Atheism

[Simon Moon]

No, the real translation is,

"we've all heard every bit of what is offered as evidence, every fallacious philosophical argument (cosmological, teleological, ontological, TAG, etc), endless claims of personal experience and every claim that all we have to do is "hit our knees and ask Jesus to enter our hearts".

So, it is very easy to know, within just a few minutes of listening to an apologist video, that they are not going to offer anything new. They ALL do nothing more than reword the same old centuries old failed arguments.

Do you really think that Wallace has some rewording of the same old flawed arguments that will finally convince us?

I don't know... and neither do you if you don't listen to it. Maybe something will be presented in a new way that will resonate.  As I said, it's one thing, if you don't want to listen or discuss; or if you have a disagreement with something specific. It's another to just attack a persons character, without even hearing them out.

Sorry, but when I evaluate an existential claim, I only evaluate whether it is valid and sound.

I do not care if it is wrapped up in new or different oratory.

But seriously, besides the same old flawed arguments; Kalam, design, ontological, transcendent, etc, and the same old 'evidence' that apologists have been spouting for centuries, what else is there?

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons, and many may mention critical thinking, much more than they practice it;  but I'm will to discuss an idea.

That wouldn't describe any of my atheist acquaintances and friends. Everyone I know can refute the philosophical arguments, and the Bible.

My entire reasons for being an atheists are that the case to support the claim that a god exists does not meet its burden of proof, for entirely rational reasons.

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

If you'll notice in my post #329 on this thread, I mention that I read the J. Wallace book you mention. As well, as close to a dozen books by other aologists, such as; Craig, McDowell, Strobel, Lewis, Keller, and others. I have a shelf in my bookcase full of them.

None of them, and I mean none of them, offers any evidence or arguments unique to them.

Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, or will learn something.  Or we can all just stay in our perspective echo chambers. I also find that most of the things people call fallacious (such as the kalam cosmological argument) is full of  bad thinking.  And when given reason for why it is bad logic;  atheists fall back to name calling and attacking the person.   Would you like me to judge you based on past experience, or should I be at least willing to hear you out?

Sorry, but Kalam is not valid and sound. Neither are the other philosophical arguments.