CalvinDude.com

I got to watch End of the Spear today, and I have to say that despite the controversy surrounding Chad Allen (the guy who played Nate & Steve Saint), it was an excellent movie.  I’d definitely recommend it.  It’s also a great movie in terms of writing.  It’s the kind of movie that makes me want to write The Great American Novel or whatever :-)  So yeah, when it’s on DVD I’m gonna get it!

Fox News is reporting that a rat-squirrel believed to go extinct 11 million years ago (I wonder if it was due to global warming) is actually still around today!  It’s a Diatomyidae, which I assume is Latin for “Gotcha!”

In any case, I’m wondering something.  I would assume that the forest that this little dude lives in hasn’t been around for the last 11 million years, that the plants have evolved and the other animals, etc.  That’s why it’s so unusual to find this rodent still around and all.  I mean, it’s not exactly common that 11 million year old species wander around after being extinct.

So, wouldn’t that make him one of the best evolved creatures?  I mean, imagine how much the environment has changed in these past 11 million years, including ice ages.  And this little stinker hasn’t evolved one bit.  Not at all.  Despite all the changes in plant and animal life, this little guy was perfectly suited to every single thing that happened so that he didn’t evolve at all.  He survived.

I find that next to miraculous.

Atheism is a philosophy that can best be described as nihilisitc narcissism.  It’s nihilistic because ultimately there is no meaning in life, and it’s narcissistic because atheists don’t kill themselves.  Instead, they make websites with poorly written arguments to try to convince others to become nihilistic narcissists too.

Really, what is the point?  A group of randomly arranged atoms gets together and has chemical reactions.  Another group of randomly arranged atoms gets together and has other chemical reactions.  The first group of randomly arranged atoms has a reaction that causes it to “think” that the second group of randomly arranged atoms is “full of bunk” and thus the first group of randomly selected atoms uses another set of randomly arranged atoms to destroy the chemical reactions in the second set of randomly arranged atoms.

And the universe continues on and on.  Now, the first group of randomly selected atoms has a chemical reaction that “tells” it that everything is just randomly selected atoms.  There is no purpose or meaning in anything.  It’s just atoms and the void.  The “will” and the “intellect” are just products of chemical reactions.  It’s only an illusion that we can “control” our thoughts–our thoughts are going to be what they are going to be because matter and energy is all that exists.

But this group of random atoms doesn’t really care about that.  Instead, this group of random atoms has another chemical reaction that causes it to view itself in the best possible light.  “Sure, the universe is purposeless–but I can provide purpose!” thinks the random group of atoms, despite the fact that such a thought is itself only a product of random chance and that any purpose this group of atoms posits is ultimately no different than the chemical reaction of any other group of atoms.

This group of random atoms becomes self-absorbed and starts to think that it is the epitome of the universe.  All things in the universe have conspired to bring forth reality to the point where this bag of random atoms can exist and function!  But, of course, there is no conspiring–it’s all a myth.  So it’s not really that big of a deal that this group of random atoms exists now.  And soon enough, the chemical reactions will cease and then the “person” that this group of atoms perceives itself to be will break down into the same nothingness it came from.

But in the meantime, the rest of the random groups of atoms have to put up with the first group’s complete self-absorbtion.  “I think,” claims the random atoms, “therefore I am right and you are wrong.  Nevermind that my thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain, and nevermind the fact that your thoughts are also chemical reactions–my chemical reactions are right and yours are wrong…and nevermind that there is no ‘right’ and there is no ‘wrong’ and that these are simply things that I am forcing onto reality, it’s still ‘right’!”

Then the other groups of randomly constructed atoms get together and pat each other on the back (carefully, so as to not break a spine) and tell them how wonderful it is that their sheer force of will can create purpose in the universe.  Naturally, it’s only purpose for an extremely focused and narrow point of time–don’t tell that to the other bags of random atoms though, because they are the one’s who are “narrow minded”, not the “freethinking” bags of random atoms!

And thus, the nihilistic narccisism culminates in a forced illusion of purpose and meaning that you better adhere to.  Or else…well, you’re just “wrong” that’s why!

