Uhm.... say what? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

I really wish idiots like this would come to grips with the concept that we don't think their deity exists. Our motives in mockery are exactly what they appear to be: a testimonial to the ridiculousness of their beliefs.

This is a definite case of "someone said something stupid on the internetz!"

I also deny Ouiji boards, vampires, and comets coming to pick you up to take you to another planet. The Jesus claim is no different to me.

Their claims of magical births and deaths are as special to me as claims of Allah are to them.

No one person, political leader, religious leader, nation or label deserves a pedestal. To submit to such thinking is self induced brain death and the quickest way to become a lemming.

Nigel, I wanted to clear up the confusion.

As Bible believing Christians, we believe God when He says that men like yourself are actively and intentionally suppressing the truth of His existence due to your unrighteousness. (Romans Chapter 1)

Therefore, your claims of atheism are just another delusion caused by your sinful nature and as Christians, we believe that you actually do believe in God, but your sinful nature causes you to hate Him and therefore go online and pretend He doesn't exist. That is what the Bible teaches, that's why he said it. You are actually validating the Bible on your day of Blasphemy. If you actually believe the Bible, there are no atheists. The better term for atheist would by 'Crypto-theist.'

Grace and peace,

"The difference is that I appeal to the highest possible standard of authority, reality, and truth: the very word of God."

False. There is no such authority. Reality defines itself. As does truth.
What you do is take stories written by men in the dark ages and try to apply them to reality. Such attempts are doomed to fail.

I simply observe these attempts and laugh at your self delusions.

"The problem here is that you lost the argument as soon as you started typing."

Projection: The favourite weapon of theism, despite its total lack of success.

"You are appealing to an abstract, objective authority that only my worldview can account for, namely logic."

Your attempts to claim logic as supernatural are most amusing.

"You must admit that God exists in order to justify your use of coherent argumentation, game over."

You must admit that god doesn't exist in order to justify your use of coherent argumentation. Game over.

Theist tactic #2: When projection fails, accuse the opponent of dodging a question that was never asked, with the occasional dose of ad hominem.

@Vastet

And yet there is still this strange sense of joy that you still avoid the point I made which buried your arguments.

@Malhalla

There would have to be context involved for me to take it out of... You made four standalone statements and I quoted one of them... hardly out of context my friend. And If you want to pretend you weren't trying to say truth is relative, I would refer you to the rest of your sentence which CLARIFIED what you meant:

"it's just what you believe to be true."

It seems very clear to me that you were promoting relativism, correct me if I am wrong... if it's only belief in God that you consider to be relative then I would just say you are relatively wrong about your belief in God when compared to what is true.

You are using the atheist defense mechanism known as equivocation.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, I know you will.

Beside, an atheist has never been wrong or misspoke about anything ... ever.

I hope you see that the beauty in nature is even more amazing then you think...

In love,

  "Grace and peace"  ..."in love"   ..."all the best"  ...."my friend"  etc.

    Please dispense with the contrived empathy and just make the arguments you wish to make against us. 

    Thank you "brother."

"And yet there is still this strange sense of joy that you still avoid the point I made which buried your arguments."

And I get a strange sense of joy at how easy theists like yourself bury themselves. I've thrown you around in three different topics, four soon, and it just gets easier and easier. You're like a chew toy. You might never see the flaws and incoherency you espouse, but the vast majority of those who see it will shake their heads at your total and complete failure.

"I'm presenting a coherent and defensible postion while at the same time exposing that yours is unfounded."

Quite the opposite.

"If your only response is something other than a rebuttal to my position I think it's fair to say you do not have one."

I've obliterated your arguments and this is the best you can respond with. Don't be too disheartened, you're all the same. You're just the latest notch on my belt. There are hundreds more. You theists are so predictable.

What's that symbol on your avatar?

I hope to love the hell out of you buddy.

The symbol is Greek for 'Chi Rho fo Sho'

Or, just Chi Rho - it's a Christogram.

I added the fo Sho for flavor though.

"You really haven't."

I really have.

"Please prove this by explaining my argument and then quoting something that you have already said that refuted it in which I did not expose your folly in the very next post. By these terms you have done nothing in the way of argument obliterating. I'm interested in knowing if you have even understood my argument at all, so by explaining it to me you have the opportunity to prove yourself.I'll take a refusal or dodging of my challenge as a concession as it is very reasonable."

Right back at you. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself for someone who clearly doesn't understand the subject matter. If you accurately portray my argument, then I'll know you actually understand it. If you don't, you acknowledge my victory and the lack of substance from your argument. And almost everyone reading it (exception of theists like yourself) will do the same.

@Atheistextremist

"Well Exni - religion might be weird as hell but it does have the cool symbols."

We are meant to appreciate all things God so I am not surprised.

It is our enmity towards God that keeps up from appreciating creation the same way and/or giving God the glory for all that we do.

