Get 'em, Matty!

Hm, I dunno. This kind of strikes me as just dumb atheists arguing with dumb christians. It only leads to more difficulty for intelligent atheists and intelligent christians.

First, this is the tail end of a VERY long call...I can only assume you think the Atheists acted "dumb" because they cut the caller off and called him a name....they showed EXTREME patients with this caller. When he painted himself into a logical corner and decided his only way out was to claim the raped child was evil too he deserved to be hung up on and called a piece of shit.

Second...I have watched a lot of these shows and for some reason only the "dumb" Christians call in. Perhaps you're the intelligent christian that needs to call in and set them straight?

almost wish they didn't hang up on him, typically when someone calls a show, you're supposed to turn down the show so you don't get feedback, so there is a good chance that because he hung up on him, he didn't get to hear Matt calling him a piece of shit

patience*

Sorry, I couldn't help myself

No, they were right to hang up on him (though perhaps shouldn't have taken his call). I just see this sort of thing a lot. The existence or non-existence of god is perhaps one of the most fascinating debates there can be (and it's not so simple provided you're not trying to argue for the existence of some specific god, and it involving a lot of interesting physics and metaphysics), but these sorts of internet things always seem to wind up with a dumb christian saying "because the bible/god/whatever says so..." and a dumb atheist, well, even trying to engage in that sort of debate.

True, I shouldn't really fault these particular presenters because I didn't see the rest of their show, and there are various social/political issues that could be discussed at this level of simplicity, but it seem quite a bit like many others I've seen: the athiests believe what they believe and the christians believe what they believe, and trying to have arguments about beliefs is pretty pointless and brings out the uglier, intolerant sides in each.

Well, now he can hear it again on the internet in a much better audio quality than a phone call.

I always imagined these rabid atheists to be all self-hatey anyhoo...Maybe that's the core trying to keep all that, inner-frustration with other types of maroons in-check....These two need a corner to stand on with bullhorns of atheist happiness turned-up to eleven on a Sunday morning in front of a Starbucks next to a Baptist church.

This is where you have it wrong....it is belief (christian) and non-belief (atheist) not just two different versions of "belief" and a battle over which belief is right.

Most former believers would tell you that these discussions are not "pointless" because it is discussions and debates like this that forced many of us to look at our own religion in a more critical and logical way.

I would argue that (and we might be getting into the areas where things are not well defined) atheism is a belief, as opposed to agnosticism which isn't. There isn't, of course, any true definition of these things though.

Anyways, you do have a very good point I hadn't considered in that the caller obviously watches the show, and presumably so do a lot of other people like him. In that sense, it serves a purpose.

On that show, they regularly cover the difference between agnosticism and atheism, as callers often bring up the subject.

The hosts are agnostic atheists. Meaning that they are aware that they do not have absolutely conclusive evidence of a god's absence, but they live their lives assuming there is no god. This is the exact same position that everyone (I HOPE!) reading this post has adopted with regards to unicorns and leprechauns.

A gnostic atheist would be an atheist that is certain this is no god. There are similarly gnostic and agnostic theists. The word agnostic, despite very specific roots, has become commonly misused, to the point where most dictionaries now contain two contradictory definitions for it.

You've got it backwards....agnosticism is a belief, atheism is a lack of belief.

atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

If you believe atheism is a belief what you're saying is that belief and lack of belief are the same thing.

That's a semantic argument as far as agnosticism being a belief. You could substitute the word 'claims', 'avers', 'states', 'posits' and just as easily have a good definition of agnosticism. I'm on your side, but I think Barbar explained it better and this is just muddying the waters.

I am a Metagnostic. I believe in the unknowable.

First I was addressing the specific comment by
AeroMechanical that "atheism is a belief, as opposed to agnosticism which isn't."

If we can't agree on "basic definitions" of words then any discussion of anything is pointless. That definition is not my "opinion" it is what I found with a quick online search for the free "Oxford Dictionary". If you prefer the OED definition it's not much different.

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

So if it comes down to whose definition of the word "agnostic" we are going to use...yours or the Oxford English Dictionary...I'm gonna stick with the OED.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. An atheist is someone who believes God doesn't exist. If you think atheism means a "lack of belief" then watch this video by one of your contemporaries:



It all comes down to whether you are an honest or dishonest skeptic. An honest skeptic investigates. A dishonest skeptic doesn't want to know.

