As atheists, we have one thing in common. We don't believe in any god or gods. We are a curiosity for many, especially christians. So inevitably many christians go out "looking for trouble" as it were. I guess they are bored having conquered and enslaved most of the world perpetuating a stone-aged myth for over 2000 years! The methods implored in this conquest are many and varied. Everything to conversion on the pain of death to extortion and bribery. One method that has never worked that I know of, is proof. But just for argument sake let's take a look at proof.
1) Read the bible.
The first problem is which bible to choose. There are more than 60,000 versions in print today. Okay, most say exactly the same thing but there are differences and they can't be ignored. For a book that is supposed to be "divine" and the "word of god" there shouldn't be any discrepancies or variations. So how did these discrepancies come about? Well, obviously the previous version just wasn't acceptable or fell out of favor, but more importantly as a part of the bible was discovered as a complete failure scientifically, historically it had to be edited modified to remain relevant.
2) Secondly, the bible isn't proof of itself. It isn't verified by any historical facts. It has no corroboration whatsoever. One cannot just claim that what I state is a fact "because I said so"!
3) Thirdly, authorship! And this is a big one. No one and I mean no one can state with any evidence at all who wrote any part of the bible save the parts added on and after 325 ADE by the Council of Nicea and the subsequent church editing that followed throughout the years.
So the bible as an argument for the existence of a god is emphatically not proof at all.
That leaves us with other forms and data to process for proof of a god. Curious thing NOW. That also excludes anything in relation to jesus with few exceptions. We'll visit these exceptions later.
A) So we have the weak "If god is real you should be a believer just to be on the safe side whether there is any proof or not" argument. That doesn't make any sense at all. If we applied that logic to any or all myths we would be spinning like tops to appease any and every mythological possibility. So this argument is just stupid, to say the least.
B) An equally weak argument is the "look around you argument". It proposes that things are here so who made them? Well, the answer is not whom but what if anything. And just because you don't have a definitive answer doesn't mean it is correct or even logical to just jump to a conclusion just because of 2000 years of life of a myth and all the brainwashing and indoctrination that has foisted that assumption upon you.
C) The "everything appears to be intelligently designed" argument. Everything DOESN'T appear to be intelligently designed. Actually, almost everything is chaotic and confusing. It also doesn't directly prove a god. So this argument is void.
Remember I said that these arguments leave out jesus except for a few? Well here is where he creeps back in.
D) Near Death Experiences NDEs. Some people who have come close enough to death to be declared legally dead and have revived have reported seeing all sorts of things, namely heaven and jesus. Why is that? Ironically Those that have experienced this phenomenon have all come from christian environments. Not one has been completely ignorant of the christian myth. They have all expected to "go to heaven", "meet jesus". It is telling that Latin Europeans see mary instead of jesus and they all happen to be catholic. The main thing is like any testimony they need to be verified which they never are. They simply can't be because how can you verify what is basically the imagination of a person? So this is bullshit as well!
That brings me to the weakest argument of all.
E) Testimony. Christians like testimony. It's like they are made for AMWAY or something. The problem with testimony is corroboration. Anybody can say anything but we just can't accept it as fact unless it can be verified. In law, no eyewitness testimony is acceptable unless corroborated. Even a victim's eyewitness testimony cannot be the only evidence in a case to secure a conviction. We have even had someone on this very forum claim that we feel we need a god and that is proof of a god.
F) That brings me to "apologists". This is the most incredulous form of proof there is. Apologists literally means spinning a lie to falsify the facts to fit the narrative. So none of apologists statements can be or should be accepted at all for any reason.
This brings me to the basic problem with christian logic or forms of proof. You don't revise falsify or twist the facts to fit the narrative. You have to let the facts lead you to the truth. That is why all christian arguments are false. They NEVER let the facts lead them to the truth.
Now I left out a lot such as the "math logic attempt, the pseudo-science logic attempt, the word salad logic attempt, the amateur psycho-analysis logic attempt, the credibility by authority logic attempt (Lincoln was a christian), the revisionist history logic attempt, and many more. All are complete failures and aren't logical at all. In all the arguments there is a huge gap. The connection of what they are using as proof and a direct link to their god that they are trying to prove. They excuse this as a "leap of faith". We know "faith" is an excuse for having no proof.
So for argument's sake christians please know what the fuck you are talking about, quit making fucking assumptions about the people that you are talking to, provide some real proof, stop proselytizing, get a fucking education, and stop fucking lying! How many screwballs come to this forum pretending to write a paper or do a project or conduct a survey for a college class? Too many that's how many, and none of them are telling the truth at all. None of them are doing anything like what they claim to be doing. They just want a platform to proselytize and or annoy atheists. That's what christians do.
Learn what PROOF is...for argument's sake!