and on that note while we've got a lot
more to talk about there's I actually
somebody waiting online with a question
that actually kind of mirrors a little
bit of what we're talking about we've
got is it Stefan in Brooklyn
yes hey how are you doing I'm doing okay
thanks for calling yeah I guess you know
if we'll have cops I need some muscle so
but I'm just calling on a different note
different foot post called for last time
and this life is on a scientific point
of view I just want to know what were
the basic reasons for you acceptable
acceptance of a theater oh all right I
have a slight promise of terminology but
I'll skip that just to answer your
question and and the answer is that
religious claims failed to meet their
burden of proof its if I may it's not
that we accept atheism because you took
your time out accepting an on belief how
do you or how about rephrase it our our
rejection of a belief means the same
thing I suppose you're suggesting that
we believe in something that was never
indicated until it is indicated I can't
believe it I mean you can make up any
number of things that might come to your
imagination but when you posit them as
true it is incumbent upon you to produce
a reason why we should believe that that
is true and by you he's speaking you
know broadly you know that the
terminology thing that I have a problem
with is something that he just touched
on and I think one of the best
explanations ever heard came from Dennis
and it's when you when you phrase it
that way like what made you accept
atheism or as some dishonest people have
tried to argue you know show me the
proof for atheism it's not it that
portrays this as if atheism is some
ideology that's selling something as
atheist it's not that we're selling
something else other than religion it's
that we're not buying what religion is
selling and just because I'm not buying
this doesn't mean I'm selling something
else
it simply means I'm not buying that you
know it's funny you're saying exactly
the same thing you said the last time I
rehear you mean the questions haven't
gotten any better
yeah that's it's it's we ended up
dealing with a lot of the same questions
and issues over now
partly because the audience change and
probably because for some reason there's
a difficulty in grasping some of these
topics you know with a broader audience
so what what else you have Steven Stefan
then what are the burden of proof that
we haven't met that's what I wanna know
well um anything I mean you have a
belief system that is dependent upon
faith right mm-hmm okay faith is an
assertion of absolute conviction that
has assumed independent of evidence and
which must be defended against all
evidence to the contrary but my reason
for asking was because in last show my
said my answer something is not based on
evolution my answer is it the belief in
a God is requires faith anything that
requires faith in lieu of evidence is in
my philosophy automatically rejected it
has to have evidence there has to be
something to indicate it wait but and
the evidence that you're talking about
you're talking about saying set well yes
okay but what I'm saying is last show my
indicators very well that his atheism is
not based on evolution correct i
evolution is irrelevant to whether or
not i'm an atheist because evolution
deals with one question the origins of
biological diversity and theism
addresses another question as to whether
or not there is a God and while I will
admit that there are people who link the
two and that there may be different ways
to link the two my rejection of theism
is because the theistic claims did not
satisfy their burden of proof and it has
nothing to do with whether or not I
accepted evolution and by the way the
demonstration of this is that there are
plenty of theists Christians of all
stripes who do accept evolution because
it's a fact that's demonstrated by
evidence yeah I mean you know if it's
very incoherent for theistic evolution
according to common descent from you
know as Darwin described it because they
call it an undirected process if God
the retina doesn't make sense to say
that one day record I read anything else
that happens in your life I mean any any
trivial in collection of instances that
seem unrelated that might ultimately
lead you to a certain conclusion you
wouldn't you might think that God was
looking out for you and God arranged for
these things to happen so that you would
be in this place at this time and it was
so fortuitous it had to have happened
for a reason
everything happens for a reason so if
that's the case then evolution although
it seems completely undirected could
well have been orchestrated by whoever
wrote the script for the existence of
everything I mean he's got everything
all laid out he's written the prophecy
has already told us how the movie ends
so how does this deviate from from your
perspective why can't a God who
organizes every single thing organized
every single thing well okay well I'm
sorry I'm so nice to haven't gotten off
what his being said because you stand up
you know the heavy everything is not
based on evolution we just keep you know
but is that it's just based on that we
haven't met a burden of proof correct
yes and we need to make it very poufy
half the time because Pope any case
evidence and evidence no proof doesn't
indicate evidence we need to work on
some definitions here first of all
evolution is population mechanics okay
that's it it's its reproductive
populations and genetics that's all
you're talking about that has nothing to
do with whether or not we believe that
all events are orchestrated by some
higher intelligence or that there are
anthropomorphic entities with magic
powers they're completely different
subjects when we say that you haven't
met the burden of proof we are saying
that you declare that your belief is
based on faith and that we must have
faith to believe as you do no I don't
have faith I won't have faith I consider
it inherently dishonest do you have
something more substantive do you have a
reason why I should believe you and
right so yours I know yours is based on
a scientific point of view but that's
not what you know okay
can you answer that question with yes or
no here's your thing you're saying where
haven't we met
burden of proof and and our answers
proof is everywhere so what is something
that you believe that you are convinced
you have met the burden of proof that's
what you have to tell me what wait no no
I asked I asked you a question you
believe you guys Devin must depend upon
faith
what is it depend upon answer the
question with a yes or a No hang on you
can let me ask that one more time
I'm not honestly answered my question
asked that question more time because I
missed it I'm saying that if your
atheism is not dependent upon evolution
wishes to say you know should not look
like from a scientific point of view no
that's not what you asked that's not
what you asked Stefan just a second ago
now you're asking if my atheism isn't
dependent on evolution what's it
dependent on and a minute ago you asked
if my atheism isn't dependent on science
what is it what is it dependent on my
rejection of theistic claims is based on
skepticism logic reasoning the
evaluation of evidence and the theistic
claims have not provided evidence
sufficient to justify accepting them oh
that's it
I'll go a step further what you have
provided has been entirely falsified
every claim the religions have made
where there could be tested at all
they have been disproved where you claim
that let's say religion is supposed to
make you more moral than if that is the
case then why is it that evangelicals
have the higher divorce rate then you
know non-religious people why do they
have higher teen pregnancies why do they
have more abortions why do they have
higher rates of child abuse why is it
that statistics show that that sexual
offenders more often than not tend to be
religious and that the more religious
they are the more heinous their crimes
are I mean that's just one example there
is a negative correlation to all the
claims that I have ever seen regarding
religion so it's not just that you
didn't provide a reason to believe you
it's that you've presented me with a
whole bunch of reasons not to look at a
moral stuff like that I would there was
one of my many stand points yes right so
my