As far as this video goes, this show often has Christians on that don't know the bible, and don't understand apologetics, so they often get frustrated and say something that comes out the wrong way. The caller was trying to make some kind of point that we're all sinners but it was misplaced and ill-timed. It's not as if you can't find a billion examples of atheists saying the most horrible things. I just had an atheist tell me he wanted to crucify me the other day.

Then you've never seen the show, and you know nothing about Matt. One of the best public access shows around.

Not sure what the point of this show is. It isn't going to convert anyone, Christian or atheist. I suspect that atheists watch it so that they can see Christians getting humiliated and Christians watch it in the hope that the hosts get humiliated. I don't see how that's different from something like Jerry Springer or any of the other shows that focus on stupid people.

@Jerykk

Let's just say this show has probably not done anything to make a believer more of a believer, but has probably helped many people reason themselves away from the bullshit that is religion. Maybe not by itself, as escaping religious fuguery usually requires a multiple-vector onslaught of logic and reason, but this show has surely helped many people attain the some courage to doubt. It's a godsend.

Personally, I watch it to see Christians get humiliated.

Agnostic: Someone who does not want to commit and has the philosophy, it doesn't matter.

Agnostic 2: A pussy. Hairy, pussy.

Agnostic 3: Says the rules of science might not matter because a God could potentially render them useless. (See De Tyson)

Perhaps he called the child evil because accordingly to that particular religion, we are all born sinners. That would at least make him consistent, if not further disagreeable.

Actually, there have been at least a few converts, and they do call in from time to time to the show. Matt Dillahunty actually married a previously christian caller.

Conversion isn't really what the show is about though. I believe it's primary effect is to illustrate that there are atheists in Texas, and that they aren't inherently evil. Most importantly it is to counter the BS spewed from the pulpit with regards to atheism.

That video is pretty funny.
For some reason, the speaker thinks that the definition of words is based on formal logic. I guess I'm missing his point entirely.

This most precise definition for agnostic I've come across is:
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

It is often used as a shorthand for agnostic with regards to claims of the existence of god, but strictly speaking, it is only meaningful when combined with a knowledge claim.

I don't think there are many atheists at all that claim to be gnostic atheists. I would say at least 99% of atheists are agnostic atheists. Meaning they can't prove god's existence or absence, but they are sufficiently unconvinced that they act as if there were no god.

I'm an atheist, and not a huge fan of these guys, but I did get a kick out of this.

Defining the term is to me a largely semantic issue. The way I see it, most atheists are also agnostics, and most agnostics are atheists. The dictionary definition I would say is that atheists answer in the negative to questions like "Do you believe in God/That Jesus was the sun of god/that god created the universe/that Muhammed talked to god/other religious claims"

No, I do not believe in any of those things. Thus I am an atheist.

I am also an agnostic, because I can never be sure of anything. There might be tooth fairy for all I know.

Someone who calls themselves "agnostic" and avoids the term atheist, well, I cant speak for them, but I suppose they almost believe in god or something, or think its 50/50 or think that it is impossible to make up your mind.

To me, personally, It seems silly and non-descriptive for my view to use the term agnostic, since I'm agnostic about everything. I have no faith in any religious claim. so non-theistic, or a-theistic is a better fit to describe my view.

Beth Presswood is her name. She famously pranked the show under the name Eve (see http://videosift.com/video/Youre-just-atheists-because-you-want-to-sin).

I'm not sure if you're just saying she's a former Christian (true) or you're saying she was converted by the show (false). She talks about her history here starting around 3:05: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWV0KEWnUgE

You are an a-godzilla-ist and that is entirely a practical concession to the fact that you can't really afford giant monster insurance considering recent statistics for giant lizard attacks and indeed going through life avoiding Tokyo at all costs is just kinda a bummer - imagine all the fresh sushi you could miss out on.

You can't actually prove that there never was a Godzilla or that there never will be a Godzilla and you can only assume (not demonstrate) that there is not a Godzilla planet orbiting one of the stars a few galaxies down the way.

All you can really say is that Tokyo is still standing and that all the various accounts of Godzilla's antics across the myriad of B-movies and hollywood blockbusters that feature him as a character seem to have no basis in reality for various reasons. You move on with your day, smile a bit and never really bother to duck for cover.

And that's all we're saying about God. To my knowledge, that is the bleeding edge of audacious claims being made by anyone who is even vaguely respected - simply that we can't take religious claims seriously any more, so we are going to move on with our lives, only dealing with religion directly when it decides to be a bit too influential for our tastes.

But fine, based on the secondary predicate principle and a lengthy philosophy 101 essay with no shortage of verbal meandering through Descartes, et al., atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point.

And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?

More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:

Rapist rapes child, we'll start with that.

