The Atheist Experience Show Pre-Show #759 and #760

To: Atheist Experience TV Show

Would you like to have me on your show as a guest? I could call in and you could devote an extra long time to talk to me. The topic would, of course, be from my last call and show you did ("Something Cannot Come From Nothing") where I called in near the end of the show.

Topic:
1. What evidence is there for believing God does not exist? If you have none then why believe something without evidence? Atheism is the word traditionally to describe someone who believes God does not exist. There are no square circles and no married bachelors. Bachelors are single so they are not married and circles have no edges. So where's the evidence, additionally, for the negative position of stating and believing there is no God?

2. How can something come from that which does not exist? for that which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. Energy must come from a source.

3. How can infinite regress be true, for if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now? And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on never to reach this point. We observe an exponential progression of conscience in mankind so mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

4. There is no evidence nature spontaneously erupted to create the simplest replicating living organism so why believe that? We can't recreate it. Furthermore, a mind is needed to create a mind, emotion, volition, conscience, self-consciousness, God-consciousness.

5. Since God can't have a conscience less than our own then He can't be impersonal or inaccessible. There are only three God-views in the world that extend themselves to being accessible throughout the globe which are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism that make up around 90% of all beliefs. Islam is false because it has no evidence six centuries later Jesus never died on the cross. Common sense tells us you ain't coming back as a chicken if you are a sinner, and Brahma is amoral which is below the morality of mankind. Sin is never effectively dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave the Heathen

Since you have nothing new, just the tired apologetic arguments that do not lead to your idea of god, just call again early just before the show is to start.
Sincerely

David the Heathen

---

Small "g" really? Is that standard practice? My idea of "god" is an evil spirit since a "god" is not God. We are talking about God not a god. Don't stray off topic. You admit you are a "heathen". A heathen Biblically means you are an unregenerate going to Hell. Is that what you are conceding? Or does "heathen" mean something else to you entirely? Let's be clear on these things.

Are you self-declaring "...that do not lead to your idea of god"? What do you have for evidence to support this claim? How have you overturned the evidence given in these 5 points? You did not handle it before, why should I believe things have changed on your end?

Why does there need something new? Shouldn't you deal with what's already on the table? It's like you are looking for a drug. Any proof of God should be simple and accessible to everyone's conscience if God exists because God is just and fair.

I will only call if you promise to give me enough time to talk to address each of these points, but if you plan to give me just a few minutes then I won't call in. Each of these 5 points need to be dealt with conscientiously.

Please tell me what time to call, what time your show is at, and I will call in through Google phone since it is a free phone call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave the Heathen

We have dealt with these topics many times before. If you want to call fine. None of your arguments are convincing to anyone but another believer.

David

---

For these five points not to be convincing you would have to find fault with them, some argument against them. I have not heard anything of that sort from you or anywhere on your show though lots of deflection. The same goes for the one time I called in before on the show: "Something Cannot Come from Nothing" speaking to Martin Wagner and Russell Glasser.

So what time should I call in to press you on these points? (Exact time please.) Your website says "the number is 512-472-2255." What time exactly do I call?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David the Heathen

Have a nice day troll!

---

Does that mean you won't take my call? You sure seem like you are avoiding the matter. How can anyone confront you on these issues if you shut your mind down like that and avoid the matter?

Note: Evasively, David did not give me the time to call. I am not sure if they will take my call or not.

For Atheists who want to chat about this go to the Biblocality Chat Room. I have been speaking with David Tyler tv@atheist-community.org.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jen

Troy,

If you decide to call, you should to it shortly before the show airs at 4:30pm. That said, I won’t guarantee we’ll even put you on, since you’ve already had quite a bit of show time to make your case.

Before you call, here’s a piece of advice for you – look up burden of proof. Your statement “What evidence is there for believing God does not exist?“ indicates a gross misunderstanding of where that burden lies. I’m under no obligation to present evidence that your god doesn’t exist. If you assert that this entity exists, you have to present evidence to support that claim. Until you do, I’m correct in my disbelief of the claim.

