04 // How Do I Talk to a Skeptic?

[@jimscott9974]

You talk to a skeptic by presenting demonstrable evidence and rational arguments for your claims, which is something no theist has ever done.

[@primemeridian1204]

They just love their sin too much. :(

[@jimscott9974]

@@primemeridian1204 Skeptics love the truth, which is why they are not convinced by emotional appeals and tired, old arguments which have been repeatedly debunked. And all you present is an ad hominem attack rather than sound arguments responding to their rational skepticism.

[@berthus8402]

​@@primemeridian1204 Yeah man, believing in reason is different from wanting to sin. I just want to use the brain (that acording to you, god himself gave me) to figure out what are logical things to believe in. And by using that brain, using the logical ways you can figure stuff out, you will find that there is no proof of disproof of god. You just have to be real and search both for things that agree with your point of view, and things that disprove your point of view.

[@Kenzaki1010]

@@primemeridian1204 Thou shall not bear false witness. Why do you love your sin so much that you feel the need to sin out of nowhere?

[@anthonymitchell9793]

@@primemeridian1204 There is no such thing as sin until you can prove there is a god. And as the original post said, evidence and rational arguments do.

[@corpeedo]

Always be wary of someone who tries to tell you what to think, and not how to think.

[@j-joe-jeans]

That includes virtually all supporters of religions

[@MrMattSax]

There is a difference between “I don’t believe in a god” and “I believe there is no god”. There is an important distinction to make between those two positions. The host defined “atheist” as both positions one after another.

[@christophersandford5888]

I was just about to comment this. Precisely. "Let's define our terms"... proceeds to provide contrary definitions. Better tack: rather than defining terms internally and then asking someone which word they choose and assuming they have the same definition, how about we *shock* ask them what they believe?...

[@scottsmith2235]

Yes-atheist: does not believe in a god because of no evidence; anti-theist: says that there is no god. Christians just want to use Psalms 14:1, 53:1 so bad because they think that a Bible scripture will defeat the atheist position. 😆

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@scottsmith2235 To be pedantic, one can be an atheist in the face of supportive evidence for a god, without supportive evidence for no discernible reason at all etc. In the least, one only needs to not be convinced to be an atheist.

[@scottsmith2235]

@@j-joe-jeans How interesting? But your statement is ridiculous and a non-sequitur when there is no supportive evidence for a god. I don’t see you presenting any such evidence. To not be truthful and not pedantic, it looks like you just wish that you had evidence-you either do or you don’t. So you would have to at least provide a case where a god was proven to exist and then show that the proven god is still not believed to be true despite such.

[@mugogrog]

@@scottsmith2235 j-joe-jeans is correct in a very important way though. All being an atheist is is not being convinced. You can remain unconvinced for any number of reasons, some rational, some not. I wouldn't want anyone to be an atheist for bad reasons or due to accepting fallacious arguments because coming into a position on a shaky foundation means you can be persuaded by equally bad reasons to the contrary.

[@QuietWind01]

I've so far never met or debated with any theist that has an even remotely good argument. I don't think I've ever encountered a theistic argument that wasn't based on fallacies or irrational thought.

[@vicu_negru]

and it gets even worse when you ask them why they don`t believe in other regions and they tell you good valid reasons for why not to believe in it... but when you ask them to use the same standard of evidence for their religion, they twist and do mental gymnastics...

[@QuietWind01]

@vicu_negru Or, they don't give a good answer at all. I have legitimately heard responses to that question essentially being, "I don't know, but I just have faith my God is correct".

[@holygore]

@@QuietWind01or “I don’t have to justify my beliefs”.

[@justdoit9596]

​@@QuietWind01 what is the fallacy or irrational thought behind the cosmological argument?

[@QuietWind01]

@justdoit9596 The biggest logical issue with it, is that it starts with a positive claim and then seeks confirmation for its bias by acrively seeking evidence that would in any way, shape or form be able to be twisted to 'support' it. It does not start with an observation and then come up with a hypothesis, and then gather data and information to disprove the hypothesis (which is how science works). Every piece of 'evidence' I have heard very weakly supports its claims.

[@crassbusinessman3122]

Oh this is easy...Strawman his position, hand wave every point he makes, talk over him, insult him personally, and if you get to the inevitable point where you cant reconcile a point, just say 'Gods ways are higher than ours' or 'I take it on faith'. You cant lose!

[@crassbusinessman3122]

@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 Yes. I know its hard to effectively portray tone in text, but I was being sarcastic.

[@mattakudesu]

Yeah, I don't think answering a skeptic's straightforward and honest question with another question is a good way to get them to take you seriously. It's clearly deflection to a topic you hopefully know more about, instead of just saying you don't know. Skeptics tend to really dislike people who pretend to know something, like assuming someone left the church because they were hurt in some way. Skeptics tend to want straightforward evidencene, these conversations don't have to drag on for years.

[@jeffchapman6016]

@@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 Is it actual evidence, or the same old flawed arguments we've all heard hundreds of times before?

[@jeffchapman6016]

@@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 so another version of the flawed watchmaker argument a la ray comfort. lol. However, I will play along: No, I didn't see it being painted.

[@piesho]

Yeah, no, that's not my definition of atheist. So as somebody who is not convinced that any gods exist, my recommendation to you, the theists, is to first ask an atheist what his/her definition of atheist is.

[@mugogrog]

Best advice I've seen and it would avoid so much confusion and a lot of misconceptions.

[@piesho]

@@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 I think you are a little confused here. It is the theists who believed that nothing created god.

[@grayhalf1854]

​@@piesho... and god created everything... out of nothing! Cos he can you know, he's omni-everything. Checkmate atheists! 🙃😀

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@piesho in truth it was not nothing that created god but rather people.

[@vicu_negru]

what gets me whenever i talk to a theist of any kind, is that they don`t hold their religion to the same standard as they hold other gods and religions.

[@watchandjewelryloft4713]

This. They don't hold their own to anything close to what they argue against. Argue with an atheist, and the standards are extremely high or impossible. Your grandma had an "experience" with Jesus? She's for sure true and going to heaven. The bar is literally laying on the floor for their own arguments. It's ridiculous.

