[Mike]
Uhm, so yeah, we talked about pastor Fred
Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church 
and last episode, we talked about the impotence
of the 'Pray for Japan' message
and the apologetics of the South
Carolinan blogger, Kevin Childs.
Keeping up with the theme this week,
I am going to talk about
another blog post by Kevin Childs,
this one titled 'A Top 10 List:
What Atheists must Believe.'
He opens with: 'I have argued previously
that atheism is a religion.
It has its own orthodoxy, its own group
of prophets and evangelists 
and some other things that
make it a religion.'
Gotta stop there, before we've
really got started.
The assertion that atheism is a religion.
This depends very much on your definitions
of both atheism and religion.
[Marsh]
Yeah.
[Mike]
When I use the phrase 'atheism', I'm referring to
'lack of belief in a god' and that's all.
Not acceptance of the claim 'There is no god',
only non-acceptance of the claim
that there is a god. 
Childs is clearly mindful of this
definition of 'atheist' as well,
because he goes on to say that
'Many atheists insist that
the only belief necessary for atheism
is to reject belief in God.
However, I disagree. And here are a top
ten list the required atheist beliefs.
#1: God is imaginary.'
And so he falls at the first hurdle.
[Marsh & Colin]
Yeah.
[Mike]: Of course, you do not have to believe that
God is imaginary to be an atheist.
There's two reasons for this:
for one thing,
if there's some tribe out there
in the wilderness somewhere 
that worships a local volcano
as their god,
I'm not gonna say that the
volcano is imaginary.
Yeah. I also don't think that they
are imagining the lava flow
which comes down the side the volcano
and destroys their village.
However, I do think that they are making
an assumption that volcano has agency,
and I don't believe that
that is the case.
I suppose if you want to call an 'imagination',
that you could, but I think
'imagination' is something of a loaded
term; it suggests that has been
deliberately made up at some point.
[Marsh]: Does he mean *his god*?
'Atheists believe *my god* is imaginary?'
Cause Buddhists believe *his god* is imaginary.
[Mike]: Well, it's not to say that
'if you believe God is imaginary, you're an
atheist.' He's saying: if you're an atheist,
you have to believe God is imaginary.'
[Marsh]: Yeah, yeah.
[Mike]: ...which is, is not true.
'Imagination' does imply that it's been
deliberately concocted at some point
while religions don't have to be made up:
they could be based on cognitive mistakes 
such as assuming agency in a
volcano where no agency exists.
Uhm... the second reason why that
doesn't work is that atheism is rejection
of the claim 'God exists'.
It is not acceptance of the claim
'God does not exist'.
These are two different though
obviously related claims
each with their own burden of proof.
So if I accept the claim God exists,
I cannot also accept the claim God does
not exist, because those two things are
contradictory, assuming they share
a common definition of God.
Unless we're gonna get
into Schrödinger's god.
[Marsh & Colin laugh]
[Mike]:...who can both exist and not
exist at the same time.
[Marsh]: Yeah, well I think if you know he exists,
you don't know how fast he is going.
[Mike]: That's true. But you always know
how fast – aaaah, that's brilliant!
You always know how fast God is going,
cause he goes at godspeed.
[Marsh]: You never know his position.
[Mike]: You never know where he is.
[Marsh]: Yeah. We just proved God
via quantum physics!
[Laughter]
[Mike]: So if I accept the
claim that God exists,
I therefore have to reject the claim
God does not exist.
If I accept the claim
God does not exist, 
I therefore have to reject the claim
that God does exist.
However I could also reject both claims,
if I don't feel that either claim
has met the burden of proof.
I would therefore be an atheist because
I would lack belief in God, 
but I would also not believe that
God is imaginary either.
I would be abstaining until better
evidence was brought to bear.
[Marsh]: Yeah, it's like saying uh...
...whether Colin can juggle. Just cause
you don't believe Colin can juggle,
doesn't mean you... believe Colin
can't juggle, exactly.
And vice versa. You just don't know
whether he can juggle or not.
[Mike]: Childs goes on to criticise
the view that God is imagery 
with a string of logical fallacies.
[Mike]: Haha, obviously!
[Colin laughs]
[Mike]: He says: 'Never mind the nearly universal
tendency for human beings to think otherwise.'
[Marsh]: The very fact a lot of people think
something is true, doesn't make it true.
[Mike]: Absolutely. Argument from popularity
straight off the bat there from Kevin.
There was once a universal tendency
to think the Earth was flat.
[Marsh]: Exactly, yeah.
[Mike]: It wasn't.
