New Online Course: Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case

What if your best reasons to doubt God show that He actually exists?  What if atheists, properly understood, are actually unwitting apologists for the God they reject?  That’s the case I make in the book and new online course called Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case. 

Stealing GodStealing from God is organized around CRIMES, which highlights the intellectual CRIMES atheists are making.  “CRIMES” stands for Causality, Reason, Information, Morality, Evil and Science.  Those are aspects of reality that some atheists say disprove God, when, in fact, those things wouldn’t exist unless God existed.

There is a chapter on each one of the CRIMES in the book plus a chapter that makes the four-point case for the truth of Christianity.  The new online course, which beings January 15, includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions.   Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this.

In addition to the details on that link, I’ll be discussing some of the course content right here on this page in the few weeks leading up to the course.  So keep checking back here for more.

 


 

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
32 replies
  1. jcb says:

    Nothing here proves the original assertion to be true. Atheists have already made their case, and theists haven’t. There is no known perfect being. The facts that exist, and which atheists usually start with, fail to prove god.

    Reply
  2. Joe Huang says:

    As far as I am concerned, the main focus of the book is not to prove God’s existence positively, but to argue that atheists’ claims to disprove God all presume His existence, therefore failed to justify themselves. If you need comprehensive proofs of God’s existence, I will direct you to this book, which was publish recently. Not an easy read, though:
    https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514171791&sr=1-1&keywords=5+proofs+of+the+existence+of+god

    Reply
    • Fox says:

      Atheists’ arguments are pointing out where theism fails, or the holes in the argument for theism. Trying to disprove an atheist argument therefore, is pointless, as it’s trying to agree with a piece of the puzzle that doesn’t exist. The only way to prove God’s existence would be to fill in these holes of theism, and if you’re looking at the Bible solely for answers, you can’t come up with good filler for these atheist arguments, but must look to something else.

      Reply
      • Joe says:

        I feel like you were describing what we called “agnostic atheists”, who “don’t believe” there is a god, rather than atheists who “believes” there is no god. And I feel like what you pointed out is that atheist should be defined in previous term rather than the latter, and there should not bear the burden of proof.
        If I understand you correctly, then I cannot agree with you more. However, most atheists (all atheists from whom I know), as far as I am concerned, does NOT live consistently with this agnostic style. They will condone policies or ideologies which stem from the naturalistic worldview (which is a positive worldview which denies God’s existence), e.g. moral relativism, humanism. In addition, I believe everyone has to live according to some worldview which answers basic questions like “Why did we come into being” or “What’s the purpose of my life”. To answer these questions, atheists cannot just resort to “nothing” and answer them, but have to assert positively (that there is indeed no God) in order to answer them. For these kind of people, I believe they do bear the burden of proof, and Frank’s arguments should apply. For those honest agnostics, who never choose a worldview to live with, I agree with your point.
        For the idea that Bible act as the evidence for God’s existence, I have two thoughts:
        1. It is actually not fair to exclude the Bible as “A” source. The Bible in its nature is a compilation which involves the most authoritative of sources of God. Bias is never a good argument against reliability, as Bible writers can have bias while claiming truth. At most, I will confess that one need not give Bible a special position or authority, but treat it like an ordinary source like other books.
        2. Indeed, the proves of God does not come from the Bible alone. There are also pure philosophical proofs (such as Leibniz’s cosmological argument), scientific arguments (such as DNA complexity and specificity), historical arguments (such as arguments for Jesus’s resurrection) as external arguments. Also for Christians, they have internal evidences (which proves God’s existence for themselves but not a robust justification for others) like the Spirits.

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          I don’t know any Christians who act as if The Bible is true. Who of them is willing to condone slavery nowadays? As for the moral relativists, it is the evangelicals who supported Roy Moore (who is still to concede!).