Atheism is a philosophy that can best be described as nihilisitc narcissism.  It’s nihilistic because ultimately there is no meaning in life, and it’s narcissistic because atheists don’t kill themselves.  Instead, they make websites with poorly written arguments to try to convince others to become nihilistic narcissists too.

Really, what is the point?  A group of randomly arranged atoms gets together and has chemical reactions.  Another group of randomly arranged atoms gets together and has other chemical reactions.  The first group of randomly arranged atoms has a reaction that causes it to “think” that the second group of randomly arranged atoms is “full of bunk” and thus the first group of randomly selected atoms uses another set of randomly arranged atoms to destroy the chemical reactions in the second set of randomly arranged atoms.

And the universe continues on and on.  Now, the first group of randomly selected atoms has a chemical reaction that “tells” it that everything is just randomly selected atoms.  There is no purpose or meaning in anything.  It’s just atoms and the void.  The “will” and the “intellect” are just products of chemical reactions.  It’s only an illusion that we can “control” our thoughts–our thoughts are going to be what they are going to be because matter and energy is all that exists.

But this group of random atoms doesn’t really care about that.  Instead, this group of random atoms has another chemical reaction that causes it to view itself in the best possible light.  “Sure, the universe is purposeless–but I can provide purpose!” thinks the random group of atoms, despite the fact that such a thought is itself only a product of random chance and that any purpose this group of atoms posits is ultimately no different than the chemical reaction of any other group of atoms.

This group of random atoms becomes self-absorbed and starts to think that it is the epitome of the universe.  All things in the universe have conspired to bring forth reality to the point where this bag of random atoms can exist and function!  But, of course, there is no conspiring–it’s all a myth.  So it’s not really that big of a deal that this group of random atoms exists now.  And soon enough, the chemical reactions will cease and then the “person” that this group of atoms perceives itself to be will break down into the same nothingness it came from.

But in the meantime, the rest of the random groups of atoms have to put up with the first group’s complete self-absorbtion.  “I think,” claims the random atoms, “therefore I am right and you are wrong.  Nevermind that my thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain, and nevermind the fact that your thoughts are also chemical reactions–my chemical reactions are right and yours are wrong…and nevermind that there is no ‘right’ and there is no ‘wrong’ and that these are simply things that I am forcing onto reality, it’s still ‘right’!”

Then the other groups of randomly constructed atoms get together and pat each other on the back (carefully, so as to not break a spine) and tell them how wonderful it is that their sheer force of will can create purpose in the universe.  Naturally, it’s only purpose for an extremely focused and narrow point of time–don’t tell that to the other bags of random atoms though, because they are the one’s who are “narrow minded”, not the “freethinking” bags of random atoms!

And thus, the nihilistic narccisism culminates in a forced illusion of purpose and meaning that you better adhere to.  Or else…well, you’re just “wrong” that’s why!

Former Fundy over at Debunking Atheism–oh wait, I mean Debunking Christianity–wrote this post where he tries to convince us that we don’t know what the original text of Scripture is.

For the sake of argument, I’ll suppose that is correct.  How, then, is it possible for Mr. Epp, whom he quotes, to say: “With respect to Mark, one can be fairly certain that only its revised text has achieved canonical status, while the original text (attested only by Matthew and Luke) has not survived.”  If the original text has not survived, how do you know that it is a revised text has achieved canonical status?

This argument does go both ways.

Here’s an interesting thought I had on self-delusion.  It isn’t going to be anything groundbreaking or earth shattering, but it’s just a thought.  It relates in some ways to the events detailed in this post.  But it also deals a bit with the current discussion I’ve been having with the atheists over at Debunking Christianity.

First, the idea of self-delusion.  Atheists like to assume that they have all their intellectual marbles and that they would never fall prey to thoughts of self-delusion.  Those who are self-deluded are, they say, the religious people.

But self-delusion is primarily something you don’t recognize you have precisely because you’ve been deluded.  For instance, the girl on the bus ride (if you haven’t read the other post, you should do so first).  I do not for a minute believe that she had done all the things that she had said she had done, but she had done some of them.  What, then, would be the reason for her to inflate her evil behavior?

One main reason is because of the fact that if she inflated her evil and her friends accepted her, then she would have comfort in knowing that her friends would accept the real her too, since they already accepted another person who was worse than she really was.  On the other hand, if she was rejected by her friends, well it wasn’t really her who was rejected–it was the mask she invented.

