the reason I called in was I called him
before talk to Matt and Tracy got hung
up on like the most of us on here but
yeah hopefully that what happened to me
so soon I'll let this out let Donna
answer and decide when to hang up there
enough power so really what I want to
talk about is I want to set forth an
argument that atheism is a lie okay how
can something that doesn't make a
positive claim be a lie sorry I was
gonna let go that's fine
let me explain do you realize that we
define atheism as the lack of belief in
gods
so I'm not convinced - God exists just
like I'm not convinced fairies exist
until you can come up with a way that
both of those things are lies I because
I'm sitting here and I honestly don't
believe a god exists and I honestly
don't believe fairies exist and yet
you're saying I'm lying
so we presume that we're experts about
this the state of our minds right and
correct yeah so are you are you saying I
don't understand I can't fathom my own
beliefs and and express them let me
explain it this way let me explain it
this way so first we have to both agree
on our definitions so atheism is the
lack of belief in a God and or the
disbelief of a God and theism is the
belief or having faith in God right
basically if you if you're convinced -
God exists you're a theist if not you're
an atheist but your definitions are fine
yeah go ahead faith is something where
you're accepting the proposition is true
without evidence correct I'm fine with
that definition of faith I tended to
define it as faith is the reason people
give for believing something when they
don't have a good reason okay it's more
or less kind of the same thing yeah
valid reason a valid form of evidence I
would say sound but okay where whereas
this belief is the
the rejection of a claim or the
assumption of the the claim being wrong
no it's not
is disbelief is not assuming you're
wrong it's not being convinced that
you're right it's essentially the
difference between a jury not being
convinced of guilt and a jury being
convinced of innocence those are two
different things
yet the jury is not convinced with with
or without evidence they the default so
your theists are saying God is guilty of
existing hello Oh buddy really know if
God exists okay then if if nobody can
really know if God exists then this
conversation is useless right because
you can't know and I can't know and all
I'm saying is I'm not convinced that
you're correct which means of the two of
us I'm the only one that's close to
being possibly right because you can't
demonstrate your case and all my
position is is that you can't
demonstrate your case which means not
only am I not lying
I'm completely correct sorry dawn was
gonna answer him we lost him we lost him
he ran away
Oh Mike who is on got disconnected in
his back so there we go you there Mike
yeah I monster here thanks for having me
back I we didn't hang up on you yeah I
realize I probably my reception maybe in
one sentence recap where we were so we
can pick up again so I want to make the
argument that atheism is a lie just to
run through the definitions again we
went through theism we went through
eight years and we went through belief
and disbelief we went through faith and
we were just about to go through knowing
I think there's something else we should
have fine yes a lie because to me yeah
if somebody if I want to say that's a
lie then it needs to be a dick
claret of statement and in particular it
needs to be not just a declarative
statement which is false but which is
knowingly false there needs to be some
intent to deceive okay it has to be
knowingly false there's to be an
intention to be deceptive
pretending acting hypocrisy how it was
hypocrisy fall into that I think there
are ways to dim it is difficult because
we're talking about what's in somebody's
mind I think there are ways to
demonstrate intent through the things
that you talked about like hypocrisy but
what is the declarative statement that
you're saying is a lie I'm saying that
atheism in and of itself as an ideology
is a lie okay no stop
atheism is not a declarative statement
so it cannot be a lie so we need to know
what the declarative statement is that
you think is a lie you say atheism is
not a declarative statement perhaps you
you're saying you're saying that it's
more of a label or a term that we've put
used to categorize to be that what
you're saying no even if you went to
what is the Atheist position my position
is an atheist is that theism has not met
its burden of proof and therefore I am
unconvinced that's it so you could go a
number of places from here it's like
okay well you're you're ignoring
evidence
okay willfully ignoring evidence that
might be a way or you secretly go in the
closet at night and believe in God and
and during the day you're yeah you know
presenting another case with which of
those two am I am I getting close to
where you're coming from it's a little
bit different so my idea is that if we
accept the premise that no one has
evidence if God exists or not and we
accept the Prime Minister yet could
never conclude that atheism is a lie
because if you this is what I was
acknowledging when you got disconnected
if your position is that no one can
demonstrate with evidence whether or not
a God exists then there's no way for
anyone to come down on either side of
that which means you couldn't possibly
demonstrate that it's either of them is
a lie except that we had in practice
that
by the definition of their name they
don't actually assert to know if God
exists I don't dare you mean I don't
care this isn't about knowledge it's a
question about belief and reasonableness
so theists believe there's a God I don't
care if they claim to know it