The child struggles through the resultant torturous anguish across a lifetime, starts a support group, mans a hotline, works in the community to support fellow victims, increases awareness and so on while loving his/her family and friends, making mistakes periodically and occasionally letting loose at a concert or something. The child (now an adult) is unfortunately just a minimally observant Jew and never really gave Jesus any consideration, so when he/she gets hit by a drunk driver at the unfortunate age of 34, he/she is tormented in hell for the rest of eternity.

The rapist, meanwhile, goes on with his (statistically probable) life, perhaps he rapes some more children (also statistically probable) and maybe he then stops at some point, realizing it is wrong and maybe even feels guilty about it. Ridden by guilt, the preaching of a wayward street preacher catch his ears one day. He ventures into church for the first time. He is moved. He proclaims his belief in Jesus and the resurrection. He feels his sins are forgiven and he can feel years of guilt being washed away. Maybe he even admits his history as a rapist to a sympathetic inner circle of confidants, spiritual advisors and friends. He dies of a heart attack, and spends eternity in heaven.

That is disgusting and a god that sets such a system up is disgusting.

Many compassionate people are blinded into thinking this is just and good in an effort to tenaciously preserve their own sense of eternal safety and cosmic worth at all costs. That is less disgusting just because it is an understandable impulse, but it is disgusting nonetheless.

There are three possible answers to the question of whether God exists: Yes, No, and I don't know. Atheists, going along with the current trend of redefining the meaning of the word atheism, want to both select both no and I don't know at the same time. No, because that is what they really believe, and I don't know because they can't prove it. To be an "agnostic atheist" is simply a contradiction in terms. An agnostic neither believes or disbelieves in God, while an atheist disbelieves; they are mutually exclusive. To cut this short, you can't answer no and I don't know at the same time.

Well, that's the dilemma for atheists, in that the worldview itself gives no ground for making any knowledge claims at all. Therefore, the conclusion becomes that you don't actually know anything. For instance, if someone asked you what the speed limit is and you said "I think it's 60 miles an hour" would you say that you know what the speed limit actually is? No, obviously not, and that is the essential problem with being an atheist..it is a semantic game in the end because you can't justify any knowledge claim to be able to say you did or didn't know there was a God in the first place..

[["atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point."]]

To me it's kind of a minor point but for this it comes down to the burden of proof, which is something atheists are trying to avoid at all costs.

[["And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?"]]

How about Ravi Zacharias? John Lennox? Matt Dillahunty has actually formally debated a few Christians and he didn't do very well.

[["More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:"]]

What the scripture says is that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Further, it says that the wages of our sin is death. Therefore, it is saying that we all have a sin problem, and that God doesn't show any partiality between sinners. The murderer and the liar are both headed for hell, although there is an indication in the scripture that there are degrees of punishment in hell. I also believe in the age of accountability.

Is it possible that the murderer may go to heaven while the murder victim goes to hell? It certainly is. What you're not realizing is, God loved both equally, and had His hand out to both equally. He doesn't show partiality in punishment, and He doesn't show partiality in salvation. He did everything possible to save the one that perished without violating His free will, and the man turned him down. That isn't because God is wicked, or unjust, but because the one that perished refused to stop doing evil and accept Gods pardon. Would you release a murderer out of death row who refused to stop murdering? Why should God forgo justice with unrepentant sinners?

What you're saying is, the murderer deserved to go to hell and the victim didn't. Yet, what the scripture says is that both equally deserved to go to hell, since they are both sinners. Every single person alive on the planet right now is not receiving the punishment they deserve; every day they are receiving what they don't deserve, which is breath, and life, and a chance to begin forgiven. No one has to go hell; people get there by pushing past the love, grace and mercy of their Creator.

In most dictionaries, two non equivalent definitions are given for atheism. The one I'm using and the one you're using. That is why I was very explicit in what I said. Precisely the same situation for my use of the word agnosticism.

Atheism does not answer the question 'Does God Exist'. Instead it addresses your belief regarding the existence of god. The only real question that can be answered by atheism is 'Do you believe (g)God(s) exists?' to which there are exactly two answers. Yes and No. That's theism and atheism. Agnosticism (with regards to the existence of divinity) simply isn't an answer to this question. It says that ultimate knowledge one way or the other is impossible to obtain. Note that even if you answered Yes or No, it does not imply that you are 100% absolutely certain, only that you hold a belief. Using the agnostic qualifier explicitly states that the belief is not at a 100% level.

One idiot caller should not be made to rep all of Christendom any more than these two should be considered speakers on behalf of all atheists.