There’s no point in going any further in your string of questions until you meet your burden. Logical fallacies and scripture won’t cut it, so do your homework. Be clear and concise with your claims and questions, because we won’t let you monopolize the whole show with nonsense.

Jen

---

4:30 pm MST, EST or CST?

I've only ever called in once and I won the argument on all points as you can see in show #675. It was about 9 minutes, and I got to talk for less than 5 minutes. Is that really a lot of show time? That you misrepresent me tells me you are not being forthright. Everyone can see I talked for less than 5 minutes in the entire history of your show. I suggest the reason you might not let me talk on your show ever again is because you don't have the tools to deal with these 5 points; such tools don't even exist.

The burden is on you because you take the position as an atheist that "God does not exist." I don't need to prove God exists, but you need to supply evidence for your claim God does not exist.

Once you realize you have no evidence, if I want, I can supply evidence for God, and we can discuss that which has the added benefit of further proving your claim God does not exist to be false.

As to Scripture, Scripture itself presents a proof as I present you a proof, so to reject even listening to said proof, e.g. Rom. 1.20 and other verses of argument seems quite disingenuous.

Dealing with the matter of your claim God does not exist should be addressed first before dealing with whether my claim God exists has evidence. That is the logical order of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Tyler

Goodbye troll

---

Wow! That is not very friendly or cordial. I tried to call 512-472-2255 just now. It is 11:30 am MST and nobody answers the phone.

So you don't want to tell me whether to call at 4:30 PT, MST, CDT, EST? Am I to assume by your attitude you won't give me a voice on your show?

What about Jen, what does she have to saw about this?

David emailed me from santiago804@gmail.com

You guys are located in Austin, Texas I think which is CDT. Should I call 4:30 CDT? I believe that is 3:30 MDT. Is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

I remember you. You called in, threw out a series of obvious logical fallacies, got called out on every single one of them, and then whined that they weren't fallacies. If that's your idea of winning an argument, I can see you've gotten no less stupid or dishonest in the intervening years.
Martin

---

You weren't able to show any of my statements were logical fallacies. Watch show #675 again. And you got real agitated at the end of the show because I really broke down your reasoning, and Russell Glasser tried to cool you down because you were so upset. You were panting and even got up out of your chair ready to leave the studio. Since you still need to address these 5 points, I would be happy to call in today, but if you are going to cut me off like last time or just give me a couple minutes I won't bother.

Should I call at 3:30 MDT?

I have given you the 5 points ahead of time so I don't catch you off guard like you were last time.

Martin emailed me from Martin Wagner <wagnerfilm@yahoo.com>

To: wagnerfilm@yahoo.com, santiago804@gmail.com, tv@atheist-community.org

I called 512-472-2255 multiple times, but nobody picks up. It just keeps ringing. Is that normal? Will it be ready at 3:30 MDT?

Is the show today Saturday May 5, 2012?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

This is because we only pick up the phone when our show is live. It is a studio phone and during the rest of the week it is used by other shows. You will need to call around 4:30 PM CST on Sunday if you wish to go live on our show.

MW

---

I'll call you then. You get the next two days to decide how you are going to deal with those 5 points intelligently. Please try to contain your emotion and just stick to a logical answer if one exists. Sleep on it and think about it again tomorrow before the show starts. I want you to be ready for me because last time you bored me to death with your dumb answers.

If you want to have some live text chat before I call your show on Sunday, you can reach me in the Biblocality Chat Room (no need to register).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jen

Troy,

I just realized who you are – the logical fallacy vending machine! If you think you “won” the last time you were on, then you are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. The hosts didn’t need more time to dismiss your arguments, but if you want to try again, have at it.

“The burden is on you because you take the position as an atheist that "God does not exist." I don't need to prove God exists, but you need to supply evidence for your claim God does not exist.“

All that’s necessary to be an atheist is to disbelieve your claim that a god exists. I don’t have to go on to make the claim that gods don’t. If you are claiming that some god exists, and especially if you claim that a particular god exists, you *do* have to provide evidence for that claim. This is Logic 101, and if you don’t understand this, you’re going to have a very difficult time.

