1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How does one present an apologetic when dealing with this:?

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics Forum' started by shnarkle, Nov 7, 2019.

  1. No. A mental disorder requires intelligence.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Atheism is a reaction to what they believe doesn't exist.

    2 vote(s)
    100.0%
  3. Atheism is a rare form of idiot savant; without the savant.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    I have been debating atheists, skeptics, agnostics for decades, and have come to the unfortunate conclusion (one which most Christians already know) that they're hopelessly confused.

    Here's an example of what one just recently posted to me:

    "As far as knowing something doesn't exist, the lack of evidence for something is evidence of its nonexistence, but seeing as how nothing is ever known to the point knowledge can't be updated with the introduction of new evidence, I'll of course stay open to the possibility of reconsidering my position in lieu of new facts, should they ever arise."

    In other words, while an open mind insures that my brains will inevitably fall out, it also suggests that nothing exists to that very same brain, and if I can string a lot polysyllabic words together, I might actually sound like I know what I'm talking about.
     
    firstthings1st., Helen and Truth like this.
  2. Truth

    Truth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    1,784
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I have always wondered why people that claim that there is no God, spend soooooo much time trying to convince others that what they do not believe in doesn't exist????????????? OXY-MORON!!
     
    ScottA, Helen and Willie T like this.
  3. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States

    It's far worse than that. I've played Devil's Advocate with them, and gone so far as to tell them that God CAN'T exist, and they become even more hopelessly confused. They will begin to argue that God could exist, at which point I ask them if they've suddenly realized that they're no longer atheists.

    It's interesting to take their position, and show them that it is incoherent, but one actually has to take their position to do this. For example, there is no "what" to begin with, in "what they do not believe". They are talking about nothing as if it exists, and then claiming that it's possible to present evidence that it could exist. It's so hopelessly contradictory and incoherent.
     
    Helen and Truth like this.
  4. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    Here's another one:

    "What I think about whether or not something or nothing exists has nothing to do with the very reasonable demand to produce evidence of something contended to exist."

    The fact that he's referring to nothing as the something that could exist doesn't seem to register with him.
     
    ScottA and Helen like this.
  5. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    Here's yet more incoherence:

    Shnkle: Which yet again spotlights why you are an atheist, and why I am not.

    atheist: But you are... definitionally.

    Shnkle:Not according to the definitions you just provided yourself, e.g. "An atheist believes that God doesn't exist". You then point out this little gem: "that is not the same as saying that a god or gods can not exist" You, yourself have already admitted that these two scenarios are NOT equivalent.

    atheist: As soon as you respond "no" to do you believe in a god you are an atheist.

    Shnkle: Nope, and your persistent pleading doesn't make it so. It's not logical either as I am explicitly stating that it CAN'T be a matter of beleif in the first place because God CAN'T exist.

    atheist:Someone says, "I believe in Bigfoot. Do you believe in Bigfoot?" You can so "no" and "I don't want to talk about it". That's fine. But if you want to give them reasons for saying no and why they themselves should not believe in Bigfoot you have to have a dialog. Asking for their evidence of Bigfoot is therefore natural in that case.

    Shkle: Perhaps, but then that's nothing like what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with the word 'God' which has a number of definitions which either point to the fact that it has no referent, and can't be falsified(which is therefore completely incoherent to ask for evidence where none can exist), or we're dealing ideas that simply aren't worthy of being referred to as gods in the first place. Either way, it's pure unadulterated nonsense.

    Playing Devil's Advocate can be immensely entertaining sometimes...
     
    Helen likes this.
  6. Helen

    Helen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,636
    Likes Received:
    16,997
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada

    This sounds like something @ScottA would get his teeth into. :)
     
  7. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,706
    Likes Received:
    5,597
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Wilfully delusional would be more fitting. It is simply amazing how many choose to be wilfully delusional. Just look at all the Left-Liberals all around the world. And while Atheists make a lot of noise, they are a relatively small minority. Probably 99.9% of humanity believes that God (a Supreme Being) exists. Even though they may be worshiping false gods and idols.
     
    marks likes this.
  8. ScottA

    ScottA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,694
    Likes Received:
    3,105
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    There are takers and there are givers in the world, those who expect that the world owes them something, just for having been born. Or that just because they would like to have a say, that they actually do. Incidentally, that is a fair definition of a brat. It is that same mindset that presumes to believe that proof of God must come on their own terms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Not only do the ungodly not have a say, they have no idea that instead of demanding proof on their own terms, they should actually be thankful that they have a part and an opportunity to be involved; and that even if they never come to the realization of the spiritual universe before their natural death, that they have received this natural life as a gift from God.

    Nonetheless, history is His-story, not their's.

