9 thoughts on “My Favorite Conversation (ever) with an Atheist”

1. The problem you’re running into here and you simply don’t realize is that atheists are a bit reluctant to get into arguments with strangers. It’s not that they have a weak hold of their ideas, it’s that theists have a hard time believing that anyone can not believe in their particular brand of ultimate truth. This inadaptibility has left several people who ask me what I am in a sputtering rage when atheist is my reply. Born again Christians deal with this the most poorly, at a few times I’ve been screamed at in public areas for simply being honest.
   Now here is a guy being asked his beliefs by a stranger in an airport. As the minority, I’m sure he was reluctant to put too much out there as he was certainly uncertain of the outcome. Why walk into a potentially tense situation if one: you don’t have to and two: you can’t gain anything from it. It’s just not worth it!
   As for proving that God does not exist. you as an educated man know that proving a negative is very difficult if not impossible. I cannot prove that bigfoot isn’t standing beside me watching my type this just out of sync with our prime material plane. I can’t prove that humanity isn’t some thought experiment run by an intelligent species of algae. And I can’t prove that god absolutely doesn’t exist. One can always stretch the very fabric of imagination to encompass some possible scenario where the above mentioned are true. You can just keep altering the parameters of the definitions as I get closer.
   I submit to you the following. It is not up to me to prove he doesn’t exist. It’s up to you to prove he does. Submit your proposal for a completely objective double blind test and let’s see where it leads. As with the power of prayer or Allah’s gift of 72 virgins to the faithful, it simply will lead nowhere.

   http://blessedatheist.com/

   Reply

2. Sorry about the typos. I was spell checking when the cat jump onto my laptop and in the ruckus the comment was sent. sorry again.

   Reply

3. KKBundy,

   Thanks for your comments.

   First, let me assure you that I am far more disappointed that you’ve been screamed at by born-again Christians than you can imagine. I’ll lump myself in with that class-type since I identify with John 3, my faith in Christ, His regenerating work in my spirit through His Spirit, etc.

   I am a little surprised that you both don’t know me (I’m a stranger) and affirm that atheists are reluctant to get into debates with strangers (while entering one with me)…I suppose the internet makes us all less strange (ain’t it cool?).

   Actually, the conversation I mentioned was a good bit longer and not so abrupt (as I hoped I had intimated) as I made it sound. The fact is that I feel a very similar disappointment from your comments—not that you commented (that’s cool), but that you seem to think you are an atheist (so your site claims).

   You said,

   “And I can’t prove that god absolutely doesn’t exist”

   Now I get your point. You are describing unfalsifiable scenarios; meaning that if we can’t prove something false, we can’t prove it true. I’ve always thought Skinner’s infinite regress of behavioral causes stumbled over this problem concerning validity and proof.

   But let’s go with the point. I can’t prove that God exists and you can’t prove He doesn’t. You believe He doesn’t exist, I believe He does exist. We are back to a matter of faith.

   Now whether or not your faith has a basis [or my faith has a basis] is not exactly my focus here. My real focus is that you are actually [at least functionally] an agnostic. You can’t prove He doesn’t exist, but you do admit the possibility by the nature of your statements.

   As a matter of faith you definitely could be an atheist, however it seems you could admit the possibility that God may indeed exist. I too could admit the possibility that God may indeed not exist [though it certainly isn’t what I’m utterly convinced of].

   Now, I do have some foundation or support for my faith [the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the nature of adequate cause (we are intelligent and self-aware…so, by causal laws, that which caused us must be adequate, or intellegent and self-aware), etc.], but when it gets down to it, it is still a matter of faith.

   You too run into this issue…except it must take even greater faith for you to believe [for sure] that God does not exist. I say this because by your own admission [you said],

   “As for proving that God does not exist. you as an educated man know that proving a negative is very difficult if not impossible.”
   
   So, I take it that the foundation of your faith in a God-less existence is a “very difficult if not impossible” basis of proof. So your atheism is rooted in something impossible to prove [though there is a possibility your atheism is contingent-atheism; that is, based on my inability to prove God’s existence to your satisfaction. In this case, you can’t believe in God’s non-existence without my prior believe in His existence. Of course, this kind of atheism makes itself purely reactionary].

   I still believe that you are functionally an agnostic, which is the point of my post. I do totally affirm your right to believe you are anything you believe you are, but consider this reference (Webster’s 1995) to the origin of the term:

   “Belief that the existence of God cannot be proven; that in the nature of things the individual cannot know anything of what lies behind or beyond the world of natural phenomena. The term was coined 1869 by T H Huxley.

   I do believe this is where you lie [at least in part A]…in a belief that the existence of God cannot be proven.

