Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?

[Cyberman]

I don't see the title of the thread as being restricted to religious subjects, there are many discussions (which have nothing to do with anything religion) where in spite of proof, atheists refuse to be convinced.

So miss me with the "If I see evidence that God exists, I'll accept it" nonsense.

If you can't accept things that are easily provable, such as Denmark not having a secular government.  To this day not one of the atheists involved in that discussion has come out and admitted they were wrong, so either they still aren't convinced, or they will never admit to being convinced...

[I_am_not_mafia]

Problem is that they are only convincing if you are ignorant of why they are wrong. So to answer the question I would have to imagine how I was ignorant.

Even when I was most ignorant I would never have accepted the Kalam Cosmological argument. The teleological argument would have had the most chance and at one point I did accept the idea that the theory of evolution was flawed. But then I went to university and someone politely explained in clear terms why my understanding of it was flawed and I accepted that instead.

[Cyberman]

Kalam by itself gets you no closer than "the Universe had a cause ". People like William Lane 'two citations' Craig have to bolt on massive non-sequiturs in a staggeringly egregious sleight of hand just to make their fairytale sound real.

It's particularly galling in the 21st century, when pretty much everyone has direct access to the biggest library of knowledge since Alexandria. Yet these turds refuse to flush away.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Great Commission is to share the Good News of Jesus Christ - to share to our own personal experience and point the many changed lives of others. Apologetics were never meant to convince non-believers to come to faith. That is the work of the Holy Spirit speaking through the sublime. Our God is a wounded God. His compassion was born of agony and injustice. He gives comfort and counsel to us in our times of need. The role of apologetics is just to demonstrate that the trust we put in the hope of our hearts is reasonable.

Many of you are not convinced. Similarly the skeptical objections are not persuasive. I see only various combinations of non-sequiturs and straw men. What remains, for me, is not some abstract 'argument from ignorance' but rather the abiding presence of an ineffable Other, the all-encompassing love that reaches out to me even though I deserve nothing. As John 4:19 says, we love Him because He loved us first. That is His invitation to all those who, like me and so many others, see beauty, knows compassion, and whose hearts cry out from the darkness.

[vorlon13]

Um, Neo;

you might want to exclude Mormon Apologetics from that. Mormon Apologetics is a gateway for Mormon Apologists to leave their faith.

[Harry Nevis]

I don't see the title of the thread as being restricted to religious subjects, there are many discussions (which have nothing to do with anything religion) where in spite of proof, atheists refuse to be convinced.

So miss me with the "If I see evidence that God exists, I'll accept it" nonsense.

If you can't accept things that are easily provable, such as Denmark not having a secular government.  To this day not one of the atheists involved in that discussion has come out and admitted they were wrong, so either they still aren't convinced, or they will never admit to being convinced...

Or they weren't wrong.

[Brian37]

Read the title of this thread again.

You need to read what Min said again. There are no convincing arguments. There just aren't.

Same can be said for GOP policies. Both based on hocus pokus to protect the powerful whom prey on those gullible enough to buy into utopias that dont exist.

[Harry Nevis]

The Great Commission is to share the Good News of Jesus Christ - to  share to our own personal experience and point the many changed lives of others. Apologetics were never meant to convince non-believers to come to faith. That is the work of the Holy Spirit speaking through the sublime. Our God is a wounded God. His compassion was born of agony and injustice. He gives comfort and counsel to us in our times of need. The role of apologetics is just to demonstrate that the trust we put in the hope of our hearts is reasonable.

Many of you are not convinced. Similarly the skeptical objections are not persuasive. I see only various combinations of non-sequiturs and straw men. What remains, for me, is not some abstract 'argument from ignorance' but rather the abiding presence of an ineffable Other, the all-encompassing love that reaches out to me even though I deserve nothing. As John 4:19 says, we love Him because He loved us first. That is His invitation to all those who, like me and so many others, see beauty, knows compassion, and whose hearts cry out from the darkness.

But YOUR god is a strawman. How can skeptical observations be persuasive, when what you believe is an emotional belief, not based in logic or reality?

[Huggy Bear]

I don't see the title of the thread as being restricted to religious subjects, there are many discussions (which have nothing to do with anything religion) where in spite of proof, atheists refuse to be convinced.

So miss me with the "If I see evidence that God exists, I'll accept it" nonsense.

If you can't accept things that are easily provable, such as Denmark not having a secular government.  To this day not one of the atheists involved in that discussion has come out and admitted they were wrong, so either they still aren't convinced, or they will never admit to being convinced...

I know this is an embarrassing subject for you atheists but I'm not letting it go because it's something that's never been resolved. It's a common atheist tactic to quit responding to or ignore a thread when they have been proven to be wrong, I can provide at least 3 or more examples of this.

The only reason I can think of it is that the majority of you are anti-theist not atheist, which explains why atheists must take the opposite side of an argument against a theist. It doesn't matter if the subject has nothing to do with religion, or the atheist argument is patently false.

So please get outta here with that "we'll accept evidence" nonsense, because you clearly won't accept evidence from any theist as it is.

But let Minimalist stroll into a thread and fart in your guys general direction and provide not one source to back up his claims, and watch you guys scramble to see how much of his ass you can inhale.

[Harry Nevis]

I know this is an embarrassing subject for you atheists but I'm not letting it go because it's something that's never been resolved. It's a common atheist tactic to quit responding to or ignore a thread when they have been proven to be wrong, I can provide at least 3 or more examples of this.

The only reason I can think of it is that the majority of you are anti-theist not atheist, which explains why atheists must take the opposite side of an argument against a theist. It doesn't matter if the subject has nothing to do with religion, or the atheist argument is patently false.

So please get outta here with that "we'll accept evidence" nonsense, because you clearly won't accept evidence from any theist as it is.

But let Minimalist stroll into a thread and fart in your guys general direction and provide not one source to back up his claims, and watch you guys scramble to see how much of his ass you can inhale.

We are embarrassed.  But it's for you.

You've never given evidence for your claims, or shown us where an "atheist argument" is patently false.