Answers to Matt Slick's Questions for Atheists - Part 1

[@francoislacombe9071]

The story goes that Napoleon, after reading Pierre-Simon Laplace's book on celestial mechanics, asked the author why God's name appeared nowhere in his book. Laplace's reply was that he had no need of that hypothesis. I think that sums up what atheism is perfectly. It's the notion that God in particular, and deities in general, are a superfluous concept.

[@michaelsommers2356]

I think it's long past time for some questions for theists to answer. I'll get the list started: 1) Are you kidding? 2) No, really, are you kidding? 3) Come on, tell the truth. You're kidding, aren't you? 4) You can't be serious, can you? I invite others to complete the list.

[@alexwilli]

5) Hey everyone else left now, you can be frank. You're kidding, right?

[@losoyo]

I would say atheism isn't a world view, but alot of atheists consider themselves skeptics and that is a world view..in my opinion

[@SteveShives]

Yeah. I think it makes more sense to think of skepticism as a worldview than atheism.

[@WingedWyrm]

+Losoyo Even skepticism isn't so much a worldview as it is an approach to how you handle claims.

[@intcheese]

These folk who are always asking themselves "What would Jesus do?" seem to think that atheists must be always asking themselves "What would the absence of Jesus do?"

[@MilitantAntiTheist]

+Losoyo But Chemtards and flat earthers consider themselves to be "skeptics" as well.

[@losoyo]

MilitantAntiTheist And Nephilimfree considers himself to be on par with Scientists.. Just because someone thinks something..

[@beswick1306]

I'm actually looking forward to the next bit of this series. I've been watching your videos fora long time and it will be interesting to see how your ideas have changed over the years.

[@kevbo78]

Reasonable responses as usual, Steve. I look forward to the next two videos!

[@West996]

Hey Steve, just subscribed recently, went back and watched through some of your stuff. I'm a Christian, and I'd just like to say I think you and I would get along just fine. I came to your channel because I've always been interested opposing views, different perspectives and such. I think that anyone that believes anything and bristles over the very idea of it being called into question is either a coward, or uneducated and therefore unable to defend their position. I can see how that would be tough, like standing on top of a very tall pillar and having to be afraid of the wind, so I can understand, why people react the way they do. I can see that you are not only unafraid but in fact welcome questions about your belief, (or non-belief). That is how I am as well when it comes to my belief in a God. To be a Christian, or to even be Religious today is tough. Its not the Atheists that make it tough either, Lol. It's the other 'Christians'. I like science, I read lots journals, papers, articles. I'm not silly enough to deny the big bang or evolution. They happened, for certain. Its just that much of the scientific evidence of all this that I learn about reinforces my belief that there must be some sort of intelligent design to it all. When I look at evolution, when I study the brain, when learn about something as seemingly simple as 'peeing' and then come to understand how urination and digestion take place, how complex a system it actually is, to me its all saying 'intelligent design.' Did all the stories in the bible actually happen as they are written? Now come now. Jonah and the whale is clearly a parable. Was the universe created in 7 days? Come on now. But suspend your disbelief for a second, if you were a being power enough to create the big bang, looked back one day and saw 'intelligent' life, and decided to try and early humans how it all happened and try to guide them a little so that maybe if you decide to look back again thousands of years later they have a better chance of not being there, how would you do it? It is a remarkable book full of stories, and letters, lessons and a few rules that mostly make sense. Don't kill, don't steal, don't be lazy. The problem with many who claim to follow it is they take almost everything in it out of context. They read a letter that an apostle wrote to a church saying that women shouldn't preach and then they claim all women should not preach anywhere....They read a verse that says 'praise the Lord using your voice' and assume it must be wrong to have instruments in their Church. They take specific words and phrases out of context and use them to condemn others yet ignore the more obvious wide spread rules. 'Thou shalt not judge thy neighbor.' 'Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone'. 'God is Love'. So you're right. Its not the belief in God, Alah, Buddah, Tom Cruise or whatever you want to call it that is the problem. It's just people and if no belief in any religion ever existed, humans would still find a reason to fight and alienate each other. I mean, that's why we invented politics. **If you skipped most of it and read only this. I say all this only to say that I enjoy your channel, and .. and I guess that we're not all bad. :) Though you have already said as much.