   The cheery thing is that we are both ‘brothers’ in some sense as men of faith (mix genders as appropriate)! You are a believer who lives by his faith, and I am a believer who lives by my faith. The objects of our faith are different…but how nice to be open and think!

   Blessings,

   Fred Lybrand

   Reply

4. On the topic of strangers. A forum like this is a safe place for such discussions. There is a vast buffer zone between us that allows for a certain comfort. I can also pick and choose the battles I wish to argue that make venues such as these comment sections true exchanges of ideas. As for the born agains in question it was not an airport but several in power plants (where I work) and a few social gatherings. I have noticed that over the years these incidents have decreased in both fury and frequency. Perhaps we atheists are becoming a little more established. One or two of these people I have made into pretty good friends who I can discuss matters calmly. A few simply can’t get over the idea that if I disagree with them on God’s existence them I put their entire faith in an uncomfortable place. I know how they feel. I was once born again, myself, and it was intensely uncomfortable to have ones entire faith questioned.

   To first respond on the question “Is there a creator or a God?” You are stating that if there are two opposing sides to an issue and neither can be proved completely, then they both have an equal validity. I have a problem with this line of reasoning. Pick a fundamentalist Muslim and start a debate on the 72 virgins waiting in paradise. You by whatever means possible cannot prove that he doesn’t. He, except for references to holy “scripture”, can’t even bring one piece of evidence to the table. You use logic and reason and, of course, your holy scripture but in the end both arguments are equally valid by this your viewpoint. This viewpoint works identically with aliens building the pyramids, and big-foot not being found because he can shift in and out of the prime material plane at will. That is a real claim by the way. By your stated logic all of these claims have an equal weight with their more naturalistic cousins.

   But in any argument, the burden of proof must lie with the person making the positive claim. If someone thinks that placing leaches on someone’s left butt cheek cures them of cancer, then the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It is not up to the rest of the world to prove every fantastic claim wrong. As we have discussed, It is very difficult to prove a negative. One can always keep moving the argument slightly in an attempt to invalidate the theories falsification; maybe it’s the right butt cheek; maybe the left arm. It’s not leaches it mosquitoes. This same strategy is used to support the entire alternative medicine industry. Every time science proves one of their often fantastic claims wrong they just shift a little and claim something equally preposterous. there is any infinity of fantastic claims and only a comparative few true ones.

   God used to get the credit for everything. Lightning was a god’s anger. Rain, a gift, The sun, the moon, the stars, earthquakes, gravity, was all attributed to direct and constant divine intervention. As more scientific evidence has come out through the ages, God has been shoved further into the darkness. As we understand how the world works, we need god less as an explanation, and I firmly believe we are now at a point where we can throw him out all together. Science doesn’t disprove God. It just makes the need for him as an explanation unnecessary.

   To say I can’t prove that there is not even the slightest of possibility of a creator is true. I also can’t prove to you the world isn’t secretly run by an evil cadre of vampire elves. I can’t prove that our entire world isn’t some thought experiment in virtual reality run by a vastly intelligent algae species. I cant prove that our entire universe isn’t being carried around as a marble in some cosmic child’s pocket. It is up to a theist to prove God does exist in a provable, repeatable and falsifiable study. Why can’t God do one thing that is irrefutable? Comedown and give a lecture once a year? Heal people with amputations in front of skeptical witnesses? Why must everything be so vague and shadowy? I understand your concept of faith. But why is faith such a virtue. I argue that faith in the improbable has led humanity to many heights, true, but also into so many atrocities. The 9/11 bombers had faith. You don’t run planes into buildings without a little faith. Blind faith is not a virtue. And faith, by definition, is believing in what you can’t see or prove, hence blind. It’s time we looked at evidence and logic rather than faith.

   It comes down to this. You show me that God exists and I will believe. Until then I remain an atheist.

   That some idea of a creator couldn’t be constructed to fit the available evidence isn’t relative. I could in the course of an hour make up several absurd but unprovable scenarios that fit the evidence. What is the issue with me is the logical inconsistency that God must be like what the biblical literalists claim. That once we would agree that there is a creator that we immediately jump the Yahweh of the old testament. That is the aspect of the discussion my blog centers on. Assume there is a creator. There is a vast gulf between a “first cause” creator and Yahweh. Just because you may be able to take a single step towards theism, you cannot just leap the light years forward to a reality containing Jehovah. That argument breaks down rapidly the more literally the Bible is taken.
   My bible study has never been against theists in general but rather with a literal interpretation of this book. I think there is beauty in the Bible, but it is human beauty not divine. I have just finished the third straight reading of the story of Joseph and Egypt fro my blog. It is a wonderful story but only when taken as allegory or myth. Like Homers Iliad and Odyssey they are better stories without the gods. With humans at the helm screwing everything up the old stories show both our greatness and paucity. In other words, they show our humanity With a Perfect omniscient and omnipotent God at the helm they only cruelty and capriciousness.