atheists do not believe in a God they
don't claim to know that there is no God
don't they but still believers have a
faith in God which is the assumption
that there is no evidence to begin with
so they're not asserting knowledge yes
they believe something without good
reason we've established that that's
faith whereas at the other hand we have
eight years who claim they disbelieve
God exists but their disbelief is
actually based on the assumption that
they understand what valid evidence or
God would be yeah and they assert that
this there is a lack of this valid
evidence or that there's even
contradictory valid evidence to
establish their belief or no his belief
rather No
so this is this gets to the question of
when people ask me what would convince
you that God exists I have a stock
answer that that is that I've used for
years now but it's changed because I
have no idea
I am NOT pretending to know what it
would take to demonstrate that a God
exists just that it hasn't happened I
don't need to know what evidence would
prove string theory just that it hasn't
happened I don't need to know what
evidence would prove a God exists but if
there is a God that God absolutely
should know what evidence should
convince people and has not presented it
and therefore either that God does not
exist
or that God does not want people to know
he exists yet if this is not about I'm
not in any way assuming I know what
evidence would prove a god and that
evidence hasn't shown up I'm saying I
have no idea what evidence would prove a
god but if it shows up it will be
recognizable as evidence for it just
like I don't know what evidence would
prove that fairies are real but as soon
as that evidence is presented in a
sufficiently reliable context to which
it would warrant belief in fairies then
I'm going to believe in fairies but I
don't know what that evidence would be
and in a god sense it would be a
monumentally arrogant for me to assume
that I know what
would be the real problem here is that
there are countless people running
around saying hey we've got evidence for
God and then people like me are saying
oh really what is it and when they
present the evidence it's not but this
is a problem with with that position
even though I agree with you probably 95
percent of the way well good I'm the
problem with that in the end is that we
agreed that no one has evidence for God
no one can really know if God exists
everybody in the end has to believe or
disbelieve so in this kind of dichotomy
where knowledge isn't really an option
then then you're faced with a little bit
of a different proposition because yes
you either claim that you have good
reason to believe something or you
exercise faith exactly and if if what
you said is true the latter about God
who is true what you said was that God
doesn't want everyone to know that he
exists okay which if that's true if
that's true then every believer every
believer is by definition unwarranted in
their belief because if God doesn't want
people to know he exists then they
cannot possibly have a justified
position well they well if God doesn't
want everyone to know correct that's
true but if he wants a select few people
to know not everybody has just a few yes
I completely agree but if there's a God
that's going around selectively
revealing himself to people those people
are the only ones that could possibly
have evidentiary warrant that cannot
demonstrate it to anybody else and it
doesn't make a shit's bit of difference
to me because until I'm presented with
that evidence I am holding the only
rational position that I can hold and
it's not a lie I understand your
position I do understand that but how am
i lying then well the idea of atheism
being a disbelief based on valid
evidence or the lack of evidence
assuming that you know that there is
evidence for God or anybody has evidence
that in itself is a lie what no no no no
no no no no no no so for 20 years
begging people to give us evidence
please give us some evidence so you
don't get to just call something alive I
mean you can well let me ask it is let
me ask you this what's what what's
better to be arrogant or be ignorant
arrogance you had to choose one arrogant
would be better than ignorant that's the
thing like the theists would choose
ignorant I'm very well aware of that
voluntarily choosing it through an
exercise of faith and then calling in to
say that atheists are lying and having
no demonstration that we're lying we
don't know but also by the way arrogance
versus ignorant is a false dichotomy
because there's monumentally [ __ ] tons
of people who are incredibly ignorant
and very arrogant about it the
difference is they can't they cannot
have not met their burden of proof it's
not it's not alive for me to say you
have not convinced me it's not alive for
me to say I've evaluated all of the
arguments for the existence of God that
have been presented that I've found and
explored and and also found them wanting
it's not alive for me to say that if in
fact there was a sound argument
supported by evidence for the existence
of God it'd be on the front page of
every newspaper be the only thing people
were talking about on TV it'd be a Nobel
Prize it would have every organisation
giving that the fact that that hasn't
happened is the demonstration that
theism has not met its burden of proof
and under no circumstance is a rejection
of a bald assertion rooted in faith with
a declaration from you that nobody can
have evidence for this in no way is that
ever a lie to say I don't believe you
okay I guess from your perspective I do
understand your position your money you
don't perspective that that a theism is
a response to the theistic claim not a
response to God's existence itself but