[@yinYangMountain]

Greetings Steve, Long time subscriber; love your work… Anyway, here is how I recommend initially dealing with Matt Slick: In my opinion Matt’s questions, debates, comments and/or videos are, first and foremost, an attempt to distract, switch the burden of proof, and/or to maneuver the topic of conversation to another topic or level. His practiced rhetoric is designed to challenge or question non-believers, skeptics, agnostics, apistevists, or atheists about their worldview in a typical intellectually dishonest Christian manner. This is done with the goal of discrediting or mocking any position (in subjects such as: historical mythology, philosophy, mathematics, biology, chemistry, medicine, psychology, sociology, metaphysics, physics, geology, cosmology, astronomy, archeology, paleontology, ancient history, etc.) he doesn’t hold. THE SOLUTION Recognize Matt’s game is one of switching the burden of proof. With that in mind, don’t answer him! Or, at minimum, reply thus: Matt, would you agree that a person's (a Non-Believer's, Skeptic's, Agnostic's, Apistevists, or Atheist's) views are irrelevant to the validity of your personal God claim(s) and do not extricate you from your burden of proof to demonstrate that either your specific argued-for God or the Bible is what you claim it is? If no, how do their views influence the validity of your personal God claim(s) and your burden of proof to demonstrate that either your specific argued-for God or the Bible is what you claim it is? yinYangMountain

[@curiousandmorecurious6689]

You're right, responding to lists like this are fun to do, a bit too much fun. I call them my catnip, can't stop making videos replying to them. Was going to do this CARM list, but I thought so many questions was a bit too much for one video. Never thought to break them down into separate parts (I'm not the brightest guy here)

[@HexerPsy]

One of the funny parts of this list, is that the site asks you to send your answers to an email for 'research purposes'. That email makes me think its not really a serious institute...

[@Troubleshooter125]

My biggest problem with question sets like this is that the questioner, in this case Slick, apparently has no real ability or interest in seeing the other side of the argument. If he did, I suspect that the wording of at least some of the questions would be quite different and at least a couple wouldn't even be there. But true to form, Slick doesn't want to give such consideration to our point of view. Maybe he thinks that, if he did, he'd wind up like us! EEEEEK!

[@beswick1306]

I've learned to not answer the question of how I'd define atheism but instead to say "I would define my own position as....". That way you don't get bogged down into arguments with other atheists on semantics and you can be clear about your own personal opinions.

[@pveq2nrt]

Excellent job, Steve!

[@therealzilch]

Nicely done as usual, Steve. Lunch is on me if you're ever in Vienna.

[@Zeredek]

"equal equality" unlike unequal equality and equal inequality

[@SFT20121]

+Zeredek which is not unlike unequal inequality.

[@Troubleshooter125]

+Zeredek Is that anything like repetitive redundancy?

[@Griexxt]

My answers,for what it's worth: 1) A rejection of the claim 'there is a god', for whatever reason. 2) The concept of a god does not enter into any of my life decisions. I do however spend time thinking about and trying to understand why the concept of a god is so compelling to certain individuals. 3) No. Given that the beliefs about what various gods wants the world to be like has demonstrable and in many cases detrimental impact on the world we all have to live in, I don't see why it would be inconsistent. There could also be totally selfish reasons, such as wanting some sort of personal certainty. 4-5) I don't have direct access to reality. All I can say is that atheism is the correct stance for me to take based on my perception of reality. 6) A true proposition is a proposition that allows us to make a useful prediction about the outcome of an action. 7) Because I see no reason to hold any other position. 8) Or what. I haven't thought about those labels. 9) Atheism doesn't provide sufficient basis for any positive beliefs about the world as far as I can see. 10) See answer 3. Christianity is currently making less of a nuisance of itself than Islam, but that hasn't always been the case in the past, and I see no reason to believe that it couldn't stop being the case again in the future. That said, I don't see any reason to allow the antagonism against the Christian faith to turn into hostility against individual Christians.