There's an infinite amount of things one could potentially not believe in. Why should not believing in god be so important that one should identify themselves as 'atheist'? I don't get what the big deal is. It's more fruitful to talk about what one does believe in.

Its not a dilemma for me, I know exactly as much as you, or anybody else do about god: Nothing.

Remember, I'm not the one who believes in imaginary things.

The fact that people like you THINK you can no something and comfortably believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence, is first and foremost YOUR problem.

When it comes to grounds for making knowledge claims, well, in my view knowledge, like the universe and life itself, is a bottoms up thing, we start at zero, and then build gradually on sound arguments and evidence. Like Carl Sagan once put it: "science is a candle in the dark" and that candle is shining ever brighter. Newton said he was standing on the shoulders of giants, and now we can stand on Newtons shoulders and see even farther.

I answer the question about whether there is a god in exactly the same way as I would about santa clause. I'm pretty sure, based on the aforementioned hard-earned knowledge we do have, combined with the fact that we have NO information suggesting there might be one, that there isnt one. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot be absolutely certain. I do regard it as a fact as good as any that there is no god.

Its not a dilemma for me, I know exactly as much as you, or anybody else do about god: Nothing.

All you can say here is that you don't know anything about God. If you don't know anything about God, then how can you know what anyone else knows about God?

Remember, I'm not the one who believes in imaginary things.

You seem to state here that your assumption that God is imaginary is a fact, which is just the same as merely imagining something is true.

The fact that people like you THINK you can no something and comfortably believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence, is first and foremost YOUR problem.

There are good reasons as to why someone could believe in a God, but I wouldn't believe in a God based on those reasons alone. I believe in God because of personal revelation. The scripture says that this is the way that God reveals Himself to everyone. My question to you is, could God reveal Himself in such a way to you that you could be certain that He is?

When it comes to grounds for making knowledge claims, well, in my view knowledge, like the universe and life itself, is a bottoms up thing, we start at zero, and then build gradually on sound arguments and evidence. Like Carl Sagan once put it: "science is a candle in the dark" and that candle is shining ever brighter. Newton said he was standing on the shoulders of giants, and now we can stand on Newtons shoulders and see even farther.

My question to you here is, how do you ever get past zero? The ground of the sound arguments and evidence that you're perceiving is your own reasoning power. How do you justify your reasoning as being sound without using circular reasoning?

I answer the question about whether there is a god in exactly the same way as I would about santa clause. I'm pretty sure, based on the aforementioned hard-earned knowledge we do have, combined with the fact that we have NO information suggesting there might be one, that there isnt one. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot be absolutely certain. I do regard it as a fact as good as any that there is no god.

There isn't a good reason to believe Santa Claus exists but there are good reasons to believe that the Universe was created by an all powerful being. The idea of God has explanatory power. The very question of whether the Universe has an intelligent causation is a rational question. My question to you is, how would you tell the difference as to whether the Universe was or wasn't designed? How could you tell which Universe you lived in?

any creator who only reveals himself to certain people and not others is a dick and not worth following or caring about. Any person who "thinks" god has been revealed to them and uses that as an assertion of authority over those who haven't had similar "revelations" are not just dicks, they deserve to be locked up.

I'm still ignoring shiny but I'm assuming he's making all the same tired arguments about god revealing himself as he always does. I'm sure he's also still quoting the bible as an authoritative source.

As Matt has continued to point out, secular morality has proven itself better than biblical morality.

God and religion are two separate things. always have, always will be. The question of the existence of a creator is largely irrelevant. If a creator exists and I'm doing things contrary to what this creator wishes me to do, tough. If this creator has a problem with it, it can come down here and tell me directly instead of using a ancient book as it's main source of communication. God is either a dick or incompetent for using such an inefficient means of communicating its wishes. Even if a creator did manifest itself physically and declared its undisputed existence, this creator would have a lot of angry people (and that includes people who DO believe in a creator) on its hands demanding some answers and rightfully so. The threat of eternal damnation just really isn't that effective of a means of ensuring compliance. Again. secular morality beats biblical morality.

Even if a creator does not exist it still doesn't change anything. Even if it was possible to scientifically prove a creator doesn't exist. It doesn't change shit. Countless people will still continue believing it. A creator may not exist, but Religion ain't going anywhere for a long time. There isn't a magic set of words that magically convince someone to not believe in an imaginary god. This ain't the TV show Stargate and there is no "Ark of Truth" and in my opinion, it would be immoral to use such a device if it existed. (great googely boogely that was such a horrible tv movie).