    And, yes, it is a crazy irony on their part to think that their lack of knowledge (of God) is proof...as if nothing could actually be proof of something. What it does prove...is they have nothing, they have no argument.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    Helen likes this.
  9. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    Agreed, but that's not what we're dealing with. The atheist isn't asking for evidence of something that actually exists. They're asking for evidence of a term which is defined as having no referent in the material universe. God is essentially defined as unfalsifiable, and the atheist then asks for falsification which is contradictory.

    It's pointless, and a blatant example of someone who clearly has no ability to comprehend

    I'm not saying they're "stupid". I'm pointing out a blatant fact. It's a simple and straightforward observation.

    It does explain, especially when the theistic side is explicitly pointing out that transcendence is a defining characteristic for this term.

    When the theist is incapable of comprehending that what is beyond their ability to experience, understand, know, or falsify, and then claims the contradictory position that the term refers to what must exist, that is clearly ridiculous. I'm not denying that fact at all. I've already pointed out that fact as well.

    See above, and note that you're really just two peas in the same pod of incomprehensible and incoherent claims. I'm not against either position. I'm simply pointing out that they are incoherent and contradictory.

    Again, it is a reactionary position that has failed to comprehend what it doesn't believe. The theist who presents transcendence as the defining characteristic of this term "God" essentially points out that falsification is impossible. There is nothing incoherent or contradictory about that claim whatsoever. To then ask for proof or evidence is what is incoherent and contradictory. Moreover, if the theist is honest, they will immediately see that because there can be no referent for this term, it effectively doesn't objectively exist. Do you believe that or not?

    You may be hallucinating because I have yet to see an atheist who can't resist articulating incoherent and contradictory claims. So far, my issue is with all atheists.
     
  10. Hidden In Him

    Hidden In Him Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,432
    Likes Received:
    3,155
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Got a good chuckle out of this. I think there are a lot of brilliant atheists out there, but their trust in the power of their own intellect, combined with the often not-so-stunning intellectual prowess of most Christians, has led them to believe they are far too mentally astute to buy into the religious superstitions of lesser minds.

    But it takes a turn of heart, which for the intellectual can be harder than for most.
     
    Helen and ScottA like this.
  11. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    You can't. Transcendence is "the fact or state of being transcendent", but if transcendence ceases to transcend existence, it has ceased from transcending which is a contradiction. This is well beyond the already stated fact that it is beyond what anyone can know or experience anyways. Again, to ask for proof is contradictory.

    Yeah, we already know that. There is no point in challenging someone who understands that transcendence is beyond the ability not just to be falsified, but to even ask for falsification. There's simply no point in asking to begin with.

    Yeah sure, and Jeffrey Epstein hung himself. Islam isn't just a religion. It's a geopolitical world view.

    I guarantee you, asking for evidence of transcendence is equivalent to doing nothing.
     
  12. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    I concur, and think it is a travesty that more atheists have not consulted the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, C.S.Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, etc.

    I'm not so sure that's necessarily the case. G.K Chesterton's writings indicate he was a Catholic decades before he actually joined the Catholic church. The process is the same regardless of whether one is slow or quick witted. However, what I've seen indicates that after that turn of heart takes place, even the dimmest of the dim witted can compete with the intellectual, and leave them bewildered.
     
    Hidden In Him likes this.
  13. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    This is not the essence of what I am saying. The essence is that it is impossible for there to be evidence in the first place.

    It is precisely because they ask, that they must be singled out.

    There is no being to begin with, and there can be no evidence either.

    No. There can be no evidence.

    I start with the best claim possible from theism which is the definition of the term being synonymous with transcendence. Therefore, evidence is impossible. That is the only coherent claim made by theism. To ask for evidence when the definition of the term precludes that possibility is incoherent and contradictory.

    If the theist redefines the term to be anything but transcendent, then they are quite simply in their own anthropocentric ideas, and not worth the time wasted bothering with their imaginary friends.

    Facts need to also pay attention to the essential definitions of words as well.

    Where there can be none.

    Not when they claim transcendence, if not then the theist is essentially pointing out that nothing exists, and should be directed to a dictionary, not humored by asking for evidence of what is a blatant contradiction.

    Yes, and the atheist needs to be cognizant of the fact that they're building their own belief system; one that is not only incoherent and contradictory, but a misnomer as well. Again, the theist points out that this term "god" can have no referent as it is beyond falsification. By definition, it is a term which refers to absolutely nothing in the objective world, and points out that it can have absolutely nothing to do with the objective world to begin with. For all practical intents and purposes, it can't exist.