[@BassbaitGG]

1.It's the rejection of the *assertion* that a God exists. Not a rejection of the possibility, but of the assertion itself. 2.In regards to the specific question of "do you believe in God", I don't think that I act in accordance with that. I just don't act in accordance with belief in any *particular* god. I act on the basis of what I know to be true and what I feel to be right, and that doesn't happen to pre-suppose any answer in favor or against a God. Even if I believed in a God, my actions would not be any different. 3.First of all I don't know many atheists who do this? Honestly I don't know any atheists who do this at all. But I don't see how it would be inconsistent. 4.On a personal, intuitive/emotional level, I'm 100% sure. 5.This is the exact same question, but on a logical level, I'm 0% sure because I don't know that anything exists except for myself, and am basically guessing on everything else. I have some confidence in truth but I don't have certainty of truth and I'm ok with that. 6.I don't, because I don't give a fuck about truth, I only care about what gets me by day-to-day, and I'll redefine what "truth" means several times if the word feels like an accurate representation of the idea I'm trying to get across, and I'll clarify how I use "truth" in any given conversation if I need to. 7.All positions are "justifiable" but not all positions are good positions. Bad positions are those which harm others directly, or which are poorly set up enough to be used to harm others. Atheism doesn't apply to either though I'd say that Christianity applies to both, so Christianity is, in my view, a bad position to hold. 8.I'm an agnostic materialist. I feel like materialism is true, even though I don't know. And honestly? I don't care. 9.I.... really don't care. Like seriously, why is this an important question to ask of any belief or opinion? "Worldview" is such a meaningless, useless word. 10.Because Christians are shitty people even when they're good people. Sorry, I sincerely don't believe that there is such a thing as a "good christian", only people who can be good and happen to be Christian. But even people who can be good can also be shitty and Christianity has a direct influence on people being shitty, so Christianity deserves the antagonism, because it is, in many ways, an enemy.

[@onlyAerik]

I remember damn near a decade ago, there was an atheist podcast/group called "the rational response squad" (of Kirk Cameron's ABC debate "crododuck" fame), and they got Slick to try and debate them on the podcast. I listened in live on Stickam. The funny thing about this is that the RRS actually had an aspiring undergraduate Historian, Rook Hawkins, who actually studied the bible fucking hardcore. Matt Slick, the one who claimed to know the bible inside and out, couldn't answer questions and accused RRS of playing "english language games" b/c he didn't know half the words Rook used. Words that he learned in his studies, words that actual historians and biblical scholars use with each other, but are definitely not something somebody who claims to have studied religion seriously wouldn't be familiar with. Slick is a tool.

[@perspectivedetective]

I started formulating my own answers to these questions, but I really like yours, so I'll just point to this video and say "I respectfully concur." I especially like your answer to question 10. I was extremely religious as a child and spent a lot of time thinking about how beliefs intertwine with reality as I was growing up (that's actually the reason I'm an atheist now), and I think I understand where the 'worldview' type of questions come from. To a fair number of passionately religious people, faith is a huge part of their life, their identity, and their way of interpreting the world. Their god looms large in the center of their universe, and they can't see how anything makes sense apart from that context. When they encounter a person who doesn't share that structure, or a similar structure that they can recognize as filling the same role, they get a shock of cognitive dissonance and it gets resolved in favor of the god structure even though that resolution doesn't make any real sense. So they assume that there MUST be something in the 'god' position for an atheist, even if it's a giant 'no-god' black hole sort of thing. It's frustrating for people on both sides of the god question.

[@peerreview8970]

You're alright Steve. I'm quite sure you are also correct.

[@TomLeedsTheAtheist]

Hey Steve, What's up with +Matt Slick, he puts out these questions but he doesn't seem very interested in the answers. I didn't see a comment from him, he didn't respond to my answers either.

[@mcclure3443]

Where I grew up being an Atheist is just normal. We never even used the word. I can't believe how much of a big deal it is in the States.