[@ImplodingChicken]

Hi there, I'm a longtime atheist with a lot of debate experience. I was very pleasantly surprised by this video! Usually when I get things like this recommended they're very antagonistic or denigrating towards atheists, but you gave very good advice and approached everything from a place of mutual respect and understanding. A few things to add: - You start with defining some terms, which is an excellent idea and a critical step. It's important to understand what someone's position is before you start debating it, otherwise you might spend a bunch of time arguing against things the other person doesn't even believe. To that end, define your position as well! Tell your atheist conversation partner not just that you're a Christian, but what denomination you are and what that means. What do you actually believe? Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Do you believe in an imminent end of days? Is your belief based on objective evidence, personal experience, logical arguments, pure faith, or some combination of these factors? - As other commenters have pointed out, many atheists today are very picky with exactly how you phrase the definition of "atheist". You give two seemingly-identical ones with a subtle difference - "an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God", and "an atheist is someone who believes there is no God". To show how these are different, imagine this: you're looking at a jar of hundreds of gumballs and someone says "I reckon there's an even number of gumballs in there." You can't tell at all if the number is even or odd, so you say, "I don't believe there's an even number of gumballs in the jar." That's very different from saying, "I believe there isn't an even number of gumballs in the jar - i.e. I believe there's an odd number of gumballs in the jar." Many atheists today (especially online) prefer the first definition, the "doesn't believe in God" or "lacks belief in God" one, which is often called "agnostic atheism". I personally don't like this definition very much but since it's a very popular one it's worth being aware of it. - For my money the best advice in this video is to be a good listener. So many conversations and debates about religion are just two people talking at each other and regurgitating things they've been told, and then both sides go home with nothing gained by anyone. If you speak to 100 atheists and really listen, you'll find 100 different worldviews (and the same goes for theists). To that end, don't just listen to respond - don't spend your whole time listening trying to come up with something to say back. Listen to understand. What is your conversation partner saying? What are they trying to communicate? It's important to also be charitable when you listen; sometimes someone slips up and says something they don't mean or says something that's technically wrong in an unimportant way. Interpret things in the most charitable way to your conversation partner. And you don't need to always have an answer ready for everything - it's OK to say "that's interesting, give me a moment to think about that" and simply pause. Or to say "let me think about that more and I'll get back to you another day." - A difficult recommendation but one I must give nonetheless: invest yourself in the conversation. If you walk into a room trying to change someone else's mind, but you're not willing to change your own mind, you're not going to get very far. To reach common ground, to deepen your understanding, you must acknowledge the fact that just as the other person should be open to the possibility that they're wrong, so should you. You're not there to teach a student - you're there to have a conversation as equals. If you can set aside hubris and really open yourself up to a true exchange of ideas, there's a lot you can learn. I've been talking with Christians and other theists for years, and although none of them has converted me so far, I've learned a ton from them and changed my mind on a lot of things. Changing your mind and learning new things isn't weakness or losing - it's the whole point. - As you said in the video - sometimes people aren't looking for a conversation, they're just looking for a fight. Whether it's because they're in an unstable emotional state, or just because they want to "dunk" on someone else and feel smart. Don't bother talking with them. It's impossible to change someone's mind if they are not willing to have their mind changed. Unfortunately there's a lot of vitriol in our culture around religious conversations, but if I've learned one thing from my conversations with Christians, it's that what we need is love, not hate. Good luck on your journey, wherever it leads you!

[@mugogrog]

Tracy needs her gumballs back :D

[@brucebaker810]

Paragraphs, my guy.

[@mugogrog]

@Parkwood Baptist Church Hey Pastor Hand! I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions that are in the video. The first is regarding the definitions of agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism concerns only a lack of knowlege and is therefor a descriptor of both atheists and theists. You can lack knowlege of a god and still believe in one just as well as you can lack knowlege and not believe in one. Atheism just means you're not convinced there are any gods. Anti-theism means you are directly opposed to theism and think that there are no gods. Regarding skepticism, I think what you call a total skeptic perfectly fits the definition of a conspiracy mindset, just couple that unreasonable skepticism with complete confirmation bias. Skepticism should be reasonable and most people who I've met who calls themselves atheists are quite reasonable. The problem isn't the skepticism there but the lack of compelling evidence. You call it specific skepticism but once you consider that bigger claims require better evidence (I think Sagan put it "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence") you'll see that they're just skeptics in general it's just that the claim you're making is a pretty hefty one. The story about your friend who said he just wanted to sin, if that is true, which I will be charitable and believe that it is, sounds like someone who just got tired of hearing the nagging about god without any evidence presented over and over. The easiest way to just end that nagging would be to say something like "I just want to sin, ok?" Sin is a completely empty concept to an atheist, it doesn't exist until you prove there's a god to offend. It really doesn't come into the equation when considering the question of god's existence at all. If I were to think that the case for god was compelling but I just didn't want to be accountable to that god I wouldn't be an atheist since I would have already been convinced of the proposition. If you want to talk to a skeptic or an atheist in general, be honest, that's all you have to do. If there is a god that a reasonable person should believe in it should be easy to honestly argue the point. Oh, and don't use the bible to argue for the god of the bible, that is just circular. If you want to reference the bible you need to first show why someone should take it seriously as something more than a piece of literature. If your reason for believing is a personal revelation then perhaps plead to god that everyone gets a sufficient revelation to meet their evidentiary standards.

[@michaellumsdaine4944]

As an agnostic myself, I appreciate your focus on loving and understanding rather than "winning" the argument.

[@j-joe-jeans]

If understanding is a virtue here, why is his lack of understanding the basics of logic and standards of evidence lacking in understanding?

[@jeffsaxton716]

In my case, I prefer you didn't talk to me period.😂

[@ugprayer3031]

I'm sure he would accomodate you

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@ugprayer3031 I’d prefer he not to talk to anyone on the subject of claiming a god is real. We have enough fiction in media.

[@unduloid]

The best way to talk to a true skeptic is to provide evidence for your claims. If you can do that you should have no problems convincing them. If you can't you should start wondering _why_ that is, instead of blaming the person who is skeptical of your claims.

[@rentiap]

there is no one dumber or gullible than one who believes fiction written in a book of fables and myths is real.

[@jsharp9735]

You can't do logical deductions ?

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@jsharp9735 we can deduce the above applies to most theists.

[@jsharp9735]

@@j-joe-jeans Yet you can't go one step further with the BB. Because when you do it shows you believe that nothing created everything.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@jsharp9735 you demonstrably have no idea what the Big Bang is and is not. The theory based on facts is that all space, time, matter/energy was in a singularity (is a postulation) 13.8 billions years ago. The Big Bang does not address a prior state of the current instantiation of spacetime/matter as we cannot “measure” prior to the Planck time. I’m short, the Big Bang nowhere talks about where energy, matter and time came from nor what if anything created it. It only talks to what happens post the Planck time and up to now. Thus your assertion that the Big Bang touches is predicated on or entails “a something from nothing” is laughably incorrect and factually false. Don”t trust my word, go find a notable and accepted Big Bang citation in academia that correlates it to a creation of something from nothing. We will be waiting.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@jsharp9735 demonstrate that with a syllogism. As you cannot you are simply saying nothing.

[@johnmack537]

“The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.” - Voltaire

[@Ulsaf]

It’s so laughable to sneak in that last point. Such a common condescension by theists. “My atheist buddy said he just cant live without sinning” Surrrreee. It’s not that you made a bad argument, it’s that atheists are morally corrupt, unlike religious people who are so kind and loving and do not sin.

