Greg Koukl – Atheists’ Non-belief
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, “Do Atheists not have to offer evidence because they aren’t making any claims?”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
And round the Well how oft my Soul doth grope
Athirst; but lo! my Bucket hath no Rope:
I cry for water, and the deep, dark Well
Echoes my wailing cry, but not my hope.
Ah, many have I seen of those who fell
While drawing, with a swagger, from the Well;
They came with Rope and Bucket, and they went
Empty of hand another tale to tell.
The I in me standing on the brink
Would leap into the Well to get a drink;
But how to rise once in the depth, I cry,
And cowardly behind my logic slink.
Al-ma'rri
My claim is that I have not been convinced by the evidence given to me that Yahweh, the god of the Bible is real. Is Greg saying I have to provide evidence for my claim?
So at 3:30 dismissing the existence of fairies based on lack of evidence is OK, but dismissing the existence of God based on lack of evidence is not? Three cheers for logic, anyone?
You are wrong about the atheist view that 'god does not exist'. Stop talking and start listening, this is school playground mentality. You have no idea of the meaning of 'atheism'. Will the religious stop haranguing us as if you have anything to add to intelligent debate, you havent, you are like shit on the shoe of progress. Take your religion and play amongst your own kind with it and leave the rest of us alone.
Atheists do not say that "god" does not exist. They say that they have not seen sufficient evidence to prove to them that "god" exists. Koukl is not dumb and he has the ability to reason and use logic. He knows this. He's intentionally attempting to mislead people. Or else he needs to provide and answer to the question and simply doesn't have a good answer. I used to be intrigued by apologetics. Now that I have spent time learning what they have to say, I've learned that apologetics is pathetic.
What shape was the earth when 99% of people believed it was flat?
Yup…we have nothing to talk about, but we have plenty to laugh about!
.ad populum fallacies…not understanding "burden of proof"…"evidence for god's existence" (are you confusing "evidence" with "arguments" again?)
You are one of the very best at putting over your beliefs….but your beliefs are still wrong.
LOVED THIS VIDEO!! REALLY CLEARED THINGS UP!! I've gotten the non belief argument from atheists before, and it was challenging to respond too. THANK YOU GREG KOUKL!! My faith has been made stronger!!!
All inferences, logical or illogical, are based on some belief which comes prior to making those inferences. Non-belief in "x" (whatever "x" might be) is belief in " " which is no belief about anything at all, and therefore no valid inference can be drawn. Division by zero is an impossible operation because it signifies that no mathematical operation has been/is being/will be performed. To deny God's existence we must first assume that God exists prior to denying His existence.
The denial of any possibility must first grant that possibility before dismissing it
as impossible. Ergo, something has/does/will always exist, namely, God. Even to think of the 'God' concept is to invoke His presence before dismissing Him with the back of one's hand. Atheist's are the most God-conscious folks I know. Don't believe in zebras! (Now, try not to. It's impossible because the seed has been planted.)
Greg Koukl, please respond to the video in the comment I am responding to.
Like this comment so he'll see it!
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! I wish I had found your video days ago. God Bless & if you write a book.. I'd buy it!.. Uncle Greg! 😀
That's right, atheists are usually not making any claims, but are responding to theism that they feel haven't "made its case".
The appeal to popularity is an enormous fallacy.
By the way, only half of the people on Earth have the feeling the universe might be somehow governed by a supernatural being, vaguely similar to the god you believe in, not 99%. For instance, Buddhists don't believe in any gods. One could argue, at best, that Christians and Islamics along with a small Jewish population total about 45% if one considers they all worship a very similar god.
Koukl's definition is only correct for "gnostic atheists".
It's all over the internet. Most atheists are agnostic AS WELL. None of them are making any claims and have nothing to prove. Atheism is just the response to theistic claims that a god exists – and they haven't met their burden of proof.
Simply – there is a difference between not believing in a god (theism hasn't "made its case") – and believing that no gods exist.
Learn.
Please.
Actually that's just plain wrong IF you watched the video and heard the definition Koukl uses for Athiest. An Atheist using his definition is someone who unquestioningly believes that there is no god. That is an assertion every bit as major as the belief that there is a god. Both Atheists and those who practice a religion bear burden of proof. The only people who bear NO burden of proof are Agnostics. Agnostics in the general sense do not make any claims and hence have nothing to prove.