    This is effectively no different than the atheist's position, except for one noteworthy detail. The atheist insists that the absence of evidence is what proves non-existence when it is a Given. The atheist is attempting to Beg the Question when there is absolutely no reason to do this. As soon as the theist contradicts themselves, the atheist follows suit as if this is reasonable as well. Now the theist has abandoned theism, and claims that nothing exists. I am not denying that this is incoherent and contradictory. I'm pointing out that to then ask for evidence strains credulity.

    The theist might as well be a genius by comparison for he has not bothered with such an idiotic idea to begin with, but simply makes this incoherent claim which I can only assume is to lure the unsuspecting atheist into a trap that only those who have no common sense can be lured into to begin with.

    The theist is able to convert only the most gullible to begin with so there should be no denying that the atheist is in a struggle with their equal. Ironically, it is the theist's literature that points out that only the fool argues with another fool. Atheism has nothing to compare to this bit of wisdom. Unable to observe what's happening, most atheists can't help but lift up science with its powers of observation, yet none have any theories to compare to that. They are utterly defenseless.
     
  14. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    Evidence of God is a fundamental characteristic of God. Without that characteristic, God doesn't exist, right?
    I agree, but this is what you're claiming.
    Because, by definition, you can't run into what doesn't objectively exist. You can only run into objects, and God doesn't objectively exist. The reason? The definition of the word itself. Ironically, the gospel writer points this out by stating, "in the beginning was the word". Note that he never says, "in the beginning was God", or "God is the word",etc. There is no god. There is only "the word."
    Again, you're going right back to your own prerequisites which you have just claimed "makes no sense".
    So now your definition is just a guess? Interesting that what you now admit is nothing more than a guess should provide us with evidence of its own existence. This is supposed to be coherent and logical. So please be so kind as to provide us with your authoritative guide to the gods which points out that those gods which do not provide evidence of their existence don't exist. This is obviously a cardinal rule of the atheist's Catechism which cannot be broken by any card carrying theists or atheists.

    By definition, what is beyond observation, understanding, experience, cannot be falsified. There can be no evidence, therefore to ask for evidence is incoherent and contradictory.

    If the atheist wants to define "god" according to their own ideas, then the problem is solved, and you can define your "god" any way you please. But if you're going to define your "god" as a wood carving displayed upon your mantle, then you've just proven that your god exists. This is contradictory to your own label as an atheist. See how that works? It's blatantly incoherent and contradictory. Most importantly, it's pointless.
     
  15. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    You make numerous incoherent claims about gods. You make them in just about all of your posts.
    It is an incoherent claim as there can be no lack of evidence when no evidence is possible to begin with.
    This is a claim about god.
    which is not only a claim about god, but an incoherent and contradictory one as well Why? Because the term "God" is defined to preclude the possibility of evidence. Therefore anything that comes along claiming to be god; isn't.
    Yet another claim that only guesses about god count as claims. The atheist has just now made himself the sole arbiter of what can be classified as a legitimate claim about the gods.
    Probably one of the most transparent examples of a Strawman fallacy as there ever was.
    And the definition is the only referent there can be. To then ask for evidence is blatantly pointless.
     
  16. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    It makes more sense than asking for evidence of transcendence.
    Nope. God precludes the possibility of evidence.
    Yep.
    Then by all means, please address this issue.
    This isn't the issue. You have now abandoned the issue of a transcendent God, and are now presenting a Strawman argument. You are not asking if Best Buy were to sell hamburgers, although that makes more sense. What you're doing is asking if Best Buy is God.
    Yep, they sell all sorts of technological gadgets.
    Quite true! Theology isn't in the business of selling technological gadgets or hamburgers.
    I'm not trying at all. I'm presenting some straightforward empirical facts that ahteists are incapable of grasping.
    Nope. Theology assumes God as a Given. More importantly, they define this term "God" as synonymous with transcendence which precludes proof as a possibility. To then ask for proof is to ask for hamburgers every time you walk into Best Buy.

    One doesn't need a reason. Reason isn't the proper faculty just as eating hamburgers isn't the proper way to operate a printer in Best Buy.
     
  17. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    Great! Yet another pointless definition from another atheist. So you don't believe in fictional characters? So what? Who really cares dude? You're making my points for me, and you don't even seem to know it. This is typical. Again, by definition, fictional characters are FICTIONAL. Pray tell, what purpose is there in identifying yourself as someone who believes fictional characters are fictional? Do you feel this compelling urge to reveal this when you hear some story from The Grapes of Wrath? Do you feel the urge to point out that Noah Joad is a fictional character? Do you really feel that we need to be reminded of this fact?
    Again, this is asinine. No one, and I mean absolutely no one needs to be reminded of what you think. We're all well aware of your pointless beliefs.
    Yeah, we get it. We're all well aware of the atheist's position. Nobody is denying that you have this position, nor are we suffering from acute and chronic amnesia. We don't need to be constantly reminded that atheists don't believe in God. We're not the ones who are confused about the definitions of words here, dude. You are.
    BINGO! Great! Especially because the definition of the term precludes that possibility. Now that you've got the OP firmly in your mind, have you got a point? Are you willing or able to advance an argument?
     