[@ugprayer3031]

Not a condescension at all my guy. He was giving an illustration of a personal experience. It seems like his buddy wasn't really an atheist, just hiding behind the label. Lots of Christians do the same thing. He never said ALL atheists are like that

[@justsomebloke6784]

@@ugprayer3031 You are so credulous! Also frighteningly literal. The little anecdotes about atheists must come from a special book issued to every pastor, they all seem to have the same few stories. Unless of course there is only one atheist in the world and every pastor has met them. It was a very condescending example of 'atheists just love sinnin' too much'. If there's a heaven I'm going there anyway as in the bible it is said that someone cannot be blamed and called a sinner for not being given sufficient evidence for belief. Sort of like a reversal of Pascal's Wager, if there is a god, I've done as I pleased and gone to heaven, whereas the theist has worried themself sick and closed their eyes to that of the world they think goddington wouldn't like, and still may not end up going to heaven.

[@cerad7304]

How to talk to a skeptic by someone who has never ever ever had a conversation with a skeptic.

[@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938]

Are you a skeptic ?

[@cerad7304]

@@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 Yes I consider myself to be a skeptic. Thanks for asking.

[@ugprayer3031]

Wow. Do you know the host? How can you say he's never had a conversation with a skeptic? Pretty easy way to dismiss what he said

[@cerad7304]

@@ugprayer3031 No I do not know the host. But the fact that it's so easy to dismiss the host supports the speculation that the host has never knowingly had a conversation with a skeptic. "Answer all questions with questions." Seriously? I know this is a common theist tactic but that works well on fellow theists. But for someone trying to have a conversation? Crazy.

[@justsomebloke6784]

@@ugprayer3031 Hello, me again. You pop up all over the comments section defending the guy in the video. Do you know him?

[@brucebaker810]

1. Ask them about skepticism. 2. Realize its a way more sensible approach to assessing reality than your current method. 3. Adopt skepticism and give up any bronze age superstitions you may have been holding on to. 4. Great talk. Let's do it again soon. Bring your pastor next time.

[@ugprayer3031]

No way is skepticism a more sensible approach to anything. Like the host said, some amount of skepticism is good and needed, but skepticism alone is not a belief system, it's a way to asses claims to belief and truth.

[@bradpalmer8473]

Maybe just don't waste their time and instead have a talk to yourself about your unrealistic belief in fairy tales.

[@brucetopping248]

@@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 I think for many its the talking donkeys and snakes, virgin births, fish swallowing men, time being stopped, etc.

[@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938]

@@brucetopping248 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; (1 Corinthians 1:27, ESV) so which are you strong or wise or both ?

[@thomasseichter5670]

Atheist and skeptic here. I can tell you if you would come to me using what is said here you would loose me. Let me help you out how I would prefer to be approached by a believer: The good advice given here: - if someone is enraged about something that is not the right time to discuss these topics. A calm environment and time is needed to allow for thinking. - be a good listener! The awful advice: - don't do that praying, especially not during the discussion. This will prevent you from being a good listener! - don't make any assumtions on the reasoning of the other person. If you have the presumption the only reason the other person does not belief because he wants to sin or is angry or any other bullshit argument you wont stand a chance to honestly engage with their arguments. The most important advice from me is: be open to being wrong. Listen honestly and engage with the actual arguments and not with the argumets of an atheistic strawman that apologists planted into your head. Only if you are open to correct your own view when you realise your reasoning is flawed the conversation can lead to something. This is the approach that I use as a sceptic. In my life I had a lot of moments when I realised I was wrong and I had to correct my opinion and worldview based on better arguments and data. And as I am sure I'm still not right about everything I try to stay open minded to be corrected again. If you follow the advice given here it will help you keep your opinion exactly the same going out of the conversation as you were going in. If that is the goal then fine, but nobody will learn or grow on this and its just a waste of time for everybody. (This advice is for atheist and theist alike!)

[@khaozero]

this is 13 mins ill never get back...

[@kentonbaird1723]

And this is why I ALWAYS go to the comment section before letting the video play for even a second...

[@ppe9388]

That atheist was trolling this dude lol. He said what the Christian expected to hear just to get him off his back 😂

[@mugogrog]

Yep, that is the only reason I can think of why anyone who doesn't believe in god would say that :p

[@john211murphy]

How Do I Talk to a Skeptic? Do what you ALWAYS DO LIE FOR JESUS.

[@john211murphy]

@@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 Yes, BUT, I am sick and Tired of being insulted by Sel-Rightious. Delusional, Fairy believing BIGGOTS, who pretend that they are better than I am AND that I deserve eternal torture for the crime of not submitting their FAIRY TALE.

[@acebailey2478]

Congrats, your video attracted the skeptics. Now, use your tactics and talk to us, put it into practice :) good luck lol

[@brucebaker810]

I scanned the whole page. I see: Many replies from atheists. Many trying to be informative. Few snarky. None abusive. No replies from the creator of the video. Despite it being a multiple opportunity to talk with skeptics.. No posts by theists. I find all of that quite interesting/telling.

[@garthh7314]

This should be titled "gaslighting 101"

[@Chloe7270]

If I wanted to sin, I’d become a Christian. You guys are such good examples.

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

I am an agnostic skeptic on the subject of deities. However, I do know they created one religion for Bnei Esau and another religion for Bnei Ishmael. The reason was to cheat the 70 Nations out of their birthright and convert them all into complaint Noachides. Now billions of religious people believe the myth that there is a chosen people with a magical power of prophecy, a Holy Land promised to them and a Mashiach/Messiah/Mahdi End Times. It was the greatest confidence trick ever pulled.

[@bootskanchelsis3337]

you can start by being intellectually honest.

[@user-rz2gw8jb4v]

@@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938 Hey that sounds great, can you be honest with me?

[@kennethhawkins5943]

I would like to start by saying that I am an atheist. I don't disagree with anything that you have said but it does not get to what the conversation should be. The conversation should be about evidence of the claim. In my years of talking to theists, that is the one thing that does not appear to exist. It is the only thing that will convince a skeptic. I would be interested in what you said to your "friend" regarding suffering that he accepted. That is a major problem for the belief in the Christian god. I would like to first correct your definitions a bit. In the context in which you used it,, an agnostic IS an atheist. One that does not know that a god exists does not believe a god exists. One can be an agnostic atheist OR an agnostic theist. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know that there is no god. I do know, however, that those that claim there is a god is unable to provide evidence of that claim. Without evidence, the claim is dismissed as not being worthy of consideration. Your claim of a conversation in which someone admitted to "love their sin too much" I find to be believable. I know that I have never sinned at all. Sin is defined as a violation of divine law. Without a demonstration that the divine exists, there can be no sin. There is that which is right and that which is wrong. There is, however, no absolute right or absolute wrong. Morality is very much based on circumstance.

[@jasontechlord]

Looking forward to hearing from you today at 4:30 PM Central!

[@colinbland6484]

It’s funny how you have a Christian on this video trying to tell you how to talk to us skeptics. Why didn’t you ask an atheist or skeptic on to answer these questions? I disagree with your definitions of atheist; I’m an agnostic atheist and I don’t think those are mutually exclusive. Beyond that, I don’t think it sounds like your mate was an atheist. It sounds like he believed in a god, and he just didn’t want to participate in Christian prohibitions on behavior. I’m an atheist, and that’s not the reason I am no longer a Christian. Have you guys interviewed atheists before? Do you guys know atheists? I honestly feel misunderstood and misrepresented by this commentary.