Childs says: 'Never mind the sense of the transcendent
in the heart of almost everyone.'
[Marsh]: Which is the follow-up to the Sex
Pistols' "Never Mind The Bollocks."
[Marsh] It's a very pretentious flow.
[Mike] I'd actually respond to that claim if I had the
faintest idea what 'a sense of the transcendant' was.
[Marsh]: I don't know, I was thinking that, yeah.
[Laughter]
[Mike]: Uh, he says: 'Physical hunger
corresponds to the reality of food.
Relational longing points to
the existence of love. 
But that sense of the divine and hunger for
something greater in life is "imaginary".'
[Marsh]: You know what I want?
A jetpack.
[Mike]: Yeah?
[Marsh]: It doesn't exist.
[Mike]: No. You have a longing for a jetpack?
You have a hunger for a jetpack?
[Colin]: Well other things exist.
[Marsh]: I really want super powers!
I really wanna shoot laser from my eyes and
turn invisible, therefore they exist.
Because I want them, because I have a want for them,
they must therefore exist by his logic. Bullshit.
[Colin]: Jetpacks exist.
[Marsh]: Well yeah, they do actually,
that's a bad example. All right.
[Colin laughs]
[Marsh]: Invisibility?
[Mike]: Yeah. It's... it's bullshit.
The fact that people want
or hunger for 'something greater',
whatever the fuck that means,
does not mean that such a
thing actually exists.
[Marsh] No, I mean, there are some cases
where it does exist, like food.
Yeah. — But very much the hunger for food
is driven by the fact that food exists.
Not the other way around, yeah. And that
exceptional case to it and it's not
necessarily following the whole
he hungers are already saying is a and
these things ace
existing to give something a bit similar
therefore that most existing because it
shares
yetis it's me and say to me it's a false
analogy is also performing a
a policy called affirming the consequent
he saying if there were a gold
we would have a sense of the divine
therefore the fact that we have a sense
that the divine
means there must be a gold the engine
nope that's not
rights because as he quite rightly
points out albeit sarcastically
we could just be imagining it he had a
hell yeah
point2 he says in littlest things I
disbelief
we must believe that the universe
created itself
somehow he says apart from a
supernatural creator nothingness
burst into something this
no we don't well at all I don't know
how would you rather have a clear vision
I and II don't specifically believe that
nothing is
came in this into something this mmm I
don't know what was before the something
this
in my been other something is I have no
idea I'm not on additional late fees
believe is
that we don't know the answer but i buy
presuming to know the answer
doesn't answer the question yes
absolutely right
and created is a loaded word here when
he says the universe created itself
because creation suggest a deliberate
act again yeah
am so the very language ease using is is
stacked in favor of there being a gold
when when he says you know what what
created the which is the implication is
the same law created the univers
again this has nothing what service do
with atheism all the distance got
am I could for example believe that a
space station from the future created
the universe
and when a botched attempt to time
travel under them 14 billion years in
the past and their arrival to get the
Big Bang
now I'm not saying I do believe and of
course and all that there is good reason
to believe that
but somebody could believe that to be
the case and be an atheist
ESA are not required to believe the
universe created itself they could
believe that the universe was created by
that you know dimension hoping aliens am
so it is not inconsistent with atheism
to believe that the universe was created
because you could believe that the
universe was created by something other
than a gold
child says Stephen Hawking recently
wrote a book explaining how nothing
could become something because gravity
in quantum physics
but references to quantum theory
anti-matter all vacuums all gravity
cannot explain how nothing become
something
50 misread look to head is simply
brilliant
I guess Stephen Hawking says this but
what he's failing to realize is
he's wrong is wrong yeah I'll look
forward to seeing you getting want to
the fuckin nobel prize for that one
am he says there is no gravity
or anything else in North Inc there is
nothing except nothing in nothing
public jolt which kinda rooms filled the
end yeah
am opponents use I'm not sure how
child's exactly knows this because we've
never
observed nothing to find out even deep
space
the you know the deepest reaches a space
is a seething mass a virtual particles
their lease there is space there is
actually you know the fabric of space
there is time there
they may in fact be no such thing as
nothing
certainly we've never encountered
nothing its
you know it it never been observed by
science I like a minefield a double
negative
you know what her we never encountered
nothing
the child's the engine alone offered
charles is used to be shearing that
before the universe there was nothing
which we have no reason to think you
have two games exactly and white assume
nothing should be the default state
you know legend has it so far especially
as we don't even know that nothing could
exist
yeah why will be there for a scene that
this thing that we don't even know exist
is that people stay to the universe
and something else to intervene to make
it to something