          Reply
        • jcb says:

          Joe,
          You are a right that the Bible exists and is evidence of something, a “source”. But it is not a source of evidence about god, nor is it at all the “most authoritative of sources of god”.
          The Bible does not make it probable that there is an all powerful, all knowing being. The philosophical arguments for god have all been debunked, by philosophers! If you think that’s not the case, make the argument, and I’ll show you how I think it has been debunked.
          Internal evidence is the worst, of course. Feeling that god exists only shows that you have feelings, not that god exists. A person who “feels” internally that Zeus exists has virtually no good evidence that he does exist.
          I don’t believe there is a god, and I believe there is no god (as far as we can tell).
          Inconsistent atheists, whoever they are, don’t prove that god exists.
          Virtually everyone has beliefs, but no one has to answer basic questions like “why did we come into being”. Most of us would like answers to such things, but if an atheist doesn’t have an answer to such questions, it doesn’t follow that a theist does have (good) answers to those questions.
          There is no known god, so yes, when people, including atheists, given an answer to something, they shouldn’t be asserting there is a good when answering them.
          The burden is on the theist: the one claiming there is a god, perfect in all ways being. This hasn’t been proven to exist yet.

          Reply
        • KR says:

          “I feel like you were describing what we called “agnostic atheists”, who “don’t believe” there is a god, rather than atheists who “believes” there is no god.”
          .
          Neither position entails a claim of knowledge that no god(s) exist so they’re both by definition agnostics. This seems to be a distinction without a difference, at least when it comes to knowledge, which is what the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy is about.
          .
          “However, most atheists (all atheists from whom I know), as far as I am concerned, does NOT live consistently with this agnostic style.”
          .
          Since neither position rests on any belief in deities, how is it inconsistent of them to live as if there is no God?
          .
          ” They will condone policies or ideologies which stem from the naturalistic worldview (which is a positive worldview which denies God’s existence), e.g. moral relativism, humanism.”
          .
          You do realize that atheists fall all over the political spectrum and have all kinds of different worldviews? The only thing they all have in common is their lack of belief in any deities. I’m sure there are some that hold to moral relativism but there are also atheists like Sam Harris who are moral objectivists. Personally, I’m a moral subjectivist.
          .
          “In addition, I believe everyone has to live according to some worldview which answers basic questions like “Why did we come into being” or “What’s the purpose of my life”.
          .
          I would strongly disagree with this, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, these questions seem to rest on the assumption that there actually is an objective purpose to our existence and to our individual lives. This assumption needs some kind of justification before we can even accept these questions as valid. I see no reason to believe that our perception of purpose has any objective grounding.
          .
          Secondly, even if there were an objective purpose, it doesn’t follow that we would be aware of it. It makes no sense to me to insist on living as if we’ve answered these questions if we actually haven’t. We would in essence be pretending to know that which we don’t actually know, which wouldn’t just be irrational but also potentially dangerous. We would run the risk of accepting claims based not on knowledge but “pretend-knowledge” and we don’t have to look very far back into our history to see how horribly astray that can lead us.
          .
          I believe a reasonable worldview is one based on our empirical experience – this is why I’m an empiricist. If we don’t have enough empirical data to make a judgement either way, we should just acknowledge that we don’t know and not pretend that we do.
          .
          “To answer these questions, atheists cannot just resort to “nothing” and answer them, but have to assert positively (that there is indeed no God) in order to answer them.”
          .
          Why? I find it utterly absurd to be required to answer questions I don’t know the answer to – and simultaneously being told that “I don’t know” is not a valid answer. Seriously? You ‘re actually demanding that I make something up?
          .
          “For these kind of people, I believe they do bear the burden of proof, and Frank’s arguments should apply.”
          .
          It’s puzzling that people have such a hard time grappling with the burden of proof, considering it’s such a simple concept: it’s the person who makes the claim that needs to back up the claim. There are certainly some atheists who make a positive claim that God doesn’t exist (and consequently carry a burden of proof) but in my experience, they’re rather rare. The vast majority of us don’t make this claim (in my case, because I see no way to know this) and therefore have no burden of proof on this particular point.
