the dawn of man. Look at any work of fiction  and you will see such extraneous items on every page. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 11:58:25 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:41:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

by Matt Slick

In my many discussions with atheists, I am frequently challenged to prove God exists.  I can do it.  I think the cosmological and transcendental arguments are proof enough, but proof is different than persuasion.  Atheists just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists.

Like theists who can't or should I say won't, accept critical thinking? 

They can’t find God because first of all, they aren’t looking; and second they want to avoid him. 

They can't find reason not to believe in fairy tales because, first of all, they aren't looking and second they want to avoid anything that interferes with their gullibility. 

If you don’t believe me, do a test.  Find an atheist chat room on the Net and offer any evidence for God you can think of. 

Well, the first problem with that is that there is no evidence for god, so such a  test fails at the get-go. 

Then sit back and count the milliseconds before that evidence is attacked.

It doesn't take any time at all to sit back and wait for the theist to present objective evidence instead of false arguments. 

  You’ll notice that the longer you defend your evidence, the more fervent will be the attacks on it and, inevitably, on

Theists can't possibly defend their evidence, because no evidence is presented. They try to defend their non-existent evidence, and they fail at every attempt. 

That is simply not so. There have been numerous times in our discussions here where your arguments against my views have reduced to nothing more than a bunch of informal fallacies. So, your arguments were not sustained based on sound reasoning, but withered away like the fall leaves in your back yard.

[LL]

 Bring them up and show me where i have used informal fallacies. Making a broad, unproven statement like that does nothing for your veracity. 

So, your arguments were not sustained based on sound reasoning, but withered away like the fall leaves in your back yard.

State them then. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can prove your statement, do it. Making a wild,unspecific statement that my arguments are not based in sound reasoning means absolutely nothing. Show the evidence. The ball is in your court. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:

On May 25, 2015, at 12:21 PM, "'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 11:58:25 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:41:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

by Matt Slick

In my many discussions with atheists, I am frequently challenged to prove God exists.  I can do it.  I think the cosmological and transcendental arguments are proof enough, but proof is different than persuasion.  Atheists just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists.

Like theists who can't or should I say won't, accept critical thinking? 

They can’t find God because first of all, they aren’t looking; and second they want to avoid him. 

They can't find reason not to believe in fairy tales because, first of all, they aren't looking and second they want to avoid anything that interferes with their gullibility. 

In that case I must inform you that your account has been compromised and someone masquerading as you has been conversing with me and they did a terrible job of defending their views. I wonder who has stolen your identity.

If you don’t believe me, do a test.  Find an atheist chat room on the Net and offer any evidence for God you can think of. 

Well, the first problem with that is that there is no evidence for god, so such a  test fails at the get-go. 

Then sit back and count the milliseconds before that evidence is attacked.

It doesn't take any time at all to sit back and wait for the theist to present objective evidence instead of false arguments. 

  You’ll notice that the longer you defend your evidence, the more fervent will be the attacks on it and, inevitably, on

Theists can't possibly defend their evidence, because no evidence is presented. They try to defend their non-existent evidence, and they fail at every attempt. 

That is simply not so. There have been numerous times in our discussions here where your arguments against my views have reduced to nothing more than a bunch of informal fallacies.

 Bring them up and show me where i have used informal fallacies. Making a broad, unproven statement like that does nothing for your veracity. 

So, your arguments were not sustained based on sound reasoning, but withered away like the fall leaves in your back yard.

State them then. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can prove your statement, do it. Making a wild,unspecific statement that my arguments are not based in sound reasoning means absolutely nothing. Show the evidence. The ball is in your court. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

On May 25, 2015, at 3:57 PM, "'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> In that case I must inform you that your account has been compromised and someone masquerading as you has been conversing with me and they did a terrible job of defending their views. I wonder who has stolen your identity.

Yep, that must be it. Good "thinking"!

LL

[random]

I follow the evidences.
If they will lead me to God, so be it. But I do not intend to modify how I think just so I can believe something.

And Dingbat, you have enough experience here to know about the "objective arguments" Matt is writing about.
Do you really think they provide enough proof?
 

[ravn]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:18:59 PM UTC-7, yar...@aol.com wrote:

Realistic fiction was not invented until millennia after this was written.

Given that a majority of ancient & modern people believe in a supernatural reality,  you can't claim that ancient people didn't view their fiction as not being "realistic" when that fiction depicted gods & similar-what-have-you.

To take something as scripture is a matter of faith, & what is built up around such literature in terms of organized religion.

For example,  some people may deem the Book Of Mormon is obviously fiction (even when they deem the Bible isn't.)


 

I think this is just an example of our imposition of the views of our times on documents from history that is completely inappropriate.

Most people when Christianity was forming took whatever that whole business was about as gospel. The prevalent view was polytheistic. A claim by some people that there is only one god & not any other is going to be taken skeptically or be dismissed. IOW,  skepticism isn't something just coming from a modern point of view here. You're denying the struggle it took to win people over to Christianity as an historical fact.



 [LL]

People making up stories are notorious for injecting items about which there is no controversy in order  to make their stories more believable.

That isn't necessarily nefarious conspiracy. A story has to have something in it that other people can relate to or how else can writers expect any response for what is written by them?  OK, you can say that the gospels were doctored & tailored to appeal to segments of whatever audience they were being directed at but then what else is new? (Given that people are looking under the hood of the gospels & scrutinizing their origins,  no doubt changes will be made in order to maintain this business at hand.)  People have been telling stories to get some point across for millennia.

[Steve in Virginia]

Oh please....authors of historical fiction referenced actual individuals all the time.  Dumas referenced Louis XIV;  Robert Graves wove a fictional account of the Emperor Claudius; Caleb Carr writes about newly appointed NYC police commissioner Teddy Roosevelt; and Cornelius Vanderbuilt, and author Lindsey Davis has her ancient roman detective Marcus Falco in the employ of the Emperor Vespasian.  Real people have been inserted into fictional works for centuries.  Nothing creates an aura of verisimilitude like a fictional work set against the background of real events.  Check out the TV series Foyles' War or Manhattan.

Steve

[Answer_42]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7:04:45 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:41:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

by Matt Slick

In my many discussions with atheists, I am frequently challenged to prove God exists.  I can do it.  I think the cosmological and transcendental arguments are proof enough, but proof is different than persuasion.  Atheists just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists.

They can’t find God because first of all, they aren’t looking; and second they want to avoid him.  If you don’t believe me, do a test.  Find an atheist chat room on the Net and offer any evidence for God you can think of.  Then sit back and count the milliseconds before that evidence is attacked.  You’ll notice that the longer you defend your evidence, the more fervent will be the attacks on it and, inevitably, on you.  Be prepared for some mockery and ridicule.  You’ll be told you’re stupid, an idiot, and that you believe in mythology.  They’ve got it all figured out, but don’t worry.  Their insults are just a bunch of words.  Anyway, atheists make it impossible to prove God exists when they have their eyes closed, their fingers in their ears, and they’re calling you names.

https://carm.org/atheists-you-wont-find-god-that-way

Suppose a theist doesn't want to avoid the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That eliminates the 2nd obstacle mentioned above, to finding FSM. Now, how would the theist go about looking for FSM?

  Any record of eye-witnesses

 

What eye-witnesses are you talking about?

[Answer_42]

ha ha ha ha ha, you're one funny guy!