[@BrotherAlpha]

#3. I lack a belief that GMOs are harmful. I actively work to prove to others that GMOs are not harmful. This is not inconsistent. In fact, it is consistent with my belief that those who think GMOs are harmful are holding dangerous beliefs.

[@AndersStormLkke]

why oh why did I decide to do this? 1) atheism: not being convinced of the existence of one or more gods. 2) yes, my actions are governed by my belief system and my perception/understanding of reality, as well as instincts and reflexes. 3) not necessarily inconsistent, since the absence of a god would counter the arguments "because god says so (according to my interpretation of what I've been told about this specific translation of a translation of a text from an unknown author)", on the other hand if the rules of a perfect and good being are inconsistent or just plain evil, then those rules 'work against' the existence of god more than atheists. 4) beyond reasonable doubt (or 100% if you want a number value). 5) beyond reasonable doubt (or 100% if you want the same number value). 6) truth: is cooperated by and does not conflict with reality(facts) 7) logic! no gods has ever been proven to me to exist, therefore it's justifiable for me to not be convinced of its or their existence. 8) both, neither, all of the above - not sure what a physicalist is... 9) atheism is a worldview as much as a-leprechaunism is a worldview. To affirm or deny its status as a worldview is meaningless without defining what a worldview is. Let's say it's a part of my worldview. 10) my antagonism isn't directed towards christianity, it's directed towards people who would use their superstitions to limit my freedom or the freedom of others. If I express myself against christianity then it applies equally to all other religions, but is customized to a christian participating in the relevant conversation. I argue against what I see as wrong.

[@Bill_Garthright]

Am I antagonistic to Christianity? I'm antagonistic to faith-based thinking. Even if you come up with the right answer, faith is the wrong method. (For example, sometimes you can get the right answer on a test by guessing. But guessing is still a very poor method of figuring out the answers to questions, wouldn't you agree?) In that respect, I criticize liberal Christians just as much as right-wing Christians. Indeed, if you believe by faith, it's hard to criticize anyone else who also believes by faith, isn't it? No matter what they actually believe? (You can still criticize what they DO, maybe.) Obviously, liberal believers are a LOT easier to get along with than fundamentalists. I'd choose liberal believers any day, if those were my only two choices. And often, we agree on issues that aren't specifically about religion. Still, I'm antagonistic to faith-based thinking, and I think that Christians are wrong, wherever they are on the political spectrum. Of course, they have every right to believe whatever they wish. ALL believers have that right, no question about that. (But not, again, to DO everything they want, necessarily.) But I have the right to disagree with them. And I do not give a free pass to liberal believers, not at all. If that's being "antagonistic," then so be it.

[@ahouyearno]

The main dishonesty with these questions is that Matt Slick knows the answers already. He knows atheists can answer these questions to the satisfaction of atheists. He may not like these answers, but that's not my problem. He expects particular answers, firmly rooted in christian theology, in order to slide into a presup argument (or so it feels from the first set of questions). A thoughtful atheist won't give him the answers he needs.

[@cameronblank3922]

Great job on the video Steve I also really like your 5 stupid things videos especially the ones that have some religious base.

[@JROwensPhotos]

Re: #10, I wonder if "ye shall know them by their fruits" rings a bell for them?

[@rogejedib333]