          .
          ” At most, I will confess that one need not give Bible a special position or authority, but treat it like an ordinary source like other books.”
          .
          I would be fine with that but this is clearly not how religion works. If the Bible is just another book without a special position or authority, the claims of Christianity are just left twisting in the wind. Authority is the whole point of the Bible.
          .
          “Indeed, the proves of God does not come from the Bible alone. There are also pure philosophical proofs (such as Leibniz’s cosmological argument), scientific arguments (such as DNA complexity and specificity), historical arguments (such as arguments for Jesus’s resurrection) as external arguments.”
          .
          These are of course all well-known arguments and I find none of them compelling. Philosophical arguments will never be able to demonstrate the existence of anything, that takes actual empirical verification. Obviously, there have been attempts to prove that the existence of God is logically necessary but none of them has, in my view, successfully refuted Hume’s objection:
          .
          “Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction.”
          .
          Your example of a scientific argument (the complexity and specificity of DNA) is equally unconvincing. To make this argument work, you would have to first demonstrate that the proposed evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the observed DNA evidence. The Intelligent Design movement has been trying to do this for decades but hasn’t even been able to show that they can do any science at all using their ideas. ID seems to be a complete dead end.
          .
          As for evidence concerning Jesus, there may well have been a person of that name that lived at that time who had some radical ideas that created a following and who was executed by the Romans. None of this would have any great impact on my life so I’m inclined to let these claims pass without any deeper scrutiny. It’s when the supernatural claims come into the picture that everything changes.
          .
          If I’m being told that I’m supposed to live according to the teachings of this man because he is the son of God and that not complying with this will have terrible (and everlasting) consequences, my evidence acceptance threshhold rises considerably. What I’ve found is that the quality of the evidence presented simply doesn’t match the certitude displayed by the believers. Their belief is clearly faith-based and I don’t think faith is a good approach to understandning the world.
          .
          “Also for Christians, they have internal evidences (which proves God’s existence for themselves but not a robust justification for others) like the Spirits.”
          .
          As you acknowledge, this kind of evidence will not persuade anyone who hasn’t shared your experience. I would also question why you would consider it evidence. How would you know for sure that your experience wasn’t generated by your own brain? I’m sure you’re aware that there are Muslims, Hindus and other non-Christians who also have spiritual experiences that they see as validation of their beliefs. How do we separate the true experiences from the false ones? This of course also goes for the many different Christian denominations that make contradictory claims about the nature of reality.
          .
          We know that we have the capacity to delude ourselves through confirmation bias, selection bias, wishful thinking, perceptional misinterpretations etc. This is precisely why it’s absolutely crucial that we critically evaluate our thinking by testing it against our empirical observations. These observations, in contrast to our internal experiences, can be independently verified by another observer. This makes all the difference in the trustworthyness of this evidence.

          Reply
  3. Susan says:

    I don’t know why anyone argues with an atheist at all any more though I used to do it all the time for about ten years while I informally studied them for spiritual blindness and if there was a cure and I just came to the conclusion that they lack social intelligence substituting hard nosed science for God’s unmistakeable labor of love on the cross.

    God knew from the foundation of the world that He would be crucified by the very evil men that He intended to save because He spoke through His prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 53 850 years before the birth of Christ describing the manner in which the Messiah was going to die.

    But God had no fear of man. He knew what He could do so He came down from heaven to give birth to His children and show them the godly way through his law and His teachings.

    if you can’t tell the supernatural love behind that and need evidence instead of accepting the story at face value then your social intelligence isn’t so great. You are a person who can’t interpret symbolic imagery in poetry and you can’t argue people into social intelligence or give them interpretive ability by arguing either.

    All you can do is explain things and if people continue to reject the truth then move on.
    Because you can’t argue people into acceptance.