When you call - *if* you call - you should first decide if you’re arguing a philosophical point or for a specific god. If it’s a specific god, start by defining which god you are claiming exists. Then you should be prepared to offer evidence to support your assertion that this god exists. Most of us on The Atheist Experience are former Christians, so we’ve already investigated and rejected scripture as evidence for your god’s existence. If that’s all you have, well, you’re going to have a difficult time indeed.

The show broadcasts live from Austin, TX, so it should have been a trivial matter for you to figure out that the correct time zone is CST.

Jen

---

You are a classic example of logical fallacy vending machine don't you know? The host didn't need more time to dismiss my argument because eternity is not enough time to do so.

That's a logical fallacy to say, "All that's necessary to be an atheist is to disbelieve your claim that god exists" because you supply no evidence for your claim that God does not exist. That's like someone saying, "All that's necessary to believe the earth is flat is to disbelieve someone who says it revolves around the sun." Funny. Dumb! Retarded.

First you must come to the table honestly and admit you have no evidence to believe God does not exist, become an agnostic, then we can proceed accordingly by examining the 5 points I gave why God exists and who God is. It's very elementary dear Watson.

It is also illogical to claim you are are former Christian, because a Christian is defined as being "once-saved-always-saved," therefore, you are being dishonest. You would have to admit you were never a Christian to begin with.

Once we establish that the position of atheism is false and that you are agnostic, we can go on to examine the proof for the existence of the uncreated Creator and who the uncreated Creator is by the proof supplied in the 66 books of the Bible since this is the proof text.

Quote:

---

Troy,
I just realized who you are – the logical fallacy vending machine! If you think you “won” the last time you were on, then you are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. The hosts didn’t need more time to dismiss your arguments, but if you want to try again, have at it.

“The burden is on you because you take the position as an atheist that "God does not exist." I don't need to prove God exists, but you need to supply evidence for your claim God does not exist.“

All that’s necessary to be an atheist is to disbelieve your claim that a god exists. I don’t have to go on to make the claim that gods don’t. If you are claiming that some god exists, and especially if you claim that a particular god exists, you *do* have to provide evidence for that claim. This is Logic 101, and if you don’t understand this, you’re going to have a very difficult time.

When you call - *if* you call - you should first decide if you’re arguing a philosophical point or for a specific god. If it’s a specific god, start by defining which god you are claiming exists. Then you should be prepared to offer evidence to support your assertion that this god exists. Most of us on The Atheist Experience are former Christians, so we’ve already investigated and rejected scripture as evidence for your god’s existence. If that’s all you have, well, you’re going to have a difficult time indeed.

The show broadcasts live from Austin, TX, so it should have been a trivial matter for you to figure out that the correct time zone is CST.

Jen

---

You are a classice example of logical fallacy vending machine don't you know? The host didn't need more time to dismiss my argument because eternity is not enough time to do so.

That's a logical fallacy to say, "All that's necessary to be an atheist is to disbelieve your claim that god exists" because you supply no evidence for your claim that God does not exist. That's like someone saying, "All that's necessary to believe the earth is flat is to disbelieve someone who says it revolves around the sun." Funny. Dumb! Retarded.

First you must come to the table honestly and admit you have no evidence to believe God does not exist, become an agnostic, then we can procede accordingly by examining the 5 points I gave why God exists and who God is. It's very elementary dear Watson.

It is also illogical to claim you are are former Christian, because a Christian is definied as being "once-saved-always-saved," therefore, you are being dishonest. You would have to admit you were never a Christian to begin with.

Once we establish that that position of atheism is false and that you are agnostic, we can go on to examine the proof for the existence of the uncreated Creator and who the uncreator Creator is by the proof supplied in the 66 books of the Bible since this is the proof text.

In summary the correct logical order and approach:

1) Come to the table honestly, accept atheism is false and admit you are agnostic because you have no evidence for your claim the uncreated Creator doesn't exist. That might hurt your show's ratings though eh? Ah, for the love of money is the root of all evil!