Self-delusion can be a very powerful thing.  If you do not want something to be true, you will find ways to make it not true, even if it means denying the obvious.  Often, this isn’t even something that is consciously known.  It just happens automatically, without you even realizing that you’re deluding yourself.

Perhaps the person most affected by self-denial is the person who thinks it can’t happen to him.

This is not to say that it is impossible to find ways around our hidden biases and our own self-delusions, for it is indeed possible to do that if you have the truth.  The question is, how do you know you have the truth?

It’s simple enough to avoid that question by just pretending that you have it and not caring when anyone asks questions about it.  Perhaps you’re one of the lucky ones and you have the truth regardless of your method of proving it.  Perhaps you’re not, though.  And the only way to know is if you probe yourself to find what your hidden self-delusions might be.

The only way to ultimately discover error is to compare yourself to something that is not in error.  Regardless of what you believe in the realm of theism, if you cannot say that what you are comparing yourself to is infallible then you cannot get rid of the doubt of self-delusion.

I’ve now posted my cross-examination rebuttal in the Justification debate I’m having with Jacob Michael.  Find it here!

An interesting thing happened on the way to work this morning.  While I was waiting at the bus stop, a woman with her two kids was there.  Her daughter, who couldn’t have been more than 10 years old, said, “You stole my book, mommy!”

Her mother responded: “I didn’t steal it, I only borrowed it.”

“You took it without asking, so you stole it,” said the little girl.

“Well, I’m your mother,” was the response.

And it got me to think.  We recognize that when we take something from our children, it’s not really taking it from them since they only own what we give them in the first place.  We know it’s not stealing because we’re the ones who bought and paid for it in the first place.  Our children can use things, of course, but in the end “I’m your mother” is all the authority needed.

How much so, then, is it with God?  We can complain that God doesn’t give us the things that we want.  We can say God took things away from us that we did want.  In the end, though, all God has to do is say, “Well, I’m God.”  And that settles it.  He created all things, so all things are His in the first place.

We know this when it comes to our children.  Now we just need to remember it about God.

The fine folks over at Debunking Christianity–folks, who I might point out, would never think of resorting to ad hominem, question begging, invalid conclusions, or sloppy thinking–posted a link to Questions Your Pastor Will Hate.  The questions are posed by Denis Diehl, who claims to be a former pastor.  He said that his questions resulted in the following: “I got a lot of looks but very few answers.”

I think it’s because the sheer stupidity of the questions involved shocked the pastor he was talking to.  I wasn’t even going to bother responding to it until I read the comments section of the Debunking Christianity page.

 For instance, Bacon Eating Atheist Jew wrote:

What do Fundies say to these questions, I wonder?

They tend to do the ostrich thing when they are confronted with questions like this.

Some grasp at straws. They put the fun in Fundies.

So apparently, some of these atheists actually agree with these questions.  For some reason, while theists can separate themselves from their fruitcake fringe, atheists just embrace theirs.

So without further ado, here’s my response to the Questions Your Pastor Will Hate:

I remember asking about how humans and dinosaurs could coexist. After all, they had to be a part of the creation story, even though not mentioned specifically.

The first thing to point out is that the second sentence is a non sequitur from the first sentence.  Whether dinosaurs were part of the creation story has nothing to do with “how humans and dinosaurs could coexist.”  Secondly, “even though not mentioned specifically” is the answer to the question implied by the second sentence.  The Creation story, amazingly enough, doesn’t list out every single plant or animal created.  The Bible, amazingly enough, isn’t of infinite length.  Go figure.

Or why would dinosaurs be taken on the ark, only to go extinct such a short time after?

First of all, who says they were on the ark?  It is most certainly possible that dinosaurs went extinct long before the ark even happened.  After all, the radical changes to the entire world that occured after the Fall could easily have resulted in the extinction of many species.  The very ground was cursed due to Adam’s sin–how many plants and animals died out at that moment?  We don’t know.

Secondly, even if they died out afterwards, what difference would it make?  The dodo bird died out too.  Do you hear any atheists whining about that?

I remember asking why the Bible, a book which had to know better since it was written by God himself, said Joshua raised his hands and the “sun stopped for the space of about a day,” when clearly it would be the earth that stopped rotating?

