Honestly, Does This Make Any Sense?

As any reader of this blogger can attest, this blogger has had many contacts with Christian apologists that ended in frustration. One of the most viewed apologetics blogs by this blogger is Tough Questions Answered. I sort of look at reading of such material as the same as gawking at a car accident --- I can't take my eyes off it because of curiosity, even though it is painful to look.

Check out this comment about "Loki's Wager" found on the thread entitled "Are Answers to Ultimate Questions Dangerous?" This thread is a good example of philosophical jargon leading to nothing significant (take a look at how long the thread is, then read at least a few representative comments --- sad.)

Clicking on the Loki's Wager phrase, this blogger found this treatis:

Atheists: Does this logic disprove the theories held by atheists?

Ultimate Logic: Problem one with atheist theory-
Some people believe God is a personal God that interferes in every day life.
Others define God as simply being equivalent to the universe.
Others define God as creating the universe and not partaking in everyday affairs.
and so on....
Since God is a contestable term and there is no universal meaning,
it could therefore be assigned any meaning by anyone, and the fact of the matter wouldn't change, the word could mean anything.
So by saying you do not believe in God you are actually saying you do not believe in anything.
Therefore, you do not believe you exist.
According to several philosophers, if you exist, you can believe you exist. So if you do not believe you exist, you do not exist.
Therefore, atheists do not exist.

Problem 2 with atheism:
Those who believe in God, must prove God exists right?? ummm not sure....
I know.... the burden of proof SHOULD lie on anyone trying to prove a positive.

But oh no... this is a value based statement, whose to say the burden of proof does not lie on those trying to disprove a positive.
This entire assumption must have been subjectively created.

Can you prove that the burden of proof should fall on those trying to prove a positive?

Or is this a normative statement? or perhaps it is just a rule of science... if that is the case it cannot be applied outside of science.
Right?

Problem 3: The universe was not created by God??? Right?? umm not sure....

Big Bang theory is constantly being revised because it does not explain what happened before the big bang.
Introducing Big Bounce theory- An alternative universe existed before ours was created (well more technically this universe decreased to extremely small size and then ours expanded out of this bang.
But wait... Our mathematical formulas cannot be used to draw conclusions about the nature of this universe (and some scientists believe this will not change).... it is therefore incomprehensible

incomprehensible..... kind of like God.
Speculating about what happened before the Big Bang is like speculating about the nature of God....?????
WAIT! Some scientists believe science cannot explain everything about the material universe.. and certainly cannot prove it...
So we must take a leap of faith?????

Problem 4: Theory of Evolution, we evolved from apes... Or did we evolve from humans that looked like apes??? What if we evolved from humans?? in that case did we evolve??? or maybe we are still apes??/
or maybe we don't exist???

Problem 5: Congratulations, you must be an atheist if you wasted your time answering these pointless questions. that may have some logical grounding, but are really a waste of time. If you are reading the last part first and did not waste your time, then how do you know if I am right or not??

Does this support theism? Is it precise and succinct? Does it make any sense?

Folks, this is apologetics.