2) Observe the 5 points of proof for God and who God is (further details will be provided since we isolated why Islam and Hinduism are false, leaving only Christianity to observe the evidence if it is true).

3) If you can't overturn the evidence for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles then you should give your life to Christ. Otherwise, whether you want to admit it or not, you are admitting yourself to the great insane asylum in the dimension God created called Hell.

As soon as you break away from this logical order and approach, I will steer you right back on it when we talk on your show.

So get ready!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jen

Well, I guess we’ll start by explaining some very basic definitions to you, Troy. You don’t seem to understand what a an atheist is, what an agnostic is, or what a logical fallacy is.
I have a feeling your call may end up being one of our classics.

Jen

---

I am glad you can't show me I am mistaken what an atheist is, an agnostic is, or a logical fallacy is. If you can't then you must be mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

We don't need two days to deal with your points, because the points you raise are what we in the adult world refer to as "P.R.A.T.T." arguments: Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. We have had professional apologists on the air, and even they would tell you, you're not even operating at Apologetics 101 level. You have not gotten beyond the basics in your attempt to defend your faith, and yet you think your knife will win you the gunfight. It's cute, but I am pretty sure that apologists who have a lot more real-world experience in debating would want to sit you down for a little fatherly chat.

So, to review. The burden of proof rests upon the person claiming the existence of the thing in question. To insist on the opposite is committing the shifting the burden fallacy. If Farmer Brown tell me he was abducted by aliens, it's not my job to prove to him it didn't happen, it's his job to prove to me it did.

Atheism is nothing but the rejection of theistic claims. If a theist defines his god in logically impossible ways (for instance, possessing the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence), then it is possible to say that that is a god that does not exist. But this is not necessary to justify atheism.

Bible quotes do not prove Biblical claims. That is what's known as a tautology.

So no, it doesn't look like you've learned anything. But if you must insist on fighting outside of your weight class, go right ahead. You might find self-flattery won't do much for you when you're actually in the ring.

MW

---

Who says you need two days? I won the case in less than 5 minutes last time? I'm calling you again to put you on the spot again to expose you. Never in all of history have you refuted any of these points. If you did you could reproduce it here and now! I am using the same arguments scholars use; you have not been able to show otherwise. What I am presenting to you are the basics, foundational truths for us all.

Of course, I have gotten beyond that in my relationship with Christ and infilling of the Holy Spirit to walk daily bearing my own cross selflessly. It takes a lifetime to overcome the flesh whereas sin is immediate forgiveness by the spilling of His precious blood. We C

Christians put down knives and guns. We use logic and appeal to one's conscience. Remember, I am using th same evidence William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas us, and other scholars. Of course Craig is wrong on the point about a person being able to lose salvation once saved which is a subject he avoids as much as possible. But Gary Habermas and Mike Licona and other scholars are in complete agreement on OSAS.

The burden of the proof remains on the person who makes a claim about something. I am not making any claim at the outset of our discussion except that I am not making any claim. But you are making a claim that God does not exist so where is the evidence? To avoid dealing with this is shifting the burden when it belongs on you. Great lawyers in history agree such as Simon Greeneaf the burden is clearly on you. Using your own logic you are wrong. Observe: "If Farmer Brown tells me his position is God does not exist, it's not my job to prove to him it He does exist, it's his job to prove to me his position God does not exist is correct." Otherwise, he should take the position he is not sure which makes him agnostic.

You said "Atheism is nothing but the rejection of theistic claims"; in other words, you are saying God does not exist since theism is the belief in God. Where's the evidence the uncreated Creator does not exist? I am waiting. Your mistaken assumptions it is logically impossible for God to be omniscient and omnipotent bears no weight on the discussion because you can't show it. The fact that you use such an argument which itself is proven false shows you are not working on all cylinders.

Bible quotes are simply presenting the argument the Bible gives. That's not tautological anymore than repeating the evidence someone else gives who is alive today.

To sum up, you haven't learned anything. You are making the same logical errors. I admit I am not in your weight class, you are a bit on the heavy side, lol. I think you are projecting your own "self-flattery" whereas I will try to be Christlike.

