Atheist Chats Definitions, Deconstruction, and More with Greg Koukl
Greg chats with a caller who doesn’t believe in God about his objection to Greg’s definition of atheism and why he is currently deconstructing.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity #Atheism #Worldviews #Deconstruction #Exvangelical
––––– CALL IN TO THE SHOW –––––
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
––––– SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION –––––
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.
––––– FIND MORE FREE TRAINING –––––
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
––––– CONNECT –––––
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/
source
This gentleman is agnostic…right?
I think using the classical definition of atheism is probably the best with giving clarification. Using "the lack of belief" definition simply reduces the discussion to psychological feelings and doesn't tell me anything about what's outside of a person mind.
Hope he calls back, the conversation was just getting interesting.
Why care about “classical definitions” despite decades of people clarifying?
Oh, nvm, Greg somehow doesn’t know the difference between “I don’t believe in God” and “I believe God does not exist.” He should get a refund on his philosophy degree.
Wouldn't trying to find a "middle ground" when all morality is subjective be trying to force your opinion on morality on someone else? What reason would finding a "middle ground" serve either one when morality is entirely subjective?
My brother in law says that atheism is not believing God doesn't exist in the same way that the off button on a TV is not the same as not watching TV. Or something like that. It makes sense to him.
How to obfuscate and appear disingenuous.
I'm not convinced that a god exists. I also see absolutely no reason for a god to exist. Now, you can argue as much as you like. As long as no evidence is presented, I see no reason to change my position.
I'll affirm the specific christian god, where he's defined at being a perfectly loving god, does not exist
Premise 1: If a perfectly loving God exists, He would be always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
Premise 2: If God is open to a personal relationship, He would ensure that finite persons are capable of participating in that relationship (which requires believing that God exists).
Premise 3: Therefore, if a perfectly loving God exists, He would not allow non-resistant non-belief to occur. (He would provide enough evidence so that anyone who wants to believe, can believe).
Premise 4: Non-resistant non-belief exists. (There are people who are open to God, have searched for God, but still do not believe He exists due to lack of evidence).
Conclusion: Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist.
The classical definition of a theist is someone who suspends all reason to defend the non existent, unprovable deity.
Atheism is more than willing to concede your god it real but the burden of proof is on you. Clearly you can't so play games with old antiquated definitions from a time Christianity made up the definitions of word.
Also proving a god real does not make them god. I can prove I have a pet goldfish named Eric but that does not make Eric divine.
Christians are people who wave snakes at each other during their services. That's what Christians do. What's that, "some Christians"? Okay, but why aren't atheists entitled to the same differentiation that Christians expect?
Koukl is partly right but overstates his case. He’s correct that historically atheism was often defined as the belief that God does not exist, especially in 19th–20th century philosophy and theology. However, he treats that definition as exclusive, when contemporary philosophy, sociology of religion, and atheist organizations commonly define atheism as lack of belief in gods, with a further distinction between strong (positive) atheism and weak (negative) atheism. That distinction is not a recent rhetorical trick—it’s now standard.
(Acts 17:22–23; 1 Corinthians 8:2 — distinctions between belief, ignorance, and conviction are explicitly recognized.)
A central problem in the discussion is a logical error Koukl repeats several times: “If you don’t believe God exists, then you believe God does not exist.” Those are not equivalent. “I do not believe p” (withholding belief) is different from “I believe not-p” (affirming the negation). This mistake leads him to misapply the law of excluded middle, which applies to propositions, not to a person’s belief state. Scripture itself distinguishes doubt, unbelief, and denial as different conditions.
(Mark 9:24; James 1:6; Romans 14:23 — belief, doubt, and withholding are treated as distinct.)
Relatedly, Koukl mishandles the burden of proof. Only asserted propositions carry a burden. Someone who says “I’m unconvinced God exists” is not making a counter-claim. Biblically, belief is consistently framed as a response to persuasion or evidence, not as a default obligation absent conviction. Agnosticism is also oversimplified; it’s an epistemic position about knowledge, not a third metaphysical option.
(1 Peter 3:15; John 20:24–29; Luke 1:34 — belief follows reasons, testimony, or evidence.)
Where Koukl is strongest is moral philosophy. His critique of subjective or evolutionary morality is internally coherent: if morality is purely subjective, moral disagreements reduce to personal or cultural preferences. Scripture likewise treats moral obligation as grounded in something beyond individual preference, even when people suppress or reject that grounding.
(Romans 2:14–15; Micah 6:8; Ecclesiastes 12:13–14)
Overall, Koukl is rhetorically polished and charitable, and his moral critique is strong, but his treatment of atheism relies on outdated definitions, false dilemmas, and category errors about belief, knowledge, and burden of proof. Ironically, several of these distinctions are ones the Bible itself already makes.
(Proverbs 18:13; Proverbs 25:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Definitions can change over time. Atheism used to be an accusation or an insult. It was then formalized in the 17th/18th century to mean the belief that God does not exist. In modern times the definition was broadened because of philosophical needs and it gained traction. We increasingly differentiate between weak and strong Atheism, or agnostic and gnostic Atheism. I would argue that using the classical definition is out of date, at least outside of academic Philosophy, when seemingly most Atheists use the modern one.
Atheists trying to redefine atheism because they hate having the burden of proof. Pray for the lost.
Christ Jesus is Lord and God.
Why not call yourself an agnostic if you hold this position?
0:13
"If you could sort of provide me with the definition of atheism and what it means to you, I think that would be helpful."
It's irrelevant what it "means to" Greg or the caller or me or anyone else. What is relevant is what it MEANS.
Atheism is the belief that no God / gods exist.
2:03
"I know that I don't agree with that definition, okay?"
And that's where I stopped. (Because I have heard this game played by anti-theists over and over and over and over.) No, it's not "okay." Words MEAN things. You can't make up your own definitions.
Atheism is the belief that no God / gods exist. That's a claim. Therefore, they need to back it up. They REFUSE and instead play the game of, "I have no belief." It drives me nuts.