I apologize for the spelling in advance but here is my take. 1. How would you define atheism? Lacking a firm belief in God/gods 2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)? I act in accordance with my moral code. There is no god, so if someone is suffering and I can help I am obligated to help because god is not there and therefor can't help. 3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist? I act to preserve the separation of church and state both for my sake and the sake of other minority religions (even though I would not classify Atheism as a religion). 4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality? I see no credible evidence that would necessitate the existence of a god. 5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct? I'm not, but until someone can present evidence for a loving, merciful, intelligent being (witch the god of Abraham is not); I will reserve the default position of unbelief (the same reason you don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, or the FSM) 6. How would you define what truth is? Anti-citizen X has a good series on this, but I would simply say truth is what can be shown to be actually, factually correct. (Thanks Aron Ra) 7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold? The Lack of credible evidence for god. I will say I not reject the notion of a “higher life form” possibly existing beyond our compensation, but I see no evidence that that is the case. 8. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what? Physicalist? ( really don't know what the distention is) Physics is the science of the real world and it can be used to accurately model the universe and everything in it. Sure there is still much to learn, but learning is what makes it fun. 9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not? At its most basic form Atheism is an answer to a single question (Do you believe in god(s)?) It can be part of a world view. For example, many of the atheists I follow on youtube are progressives (demarcates), feminists, skeptics and supporters of science, education, logic and reason but this does not necessarily describe all Atheists. 10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism? Many of the religious right are trying to create a more theocratic society. This is a clear violation of the first amendment and a oppose that. If a Christian group where actually following the teachings of Jesus and feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, welcoming the sinners, helping the poor and the downtrodden, They have my support. 11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny His existence? Short answer, the Ham-Nye Debate. Bill Nye really did not say anything that I did not already know, but Ken Ham exposed me to the fact that a grown man, who has taken the time to consider the creation story carefully, could believe that is what really happened. Seeing this led me to some atheist youtoube channels whose arguments and reasoning made since. It was not an understanding I came to overnight. I did a lot of consideration of evidence and a lot of personal reflection to come to see the truth. 12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion? I don't know. I feel it is important to remember so of the good that religion has done. I helped better organize charity and build hospitals. Not so much today, but churches used to be the community hub. A place to share news and ideas in the days before electronic communication. At the same time, it is impotent to remember that religion has be a dividing force as well. The crusades and mass genocide in America and Africa. Horrific acts of violence have been done in the name of religion. 13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity? See above, I do not feel Christianity is any better than any other given religion. There are some others with a much less violent history that have chosen to integrate rather than dominate. 14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder? No, People can be misguided and deceived without mental disorders. The brain can be tricked into seeing and hearing all sorts of fanciful things. We are far less observant than we think we are. 15. Must God be known through the scientific method? If god existes in the real world than yes. If god exists outside the real world than (s)he is unknowable. 16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God? If god exists in the real world than (s)he is an entity of matter/energy and is therefore not immaterial. If god existes outside that then there is no known way (s)he could do the things described in the bible or any other holy book. 17. Do we have any purpose as human beings? Your purpose is whatever you choose to make it. Why do you need a divine reason to be? 18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined? See above 19. Where does morality come from? Star Trek. Seriously though, we have evolved as a social species. Our morals help to to work together for the continued survival of the species. 20. Are there moral absolutes? I'm not absolutely sure there aren't but I can't think of any. 21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them? See above. The argument I hear a lot is murder but killing in self defense is pretty universally considered ok, and there is debate over euthanasia. The fact that there is a debate means there is not a moral absolute. 22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it? I think there are shades of gray. Good acts are those generally done for the betterment of many while evil acts are generally done for more selfish reasons. An act can be judged to be good or evil but some would debate over some less obvious acts. For example, I would say to allow a company to destroy a forest would be an evil act for the habitat destruction. Others would judge it as good for the goods and jobs the company will provide. 23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that He is bad? I still feel there are no moral absolutes, but it is pretty hard to justify slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, etc. 24. What would it take for you to believe in God? “An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.” Luke 2:9 A personal appearance of an angel would be pretty convincing of the existence of God. It would take a fair bit more to convince me the rest of the BS in the bible is true though. 25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence? See above 26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what? For wide scale acceptance this would be preferable, on a personal note again I would love a visit from an angel. 27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why? Atheists generally do not believe in an afterlife. As a results give more value to life and I feel this would lead to a safer world. Also remember the atrocities committed in the name of religion. The Holocaust, the KKK, abortion clinic bombings are all actions done in the name of Christianity. 28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without corrosion). Yes, but I also understand that our actions and what we view as acceptable are governed by social pressure. 29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices? Our brain is capable of making decisions. For example, today as I was leaving or work a discovered a leak in the roof that was dripping water onto my computer. I analogized the situation and made a contentious choose to call into work, remove my computer from the splash zone, setup a cup to catch the water, and call the property manager to look at the leak. I could have done many of these things differently but I analogized the benefits and risks at each step and dealt with the consequences. 30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not? I would not discount the possibility, but at this time there is no evidence that conscientiousness can exist outside of a physical brain. 31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists? Again I do not discount the possibility but I have not seen evidence that a thought can exist without a physical medium.