By the way only an idiot would think weak atheism requires justification
There are two types of atheism-strong atheism and weak atheism
1 strong atheism involves a statement of fact-there are no deities.
2 weak atheism involves a statement of state of mind-I don't believe or i am not convinced that there are any deities.
One of these can be reasonably expected to provide reasons for why they think their statement is sound while the other cannot be reasonably expected to provide reasons for why they think their statement is sound
Which is which to you ?
Intelectually dishonest?Would be understanding the burden of proof and claming that it lies on the other side.
You agree there's no need to give evidence for fairies/god and the reason is,that there's no reason to believe that there might be any fairies/gods.So just a dismissal or rejection of the idea is completely appropriate. But 99% believe?You should know better-it's embarassing for you to make such a fallacy (ad populum)80%of Sweden is atheistic &many EU countries are majority nonbelievers
"99 percent of people in the world believe in god". LOL! Less than half the world's population believes in YOUR god, and even if you include muslims and other monotheists, you only get to about 75 percent.
I'm guessing by "responsibility" you mean that we must provide a proof in order to substantiate our position. Well, proof for the (unqualified) non-existence of an entity is impossible. Therefore, we do not bear any of this "responsibility" you mention.
Also, numbers don't matter one bit. The simple fact that you're resorting to consensus is very suspect, since it would be bizarre to say that the burden would be distributed differently between counterfactual situations.
"I see" is reflecting the belief that the one seeing is capable of seeing accurately the reality which we live in. It still comes down to belief somewhere.
Sorry, but I'm going to need a little more information than, "yes" if I'm going to respond in any kind of coherent fashion.
Yes.
@Drgamedood Atheism is merely a reaction, a response if you will, to theistic claims that “a” god exists. Do you understand that?
Saying, “I see no good reason to accept your claims that a god exists” is not itself a claim. Do you understand that?
If you disagree with those two statements, and you're still thinking that atheism isn't a response to theism, then answer me this.
If there were no theists, would atheism still exist?
"Ninety-nine percent of people believe in god?" You are such a phony.
Sounds cheap & lame from Ur perspective / american culture / shallow narrow minded.99%?Most of the world is undeveloped,uneducated,superstitious.Latin countires like Spain& Italy aside-most of Europe don't belive.From about 50% to Skandinavian 80%.From this perspective it's far from obvious.Actualy it's exactely as fairy under house.
Rugby team has a trainer who is allknowing,allpowerful,eternal,imaterial He spoke rugby players,stadium,universe & life into existence.He loves U,but sends to hell
And just how would one go about '"proving a negative" eh? I'll tell you what, you tell me how you would do it, then I'll use your method to disprove the existence of yahweh/gods. Deal?
/watch?v=KrSNauDM3TM Please watch this. Hopefully it will make you see sense.
You are truly a sad and uneducated man. You do not even see that the arguments that you brought to the table fail. Aruguments from popularity are sad and easily dismissed as well as you should be. You make the claim the burden of proof is on you. Just because there are more of you does not make you correct. Or did you forget the slavery in America was once popular (but it was still wrong).
Argumentum ad populum and onus probandi
I suggest you look them up, since you used both of them in this video.
The great majority of the world, probably 5 billion people believe that Christians are bat-shit-crazy. How's that for numbers. Christians have to prove their "so far unproven" postulations. If you can't, then, it is you who need to consider the likely possibility that you are indeed bat-shit-crazy. Many of us already know the answer, why don't you?
What's intellectually dishonest is trying to lump in all atheists with the specific type of atheist that asserts "there is NO god". You're old enough and intelligent enough that you know that, but you're playing a game to get the conversation going. Fine, I'll bite, but you're a hypocrite.
The evidence you speak of is anecdotal, at best. Really, it's all hearsay.
Why are you a non-believer of 99.9% of the other religions? Probably the same reason I don't believe yours. I'm just consistent.
See here is the main problem at 2:30 you talk about rugby teams, and say you know nothing about them thus you have a non-belief as to who is best. Two problems, first, no one is saying that there are no sutch thing as rugby teams. Second, most atheists know the bible way better than any christian out there, so saying that no-knowlege is equal to non-belief is wrong.
The fact is that most of the atheist/theist arguments being referred to in this video involve a theist making claims *about* god, and not simply that some "thing" created the universe. Examples: A theist claims "god intervenes in human affairs" or "the bible is the inerrant word of god". Not only is the burden of proof 100% on the theist here, but the atheist can take these somewhat testable claims and, yes, write books about what the evidence actually shows, then shrug at you.
No child is born believing in god, they have to be systematically indoctrinated. Not believing in god is the neutral, default position.
@Hufflewaffle
I never said that what can't be known can be known. Things can exist that science cannot test. I'll list some certainties non-testable by science: (1) Moral, (2)Logical, (3)Experiential, (4)Existential, and (5)Historical.
"It can only be referenced metaphorically."
Let me rephrase something I stated earlier. Just because something is non-verifiable by the scientific method does *not* mean that it does not exist.
@Hufflewaffle
"How do you know it would be impossible to play rugby with invisible men (something beyond nature) – because of science?"
Because you wouldn't be able to locate your opponent. All you could do is chase the ball. You would never be able to block anybody going after the ball. And an invisible man isn't exactly beyond nature.
If you wish to discuss this further can you please send me a personal message so that we don't have to spam this video with comments.
@Hufflewaffle
Fourth, just because something isn't testable now doesn't mean that it won't be testable in the future. Just because the scientific method can't test something does not mean it doesn't exist. Science is only limited to natural things in scope. Scientific method isn't the only way to know a thing. Conditional arguments can also test things rationally. Morals are a good example of something not testable scientifically, do they not exist?
@Hufflewaffle
First, wind is testable and decidable by the scientific method we don't just "believe" in it. If you think that it's not testable and decidable then you believe wind is a subjective thing. Any person who claims not to see the effects of wind could not be proven wrong because it would not be testable or decidable. Second, I wasn't stating we know God exists, just that he could exist. Third, just because something can not be known doesn't mean it only exists in imagination.
@Hufflewaffle
"he has a belief about the existence of an invisible rugby team"
Anybody would have a belief about the existence of an invisible rugby team. Rugby is a man made game which would be impossible to play with invisible men. Those are the two reasons that your analogy is flawed.
@Hufflewaffle
"there is no REASON to believe ANYTHING without evidence"
No, but there is also no reason to discount the possibility that something exists just because there's no *scientific* evidence.
I must say that science is not the only way to tell if something exists or not. I would still believe in wind without being able to test it scientifically. Also, laws of any kind don't apply to something outside of their scope. Something beyond nature is not testable under the laws of nature.
@FSApetheist
Your statement is as if I were to say, "Since you don't believe in the wind fairy, wind does not exist for you and you cannot, therefore, measure wind speed." Think about it.
Even if there is supreme being, there is as much possibility that it is non christian as christian (maybe even less so). As an atheist, I require proof of the claims of a supreme being being. The fact that more people believe in a god than don't means nothing to me. That argument fails due to NO EVIDENCE. Having something to say about anything requires some sort of belief but not in the way you make it out to be.
I ought to write a book on the tenets of atheism. It'll be 500 pages — every one of them blank. Funny thing is, I'd probably manage to sell a few advance copies.
Atheists have a viewpoint that they write about and debate – the view that the claims of apologists for specific religions and their doctrines about God are not established in a way that warrants belief. Atheism is little more than critique of the claims apologists and theologians make and the evidence they present for their beliefs. Not believing something because we think the arguments and evidence is bad, and explaining why, is all the reason someone needs to keep not believing.
@steveodom We are talking about your worldview not ever other possible worldview. Why can't you clarify "your worldview" ? Either everyone is created in the image of God or no one is. Since you believe no one is then Jesus Christ did not come from God, so what makes your view of nothingness superior to his?
@redeyetime I'm so thoroughly struck and impressed by the deep and steadfast ignorance in which your comments are soaked and manifested, that I have, almost literally, stared in unfaltering wonder at your last two comments with my a gaze of bewilderment. You write like someone who has never once read or tried to understand an argument from an opposing worldview. Consider the ease with which you dismiss other religions, and you'll feel, momentarily, how nonbelievers view your religion.