[@ugprayer3031]

I agree with you. The terms agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive,. The host didn't say they were. And yeah, the host's friends probably wasn't a real atheist, just hiding behind the label. Christians do the same thing. Good insight! I'm a Christian and I also feel misunderstood and misrepresented by all these comments. People can be so mean. I respect the host for even trying to teach people to have civil conversations.

[@alschneider5420]

Never, never, never, quote the bible to an atheist!!!! To that person it really sounds ???. Do not respond to a question with a question. It appears disingenuous and manipulative. In general an atheist will not ask a Christian a question about god. Christians always ask the questions. In general, atheists ask questions of a Christian to make them look silly. That is very easy to do. I am willing to have a civil dialog but Christians treat me like I have not ever heard the word even though I have studied the subject for over 50 years. That is really irritating. Don't start with a presuppositional question, "Who created the universe?" Just because a person created a watch does not mean someone created the universe. That implies the universe was created. Was it? And don't use illogical analogies like the watch bit. Please do not use if during the conversation. Then you really sound like you are talking about some imaginary thing in the sky.

[@watchandjewelryloft4713]

You just eliminated 99.9% of their talking points. 😂

[@ugprayer3031]

Not sure what circles you're traveling in but lots of atheists I have talked to love talking about the Bible. They think they can stump Christians and get them all frazzled so they ask a lot of questions. The host is trying to get the Christian to ask good meaningful questions, not the argumentative ones you see on tv lots of time. The watch bit is not at all illogical. Its a great analogy to prove a point. If you don't like it, maybe its because you don't have a good answer for it. I have to answer a lot of questions from atheists that I don't like. But If I can't answer them, or worse, choose not to, it's hardly a respectful dialogue.

[@alschneider5420]

@@ugprayer3031 Talking to you is like discussing the benefits of the stork method for childbirth. Is the stork method a good way to bring a baby into the world? Can you answer that question? It simply requires a yes or no answer. Most discussions with Christians are hardly a respectful dialogue. The only proof Christians have of god is atheists can't prove he doesn't exist. The reason atheists discuss the bible is because Christians quote the bible. For example, why did god kill everyone on earth with a flood? Did he not lay down he law, "Thou shall not kill" ? Is the reason he can do whatever he wants because he is god?

[@justsomebloke6784]

@@ugprayer3031 The only point that the Watchmaker Argument makes at all successfully, is whether or not the person hearing it has any critical thinking skills. We all "know" that watches are made by people, through personal experience as well as being evidenced by advertising materials, factories, shops etc. No-one "knows" that any gods exist to make the world, so it is a tautology to suggest the existence of the world is evidence of a god capable of creating it. We have no evidence to even suggest that a god was involved in what we see around us of the natural world, and we know what is human-made, because humans made it, so whether the watch is a house or a tornado constructing an aeroplane from a handy scrapyard, the analogy sucks really badly. The kind of reasoning on offer is not really that surprising, given that the stories the bibbly is based on happened between 6,000 and 2,000 years ago and are couched in the cultural traditions extant at that time and over the next few hundred years when the bulk of the book was written based on the oral traditions of bronze-age goatherders. I'm only trying to help you Ug, so I hope you don't mind if I come across as at all patronising, I would hate to see you waste your life in the cage of religion, when you could be free.

[@christophersandford5888]

Oh dear. You had a good approach, not saying your points didn't have issues, but you appeared to be engaging with the idea that people of different beliefs should have a conversation. And then you trotted out the "reason they dont believe" as sin. I dont believe your anecdote. I just flat think you're lying. 1. Most people who dont believe in gods dont have "one reason" to disbelieve beyond the fact that theism has not met the burden of proof in their eyes. While many atheists, especially those who deconvert, cite an experience or problem that first led them to examine their faith you will find that, having gone through that journey, they have many, many reasons to be sceptical not just one. 2. We all just love to sin right? What a lovely attempt to poison the well for your flock! Let's get this straight: if I believe in sin, I already believe in a god, since sin is defined as an act that offends or goes against a god! Now lets look at what someone who takes actions that you believe to be sinful has to fear from a Christian brand of theism... erm... nothing. Not only do we have countless examples of professing Christians who perpetrate the worst "sins" imaginable but we have Christians who differ vehemently in their position as to what is or is not a sin (homosexuality is a great example). Together this clearly demonstrates there is no barrier to being a professing Christian and a sinner. Not only this but the substiturionary atonement of Christianity in many of its forms just gives a "get out of jail free" card: done all those horrible sins? Never been forgivien by, or even sought forgivness from, the victims of your actions? No worries! Confess to someone else (Christ) and sincerely atone just before you die and a third party (Christ) can just absolve you of all that baggage without you having to do the hard work of facing up to any consequences. Wow that was a rant. Shame. I was willing to give you the benefit of trying to encourage conversation before you trotted out this tired, pathetic lie. Do better.

[@anthonymitchell9793]

Coherent, sound, air-tight argument for god? I would love to hear one. It would help me understand my wife's Christianity. So please provide one because every time I ask theists dodge the question and try to blame me.

[@ugprayer3031]

The first video in this series briefly explains the arguments for the existence of God. But the host rightly points out that you can't have air-tight arguments for pretty much anything. But, the points he makes are worth wrestling with if you're an unbeliever who truly wants to learn

[@anthonymitchell9793]

@@ugprayer3031 I couldn't find the first in the series but I did find his video on Science and Religion. I hope the first one is better than this one as in the first 2 minutes I heard so many misrepresentations of science that I. Couldn't continue watching.

[@ugprayer3031]

@@anthonymitchell9793 Funny because the host was using information gleaned from John Lennox and the like, whom I'm sure know more about science than the two of us put together. (Although, to be fair, I don't know you so you could be a science guru or something). Point is, the host knows he's not a scientist so he's using real scientists as the basis for his information.

[@anthonymitchell9793]

@@ugprayer3031 I never got that far because he was purposefully misrepresenting science and when someone starts the base of their argument on something like that things usually worse. It upsets me greatly because I don't know if he is ignorant of the things he says or if he is being dishonest. Science guru? No, but I do have two university science degrees including one in Human Biology. Also, I've watched a lot of John Lennox videos and two points need to be made: 1) He often talks ABOUT science but rarely talks science. 2) He isn't a scientist. He is a mathematician.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@ugprayer3031 “Air tight” arguments are not so just because you say they are. Reasonable arguments have a solid foundation in logic and very much require objective facts. Therein lies the flaws of every theistic argument to date: none have sound logic backed up with indicative of and exclusive objective facts.

[@jasontechlord]

How Do I Absolutely Fail In A Conversation With A Skeptic. There fixed your title. 1. Misunderstand the Skeptic's point. 2. When dealing with a fringe case, get out 3. Never answer a straight question but keep your "opponent" on the defensive 4. Ask leading questions a la Ray Comfort 5. Move those goal posts because nothing above is going to work for you! I urge you to call into The Atheist Experience this Sunday at 4:30 PM Central and try these tactics and see how it goes for you. Tell the call screener that I sent you and I promise you will be sent to the top of the call queue! Peter 3:15

[@brucebaker810]

Wouldst thou be Lord of Levels?