    A Christian always knows God loves them
    personally and is grateful to Him in a similar way that a person is grateful to another person who risked their life to save their’s.

    Now there is something really wrong when people start to devalue social intelligence and the human judging faculty in favor of evidence.

    CLearly some people are better at symbolic interpretation than others.

    And one group’s failure at symbolic interpretation doesn’t give them a right to make an illegal substitution.

    People can improve at symbolic interpretation I am sure but it would require serious dedication and practice. The kind God recommends when He says study to be an approved man.

    I don’t know why Christians tolerate the substitution of arguments at all when atheists need tutoring in imagery and symbolic language.

    DAwkins said it himself. in the “God Delusion” he wrote that he hates priests language.

    So how did he even understand God well enough to raise an objection?

    Dawkins doesn’t have enough social intelligence to even speak God’s language so instead he makes an illegal scientific evidence substitution for his lack.

    THere are plenty of other famous scientists even evolutionists and geneticists who bothered to learn God’s language before raising an objection against Him and choosing sides.

    Oh well maybe some atheists will repent some day and acknowledge they really don’t interpret God’s acts of love very well.

    All Jesus’ miracles were acts of love. Only a stubborn person would deny those miracles were acts of love performed by God.

    Apparently there are a lot of stubborn people in this world like Caiaphas the high priest and God knows exactly who they are and even they serve His purposes though unknowingly.

    It is really too bad so many people buck getting to know a God that loves them but many do because they have their “reasons” and they prefer them to actually understanding God.

    So don’t argue with atheists. The burden is on them to learn to understand God not on a theist to prove anything or shoot down an argument.

    Reply
    • jcb says:

      The real question is why do I keep responding to you, even after you admit that you don’t care about logic, reasoning, or argumentation.
      Usually, people argue with others if they care about the truth, and have a good case (evidence) to prove that something is true. That is (often) how people (with open minds) learn!
      I want you to argue, in the chance that you might have evidence for some truth that I am not aware of. You haven’t made any good arguments here for god though.
      (Dubious) assertions without evidence. That’s your gimmick, it seems.
      You can argue people into accepting some truths, if they are open minded, and you have the evidence on your side.
      A Christian may believe that god loves them, but they don’t know it. (If you have evidence, provide it).
      I just hope other theists realize that not arguing is a poor way of determining what is true. (Frank Turek usually realizes that arguments are important. He is just mistaken in thinking that the arguments show that god exists).
      Theists have done the worst job in interpreting hateful actions (like discrimination) as loving ones.
      Jesus probably didn’t do miracles like raise from the dead as if bodily cremated.
      Yes, it is still up to the asserter, the theist, to prove that god exists. It’s not surprising they don’t want this burden, as they are unable to fulfill it (and prove god).

      Reply
      • Susan says:

        You can stop responding to my posts. And stick to Frank Turek’s arguments. I am an unconventional thinker who hasn’t mastered the rules of logic but I do know some people are better interpreters of God’s Word than others and why anyone would consult inexpert Dawkins on God and His motives when Dawkins never even bothered to master priest’s language I don’t know.

        On existential God questions I actually try to locate people who can interpret symbology and study the Hebrew and ancient culture.

        Why would anyone burden himself with a lot of inexpert metaphysical opinions when he can locate someone who actually cared enough to master God’s Word?

        I don’t have to keep making God’s case when it is all contained in His Word and you can read it for yourself.

        You can also locate a tutor to help you understand it if you are struggling with it.

        in this format it is impossible to do the deep bible topical studies necessary to master God’s perspective.

        But why would I want to read the arguments of God’s critics when they never even tried to master God’s perspective.

        Oh many have claimed to have tried to master it but they have never conclusively demonstrated to my satisfaction that they have.

        Perhaps these detractors are merely parroting learned criticism and/or have a disability when it comes to understanding God’s symbology.