Why do you, when you clearly know better, talk about the sunrise and sunset when clearly the Earth is rotating?  Naturally, the people back then probably did not know that the Earth rotated.  From their perspective, it is the sun that moves around the sky.  God would have simply authored confusion had He said, “The Earth stopped rotating.”  And, might I point out, everyone then would have said, “Ha!  We can see the sun moving!  You’re dolts for believing the Earth turns!  Look how massive the Earth is!  And you think it’s moving, stupid theists!”

I asked him how oceans would not slop out of their basins in such a scenario and drown the whole world? I asked him if humans would not be cast into space by such a sudden stop of the entire planet?

Yes, obviously a God who is able to stop the Earth from rotating would not be able to keep the oceans in their basins or keep people from being cast off into space…

I even asked if this really happened, why did no one else on the whole planet notice it, or write about it?

And I would simply ask, if evolution is true why haven’t we found the missing link?  What’s that, you say?  The process of preserving fossils is a delicate thing?  Most ancient things are destroyed by natural processes before we can get them?  But obviously that doesn’t happen to archeology.  Obviously we know every single thing that happened in the ancient world because their records were all preserved to this day in their hyperbolic chamber.

Why did God not like Cain’s vegetable sacrifice but loved Abel’s cooked meat?” Answer…Vegetarians are weak Christians.

Wrong.  Try: “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts” (Hebrews 11:4).  Abel had faith.  Cain didn’t.  That’s why Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and Cain’s wasn’t.

“Who was Cain afraid would kill him when God put him out of the Garden for killing Abel? There were mom, dad, bro and himself on the whole planet at the time.” Answer…He must have known his sisters were going to have kids with dad, no not that. He was speculating. Cain wasn’t thinking very clearly that day.

First, he killed his brother.  When that happens, family members do take note and could very well have exacted justice.  Secondly, we don’t know how old Cain was when this happened.  Given the extraordinary length of life in those days, there could have been dozens of generations of people alive by that point.

“Why would God stop the whole earth for a day so Israelites could finish a genocide against the enemy?” I mean, I can see stopping it so there is more time to hug, or feed the hungry, or plant the crops, but more time to kill? Dumb story. Answer…God hates sin and had to kill the bastards, he just needed more time than he planned on.”

First, the atheist worldview has no reason to say that genocide is wrong.  There is no morality in atheism.  Thus, to impugn God by saying He committed genocide is to borrow from the theistic worldview.  Secondly, even today when people die we will say, “It was an act of God.”  God has the right over life.  Life is owed no one, for the wages of sin is death.  Therefore, God had every right to have those people killed should He choose.  Thirdly, it didn’t take longer than He planned on–He was using human instruments, which is how God acts in this world, and He enabled them to accomplish His purpose.

“How come the horses in the Exodus die twice in the Ten Plagues and still survive for Pharoah to mount a final attack against the Israelites, and then die again.” Answer…Where do you get this stuff?

Actually, that’s a good answer.  Where do you get this stuff?  The horses in Exodus died twice in the Ten Plagues?  That’s true–but not all the horses die. 

Let’s see, the plagues are: The Nile turns to blood (no horses are listed as dying), Frogs (no horses die), Gnats (no horses die), Flies (no horses die), all the Egyptian livestock dies (including horses–finally, some horses die!) but none of the Israel livestock dies.

Let’s see…Israelites were slaves.  Naturally, after all the Egyptian livestock died, they’d let the Israelites keep their livestock.  Of course.  Of course.

Next plague: Hail.  This killed all the livestock that wasn’t under safe shelter, but “Whoever feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh hurried his slaves and his livestock into the houses” (Exodus 9:20), so obviously all the horses were killed again…. of course.

Next plague: Locusts (no horses die).  Then Darkness (no horses die).  And finally, he death of the Firstborn (all the firstborn horses die).

Now obviously several horses did die, but there would still have been lots of horses left to go drown in the Red Sea.

“Why, no matter what, is it always the human’s fault and God never gets any blame for not making good on his promises?” Answer…It’s a mystery. Have faith. God’s ways are not your ways.

Name a promise God hasn’t made good on.