[@jasontechlord]

@@brucebaker810 Nope.

[@chrisgreene2070]

55 seconds into the video, alarm bells were going off.... after explaining his definition, he says, "Skepticism isn't always a bad thing." As if the audience and he would assume that being skeptical and needing proof for belief is a bad thing..... wow..... if we weren't skeptical we would have to accept all claims right of the bat. Even other God claims. Atheists and Christians are both skeptical of every single other religion. Is skepticism not the default position? 🤔

[@ugprayer3031]

The host was being thorough, defining terms, and trying to help those who might think that skepticism is generally bad.

[@vicu_negru]

mate... you do know that lying is a sin... i call total 100000% swear on Chtulhu lie about the "anecdote" with your atheist friend. there are only 2 possibilities: 1. either he got fed up with you guys constantly badgering him about your religion that he made up the "i love my sins too much part" 2. it is a complete lie and fabrication. i am hoping it is the first one, because if it is the second one you are in big trouble with your skydaddy... (i am guilty about the first one, sometimes when i get stopped on the street i just answer with "I DONT LIKE THE IDEA OF A GOD WATCHING ME WANK!")

[@robertlight5227]

Do you have any physical evidence for a physical Jesus?

[@jethren]

Hello. By the definitions you laid out, I am a skeptic, an agnostic, and an atheist. Overall I like your advice and think that you are trying to make a positive impact on the world and I respect that, but I have 2 issues. 1st, I don't believe the story with your friend and am adding it to the list of things Christians say that never happened. The whole "You just don't want to believe because you want to sin" argument has been disingenuously ascribed to me by sore-loser street evangelists too many times. the 2nd is your advice seems to be about listening only to prove the other person wrong, not listening to understand. If you listen to someone without imbibing the notion you might be the one who is wrong.... then you aren't actually listening and are expecting more from the skeptic than you are willing to commit to yourself.

[@GabrielFuller85]

You lost me at "the Bible is true". There are many things within the Bible that are incorrect. To believe the "Bible is true" is like believing "every book on this shelf in the Library is true" - there might be some truths but just because a book is published doesn't mean it's true.

[@ugprayer3031]

You're right, The host should have said "The Bible is truth." That would have been a more accurate statement. It's truth whether or not he or you or I believe it to be.

[@QuietWind01]

To those saying that the statements, "An atheist is someone who believes there is no God" and, "An atheist is someone without a believe in God", are contrary terms, sure. However, BOTH are atheists. It does not become agnosticism until one accepts the possibility that they may be wrong, or flat out do not know for sure. Let me explain: A full atheist will likely say, "I believe there is no God" and/or, "There is no God". From a standpoint, sure... but can be bad because saying, "There is no God" is a positive statement which also requires proof, meaning you hold the burden of proof. The very nature of God claims are usually unfalsifiable. This results in theists having a "gotcha!" moment when this happens. An agnostic atheist is someone who rather than positing that God is not real, hold the belief that they simply don't believe there is a God; I myself, am an agnostic atheist. I am not convinced there is a God, or a creator, and I do not believe any God claim has met its burden of proof. This can and should come eith the open mind that there is at least a sliver of possibility you are wrong and there is a God, as it does for me as I am open to the idea of being proven wrong but as of now there is no doubt that I am not wrong; but if one could convince me otherwise, it would not be impossible. An agnostic is simply someone who doesn't hold a proper position in the matter. Some regular agnostics, like my fiancé, even hold this position because they simply do not care. I find this a little bit disingenuous, but whatever. By definition, an agnostic is someone that doesn't hold a position on whether or not there is or is not a god. My point here is that atheists and agnosticism is a spectrum, while not a very broad one in terms of core beliefs (each atheist and/or agnostic could hold a wide range of differing beliefs regarding anything else, when I say this, I am referring to the core belief system regarding a god, nothing more). So technically the first two definitions of atheist are valid, they are just two different 'kinds' of atheists if you want to put it that way. It would have been better to explain this as most atheists themselves do not seem to know the difference half the time.

[@jeffchapman6016]

Atheism is "the disbelief, or lack of belief, in the existence of a god or gods". Some atheists believe there is no god. But they can't believe that unless they first "lack belief that a god or gods exist". That's why both are called atheist: because of the lack of belief in god. There are terms for the different atheists: Hard or strong or weak atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Soft or weak or negative atheism simply lack belief that he exists. Theist/Atheist deal with belief, or lack thereof. Gnostic/Agnostic deal with knowledge, or lack thereof.

[@Dannydreadlord]

This theist has the right answer. Theists dont delude yourselves into thinking you can change an atheist with your "good" answers, they may seem to be "good' answers to your mind but the reality is that they are similar to your prayers (have negligible or close to zero effect in reality). Finally always remember if a person is an atheist it is 100 % your God's fault (holy ghost or whatever) so next time you feel frustated try praying to god to change the Atheist.

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

The explanation of "atheist" is a bit off. * "a": negate * "theist": belief in god * "atheist: "no belief in god" * "anti-theist": "belief in no god" Pastor Hand had a slight of words, going from "Doesn't believe in god" to "They believe there is not a god" [3:00] Moving the negation changes the idea. If the intent is to have useful conversations, and an attempt is made to start by identifying what the other person might believe, it helps to understand the categories correctly.

[@robertjones4146]

Immediately lost all credibility when you incorrectly defined atheism.

[@justsomebloke6784]

It's not even about witnessing to atheists, it's about keeping the faithful entrenched in their beliefs. I'm sure that at one point he basically told his listeners that if people so much as disagree with your proselytising, they are angry and too dangerous to interact with, which would support my opinion about the real purpose of these pep-talks. I have to wonder whether this guy has ever met an atheist apart from in situations where he is being aggressive about his theistic beliefs, which could lead to a preponderance of negative interactions as a result. No-one likes being told they deserve to burn eternally for not liking the same book, it's kind of overeacting really.

[@ugprayer3031]

Wow. Good of you to assume so much about someone you probably have never met. I watched the podcast and thought he was respectful and not "aggressive in his theistic beliefs". Totally disagree the podcast was about keeping the faithful entrenched in their beliefs. I guess you didn't actually watch it because he said the exact opposite. Also he said if the person approaches you angry, then it's best not to engage then at that time. Allow some time to cool off so an intelligent rational discussion can be had. That's sound advice if after all, the goal is a healthy discussion.