        God Bless and stick to Frank’s arguments.

        You could have went in search of a serious tutor and avoided that land mine of Biblical errors Dawkins makes but for some reason atheists seem to like to group together rather than using their own minds independently.

        I suggest looking for a good bible tutor.

        Imagine after all of Christ’s actions and John 3:16 anyone doubting that God loves
        this world….simply incredible.

        Get a complete scriptural education from a decent wordsmith before you argue the scriptures.

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          Susan, how much time have you spent studying the Koran? Have you engaged a tutor to give you good guidance for The Guru Granth Sahib? I’m guessing the answers are ‘none’ and ‘no’. Yet you are pretty sure those are false religions.

          Reply
          • Susan says:

            Read Galatians 1, Andy.

            How do you learn to spot counterfeits? isn’t it from an intimate acquaintance with the real thing?

            Islam is an old covenant works based religion like Judaism.

            But works could never save the jews that is why they set up a sacrificial system that ended when the temple fell in 40 AD.

            it says in Ephesians 1 and Colossians 2:15 that Jesus is king of this world now so why did Mohammed deny the divine birth of Jesus and demote him to a mere prophet.

            He is attempting to steal back the birthright but the birthright passed down from Abraham to Jesus.

            Google and read “The Struggle for the Birthright”.

            Paul said a true Jew has a heart circumcision.

            Works are evidence of faith but they aren’t grace.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            You wrote a lot without answering two simple questions. I’ll try again. Susan, how much time have you spent studying the Koran? Have you engaged a tutor to give you good guidance for The Guru Granth Sahib?

  4. Susan says:

    Your question is an attempt to change the subject.

    Trying to dodge the individual responsibility to seek God by asking people if they read things about false gods.

    I am a Christian. I am not suppose to be spending a lot of time around false gods. Doing that used to get the ancient Hebrews in trouble.

    I have spent some time around different religions. Many people have but the important thing is I learned to seek from the right source.

    I really don’t allow other people’s doubt to cause me to doubt. Why should I? I was given faith to be more certain of things.

    I prefer certainty and hope to doubt and confusion. I am not totally in charge of circumstances. Nobody is but we do have God to appeal to and I would hate to lose the ability to appeal to Him.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      You told us we should get special help to read up on a specific religion (that you happen to believe in). I asked if you’d done the same for other religions. That answer is apparently no.
      .
      “Trying to dodge the individual responsibility to seek God by asking people if they read things about false gods”.
      A Muslim could say you’re trying to avoid responsibility to seek Allah by telling us to read about YOUR false God.
      .
      “I am not suppose to be spending a lot of time around false gods”
      Good advice – I’d better not read up on the Bible any more, right?

      Reply
      • Susan says:

        At one time I would have tried to set you straight but I see you are determined not to be set straight so there is no point in me answering is there.

        Have a blessed day!

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          Susan, your argument is that we need to have special study and training in order to see the truth of a particular holy book, but you admit you’ve not had special study and training in any other holy books. Therefore, by your own argument, you are not in a position to dismiss those other holy books as false as you’ve not been trained to study them.
          .
          Why should I take your word for it that the Bible is particularly deserving of special study, while I dismiss, say, a Muslim’s identical claim for the Koran? You’re both making exactly the same argument about your own particular holy books – your one is true, theirs is false, yours deserves special study, theirs isn’t.
          .
          You think yours deserves special study because you were brought up with it in your culture. If you’d grown up in Oman you’d be making the same claims for the Koran.

          Reply
          • Mark Heavlin says:

            It does NOT take very long to study the Koran to realize that ISLAM is a FALSE religion. “Kill all the infidels who will NOT convert” and “It is OK to lie to an infidel in order to trick them so that you may kill them”. Seems like something that a Creator GOD would NOT have in his nature.