“Why does the Apostle Paul, who writes most of the New Testament, NEVER quote Jesus, tell a story of his life or death, discuss a miracle or teaching?” Answer…Where do you get this stuff?

Actually, Paul does quote Jesus. 1 Timothy 5:18 “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’”  The second part is quoting Luke 10:7, where Jesus says: “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages.”  Paul not only quoted Jesus, but he called what Jesus said “Scripture.”

But as to why Paul didn’t spend much time quoting Jesus or why he didn’t mention stories of his life, well first the Gospels were already written so it would have been redundancy (Paul was quoting Jesus out of Luke; Luke traveled with Paul for quite some time, and thus Paul was probably very familiar with the gospel of Luke).  Secondly, it was not his mission to quote about the life and times of Christ.  God used Paul for theological teaching, not for historical narrative.  Different focuses require different tools.

And that also explains the following:

Why does neither Mark nor John know anything about Jesus birth, while Matthew and Luke do but tell contradictory stories?” Answer…Because the Gospels are like four people who see a car wreck…

Again, the focus of Mark and John was not on the birth of Christ.  Matthew and Luke did focus on it, because of their purpose in writing.  However, since no contradiction is listed (it’s just mentioned that there is one–by which all I say is there’s a contradiction in that, I don’t have to show it it just us) it’s impossible for me to respond to that portion.

“Why does Paul only say Jesus was born of a woman like everyone else?” Answer…Paul was concerned about the risen Jesus, not the earthly one. He was too busy to check up on the details.

Jesus was born of a woman.  Everyone else is born of a woman too.  Amazing how that works.  That Jesus was the Son of God is also something Paul affirms a multitude of times.  For example: “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes” (2 Cor. 1:19); “And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20); “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4)–hey, what do ya know, probably the passage you were referring to…and it says “God sent forth HIS SON.”  Obviously it doesn’t mean that Jesus is really God’s Son…He was only born of a woman….

“Did Paul ever spend five minutes with the real human Jesus?” Answer..well no, but Paul’s Jesus is the risen Jesus, it doesn’t matter.

Given that it was the real human Jesus who rose from the dead, the answer is yes, he did.

“Isn’t it strange the man who writes most of the New Testament and tells us all how to live, think and believe about Jesus, never met him, while the Twelve who did, vanish into thin air and write nothing/” Answer…You ain’t from around these parts are you boy.

Yeah, that’s why Peter–one of the twelve–says of Paul’s writing: “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16).  Hmm, well Peter–one of the twelve–thought Paul was writing Scripture.

“How come Jesus never wrote anything himself while alive, but then writes perfect Greek after he is dead in the form of the Book of Revelation?” Answer….He finished his PHD in Heaven.

As hard as it is to get a stupider question than we’ve already seen, you’ve managed to do that with this quote.  John wrote Revelation.  Jesus knew perfect Greek because He spoke it (as well as Aramaic and Hebrew).  Anyone who knows history knows this.  The Hebrew lands were conquered by Alexander the Great, who Hellinized the culture.  Thus, everyone learned Greek.  This was still the case by the time the Romans came to conquer the lands.

“If Herod killed all the little children under two to get at Jesus, who escaped, can we not say the little children had to die for Jesus before he died for them?” Answer…No we can’t, sheesh.”

You can say that if you wish, but the deaths they died “for” Jesus were not equivelant to the death Jesus died for them.  Apples and oranges.

“How come Herod couldn’t follow the Star of Bethlehem himself to find Jesus, but sent others to report back when they found him?” Answer…He was busy.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of history yet again.  The Star of Bethlehem was not a huge arrow like it’s portrayed in Nativity scenes.  It was probably a conjunction of planets and the Magi were most likely simply astrologers.  They were following their astrology charts.  Herod, when he looked at the sky, would have just seen dots in the air.  He would not have been able to understand the stars because he was not an astrologer.

“How could Mary leave town after being warned of Herod’s intentions and never tell the women in the town, their kids were about to be butchered?” Answer…she was under oath not to tell the Angel story.
“Do you think Mary thought, ‘I know something you don’t know,’ as she left town?” Answer…you’re sick.