[@77goanywhere]

I came across your site in a search of apologetics and debate in relation to Christianity and Islam. Although I have a strong faith in Christ and in the Bible, I do find that some Christians seem to have far too much confidence in building straw men as a basis of dismantling the arguments against our beliefs. I have not read Matt Slick's book that you refer to here, I find these questions pretty shallow and presumptive. Maybe some shallow believer might think that these questions will somehow place an atheist into some kind of intellectual bind, but my experience is that most atheists who have been such for any length of time will not be disturbed much by them. Fortunately for humanity the evidences of the claims of Christianity are backed up with some extremely formidable facts that can be considered in the same way as evidence for any other proposition can be considered and evaluated. At the end of the day no argument or evidence can convince someone who is not open to being corrected.

[@Hexalobular]

What exactly are artistic, personal and emotional truths? I'm genuinely curious, I keep hearing about them on your videos (and maybe Matt Dillahunty's) but I have no idea what they mean. Maybe I'm to stuck in the usual meaning of "truth" and have to learn to think outside the box but I'd need some clue as to which direction to start thinking.

[@dzafman]

For #7 "Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?" You could have just said it is the default position. Do fairies exist? I don't believe so, until I see evidence.

[@Crust218]

My response to each question: "Asking atheists questions is a red herring and not evidence for God's existence."

[@vgerdj]

I responded to these Qs back in Feb15. I came across the page at carm again and could not find my old backup copy. I took the 'test' again to see how well I could articulate my position. Then I diligently searched for my previous answers. It was, almost word for word, identical. I would like to comment on the first question. It is not not believing in the existence of god/s, as there is a god and we don't believe _you_. To Atheists it is *I do not believe your **_assertion_** there IS a god/s*. The burden is on _you_ to convince me, not that I have to disprove said being. Not _you_ Steve, _you_ theists.

[@davestewart_tab]

I honestly don't think Matt Slick knows the difference between "reality" and "correct." A "correct" belief might not always appear to line up with reality - in which case reality may need some adjustment.

[@Wasp_Y4]

+Dave Stewart wtf?

[@lobete]

I think the distinction for question #1 is kind of important between "lack of belief" and "belief in the non-existence" of gods. Yes, you are kind of saying the same thing, in terms of *outcome* because in both cases the person is not following a deity, but to a great many theists, the later implies a burden of proof which they want to exploit to paint atheists as being religious: believing something without evidence... because how can you have evidence of something's nonexistence? Then you of course have to explain that the lack of evidence for the existence of deities is the evidence that that there are no deities because if there were no deities we would expect that lack of evidence to be the only evidence we could have, etc. In the end you are kind of just circling back to "we need evidence to believe" in either definition, but by saying that we "lack belief" we sometimes get to skip a few steps and it makes it more clear that we are ready for evidence if the believer has some to present. We show that openness that leads to theists having to defend and hopefully question their beliefs. Telling them you believe in the non-existence of gods will often just get you met explaining how burden of proof works and gum up the works in getting to those important later steps.

[@dougputhoff]

When are parts 2 & 3 coming????

[@SteveShives]

Tomorrow and the day after.

[@dougputhoff]

Cool!

[@maritderks23]

about question one: for me, there is a pretty big difference between the two. lack of belief in the existence of a higher entity is logical, since the existence of such a being can't be proven. believing in the non-existence of a god however, isn't as logical, since it can't be proven that god does not exist.

[@beswick1306]

I disagree slightly with acouple of your point though i suspect all my small disagreements stem from the fact that i believe my belief in no gods stems from my rationalism. Atheism for me is a conclusion rather than a worldview unto itself.

