The Atheist Experience

Recently, as reflected in links within a few of my posts, I have been watching The Atheist Experience television broadcast on YouTube and also watching some of the debates between the atheists and the Christian apologists and philosophers. I want this topic to focus on logic, reason, reality, and definition of arguments based on words.I'm going to start out by quoting a few of the comments which I read following this hour-long debate on YouTube titled Matt Dillahunty, Chris DiCarlo vs Mike Horner, P Chamberlain - Does God Exist - 2012. This is a compilation of many comments regarding the first quote:

quote:

---

Atheism isn't a claim, it's a refute of many claims

Actually, it's rejection - not refutation. An atheist doesn't have to refute any god claims, just reject them all.

I hate to nitpick, but atheism is a rejection of the claims not a refutation of them.

It can be both. Depends on that person's stance and whether or not he's able to defend a burden of proof properly. It's kinda hard to refute and defend something that's a negative/unfalsifiable. Hence atheism is really just a lack of belief at it's core. How much further it's taken after that is up to the person.

Atheism is simply A LACK OF BELIEF. One doesn't need evidence to not believe something. Just the opposite in fact. One needs evidence TO believe something. (at least in order to be justified in that belief) The default position is nonbelief until evidence is provided, rather than be irrational and gullible by believing everything until given reason NOT to believe it- which is known as faith. Got it now ? Good. Glad I could be the one to educate you. Good luck and goodbye.

​

And perhaps the funniest quote:

Philosophers talk about stuff
Scientists DO stuff
Theists make up stuff

---

Has anyone watched this show? Comments??

I suspect that most atheists are not as interested in atheism as you are.

Not seen the show but all that stuff has been done to death many times here already.It's very simple, if someone makes a claim about something they have to show why it's true. Otherwise it can be rejected out of hand.If the claim is mundane it can be accepted without testing. 'There's a blue chair in my bedroom' can be accepted because it's not exceptional and you trust the source. Before you check it out yourself, you can believe it. After you check you know it.'There's a unicorn in my bedroom' requires absolute proof. It can't be accepted without objective confirmation. Without proof it must be rejected.

That show has been around since the late 90s and became quite popular around the time that Richard Dawkins was voicing his objections towards teaching creationism alongside evolution during the Bush Presidency.The one member of the Atheist Experience group that has gained the most popularity is Matt Dillahunty. His background is he was actually raised in a Baptist household and he was studying to be a baptist priest. But as he started researching, he became aware of a lot of the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods that were being spread as part of Christian doctrine. So he eventually became a vocal member of the atheist community.He has his own channel on Youtube if you want to check it out:https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeityAlso, if you are interested, one of the more interesting debates that Matt Dillahunty participated in was the one where he debated Matt Slick, a known Christian philosopher. The debate is also available and I encourage anyone to view it. It is handled respectfully and professionally and I applaud both Matt's for how it was handled. That debate is here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKlycI9ZKsY

Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?Thanks for introducing me to that video! It was certainly an interesting debate and I will have to watch it again in order to fully understand and grasp the arguments. The audience participation was nice also! To his credit, Slick holds his own though he also brags a bit about his credentials..While Dillahunty is to be respected for his logic and presentation. Tentatively I have concluded that we humans are products of our life experiences. In my belief, God has surely foreknown that humans would be divisive and that not everyone would someday magically agree on a worldview. The evidence is in Christianity itself and on how there are so many denominations...nevermind Islam vs Christianity or Christianity vs Secular Humanism or Believer vs Atheist. The point is that there is and likely always will be different beliefs. Personally, I believe that knowing God through Jesus Christ is a worthy goal. My opponents rightly challenge me to explain how this is possible and why it is necessary for their particular subgroup. This is the heart of the issue: The reason people are in their subgroups is that they feel accepted and respected within that particular group!I'm also reading some of the comments below the video itself. I am studying other arguments by other humans as a key to forming my own conclusions on the verdict if in fact there even is one and needs to be one. Right now I am considering between two beliefs:

That Knowing God and Jesus is necessary
or

That it is irrelevant whether or not I know and believe that Jesus Christ died to pay for my sins once and for all.

​

Mind you I have already committed to the first premise. I believe that Jesus is alive this moment, is aware of our online conversations as well as a quadrillion other events and that through knowing Him I am being transformed and am willfully working as well to become a better person.

​

And I'm not through with you yet, Tangle...though you seem to have encapsulated the debate briefly, the very fact that you hang around mandates that I continue to question you.

​

Edited by Phat, : Title

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Is a hammer superior to an apple? Are they interchangeable?

And yet you will need an assistant to deal with me, mister! I'm not through with you yet either! Though you annoy me a bit by refusing to watch my videos and insisting that I present my arguments in written form---it takes more effort yet allows me to improve upon them in the process. I guess I can't get anyone to do my legwork for me---not even Jesus!

Nope. One eats an apple or bakes a pie with it or splits it with an arrow. maybe they should have thrown it at the snake to shoo that critter away!Hammers are good for hard objects. Maybe Occam should have used a hammer rather than a razor.It is a good debate, though. Watch a video once in a while....unless you think you already know the arguments.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Thats your problem. You reject things that you determine that you don't need. You may stand at the altar waiting forever for evidence. My question is why must we reject the premise? This isnt a simple logic or science problem.Its emotional and personal....but maybe I'm the only one desiring marriage...you already have your squeeze!

I'm at the Public Library. So you missed the point completely.Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity? How can you even compare them?

Once I watch the debate a few more times I may finally form an opinion or belief with which to answer your question.Tentatively I think that Christianity is superior in that we gain a relationship.Though one could argue that with secular humanism you gain many relationships.Out Of Many, One.

I'm not asking which is superior. I'm asking how you can even make a comparison. Like an apple and a hammer, are they used for the same purpose? If you don't have one, can you substitute the other?

Yes, isn't that exactly Secular Humanism is? It's a Christianity substitute for ex-Christians who miss Christianity.

Phat is only making the comparison because that was the actual title of the debate link I provided. Whether they are worthy of comparison, hard to say. But Dillahunty and Slick seemed to think so. Enough that they did a two hour debate on the topic.

I don't have a problem. I'm not agonising over this stuff, that'll be you. Oh Phat, what is it that makes you so dumb about this stuff? It doesn't matter how often this is explained you have to twist it into something you want to believe that has nothing to do with how it actually is.I'm not rejecting stuff I don't need, it's that the stuff you believe in is utterly daft. Like you reject Father Christmas or Zeus. You seem to need to believe something, this is something. If you'd been born in Israel or Iraq you'd believe in something else. And what would be the problem with that? Because it isn't proven and the evidence is against it. Then why are you talking of premises? You said it. You want all this garbage to be true no matter what, so you'll make it true for you.I don't have a 'squeeze', not believing in something is not a replacement for belief. Think of it like you not believing in Vishnu.