          • KR says:

            So a religious text that advocates indiscriminate killing of non-believers is evidence of a false religion? Let’s apply that to the Bible, shall we?
            .
            ” But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per’izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb’usites, as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.” (Deuteronomy, chapter 20)
            .
            “And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Samuel 15)
            .
            Now, any decent Christian apologist will of course have all kinds of explanations for these quotes – but then so will a Muslim apologist when it comes to quotes from the Quran (religious texts tend to be conveniently malleable that way). Interestingly, they both seem to be using the same excuse: that the offending quotes are to be read in a wartime context and should not be seen as a general command.
            .
            Of course, you still have to explain the fact that people overwhelmingly tend to adopt the religion they grow up with – including Islam. If Islam is such an obviously false religion, why would this be the case? Is your argument that people in Muslim countries are more bloodthirsty or less critical readers than you – or could it be that the propagation of religion is a cultural phenomenon that has very little to do with the ultimate truth value of any religious text?

  5. Susan says:

    I don’t argue Andy for a number of reasons which I won’t list but I do believe your culture of religion theory has it’s limits.

    It is mostly an assumption that has not taken the time to examine people.

    How do you explain Muslim converts to Christianity in Muslim countries and how do
    you explain persecuted Christians refusal to give up their belief in Jesus.

    This cultural impression you have doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    There are many reasons for being a seeker but one of them is the chance to make your own personal discovery. That is a really exciting thing to do. When I used to go on evidence searches trying to convince atheists they were never convinced. I was but they weren’t.

    Maybe the evidence search is seeking and a point at which God reveals Himself to a person.

    How can you have a personal encounter through an argument or other people’s collected evidence.

    Seek your own if you are serious about wanting evidence or you may be using it as a dodge.

    Have a blessed day! God loves everyone even atheists though you seem to be the most stubborn at admitting His evidence into evidences so get your own and maybe you will receive a revelation if you are open and humble enough. I can’t guarantee it though I used to receive mini revelations all the time and sometimes what seems mini is actually huge in it’s implications.

    Peace Be With You! And don’t forget you are important to God.

    Reply
    • KR says:

      “I don’t argue Andy for a number of reasons which I won’t list but I do believe your culture of religion theory has it’s limits.”
      .
      It’s uncanny how much your non-arguing looks like arguing.
      .
      “How do you explain Muslim converts to Christianity in Muslim countries”
      .
      Well, I’m obviously not Andy but I would explain it the same way I would explain Christian converts to Islam in Christian countries: every general trend has outliers due to special circumstances. This of course doesn’t negate the general trend: people will predominantly adopt the religion they grow up in.
      .
      “and how do you explain persecuted Christians refusal to give up their belief in Jesus.”
      .
      The same way I would explain that Bosnian Muslims held onto their religion through the persecution and ethnic cleansing (isn’t that a nice word for genocide) they suffered at the hands of Serbian Orthodox Christians and Croatian Catholics as former Yugoslavia fell apart: the natural human reaction of a group that’s being pressured from the outside is to circle their wagons around the one thing that unites them.
      .
      “How can you have a personal encounter through an argument or other people’s collected evidence.”
      .
      I can’t choose what to believe. I know this because if I could, I would never experience doubt about anything (which I occasionally do). Consequently, I need a good reason to believe. If there’s an omnipotent and omniscient God, then He would know exactly how to provide me with the reason to believe. Since I don’t believe, I can only conclude that God wants it that way or that He doesn’t exist. Since nothing about the first proposition makes any sense to me (and for a multitude of other reasons), I lean towards the second.
      .
      I would also like to add that belief based on “personal encounters” is deeply problematic. Every religion has adherents who experience this kind of encounters and take them as validation for their belief. Since these experiences conflict with each other, we know they can’t all be true. IOW, we know for a fact that such experiences can’t be taken at face value. So how do we determine which (if any) of these experiences are true? Until someone presents a more reliabe method I will stick with empirical verification, i.e. independently verifiable evidence.