[@justsomebloke6784]

@@ugprayer3031 I "assumed" nothing, however I did "wonder" how many atheists he knows personally, outside of proselytising with a view towards altering their point of view. Also, you imply that if I had watched the video (which I did), I would reach the same conclusions as you about what he means by what he says, which I clearly did not. In my view, proselytising is always an aggressive act, as the one seeking to convince the other of the rightness of their particular brand of theism, is baldly stating "I know better than you", whilst presenting zero evidence of any of their claims. I have no idea whether or not you are a theist, and then further to that, no clue as to which of the thousand or so denominations of christianity you may adhere to, but they are all demonstably inferior to humanism in both intention and outcome for society as a whole in my considered opinion. Atheism is not a monolith, people with vastly differing ways of life and opinions merely share one aspect of the self, and that is to not believe in the existence of gods, not just one god but all of them. That's it. Agnostic atheists are usually open to the idea of a gods existence, providing that evidence can be shown, but most also find the god of the bible to be such a reprehensible monster that even if proof could be found that the christian god exists, they would still refuse to worship him.

[@ugprayer3031]

@@justsomebloke6784 Come on, we’re not playing semantics here. You “wondering” is implying as assumption whether you meant to or not. And it’s not about you and me watching the video and then “coming to the same conclusion”. In my opinion that’s one of the problems with our world today. People can watch/hear something that is clear, obvious, objective, and then think, “What does this mean for me?” No. He said the podcast was to help believers engage with folks who call themselves skeptics, atheists, or agnostics. That’s not up for interpretation. I’m sorry you think proselytizing is always an aggressive act. You must not have met many genuine Christians. I don’t think it’s supposed to be aggressive. It’s supposed to be loving, respectful, and in and through genuine relationships. To which I think the host would agree. That seems to be the reason for these podcasts, to help Christians engage more thoughtfully and respectfully. Regarding humanism…..that just doesn’t do it for me. Humans beings are mean man. To put my faith and trust in the potential value and goodness of humans is just wishful thinking. Perhaps you have a different definition of humanism to which I’d be happy to hear.

[@justsomebloke6784]

@@ugprayer3031 To do our chat justice, I have watched the video again to see if I missed anything the first time round (you amused me by taking me to task about making assumptions then proceeding to do the same yourself when accusing me of not having watched the video), and discovered that I felt the same. so, your opening line is accusing me of playing semantics, which is a classic technique used to diminish and denigrate an argument that you have no real response for. I used the word "wonder", because the characterisation that he gave of atheists he has 'spoken' to, are two-dimensional as are so many theist anecdotes about atheists, most of which do not sound like an actual interaction but more of a vehicle to make a point. I stand by "wonder", as I have no way of proving my suspicion true or false; so I "wonder". You are correct, the video did cover the subjects named in the title, I have never disputed that, however it was dealt with in a patronising manner: "We have truth". Asking people about their beliefs and then proselytising to them is rude and egotistical, it is about your personal subjective take on which of the thousand or so christian denminations suit your feelings or how you were brought up to believe, it's not some objective monolith of "TRUTH tm" Now the No True Scotsman fallacy rears it's head, you prove the point I have just made when you tell me that the reason you assume I maintain an atheist stance is because the people who have tried to change my mind are not proper christians as you would define them. That is all about you, your subjective beliefs about your personal religious experience. Your implication is that had you been given the chance to try and make a believer of me, it would have been a pleasanr experience and that the 'evidence' (not that in my 61 years I've ever seen any evidence to support theist claims), would have convinced me. It's all about your ego. I don't know why christians need to engage with people, thoughtfully and respectfully or otherwise, just let people get on with their own lives. But I guess this goes some way to explain why over 60% of domestic terrorism in the US, is committed by christian nationalists believing that they are being 'replaced' or oppressed by minorities. You couldn't make it up. But after a few centuries of unopposed superiority, equality can feel like oppression to the poor little gun-toting thugs (I mean patriotic theist crusaders). Humanism does not mean that we all just give in to our base instincts, it involves a constant check being kept on your own behaviour in order that we foster and improve wellbeing for ourself and others, not to be confined in that effort by geographic location, race, religious affiliation, sex, gender or any of the other myriad ways another person could differ from us. There has never been a war started by humanists, can theists say the same? Do humanists go round knocking on peoples doors and trying to bully them into sharing their ideas? Have humanists ever been apologists for slavery? Do humanists try and wring money out of rubes to pay for private jets? Are humanists happy to continue with our destruction of the planet because the rapture is coming and god will re-decorate the place, so who gives a shit about looking after it? I could go on and on with the questions, but I think even the meanest intelligence could grasp the point I'm making, and that is to make the claim theism is objectively creating a better world being absolutely ludicrous, unless of course you trot out the No True Scotsman fallacy to explain away the glaringly obvious. Do I seem angry? Like the sort you shouldn't engage with? Would goddington set a couple of she bears to maul me and 41 of my friends for calling a churchman baldy? Did you know that in the bible, the only one who tells no lies is satan, old god lies like a hairy egg! He causes famine, genocide, upholds enslaving people, applauds misogyny, causes incest and rape. Yep, us humanists are a suspect bunch, I can see why you would not trust people who don't believe in your god, we have morals fit for the world we live in, something missing in the christian religion, ( waffle about not worshipping other gods aside.) So tell me, what can christianity actually do, which humanism cannot? And don't say everlasting life because we have already established that I don't think that's true, and I wouldn't want it anyway.

[@Bearssuperfan]

The comments here are rather rude but as an atheist these tips aren’t bad at all. I watch a lot of AXP and so often it just becomes a shouting match where the caller gets trapped and just repeats the same argument. These tips would foster better discussions!

[@j-joe-jeans]

Fallacious reasoning, failed logic, repetitive/empty arguments and ridiculous ideas are frustrating to say the least and by definition are open to ridicule and vitriol hence the AXPs and some peoples approach here.

[@watchandjewelryloft4713]

​@@j-joe-jeans Exactly. When I first started watching I would cringe when people like Matt would get loud lol. After a few years now of being out of theism/Christianity I totally understand why he does. Now I just cringe at the callers.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@watchandjewelryloft4713 Ha. I do have times where I think Matt may legitimately have a personality disorder but his logic rarely fails. The impatience is something well earned after decades of him doing his work so I happily accept it, even relish it.

[@Chloe7270]

I can't watch it because the callers' insistence on talking over the hosts drives me crazy. They call in with zero intention of listening to answers to their questions.

[@Samnoid]

"The question they bring you is often times not the reason they don't believe" this is very disrepectful and close minded. Not every athesit is so because they want to sin, despite how well that would fit your narrow world view. What about those who genuinly can't belive in a god that allows this much evil and suffereing? What do you say to them? Just becasue that wasn't the real reason your friend didn't believe, doens't mean it's not the reason others don't believe.

[@ugprayer3031]

He never said "every" atheist was like this. He was simply giving a real life example of someone who was hiding behind the atheist label. Plenty of Christians do the same thing.

[@Samnoid]

@@ugprayer3031 Ok but my point still stands, we still have to deal with the vast majority of atheists who aren’t ’hiding behind the atheist label.’ How do we answer their genuine difficult questions, like how could a god allow so much pain and suffering?