Praise the Lord!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

Yep, you're not any smarter than you were before.

This will a fun call. :-D

Martin

---

You're definitely not smarter. Your grammar is horrible.

You seem like you are shaking in your boots. I can feel it. It's palpable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

Actually, you didn't, and the video attests to that. You got stuck in a whirlpool of fallacies and refused to swim out no matter how much we explained them to you. So go ahead and think you won the argument if you like, as long as you're aware that self-delusion isn't exactly something that helps you in your apologetics arsenal.

I refuted several of them in the very last reply I sent to you, just now, actually. The bulk of them have been long refuted by others, years before both of us were ever born. You are not bringing anything new to the table, and you simply lack sufficient experience in apologetics, as well as the necessary cognitive tools for learning new things, to grasp this. As I said, over 15 years on the air we have spoken to a wide array of ministers, pastors and apologists who do this for a living, and even though they're wrong, they are at least working at a level of intellectual sophistication you simply couldn't reach with a crane right now. And they would tell you this.

Every single argument you have attempted to present has either been a pure logical fallacy, or has been rooted in a failure to understand basic definitions and concepts. It's further obvious that you haven't done even a rudimentary study of what logical fallacies are (hint: start with Google) to know when you're making them and why you shouldn't. This is why, when we point out your fallacies to you, you react with emotion rather than with a better and improved argument. You're like a guy trying to build a house who doesn't realize he needs to start with a foundation, and gets pissed when actual carpenters tell him he's doing it wrong.

It's become very clear that you're just riding on your ego, and aren't actually very good at defending a position once you've asserted it. Once your points are refuted, instead of presenting a superior rebuttal, you simply go on to mock the refutation and launch a tirade of self-flattery. This may work on the playground, but not in the real world. I think, more than anything, you have a lot of growing up to do. I seem to recall telling you that last time.

Not without sympathy,
Martin

---

The video (#675) attests to the fact your arguments are faulty. To think otherwise is totally delusional. There is nothing you sent me that refutes these points. If there was you could reproduce it here and now. That's funny how you keep claiming there is some refutation but you never supply it. This shows you are not operating with full deck. I haven't seen any Christian scholars that disagree with me, nor have you presented any that do. It would be nice if you at least tried to back up something you said. It gets boring otherwise. You're even more boring than last time.

Speaking of foundations, there is no foundation on solid rock when you claim God does not exist, yet you have no evidence for your claim. You might as well say dogs can fly which you don't provide any evidence for either. You could say there are no square circles or there are no married bachelors, because you can prove that, but due to mindlessness you think you don't need to prove your assertion God does not exist. It's funny. It's clear you don't want to start from a proper foundation because self is at the center of all you do. Once you set the groundwork to believe something that you have no evidence for, what is to stop you from believing any other lie without evidence? Perhaps you will behind the next genocide of people because you don't need to justify your beliefs or actions. Whereas I come to the table with no assumptions.

My sympathies go out to you, for you know not what you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXkc7ToYsTI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John I.

What I find amusing is that you're arrogant enough to think that you can present a valid argument for the existence of a god (something that nobody in history has ever been able to do), and yet you're not smart enough to find the multiple places on our website (which you said you read) that say what day, time and timezone the show is on.--
John I.
AETV crew

---

The proof for God has been with all of human history (see the points provided in the opening post). What false humility even arrogant to say otherwise even though the proof is right there before you just as the Bible says so you are without excuse.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20). Simply by observing nature that is your basic proof.

I was smart enough since I found the time on your site. But I assure you, finding the time of your broadcast (obviously, you are not very good at marketing) was far more difficult than the proof for God. How easy the proof for God is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Wagner

See? This is you. You just repeat our criticisms back to us (having apparently missed the stage in your personal development where "same to you and more of it" constituted a badass comeback), and ignore our refutations by claiming we never make any. In short, you're a child: dishonest, immature, and officially a waste of time.
Bye now

Martin

---

Your "same to you and more of it" seems like a "same to you" argument. You like doublestandards. You certainly try to make refutations like in your show but none that stand the test of time you are able to repeat here and now. You're immature, simply someone going to Hell as you wish. C.S. Lewis said you lock yourself in Hell from the inside. I couldn't agree more. I would not wish upon my worse enemy where you are going. You're a bad guy.