[@ShinChara]

I would consider myself agnostic. I wouldn't stake my reputation on any god existing, but I wouldn't say I believe a god doesn't exist, either. I wouldn't call myself a physicalist either, because I really can't begin to imagine how something like consciousness could work in that sort of universe. I mean, I can understand a complex biological machine reacting adaptively to external stimuli, but why is there a "me" in here perceiving any of it? The brain is made up of billions of neurons and glial cells, and none of them would seem to be the "main" one, yet "I" seem very much to be a single entity. An almost completely different set of atoms makes up my brain now than did a decade ago, and yet I am fairly certain that I am the same entity now that I remember being when I was in elementary school. Of course, I am aware that "theist/atheist" and "gnostic/agnostic" are two separate decisions, but really, I consider the second to be more relevant to rationality than the first. I wouldn't consider an agnostic irrational whether they were theist or atheist, but I wouldn't consider a theist or an atheist rational if they asserted their position as a gnostic claim. Furthermore, I am always agnostic, but whether I am a theist or an atheist can change from one hour to the next.

[@marcsoucie4010]

You have to believe in the existence of God to want to work against it's existence. It is therefore impossible, by definition, for an atheist to want to work against God's existence. As for the difference between "lack of belief in God" and "belief in the non-existence of God", the former is a default position coming from agnosticism and has no burden of proof while the latter is a positive knowledge claim that carries a burden of proof. The belief in the non existence of God is a subset of the lack of belief in God. In other words, the belief that God does not exist is one of many possible reasons why someone would lack the belief in God. Other reasons may be that one has never heard of the concept of God or that one is brain dead. Also, people who have never existed are atheists by default (that was stupid...).

[@StevenKHarrison]

Dear Theist: Is it reasonable to believe in something which contradicts all the knowledge science and logic have revealed to us? Is it humane to threaten young children with hell and damnation if they don't believe a thousands year old story about talking snakes and zombies? If I ask you the same questions over and over again, does that constitute a reasonable discussion?

[@Greyghostvol1]

31 questions? *groans.* Edit: I take _some_ issue with your nonchalent acceptance to the most popular definition of atheism. One is a passive non-believe, the other is an active state of disbelief. At least that's the connotation each definition have. Frankly, if going solely by the second definition, I wouldn't consider myself an atheist for certain nebulas god concepts like that of deism.

[@SteveShives]

Eh. Even for those more nebulous concepts, I think it's justifiable to reject them on the basis that they're undemonstrated and superfluous.

[@Greyghostvol1]

***** I guess it comes down to how you're interpreting both statements. To me, the second definition (what seems to be active disbelief) requires me to have greater certainty about the proposed god in question's non-existence than mere, "It's unproven and unprovable". I guess what I'm getting at here is, do you think a deistic or pantheistic (or panentheistic) god(s) is (are) just as likely as the defined god of, say, the old testament?

[@dzafman]

+Greyghostvol1 After watching many debates on KZbin on the existence of god, I would not use a definition of atheism that would shift the burden of proof to me. The second definition Steve uses is getting very close to that. You are right it depends on what definition of god you are using. I once told a creationist that I was an Agnostic Atheist about a deistic god because it is hard to prove a negative, but Gnostic Atheist about his Christian god which is self-contradictory thus self-refuting.

[@benvimes6821]

+David Zafman This is the way I see it as well. Saying, "I believe God does not exist," really depends on what you mean by 'God'. I know a lot of ex-Christians still use big-g God to refer to the Christian god. And, seeing as how we can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christian god doesn't exist, I think that it's a fair statement. It would definitely be harder to justify if one were to use a broader definition of 'god' Personally I try to be more exact with my terminology. When I refer to that particular being, I'll call him, "Yahweh," or, "the Christian god," or, "the god of the Bible." When I use the term 'god' I'm referring more generally to an unspecified almighty being. It's a bit like how people talk about Queen Elizabeth II (the person, not the ship). I live in a British Commonwealth country, so to me she is "the Queen," (or sometimes "Betty") even though there is more than one queen in the world. Someone from the USA might also call her, "the Queen," as she is the queen that most Americans are familiar with, and I would liken this situation to non-believers who live in a predominantly Christian population using the term 'God' to refer to Yahweh.