[@ugprayer3031]

@@Samnoid Ok but my point still stands as well. You said the host was being disrespectful and close minded because he gave an illustration of a self-proclaimed atheist who was hiding behind that label. He wasn't being disrespectful or close-minded, he was sharing his experience. It's not fair to call him disrespectful and close minded, unless he said ALL atheists are like this, which he clearly did not. But, to your point on the atheists who have a real reason for not believing....I think you're right. Christians need to be able to try to answer their questions and provide lucid sound reasons for belief. That seems to be the very reason he's doing this podcast. I think there are sound reasons for a good God to allow suffering. I hope he does a podcast on that subject

[@rexusneroX]

Evidence

[@AngryBird___]

This video got recommended to the wrong audience lol

[@jasontechlord]

or to the right audience!

[@AngryBird___]

This channel is made for theists mostly. All i see are atheists

[@kylewalsh5397]

Did this guy just admit that without the holy spirit emotionally manipulating you, reason isn't enough to believe in god?

[@Chloe7270]

Yep. It's probably the first true thing he's said this year.

[@ugprayer3031]

Certainly not an emotional manipulation. Pretty telling in your choice to describe the work of the Holy Spirit that way. Christianity is a religion of faith so therefore, yes, there is a supernatural work of God that accompanies belief and salvation.

[@henrikgrigor384]

Sir all was bunch of B*S* . I just wasted good 13 minutes and 43 second of my life. Bring your best argument

[@jackabalas]

Honestly and earnestly.

[@wimleybuckets]

03:07 You're already off to a bad start. You have the etymology all wrong. _Atheist_ was actually coined before the word _Theist,_ both by the so-called *Cambridge Platoists.* _Atheist_ comes from the Greek _Atheos,_ a pejorative term for those who were "Without God" or "Apart from God." And by the ancient Greek definition, you were "without God" if you didn't worship the *Greek* gods. So the pejorative _Atheos_ was applied to people who either didn't worship or denied the existence of the Greek gods, or worshipped the _wrong_ God(s). So, to review. It's not A + Theism = Atheism. It's Atheos - os + ism = Athe + ism = Atheism. So, how do you talk to a skeptic? For starters, get learnt.

[@modifiedtraditionalgardeni9938]

So how about breaking down the word conscience for me

[@ugprayer3031]

Ha! This is ridiculous, The word atheist was coined in the 1500's by the French, The Cambridge Platoists weren't around until 200 years later. And you're right, it comes from Greek "atheos" (and the French "atheiste") but dude, do your research,. The word "atheos" in Greek comes from "a' + 'theos" which means "without God". Get learnt my friend. The host is spot on!

[@wimleybuckets]

@@ugprayer3031 Theos ≠ Theist Theos meant _God._ Theist means someone who believes in _God(s)._ If you can't see the distinction...I don't know what to say. You are right, that Atheist was coined before the Cambridge Platoists. That was a mistake on my part. However, that only further illustrates that Atheist is not A + Theist, as the video maker insists. He's _NOT_ correct. Your correction doesn't do anything close to what you seem to think it does. You can't add an A- prefix to a word that wasn't in existence yet. Perhaps if the video maker produces a working time machine, I'll retract my original claim. As I explained in my OP, "Without God" meant without the Greek gods--specifically. If You prayed to the Egyptian gods, to the Greeks, the term _atheos_ was applied to you. It's not necessarily that you prayed to no gods. Praying to the "wrong" gods was the same to them. You're not going to find that info on whatever etymology site you looked at for five seconds.

[@kingd3336_]

I think you should do some more research on these definitions. You can be an gnostic-atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic theist, all of which could also be skeptics. You had the definition of Atheist right to begin with and then you used a different definition right after. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. In other words, there has been nothing to convince me of a god. Believing that there IS NOT A GOD is completely different than a lack of belief in a god. Plz do your research

[@ricardooppermannpicoral4200]

That was a fine description/definition of skepticism. I rarely see believers get it right like that, instead the understanding is often of a devilish thing of non-godly rebellion and something like. Also the example of the importance of skepticism was very good. Other exemples would be the prized lottery ticket scam or the Brooklin bridge for sale. This part seemed quite right. Disbelievers try but fail miserably at getting believers to understand that, so hopefully you have better luck at it. One thing the host got wrong tough was this idea of "levels" of skepticism, as if it was some sort of spectrum. The thing is actually quite binary : either one needs evidence or not, verifies veracity or not. No shades of grey there. Also, he might reconsider this thing of "total skeptic" as one for whom there is no amount of evidence that can convince him, one who will mantain their stance no matter what. This kind of posture might be closer then he is willing to admit. In fact, such a thing is even encouraged as virtuous by his very creed. Or does the fine preacher perchance, like Eve, endorse the idea of being reasoned out of obedience? When was the last time that one of his flock decided that the fossile record indicate a slow process of gradual change in the forms of life over long periods of time... and got encouraged by the pastor to persevere in this evidence based conclusion? Has he ever told any of his sheep that if they ever came agross any indication of falsehood in the Bible they should let go of the old certainties and adopt the new doubts? About the definition of atheism, the host got very close too. Again, usually the concept by believers is way off the reality. This definition at the video seems right, I would just take the "they believe there is not a god" part off. Only very few atheists actually HAVE the claim the no deities exist ("deities" plural, by the way, because the skepticism is not about YOUR speciffic god only, the god God, one of the many worshiped out there), most just not beleive the gods exists and that is all, no extras attached. It is like saying that christians are those that believe and pray to virgin Mary and statues of saints : what makes one be christian is the believe in prophet Jesus of Nazareth, nothing more, and anything add atop of it (virgin Mary, Joseph Smith, etc) is extra and speciffic to a denomination of Christianity (Catholicism in this case). It is the same with atheists and the statement that deities do not exist : it MAY come add atop of disbelief that the gods exist, but one will still be an atheist if not having it. So just as it is with christians and virgin Mary it is with atheists and a statement that no gods exist : it is a minority that does so and most of the group does not, and one is still the "main" definition (christian/atheist) without adopting any "extra content". This means that the definition of agnostic in the video also gets very close but not exacly bullseye : "agnostic" is more of an adjective that QUALIFIES one's atheism but not a substantive like "atheism" itself. It is not the case that one is necessarily EITHER atheist OR agnostic but instead one can be atheist AND agnostic because one might just not believe the gods exist but without claiming to know it for sure that they do not. This would be an agnostic atheist : still atheist, still disbeliever, just not claiming to know that the gods do not exist. About the 5 guidelines 1-This is not an atheist, this is more like a believer that wants attention then someone who does not believe and is trying to make a point. "Something that happened in their life" is pretty much the logic of testimonies, and a testimony is something that atheists could not care less for. No atheist would justify their disbelief with being displeased by a deity they used to believe in. Instead this seems more like they might just be looking for some "come back, my child, He works in mysterious ways". In this case this is EXACLY the perfect one to give a testimony and preaching to. "Conversion" back to the flock is very likely there. Storming into a pastor's office to cry the ills of life as God's fault? That is just a sheep begging to be let back into the flock. This video is supposed to be about how a believer talks to an outside skeptic, not about how a believer talks to an inside believer that goes dissident. It should be about skepticism, not dissidence. This is seen very clearly in the case of the "atheist" with the smoke screen you mention in the guideline number 5, by the way. 2-Agreed. No peep of criticism there. 3-The believer is the one with the claim so also the one with the burden of proof. He CAN push answering questions onward for a while but not forever. It is inevitable, at some point he will HAVE to answer sensible topics that such an unlikely claim necessarily result in. Sorry, no escape there. Also, too much evading difficult questions by returning more questions could diverge topic too much and be taken for a cop-out (and with good reason). 4-How in this universe did you reach the conclusion that the best way to talk to a skeptic would be, of all things possible, precisely... PRAYER? 5-"Enought" to save anybody? Why would reason be AT ALL a part of saving souls? It is the very thing that actually condemned us all. It was not from the tree of ignorance that Adam tasted from, was it? The serpent did not really use faith based or passion moved emotions to persuade Eve into disobedience, did it? Pastor, your conciliating and peaceful non-hostile approach on atheists is very appreciated. Really. Unusual, has its value, and is a fine exemple to christians. Praiseworthy. It had an enhanced definition of skepticism, But, honestly, aside from this civilized well-natured (and appreciated!) approach... nothing new there, you know... Same cliches, same old content. Disbelievers that actually believe something, atheists that just want to sin, nonbelief based on personal grudge with life's goings (negative testimony)... Same old rusty Beetle but now painted bright red with a Ferrari logo pasted on the hood.