   Anyway, I’m sure I missed several points here but eventually I just have to push the send button.

   Reply

   1. KKBundy,

      As I read your thoughts here I realized that you are not interacting with what I’ve said…I can only assume that you are giving arguments you have found winsome in some other context. If you would like to interact with this topic [agnostics often think they are atheists], if not, it really isn’t appropriate to post your responses.

      Here’s an example [you said]–

      To first respond on the question “Is there a creator or a God?” You are stating that if there are two opposing sides to an issue and neither can be proved completely, then they both have an equal validity.

      I neither asked the first question, nor did I state that both sides have equal validity. You are posing and answering things not in this blog conversation. Moreover, you are attributing to me affirmations I neither believe nor have mentioned.

      They are not equally valid. My point was that they are equally faith-based. In other words, you are a true believer in your ‘atheism’.

      My other point was that you are actually an agnostic and misuse the term atheist. You don’t know & don’t have proof for the existence of God; yet, by your own argument, you don’t have proof concerning His non-existence [since the burden is on the one asserting the claim in your estimation].

      You are an agnostic and not an atheist (though you do seem to have ‘blind faith’ in your atheist-self-image) and you have faith in your doubting (as it were).

      Your argument is simply:

      God can’t be proved, therefore God doesn’t exist.

      Just because something can’t be proved, why does that mean it isn’t true / doesn’t exist?

      The best you can say is that God isn’t proved yet…which, of course, makes you an agnostic…or, if not an agnostic, a true man of faith, since you then must BELIEVE that God doesn’t exist. If you just ‘don’t know” because their isn’t proof, then you are an agnostic.

      Thanks,

      Fred Lybrand

      Reply

5. I’m sorry I have taken the conversation to bounds to which was not intended. I believed and still believe I was answering your question to the best of my ability. You read one thing into both your and my comments. I read another. Sorry, but I was unable to answer our comments on your terms only. Since we disagreed on the very semantics of the case, I felt I had to bring up auxiliary arguments.

   My point was simply that if you stretch the definition of agnostic to fit me. It fits you, me and everyone else on the planet. You can’t prove he does and I can’t prove he doesn’t. We are all agnostics. The definition, therefore, becomes meaningless.

   Sorry again for the lapse. You have my permission, not that you need it, to erase the posted material. I will refrain from violating your site in the future.

   BTW. Winsome. Very good word. I just don’t hear that one anymore.

   Reply

   1. Thanks for your response and graciousness.

      I don’t believe I’m fitting the word agnostic to you, rather I’m inviting you to see that you fit to the word itself.

      I don’t believe we are all agnostics, rather I am asserting that we are all (1)believers or (2)agnostics. Most ‘atheists’ try to prove God doesn’t exist, while you simply affirm that you are ‘an atheist because the theists can’t prove God exists’.

      I don’t think there is proof that would satisfy your standards (or mine for your view), but there are pointers; yet, in the final analysis we believe or not.

      I believe there is a God (the one true God who communicated with us through the person of Christ), while you believe there is not a/the God.

      That makes us believers rather than agnostics. Yet, when I read your comments, it seems there is an undercurrent of humility in you which admits he doesn’t know— hence my conclusion that you are an agnostic.

      I do think you display greater faith than I do, perhaps to my own embarrassment, because you believe based on far less (after all I have the history of the Bible, the life of Christ, the design of the universe, and the nature of causality…all on my side)—

      —You just believe there is no God because theists can’t prove it to you. All of our arguments (on both sides, for and against) are largely apologetics designed to support our faith.

      I suppose the best next question is, “What kind of proof would you accept?” Yet, then, we would debate the fairness of your ‘acceptable proof’. Yet, nothing is actually ‘acceptable’ to a true believer. I can’t prove there is radiation in the area if you won’t let me use a Geiger counter (if you get my drift).

      There are ‘proofs’, perhaps indeed on both sides, but without a willingness to reconsider our own view, they are useless. Indeed, they are useless ultimately if faith is necessary and proof is defined in an absolute, rather than a ‘pointing’ way I mentioned above.

      Peace to you,

      Fred Lybrand

      Reply

6. If you want to talk to atheists in Texas, go to Austin. Specifically the Atheist Community of Austin, and their cable access show “The Atheist Experience” or their podcast “The Non-Prophets”. (And no, they aren’t paying me to advertise.)

   All I can say, and someone may already have said it, is that your definition of ‘atheist’ is wrong. All an atheist is is someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.

   Certainly someone who asserted that there absolutely was no god would fit the definition of an atheist. But the definition of atheist isn’t so specific as to apply only to those people.

   Reply
7. Pingback: What makes someone an agnostic and not an atheist? « Lybrand Think-Christian Blog