[@trexmtb4381]

Matt Slick use his subconscious and calls it God and his good at using words to make you over thinking stuff to make you not being efficient and make you doubt, he has trust

[@pipertripp]

Truth.. is a sneaky one. Check out AnticitizenX's most recent video about truth.

[@SaiyenInlineSkater]

Anyone ever tell you look like david attell?

[@brian554xx]

I just had a thought; others have probably had it already. Go ahead and teach religious propositions in science class - subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as real science. Nothing could destroy the nonsense more thoroughly.

[@DynaCatlovesme]

I can't accept, nor should you accept "belief in the non-existence of..." To believe is an active verb, which requires an object. In the case where that object is literally nothing, you have all sorts of logical problems which are exploitable by someone like Matt Slick.

[@DynaCatlovesme]

Yeshua OriginalJew It in not logically possible to believe in the non-existence of anything. All non-existent things are the same, indistinguishable not-thing. It's a not-belief you have, rather than a not-thing you believe in.

[@DynaCatlovesme]

Yeshua OriginalJew It is not logically possible to believe in a negative statement, in most cases. In purely metaphysical realms, one can accept a truth value for a negation, but when, as in religion, one has to straddle the physical and metaphysical divide, you are in deep trouble.

[@DynaCatlovesme]

Yeshua OriginalJew The statement 2=3 is a purely metaphysical statement. The statement 2=/= 3 is a purely metaphysical statement. Beyond that "2=/=3" requires "2=3" as a truth proposition. Don't try again. Even you can't achieve the impossible. Why you should care is because there's no point in arguing with someone about what he isn't arguing about! As soon as you say something a stupid as "I believe X does not exist," you are first off implying there is an X to not exist, an second off obligating yourself to define X!

[@Ansatz66]

+DynaCatlovesme "To believe is an active verb, which requires an object." Beliefs are about mental states. The object of any belief is in the mind of the believer and does not require a corresponding object in the real world, as made obvious by countless false beliefs. When someone says they believe that God does not exist, they are declaring that their understanding of the universe explicitly excludes God. A person's understanding of the universe is a perfectly fine object for a sentence.

[@DynaCatlovesme]

Ansatz66 Ridiculous. A person's understanding of the universe as the object of a verb in a sentence would require a sentence that in most cases could never be read by another person in a lifetime. And that isn't even what you actually mean, as what you really mean is that the object is another person's, not the speaker's, understanding of the universe.

[@tomfrombrunswick7571]

Do atheists act in accord with their beliefs? If you are an atheist then you believe it is up to people to work out ideas about how society should run. People like Plato and Confucius came up with ideas about how to structure society. Over time lots of people have different ideas Karl Marx, Milton Freedom. it is the responsibility of everyone to contribute to this debate Why do people who don't believe in God talk so much about God? Easy, although god does not exist religious people exist. Some things religious people do are not great. Look at the treatment of women in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Look at the track record of Christianity persecuting Jewish people. Also as religion is false most atheists see a lot of religious people as charlatans ripping of the rubes of society so that they do not have to get a real job.

[@AnotherVolvoxFan]

Patreon.com slashSteve Shives? I not supporting that, I like you. You are entertaining, I don't want you slashed.

[@sirmike18630]

Why do we waist time answering questions from Christians?....shouldn't we be asking the questions.....and let them answer!!...

[@danieltaylor8634]

Question five sounded like crock of shits old, give proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct, nonsense. Perhaps mr sick thinks it's a 'gotcha question'.

[@Tulsaistalking]

+Steve Shives sorry mate, supernatural claims fall outside of the realm of epistemology, you can rationally say, there is no evidence for a god/Gods, such claims are (unknowable/unfalsifiable)' however god most likely (maybe 10^999999% to 1) does not exist. 'which is my position', this however is not equivalent to stating that "I believe/know God does not exist" again, this is irrational because certain claims cannot be made about something that is unknowable. for example, its extremely unlikely that that tinker bell created the universe exactly as it is yesterday... but It could not be absolutely proven.. therefore I cannot "know" that it is true or false.