[@Chloe7270]

Just read all of the comments. Not a single Christian. They must be in LGBTQ conversations telling everybody that they're going to hell!

[@ugprayer3031]

I see lots of Christians responses

[@andrewvillafane5233]

Didn’t watch the video but literally with evidence they’re not gullible.

[@rentiap]

An atheist is simply one who has not been presented with sufficient, undeniable evidence there is such a thingy, or the existence of a God.

[@ugprayer3031]

I doubt you have undeniable evidence of anything.

[@rentiap]

@@ugprayer3031 And?

[@ugprayer3031]

@@rentiap and what?

[@chrisgreene2070]

I'd recommend any theists here to go ask an actual atheist what atheism is rather than listen to what this man or any other christian says an atheist is. He is not accurate and demonstrates that he does not understand and hasn't listened like he says to do.

[@Chloe7270]

Yep. Do as I say, not as I do. Typical.

[@scottsmith2235]

I see that not a single Christian offered any evidence for their god at all. What’s wrong? This video is just another poor attempt at trying to evangelize a skeptic.

[@ugprayer3031]

The first video in this series is about the arguments for the existence of God

[@scottsmith2235]

@@ugprayer3031 None of which prove a god at all. You have to actually prove your god, not just talk about why you THINK there is one.

[@ugprayer3031]

@@scottsmith2235 Did you watch the video? He correctly points out that there are lots of things in this world that you can't "prove". Love, mercy, grace, goodness, etc. None of us live our lives with 100% proof of hardly anything, we base our decisions on probability. Therefore, the best you can do is look for the evidence that supports a belief the most or best.

[@scottsmith2235]

@@ugprayer3031 Yes, and he is not correct. Love, mercy, goodness, etc, can all be proven and have been. You do not base everything on probability. You are asserting that since you don't know everything then we must believe in this most recent god that is a part of your culture and ignore the previous 1000+ gods because they don't appeal to us. You (and the pastor) are using the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. You say to look for the evidence? Have you ever done this? I have--it's not there. Since you obviously have never looked for any evidence, you cannot say that any is there. This is a common deflection by Christians: just say that evidence is out there, that way its dubious nature remains a safe distance from the conversation, and you do not have to be tasked with actually looking for it. People like you prefer mental laziness--you just want to stay in your religious easy chair and shout from the rooftops that there is evidence---somewhere. Now with that said, can you tell me why I should believe in your god? Let me share with you your most likely responses: "You'll find out one day," "You can't prove that there isn't a god," "God is self-evident." (Just a few). Bottom line, like I told your pastor--you have absolutely no evidence for a god. If this is so important, how come finding evidence doesn't matter? Wouldn't it be great to be able to show evidence to others? It's not unreasonable. You would ask for evidence concerning any other god that I tried to get you to believe in. And just because you believe in a god, it does not mean that other gods are eliminated. They are only real if they are proven to be real. He can't even respond to me because he is too scared to take on a real live atheist--wow, what a stand for God. He is admitting that he can't handle it. You have more courage than he does, so I do applaud your response--at least you are concerned.

[@ugprayer3031]

@@scottsmith2235 Dude, I’m sorry but you’re just not making sense. I’m sorry but I’m calling BS on proving love. If you think it can be and has been done, I’d love to hear it. Prove the existence of love with "evidence" that is not experimental or based on probability. And you absolutely live your life based on probability. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Secondly, the so-called 1000+ other gods you’re referring to do not hold a candle to explaining the rational and logical world around us. I’ve studied them. They just don’t measure up to the God of the Bible. Me and the pastor are NOT using the argument from ignorance. He literally said, “we have to look at the arguments that make the most sense of reality.” Those are the arguments for the existence of God. He’s not saying God exists merely because you can’t prove He doesn’t. There are some legitimate arguments that point to an intelligent personal creator. He shared them in the first video (Ontological, cosmological, moral, etc.) but you can look at tons of other YT videos that lay them out. They are good arguments, I’m sorry that you don/t find them compelling but to say it’s mental laziness is actually lazy on your part for not considering them and responding to them. In my opinion its the atheist who are lazy. They just sit back and sling the same tired old rebuttals at Christians without actually taking the time to examine the arguments for the existence of God. I have never, nor did the host of the podcast, use the phrases “You'll find out one day," "You can't prove that there isn't a god," "God is self-evident,” so good try on that one but that’s not going to work with me. And again, you’re so hung up on “evidence”. I wouldn’t ask you for evidence of any other god you believe in. I would ask you for arguments that make sense of reality based on the god you suppose to believe. You’re making a ton of assumptions. You don’t know the host at all, you can’t make assumptions like you are. Tons of Christian’s comments on these threads have been deleted by YT, mine included. So keep your judgment to yourself.

[@leongkhengneoh6581]

Askeptic = theist

[@coletrickle1775]

I am a skeptic, if you would like to know how to to talk to me, you start by understanding basic logic, and keep all of your manipulative emotional apologetic nonsense to yourself. Easy, well, not for theists, but for everyone else it is very easy. Oh, another thing you can do, is understand toddler level concepts like the burden of proof, and the differences between guilty, not guilty, and innocent. A very basic concept willfully ignored by theists so they can attempt to shift the burden of proof off of the claim of theirs that a god exists. You theists claim a god exists, atheists do not believe you. The burden of proof is on the theist to prove the claim they make is true, not on the atheist for disbelieving your claim. It's literal toddler level stuff. So very sorry if I sound disrespectful, it's because I am.

[@coletrickle1775]

These comments ratioing the theist propaganda and manipulation spreaders gives me a little hope for humanity.