      Reply
      • Susan says:

        No offense but there is no reason for me to argue with an atheist at all.

        The Bible says to give a reason for my hope not an argument.

        You will have to prove him the material realm has authority over the metaphysical realm before I have to engage you and at this time the materialists can’t prove that.

        All a materialist can do is counter claim metaphysical realms don’t exist but we have people witnessing that they do because they received revelation from God.

        How would the material realm be able to bridge the chasm to the metaphysical realm without metaphysical help?

        It can’t and atheism illustrates that all day with you atheists showing up to argue.

        Just accept you have no authority to argue about the metaphysical realm with theists KR and that makes all your arguments illegitimate.

        At least a theist has God’s counsel to refer to giving our claims legitimate authority.

        See all this “arguing” does is give the false illusion that your counterclaims should be taken seriously but they shouldn’t be if they have no basis in authority.

        Simply accept that you have limited yourself to materialism by bowing to materialism and allowing it authority and control over you and your heart and mind.

        But a theist has individual autonomy from you and we bow to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who controls the material realm from His metaphysical realm.

        So stop crossing the line illegally with your arguments determined to undermine God’s authority.

        Hardly anyone talks about authority in these appearance versus reality arguments on the net but that is the crux of
        The matter.

        All you atheists want to do is deconvert theists.

        If you really wanted the keys to all these metaphysical questions
        then you would do what God says
        to do and become genuine seekers.

        I have my own life, my own judgment and have put in some time seeking and have got a response.

        So why would I accept an atheist’s illegal substitution?

        I wouldn’t and there are
        better things to do than revisiting a materialist’s mistakes all the time.

        Atheists had better learn to understand there are boundaries between the metaphysical and material and stop trying to force things.

        Reply
        • KR says:

          “No offense but there is no reason for me to argue with an atheist at all.”
          .
          So why do you? This whole “I’m so over arguing” schtick doesn’t really work if you keep on arguing.
          .
          “The Bible says to give a reason for my hope not an argument.”
          .
          Well, guess what – providing a reason is an argument.
          .
          “You will have to prove him the material realm has authority over the metaphysical realm before I have to engage you and at this time the materialists can’t prove that.”
          .
          You state that as if it actually means something. Until you provide any solid foundation for believing in this “metaphysical realm” all I’m seeing is so much handwaving to cover up for the lack of an actual argument.
          .
          “All a materialist can do is counter claim metaphysical realms don’t exist but we have people witnessing that they do because they received revelation from God.”
          .
          I’ve just explained why this is is unconvincing. We have Hindus witnessing their revelations from Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. I’m assuming you view these as false revelations. How would you demonstrate that the people you’re referring to are receiving true ones?
          .
          “How would the material realm be able to bridge the chasm to the metaphysical realm without metaphysical help?”
          .
          See above – you’ve provided no solid reason to think there even is a metaphysical realm.
          .
          “It can’t and atheism illustrates that all day with you atheists showing up to argue.”
          .
          I show up because I find your arguments lacking. I think the reasons for belief you give are bad ones and I think believing in something for bad reasons is potentially dangerous.
          .
          “Just accept you have no authority to argue about the metaphysical realm with theists KR and that makes all your arguments illegitimate.”
          .
          Produce evidence of this metaphysical realm and we can discuss who has authority to argue about it.
          .
          “At least a theist has God’s counsel to refer to giving our claims legitimate authority.”
          .
          Well, that line of reasoning has a nice circular symmetry to it.
          .
          “See all this “arguing” does is give the false illusion that your counterclaims should be taken seriously but they shouldn’t be if they have no basis in authority.”
          .
          An argument based on nothing but empty assertions of unevidenced metaphysical realms carries exactly zero authority.
          .
          “Simply accept that you have limited yourself to materialism by bowing to materialism and allowing it authority and control over you and your heart and mind.”
          .
          Not at all. I’m interested in learning about the world around me and the method that seems to consistently deliver the most reliable results is empirical investigation. I have asked several times on this forum for a suggestion of a more relibale method but so far I’ve had no response.
          .
          “But a theist has individual autonomy from you and we bow to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who controls the material realm from His metaphysical realm.”
          .
          More empty assertions. I bow to reality – show me that what you speak of is real and I’ll believe it.
          .
          “So stop crossing the line illegally with your arguments determined to undermine God’s authority.”
          .
          “Illegally”? What on earth are you talking about – and why would you be worried about little old me trying to undermine God’s authority? Surely that would be impossible – if He exists. Could it be that your beliefs are not as rock solid as you would like to have us believe?
          .
          “Hardly anyone talks about authority in these appearance versus reality arguments on the net but that is the crux of The matter.”
          .
          No, the crux of the matter is supporting your claims with independently verifiable evidence. You have a bit of work to do in that department.
          .
          “All you atheists want to do is deconvert theists.”
          .
          There you go looking all anxious again. If you’re secure in your beliefs and take them seriously, you shouldn’t be acting this defensively. If you can’t provide evidence to back up your claims (and it’s obvious that you can’t) then your second best option is to convince by example – show us by your actions and demeanor that Christianity makes you happier, wiser, more loving, more accepting and inclusive towards others.
          .
          This is clearly not what you’ve been projecting on this forum. In the exchanges I’ve seen you participate in you’ve come across as belligerent, condescending and judgemental. In short, you’re a terrible spokesperson for Christianity – more likely to repel people than bring them in. Maybe you should actually do what you’re always on about: stop arguing.