  18. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,449
    Likes Received:
    3,679
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Pointless, because those who claim there is no God are already lying to themselves. Lying to you is the next logical step. And what discussion can happen under those terms?

    Biblical foolishness is denying God, as the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Why is that foolishness? Because he knows there is one. Creation declares to us God's power.

    Saying it's not so does not make it not so. Every athiest, who lives in creation, knows God exists. Denial is their answer. Denial to themselves, to you, to anyone who might want to make them face reality.

    They scream and cry there is No God because they're terrified of His rightful judgment.

    Athiesm is a fallacy in our inability to prove a negative. In all that is, is there something you don't know? Or do you know all that can be known? If not, cannot God exist in that part you don't know? And they will answer, No, He cannot, not because they think it true, but because they are invested in that notion.

    Unless someone is humble, they will not easily move from serious error. We see that here also.

    Much love!
     
  19. shnarkle

    shnarkle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    570
    Faith:
    Other Faith
    Country:
    United States
    I think that depends upon how they're defining the term "God" though. Some people were brought up to believe God was a tyrant who forbade the idea of premarital sexual intercourse. The reason being that it could lead to the mortal, and unforgivable sin of dancing. In other words, they were brought up with incoherent ideas about who or what God was. When someone is inculcated into a belief system that is incoherent and contradictory, one is forced to become a liar in order to remain in that belief system. Simply leaving that system isn't enough for them to see the truth.
    An interesting one if the liar believes their lies.
    This is an interesting point because you're explicitly distinguishing between what the fool says in their heart verses what they know, and see with their senses. The examples are many, but let's take the Vietnam combat veteran who has just witnessed his best friend literally blown to so many pieces that there's nothing left to put into a body bag. He see's the Viet cong shooting at planes, ignoring self preservation and the opportunity to flee to safety, as napalm is about to incinerate them. He lives in a world that is nothing less than pure hell, and hell is separation from God. They live with that for the rest of their miserable, tormented lives. For them, there is no God. They know this. Their senses tell them this, and their heart tells them this as well. All they see around them is foolishness.
    Quite true, and it is just as true to point out that saying it is doesn't make it so either. There are no double standards when it comes to God.
    I think this is a bit of a cavalier thing to say. Most atheists rely exclusively upon their intellect and senses, and insist that anything that cannot be observed, doesn't exist. While this isn't exactly an intelligent perspective, it's what they were taught. It's what they believe.
    If this is true, and it may very well be; I can see how this could be a way for God to reach them. Christ also taught self denial, and anyone who is able to deny themselves is well on their way to Christ.
    No doubt this is a problem, but it is just as prevalent among those who believe God exists. One needn't look any further than the history of the three Abrahamic religions to prove this fact.
    The theists scream and cry as well, not because of any fear of God's rightful judgement, but to condemn others. If we look at who has a better chance of salvation, would't you agree that those who are terrified of God's rightful judgement are in a better position to receive God's mercy? After all, even God waits until one is dead before carrying out his rightful judgments.
    Paul also points out that God cannot be known. He corrects himself when he says, "we know God, or rather we are known of him". As a strict monotheist, Paul understands that it is impossible to worship God as an object. It is idolatry to objectify God. In this respect, there is no effective difference between Paul and the atheist. The atheist can't become an idolater in the same way the theist can.
    There is no effective difference between Paul and the pagan who understands that one cannot know the Unknown God as well. The problem isn't just that the atheist doesn't believe in God, or the pagan worships what he doesn't know in ignorance. The problem is with ourselves in that we're not following Paul's example by becoming an atheist for the sake of the atheist, or a pagan for the sake of the pagan. Some just may not have that calling, but in a world full of atheists, and pagans, it makes them redundant. One needs to adapt for them as well as the evolutionist.
    If we are unwilling to speak to them in their own language, we're no better than the Pharisee or scribe who sees everything in terms of a strict adherence to the Mosaic law.
    Yes, we see it everywhere, but the most imortant place to search for it is within our own proud hearts.
     
  20. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,449
    Likes Received:
    3,679
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Just the same, the Bible states that Creation proclaims God's power, and that there is no where that voice is not heard.

    Being taught something, "believing" something, regardless, that doesn't change what someone knows inside.

    Everyone knows God exists, and everyone knows they will be judged for their sin, and those who don't believe in Jesus do so because they know Jesus is Light, and they prefer darkness, so no one can see their sin.

    Become an athiest for the sake of an athiest? What does that mean?

    Much love!
     
Loading...