By decrediting logic, you debase your own argument! Response:

"The problem here is that you lost the argument as soon as you started typing."

Ad hominem, I laugh.

"You are appealing to an abstract, objective authority that only my worldview can account for, namely logic. You must admit that God exists in order to justify your use of coherent argumentation, game over."

Repetition. Rejected. Response:

"What an amazing display of acrobatic question dodging. I'll be content it you stop replying now as your last post demonstrated that you have no answer to my points."

*Scans thread*
I don't see any questions. At all. Yet you claim I've dodged one. LOL. Challenged. No response to challenge.

Admittedly, I was speaking to ‘point’ dodging not question dodging, my mistake. Hence the ambiguous use of a bullet-dodging analogy.

You have still failed to explain what my argument is.

Circular reasoning does not immediately mean something is wrong…

Person 1: He is mad right now.

Person 2: How do you know?

Person 1: Well, because he is really angry.

This is circular reasoning but is very obviously not incorrect.

The irony here is that you are using logic to accuse me of a logical fallacy without first telling me why logic can be trusted from your worldview. Logic cannot be independently verified apart from God. Logic itself is verified circularly by using the laws of logic. As stated, this doesn’t mean that logic is wrong, but it does show that you are adhering to a standard of reality and truth that is circularly validated which is what you are faulting me for doing.

God validates logic externally, you can try to use logic to argue against the God who makes it viable, but the point here is that I have a worldview that employs the use of logic in a meaningful way and substantiates it’s existence and you still need to account for it.

Logic is very much real and very valid, but only because God made it so.  Your position starts at logic. Mine justifies the use of logic. And since you can’t account for logic I don’t expect you to consider Christians reasonable…

I don't need to know why logic works, I just need to know that it works. I don't see why you or anyone else needs to put a why there at all. Isn't it enough that it is? That we look at how things work, and use that gained knowledge to learn more? If your god exists, will we not find him by understanding his very creation?

But I don't need to account for it.

  I have an honest question for you eXnihilO.  There is no sarcastic intent.

    If I understand your position correctly you have through your relationship with God tapped into an immeasurable resource that gives you ( vicariously ) a formidable  advantage in your perspective, perception and even the use and understanding of god-given logic.  Your eyes have been opened while ours ...as atheists ... have not.  We as atheists are seriously handicapped in every way, while you are not.

     Needless to say, that raises expectations regarding your presence here immensely. 

  I was simply wondering that even with the support of the most powerful Being in existence guiding you, combined with your spiritually sanctified pov  ...what you thought your chances were of actually affecting a receptive change ( perhaps even a conversion ) in even a single member of this forum ?  

  Thanks.

Good question, I'll appeal to the ultimate authority to answer:

" Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."

If a person whom God has chosen to save sees my words and is encouraged as a result, then all of this is worth it. If someone comes to faith as a result, even better. I am a seed scatterer, God makes them grow.

My point is that I don't need a source to affirm that it works, I just need to test it. If it works, then I use it. Your giving it a source has no impact at all on its veracity. Whether I apply your god or leave him out, the equation 2 + 2 = 4 remains true.

"You don't need a source to affirm that logic works, why? Because it works! This is entirely circular."

Actually it isn't. You are positing that somehow a logical god existed where/when/however before logic existed, and is the source for logic. Except that if god were logical, then logic existed independent from god. Therefore even if god is true, in order to have created logic he would have to have assembled it from chaos, the inherently illogical. Which is simply ridiculously impossible. It's like asking me to believe a 747 will assemble itself from components not even incorporated in its design. You can't have knowledge without information, and you can't have information without logic. That we have information proves logic works, inherently. A source for logic can be said to be ourselves, as we utilise it. As do all life forms on the planet. But there is no need to account for why anymore than there's a need to account for the why of the universe, which would appear to be irrevocably tied to the argument.

"Not sure how you are concluding this."

It is simple logic.

"You are applying a very limited understanding of a universe we dwell in to the God who Created it, do you see a problem?"

Quite the contrary. My understanding of the universe is irrelevant. The question is a dichotomy. Either logic, or not. All I need to understand is logic to get an answer.

"Logic is a system that claims to correctly handle information, not produce it."

Yet without it, information is impossible. It does not produce it, correct. It is PART of it. Without one, neither can accomplish anything. Without logic, 2 + 2 can equal 17. Or 6. Or both.

"At this point, a Christian shouldn't be criticized for saying 'Anything being here proves that God exists, inherently.'"

Circular, red herring, and I could come up with a number of other fallacies.

At least you are honest enough to admit that your answer is initially void of meaning.

Not only do Christians say we can know, we go as far to say that we already know...

It's very easy to apprehend the concepts and you seem to be in the minority who takes God as being an unsatisfactory answer, and this is strictly a subjection opinion.