          Reply
          • Susan says:

            Yeah maybe I will take off. I am sick of watching evidence deniers assert false authority over a realm they don’t control.

            I don’t even believe in the term “atheism”. It is just a made up word describing people who are spiritually blinder and stubborn than they should be.

            There are none so blind as those who will not see.

            I am not wasting a single resource again on some stubborn person who refuses to acknowledge all the Christian evidence.

            If this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that unbelief produces then keep it.

            I am not reading your dishonest crap arguments inspired by self serving pride any more.

            Dawkins represents you and he is nothing but a blasphemer.

            In the Old Testament days when the
            Army of the Lord was listening to the lying blasphemer Goliath day and night do you know what God did?

            He sent a boy to shut him up by hitting him in the head with a rock and cutting his lying head off.

            God’s children should never be listening to lies that is what that bible passage tells me.

            You are a blind materialist so stick to your own realm: materialism where you belong.

            I shouldn’t have to leave a theist blog at all but people sometimes don’t realize the importance of not meditating on lies.

            What you meditate on in your heart and mind will make you or break you.

            You get offended at the plain truth just like you get offended at the word of God so why should I tolerate you taking offense and step on eggshells around you?

            Go get a life if you can’t be a seeker.

            What publicly puttting on a show rebelling against God’s authority in His realm is all you have to do?

            Maybe you have been entertaining lies so long in your own mind that you can no longer sort truth from error.

            That is called a spirit of confusion and you need Jesus to rout a spirit of confusion.

            Peace Be With You!

          • KR says:

            Oh dear. How’s that for a complete confirmation of my earlier assessment (not that one was needed). You really can’t help your self, can you? It’s really rather sad. These ad hominems only serve to expose how completely empty-handed you are when it comes to an actual argument. No-one who has a real point to make would need to stoop to this. I’ve had plenty of discussions with believers on this site and no-one else has been anywhere close to spewing this kind of venom.
            .
            I guess self-awareness can’t be taught but I really wish you’d be able to contemplate the image you’re projecting and the damage you’re doing to your own position. At this point you’re clearly your own worst enemy. Since I’m apparently a blind, dishonest, self-serving, stubborn evidence-denier with crap arguments I realize it’s unlikely that you would take any advice from me but I really think that taking a break from this forum would be beneficial, both to you and the rest of us.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *