instead of pointing out the logic in that argument, how about this?
disprove this:
It was November 2, 1985, on 32 Grant Street, Albuquerque, at 9:03 pm, I stabbed God in the chest and shot his friend Marvin in the face over meth.
The more you try hard to prove/disprove this claim, the more mental gymnastics you’ll have to do, which makes it similar to when theists say you cannot disprove god. because you cannot prove it either.
There is no Grant Street in Albuquerque, NM.
exactly, the more you read the claim the more crazy shit you find. the closest thing to reality is probably a dead marvin (which may or may not exist)
Many concepts of deities are falsifiable of course, if only by rational inference. Also many claims about deities can and some have been falsified entirely. The biblical Genesis creation myth is at odds with objective facts about the formation of solar systems, and with biological facts like evolution. The Noah creation myth is disproved by the geological record, which demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred. These are just two examples.
Move this to the 4000 Block of NE 13th Avenue in Portland, Oregon…replace meth with heroin…and all you have left is God and Marvin as the unsubstantiatable variables in the scenario.
This is an interesting little exercise. I can see the deer in the headlights look on theists attempting to disprove your delusion with theirs…
It sounds like a murder confession more than it sounds like a claim 
it’s because of things like this that religion moves their goalposts to say it’s “symbolic” or something.
take this one from the quran for example.
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu’l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. - Surah Al-Kahf 18:86
There is no way anyone can defend this by saying the sun literally chills in muddy water when it sets. They’d start saying that the verse is somehow figurative or a metaphor in some way.
My literalist / inerrantist former handlers were insistent that the Bible was to be taken literally except when it wasn’t. Of course to us, it was self-evident what was not literal because it would contradict our dogma if it was. “Let women keep silent and have their heads covered in church” is pretty unambiguous and leaves no real room for discussion, but it was not a dogma we followed; we had women as Sunday School teachers and musicians and they were voting members and so forth – and they certainly were allowed to speak as per the surrounding culture. They just couldn’t be senior leadership like pastors or board members.
Supposedly that verse was just instructions relevant to the culture and times of the early church but not binding for us today. How convenient.
There was a denomination I visited once where the women always wore little doilies on their heads when in church, and I don’t think they spoke or taught either, so they decided to take that verse literally. Might have been Plymouth Brethren, not sure anymore. I’m sure there were other things they felt were figurative, metaphorical or symbolic though.
At some point I realized that the Bible says what each sect says it does, no more and no less. And nevermind that they often disagree with each other.
i don’t know what little dollies are but when I was a kid, my christian grandmother always wears some kind of head covering or a silk veil to church alongside other women where i live
Not dolly, doily. Not unlike what you are describing but what I saw was very much like the doilies that were used a couple of generations ago to cover small end tables. They have laced edges.
I do believe that some of the older women in some subcultures practiced that as well, even here in the US. I think it’s meant as a token of modesty and not having “showy” hair styles. And certainly not sexy ones!
I might simply ask them to disprove pixie fairies live on a planet in a neighboring galaxy, and that I talk to them with my grandson’s wallkie-talkies. When they talk to me, they sound just like static or some other random background noise. However, only I can understand what they are saying, because I truly believe they exist. They grant me favors whenever I ask for them, and they give me advice regarding my day to day problems. Although, they do not always give me what I ask of them, telling me it is for my own good. Of course they know better, considering how much more advanced they are than humans. Better yet, they love me so much, they said they will transport me to their planet after I die so that they can bring me back to life to live with them forever. I’ve never been to another planet before. I’m so excited I can hardly wait!…. (*giggle*)….
The problem with their claim is when the text is unequivocally specific, as with the two examples, and of course symbolic does not necessarily mean true either. The fact they appeal to mystery doesn’t strengthen their claim, the fact it is objectively untrue certainly makes it dubious.
A global flood 20 ft above the highest peak, is very specific. As is a planet with light day /night, and vegetation before the sun in that solar system has formed.
No amount of symbolism will help this, they just appear to be desperate rationalisation to preserve a cherished belief.