Looking forward to calling you tomorrow, because when I expose you I believe it will help others watching the show. Study up on those 5 points. Be ready when I come. Obviously, if you avoid the call, it shows your true colors, because you have not addressed these points today and if you don't do it on the show then you are avoiding. Evasion is the name of your game!

You are not a waste of time to me, because I don't want you to go to Hell. You are a child of God made in His image, and He values your permanently existing spirit and soul. He does not want you to eternally separate yourself from Him, but He does give you the choice, because He doesn't force His love on anyone. If you don't have the choice to go to Hell then free will is not truly free.

Calling tomorrow at 3:30 pm MDT. Don't chicken out!

Let's recall the 5 points:

1. What evidence is there for believing God does not exist? If you have none then why believe something without evidence? Atheism is the word traditionally to describe someone who believes God does not exist. There are no square circles and no married bachelors. Bachelors are single so they are not married and circles have no edges. So where's the evidence, additionally, for the negative position of stating and believing there is no God?

2. How can something come from that which does not exist? for that which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. Energy must come from a source.

3. How can infinite regress be true, for if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now? And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on never to reach this point. We observe an exponential progression of conscience in mankind so mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

4. There is no evidence nature spontaneously erupted to create the simplest replicating living organism so why believe that? We can't recreate it. Furthermore, a mind is needed to create a mind, emotion, volition, conscience, self-consciousness, God-consciousness.

5. Since God can't have a conscience less than our own then He can't be impersonal or inaccessible. There are only three God-views in the world that extend themselves to being accessible throughout the globe which are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism that make up around 90% of all beliefs. Islam is false because it has no evidence six centuries later Jesus never died on the cross. Hinduism is false because if reincarnation was true there would be more people on the planet than there is now. Common sense tells us you ain't coming back as a chicken if you are a sinner, and Brahma is amoral which is below the morality of mankind.

Pre-show to Atheist Experience Show #759 or #760

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZm-T5D1A0w&amp;list=PL1677F740D2266D89&amp;index=6&am p;feature=pl pp_video

I was told to call 512-472-2255 at 3:30 pm MDT, Sunday, May 6, 2012 and nobody is picking up.

I was told to call 512-472-2255 at 3:30 pm MDT, Sunday, May 6, 2012 and nobody is picking up. It's now 3:38.

I was told to call 512-472-2255 at 3:30 pm MDT, Sunday, May 6, 2012 and nobody is picking up. It's now 3:40.

I was told to call 1-512-472-2255 at 3:30 pm MDT, Sunday, May 6, 2012 and nobody is picking up. It's now 3:45 MDT and nobody answers. It just keeps ringing.

I was told to call 1-512-472-2255 at 3:30 pm MDT, Sunday, May 6, 2012 and nobody is picking up. It's now 3:55. They finally picked up and put me in a que.

Wow! I was online for 44 minutes and still on. They said people only start calling after the show is over and never took my call. They said they look foreward to my call today but while on air never put my call through. Amazing!

The female host asked one guest, "Do you believe God exists?" The guest said "No". She said "then you are an Atheist". Hence, atheism is the belief God does not exist. They finally put me on the show but after closing time and after all their callers were done. I asked them, "Do you believe in God?" The lady host said, "No". Therefore she is an Atheist. When they asked the question of me, I said "Yes". But then they required I qualify who God is. I described Him as the "uncreated Creator". I asked "Why the doublestandard that the previous caller didn't have to qualify it?" Then I asked, "If you believe God does not exist, then what evidence do use to support it?" I said further, "we should come to the table without any positions and just see what evidence we can find." At that point they shut up, shut their minds down, and hung up on me at 4:35 MDT. Obviously, they don't want to come to the table sincerely and genuinely to follow the evidence where it may lead.