If we want a free society, people have to make their own conclusions. By and large, all atheists and agnostics support Freedom of Religion. They just want religion out of government. You can be religious, but government has to be secular.

science is agnostic to the existence of a creator. It doesn't care if a creator exists. If the evidence is there. then the evidence will point to it. If there is no evidence then it doesn't exist. Even if there is evidence and we just haven't found it yet, we still have to err on the side treating it as if it doesn't exist. Theists make the claim the a creator exists. You have to back that shit up. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Not only that, but you have a double burden. Not only do you have to prove a creator exists, you have prove that this creator wants you to do X, Y, and Z. None of which has been done.

And guess what, not all atheists/agnostics believe/disbelieve the same thing. just because you trot out some non-believer that says things that other non-believers don't agree with doesn't mean a thing. Yeah, atheists and agnostics like to squabble over the definitions of atheist and agnostic and the myriad of combinations of both words. So what? it doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof, Yes, there are some atheists out there who don't just want separation of church and state, they would eliminate all forms of religion if they could. Shock, someone in a group is taking things a little far. ZOMG! THAT NEVER HAPPENS ANYWHERE!! It STILL doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof.

Matt has argued this countless times. you make a claim? you gotta back it up. You may wish to quibble over the semantics of what an atheist is or isn't. I too don't strictly agree with his definition of atheism. But he has declared his views on the subject countless times: He used to be a Christian, but he decided that he needed to know that what he was preaching was actually rational and Christianity could not meet the burden of proof in his eyes. So he is not making the claim that god doesn't exist, because he cannot prove that. The problem is, Christians, or any other religion for that matter cannot prove any of their claims either, thus, there is no reason to believe them or consider them trustworthy.

You want to quibble over whether or not that's an atheist or an agnostic, be my fucking guest but it's just a distraction that doesn't change the end result. Matt (and myself) do not accept the claim that a creator exists, nor do we accept the claim that even if a creator exists, that this creator follows the Christian belief system (or any other belief system for that matter). And the reason that we can't accept any of these claims is because of the lack of evidence and not meeting the burden of proof

"I don't know" is not a belief.

it's all part of the murky definition of atheism that seems to be in flux.

at one point Atheism used to be defined as a definitive claim that no gods existed. This was the primary reason I considered myself to not be an atheist. Because you can't know (presently) There could be a creator, just that a creator probably isn't an petty ass from the stone ages which is how most religions portray a creator.

However I would identify with with how the Atheist Experience defines Atheism: to be the rejection of theistic claims. They specifically say numerous times that they do not claim that no god exists, just that they call bullshit on the claims of all current man-made religions because of lack of evidence.

Which is a viewpoint I can agree with.

It's something I've kinda kept track of for a while, over the years I google the definition of Atheism and many times in the past, it's been defined implying the positive belief that there are no creator(s) which I can't agree with..again, because you can't prove a negative in this situation.

it does seem to be slowly changing though, more and more definitions have changed to match the Atheist Experience's definition.

David Silverman, (while I agree with him on a lot of things) is a douchebag IMO. I'm sorry, you're just not going to win people over with douchey billboards antagonizing theists.

I support freedom of religion, I agree with our founders though that gov't has to be secular. You can vote based on your religious beliefs. but a person elected into public office has to compartmentalize themselves from their religious beliefs and be secular. You govern everyone, not just the followers of your religion. Kick religion out of gov't, but as long as religion doesn't infringe on other peoples' rights, then they can do whatever they want.

@Grimm agnostic=not knowing (literal translation)
gnostic-to know OR knowing.
theist-belief in gods or god
atheist-lack of belief in gods or god.

@enoch and @VoodooV

Just so we are clear you are arguing against the Oxford English Dictionary definition....not just some definition I pulled out of my ass.

Feel free to disagree and make your case for why you think the OED is wrong.

I never said OED was wrong. I'm just noting that "Atheist" appears to mean different things depending on who you ask.

Part of that is just ignorance from the theists, but part of it IMO is poor communication from atheists. They really do need to send a better message to the public and I don't think putting up billboards is the way to go quite honestly. Whether or not religion is a myth really isn't a main complaint because people do have freedom of religion.

The main complaint is that separation of church and state is not being enforced well and challenging the false claims of theists...especially in the subject of morality.

@Grimm
wasnt arguing brother,just clarifying.

agnosticism isnt a belief or lack of but rather simply not knowing.

i was just trying to be helpful.
didnt mean to ruffle any feathers.
carry on.