to the theistic claim maybe in that 10
kind is invented twenty thousand gods
are
I'm not quite sure which one you're
talking about well I'm particularly
answer probably well I'm a Christian so
I'm talking about the Christian God in
general okay which is how is the
Christian God for which we don't have
evidence for distinguishable from a
Hindu god that we don't have evidence
for this is a thing so just as somebody
who does who has had his own little bit
of evidence to give me enough face to
believe in God um this is the thing you
cannot get that evidence without
starting to believe you first yeah
that's called a self deception or and it
in no way answers the question that I
just asked to say that you need to
believe first in order to get the
evidence is exactly the recipe for self
defense self deception that's a con game
what I asked was how is the Christian
God for which you think there is no
evidence distinguishable from a Hindu
god that you have no evidence for that's
kind of a loaded question you bet you
can't I can't really I can't really
answer that because the Hindu god and
the Christian God might be the same it
depends on who that Hindu and there no
no they're not the same what what kind
of [ __ ] Christian could possibly claim
that the Christian God in the Hindu God
might be the same dude what do you know
this is this is the most bizarre version
of Christianity I've ever heard to say
my god might be the same as the Hindu
god really all the Christian the
Christian God is the creator of the
universe and everything in it so
therefore the Christian God is really
the God of everyone it's whether or not
that individual person acknowledges that
or not it's not really
it is the Hindu god or the Christian God
of God all right so you're basically
saying connection Jesus could be the
same I'm saying I can't I can't I can't
speak as far as the Hindu god I all I
understand is that there's one God and
one God that monotheism kind of how do
you know that visible well it's kind of
a the idea that that life comes from a
singular
cause or that everything sorry not just
life but I thought you said we couldn't
have evidence and this was a faith thing
why are you talking about life now we
can have evidence nobody could have
evidence for or against this okay what I
meant was definitive valid evidence so
as to okay first of all evidence is
right knowledge stop using the word
valid it has a very particular usage in
logic and what you're talking about is
evidence which was is what makes a
premise sound or not valid goes to the
structure of the argument not that you
would know that technical term the
validity of the evidence not not in
logical terms it's sure about the
locally the ability to the evidence so
now you think that there is evidence
good evidence for God when before now
said there wasn't not definitive so
there's the difference between faith and
knowledge right no no no no no no no no
no no no no no no [ __ ] no we want
this great evidence already set aside
the notion of knowledge it's irrelevant
belief is either warranted or it is not
and if you think that there is evidence
for when you say not definitive evidence
to me that sounds like you're saying not
sufficient evidence to warrant belief no
I'm saying not sufficient evidence to
warrant knowledge but there you know
believe you don't have to have you know
definitive knowledge it just has to be
beyond the reach of having conversations
why don't we have the conversation and
give us give us the damn evidence there
we go
you're going with beyond a reasonable
doubt right a reasonable doubt yeah sure
so let's set up let's set up a courtroom
where God is accused of existing and you
need to demonstrate that beyond a
reasonable doubt go first produce the
defender
I need to demonstrate that to myself
right you need to demonstrate it'd be a
starting point so reasonableness is not
just a personal [ __ ] opinion
reasonableness is demonstrated now
you're everybody's gonna have a slightly
different standard about how much
evidence is required for various things
extraordinary evidence or extraordinary
claims are gonna require extraordinary
evidence if dawn tells me that he just
got a new pet poodle I'm gonna take him
at his word for a number of reasons one
because I know that poodles exist and
people have him as pets
I trust dawn because he has no reason to
lie about it I understand I live in a
world where this sort of thing happens
and if it turns out that dawn is lying
to me then I will change my mind and
then I know something new about dawn and
that he will lie about having a pet but
having a pet poodle is in a completely
different category from there is a being
that exists inside and outside of
space-time who is the creator of the
universe who came down and took human
form in order to sacrifice himself to
himself so that we can have salvation
from what he was going to do to us if we
don't accept this and is completely
obsessed about your sex life yes now you
know the evidence the evidence for that
claim would need to be vastly stronger
than hey somebody told me a story
hey somebody wrote something down in a
book or hey I had a do you have any
physical evidence for anybody ever
rising from the dead apart from in a
hospital where they're hard to stop and
their resuscitated because death is a
process find somebody that's been dead
for a day and a half and they rise it
that's kind of the thing if we have
evidence that's demonstratable to
everybody else then that kind of goes
against that old idea that God does not
want everyone to know he just wants a
select few to know okay that's a dick I
gotta go we are we are two minutes over
where I said it was going to end the
show next time yeah