They all talked to me for probably less than 2 minutes before they hung up. Clearly an atheist doesn't want to search out this proof for God that we all inherently intuitively know. As the Bible says unless you search God out with all your heart and soul, you won't find Him. Obviously, they don't search out God with all their heart and soul, and that is why they don't find Him. God gives you that choice to shut your mind down.

Re: Matt Dillahunty <sans.deity@gmail.com>

Quote:

---

Troy,Please stop copying us on this e-mail spam. You simply don't understand logic and your constant spam makes me think that you're either a poe, an attention whore or mentally unstable.

"Do you believe a god exists?" If the answer is 'no' - that doesn't mean that you do believe that no gods exist. I'm sorry that this is confusing for you, maybe this will help:

"Do you believe the defendant is guilty?" If the answer is 'no' that doesn't mean that you believe the defendant is innocent...it means that you're not convinced of the defendants guilt.

In addition, you should look up 'null hypothesis', 'burden of proof', 'epistemology' and then get started on logical arguments and fallacies. After you do that, you might begin to see why your comments are being dismissed as moronic.

- Matt Dillahunty

---

There is no reason to be rude and call people mentally unstable, moronic, whores, poes and spammers. Leave your emotional hostility and baggage at the door.

You don't understand logic that's why you avoid these 5 points given. Thus, according to the word of God you are going to Hell. You're bad people.

Since you said "God does not exist" then that's what you believe. Accept it. I am not discussing othe gods. We are just talking about the uncreated Creator for now. So since you believe God does not exist then what evidence do you have for your claim? If you choose to not need evidence for your assumption then what's to stop you from believing any other lie?

I am not asking you to believe the the defendent is innocent. I am asking you for evidence for your belief that God does not exist. We should not believe things without evidence.

Since you are making the claim God does not exist then the burden of the proof is on you. Don't change the subject. Stop special pleading and using argument from ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Dillahunty

Blocked. All future messages go directly to the trash...thanks for wasting my time.

---

Thanks for your testimony you are unwilling to address these 5 points proving you are living a lie.

Shutting your mind down is all you can do on the way to Hell.

In Summary
During the show a female guest asked Jen if she was an atheist because she believed that God does not exist. Jen responded affirmatively that the guest was indeed an atheist because she believed that God did not exist. So she was not agnostic.

Here's the problem. Most atheists admit they have no evidence for their claim God does not exist but demand it of others. This is not a genuine way to come to the table by holding a double standard. It is unethical and selfish of you to behave that way. I don't believe atheists have a conscience to realize they are being unethical this way.

I should also point out the staff at The Atheist Experience Show promised to devote some air time to me for the show on May 6, 2012 (show #760), but I kept calling and calling and didn't get through until nearly half way through the show then had to wait from that point another 45 minutes more. So it was at about 15 minutes after the show they finally let me speak to the the hosts, but within 2 minutes they hung up on me, refusing to listen to the proof for God.

This is the type of people these people are. Sad really. I know I wouldn't treat people that way.

Don't let atheists get away with their special pleading and argument from ignorance where they don't have to supply evidence for their claim God does not exist. That is just shifting the burden of the proof.

At the 38:50 mark a girl calls in and says she has been an atheist for two months and that before that she was agnostic. The hosts, Jen Peeples and Russell Glasser nodded and agreed. At the 55:00 mark, Jen said there was a caller on line 4 about the Bible. That was me waiting the entire show to speak (I was promised I could ask my question prior to the show), and then Russell said "they dropped him on purpose." They didn't actually drop me but just didn't let me speak till about 15 minutes after the show was done as I have exposed them before, and they could not handle what I had to say before, so they didn't want it on air.

However, the girl who spoke at 38:50 is not the girl I was referring to who called in and asked if she was atheist because she believed that God does not exist. Jen replied and said that that was correct, she is an atheist because she believes God does not exist. What should concern you though is because that question is not on the edited program, obviously they edited it out, because it is quite damning to their view as it contradicts Russell's view that you can be both atheist and agnostic.

Atheists have a hard time agree with themselves. Whereas all theists agree the uncreated Creator exists. The question then becomes whose deity is the correct one?