Where does this morality, by which you claim Mary did wrong, come from?  In any case, who’s to say who Mary told and who she didn’t?  Who’s to say if she told anyone that they’d believe her?  Maybe she told lots of people and they just scoffed because they were atheists.

“How could Jesus family flee to Egypt sometime during the first two years in one story but go home to Narareth quietly after 40 days in the other?” Answer…It’s a miracle.

Actually, it’s two events.  The family fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13), then Herod died and they came back to Judea (Matthew 2:19).  But when Joseph heard Archelaus was king, he was warned in a dream to flee to Galilee to the town of Nazareth (Matthew 2:22-23).  In either case, I don’t see where you get the “40 days” from.  Luke says simply that they went to Nazareth, giving no time frame (Luke 2:39), and as you said earlier Mark and John don’t talk about his birth.  Quit making up stuff.

“How come in Mark 3 Mary and his brothers came to get Jesus and take him home because they thought he was “mad” which I assume means insane. Did Mary forget who he was and how he got here?” Answer…shut up.

Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him until after the resurrection.  As for your claim that Mary thought this, that’s not what Mark 3 says.  “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” (Mark 3:21).  His brothers most definitely qualify as his “family” and Mary isn’t even mentioned until Mark 3:31, and only then as having come with his brothers to meet him.  Nowhere does Mark 3 says Mary thought Jesus was mad.

“How come Matthew uses the Old Testament to weave a story of Jesus, where every quote he uses has absolutely nothing to do with the point he is making about Jesus birth?” Answer…While we might flunk you for such methods, we give Matthew an A, because, well, he’s Matthew. Bible guys get to do and say things you’re not allowed to.

First, Matthew doesn’t have that many passages where you could make the claim that he was “proof-texting.”  But the answer given, though sarcastic, is also correct.  Matthew was inspired.  He knew how to interpret Scripture correctly.  Again, since no actual examples are given, it’s impossible to say anything beyond the general.

“If Jesus was asked ‘who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’, would that not imply the man had sinned before his birth, perhaps in a previous life, if his blindness at birth was some kind of punishment? I mean, the blindness was from birth, so the sin had to be before that.” Answer…Ummm.., no. Whatever the answer, it’s definately not that one.

The answer is no, and Jesus Himself explains it.  “Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:3).  The question was asked based on incorrect assumptions.

“So is it just me, or are these good questions to ask about the text and theology of the Bible?” Answer…It’s just you.

In this case, that answer is spot on.  Frankly, if this is all the level of understanding of Scripture that you can muster, I’m glad you’re no longer a pastor.  It’s because of pastors like you that you can even now criticize believers by pretending they’re stupid.  Certainly, those taught by you would have been. You don’t even have the slightest clue about the basics of exegesis, and your pastorship could only have hurt the flock.

Sometimes, I get amazed by the things that people will argue.  How they use one set of ideas when the examine religious belief, but another set for how they examine everything else.  Atheists are far more hyper-critical of the standard of proof for the existence of God than they are about anything.

This is why they fall prey to so many simplistic errors in thinking.  Since they don’t hold Christianity in high regard, they don’t mind using arguments with unproven assumptions, false conclusions, or irrational starting points–yet if they were to examine a math problem, they would criticize soundly the person who did such a thing in that realm.

Atheists pretend that they are just looking for the perfect argument to prove God’s existence.  But this isn’t the case.  They don’t want any argument for the existence of God, because ultimately it isn’t a matter of their intellect but a matter of their will.  They do not want God to exist.

Thus, someone who says that God does exist, must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that He does exist, while the atheist would accept reasonable limitations in any other subject.  Why does the standard of proof shift just because God is involved?

The bottom line is that you can never satisfy “beyond all doubt.”  We are humans, and therefore we are prone to error, and thus there is a level of doubt in everything that humans are associated with, including our thinking.  It is impossible to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt precisely because humans are not perfect.  This is why the atheist asks for the perfect argument, because he knows that he will still be able to wiggle around and deny the existence of God no matter what evidence you provide.  The absurdity of it is found in the fact that you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the universe (complete with your memories) did not pop into existence yesterday.  In fact, there’s no way that you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this post I am writing right now actually exists and is not a figment of your imagination.

But you don’t take the standard of absolute proof when you judge these things.  Why, then, would you change the standard of proof when questioning God?