.3 he says was there was something dead
matter
evolved into living and self-aware
creative beings
so I want to something existed the dead
matter that was created
evolved into living self-aware creative
being you can try
you can begin been the were dead and in
with your
well visit there's a a few problems here
first
chances completing the Venetian a by
Genesis which is a very common thing
proposes to do
in even lucien describes how existing
life changes and other supplies over
time it says nothing about
how life came about your yeah bombing I
I still don't think that's a big issue
if you talking about
ok is he saying that dead matter turned
BG
turned into you life David evolution
over to get matter does not involve
yet living things evolve yes but I do
believe that matter
at one point became alive yet I was just
all but it was just a day biogenesis
event in the meantime which he is
conflicting with Aliyev not joining us I
think I'm all
died on the answer know it's wilde's
it's a small point with a very common
point from apology a big thing Eva
lucien is
you refers to did that transition have
non-life to life which is not the case I
think he saying the matter
the tumult in living beings in matters
involved in say a planet has been
completely different classes earth
in and thing as well when it's not just
a matter of degree
he also blithely skips from death matter
to self-awareness without noting the
several billion years ago intervening
change
yeah am because the earliest forms of
life
would not have been self-aware now in
any meaningful sense of the word
and they were barely more than organic
chemistry
am I finally again this has nothing
whatsoever to do with atheism
nothing about not believing in God says
you have to believe in a by Genesis
or even lucien you can reject both and
still be an atheist
here am although commonly you wouldn't
you company wouldn't
both it is not evil yet it's not you you
could think that aliens came created
like for example
and he says thebest Roy bar keys makes
this challenge
in X atheist Tony fluids book he says
visualize a marble table
to bed under what circumstances even
given trillions in years
codes that dead marble table become
alive conscious and aware of its
surroundings and identifies you got the
model 10 and that's all we had one
really
what it is is a big fucking strawman it
is nobody saying that marble tables come
to life
even if you leave them for him two years
yeah on the other hand
big pools amino acids consistently
subjected to wear
electromagnetic radiation over billions
of years
might yeah exactly how I happen
number 4.4 in things that you definitely
have to leave in your eyes he leave
you have to believe that the Bible
writers were liars
there's no way around this the biblical
authors claim defense people
miracles and more than simply weren't
there or didn't happen
darkness a bleed the line they could be
deluded wrong
im the emblem in the AM writing a good
story to go
mistaken for getting treatment mistaken
all tradition
Anthony exactly the same time Chinese
whispers there's a million
things they could they could be in
writing fiction or our normal literature
or the allegorical issue especially was
particularly common
oh yeah culture vehicles and and
morality tales am
so mins pose she could class fiction an
allegory is lies if you want to do but
lie is a bit of a loaded word 10 suggest
intent to deceive
yeah I was an allegory is is is close to
let you know it allegorical fable cuz
the whole episode where Jesus banks not
be thrown in the bin the bramble bush
and only 30 min the bramble patch and
then then he's fine because he always
group in the bundle patents for use
he was also no prayer of it know the had
lost me
last week I think it's a bramble place
program in the folks wouldn't do
anything to me just don't throw in the
bramble patch
Bihar military in the bubble butt I I
a spring which the Brevard story right
there and once again
this is nothing what service do with
atheism now and say for example that I
was born in the deepest jungles of peru
I have lived a quiet existence without
contact with civilization more
worryingly without access to an iPhone
her on Doctor Who and lived in a little
hot
forever and died the idea of a god has
never occurred to me
in that sense I'm an atheist but the
idea of the Bible's never occurred to me
either
so I can possibly leave that it's all
this alliance because I don't wanna buy
cialis
in so I'm an atheist I do not believe
that the Bible writers belies
yep .5 you have to believe that there is
no such thing as morality
I'll call her for if it is says the man
who said it was good that Japan got
tsunami so goes to glorify Himself am he
says if the world is nothing but matter
the morality is only what matter can
provide
morality therefore is merely a
convenient and ever morphing human
construct
now your whole yet do it is it is it it
is convenient evolving human construct
yep yep that's not a bad thing
it's not a bad thing it's also a
self-contradictory point because in the
first sentence he has morals he doesn't
exist and the second sentence he says it
does exist but its human construct
site well which one is it then a game
belief that morality is relative is not
a requirement to atheist
no am you could be an atheist and
believe that moral is absolutely
dictated by another
mortal being Justin Bieber
16 yeah there is no such thing as low
wats with in a purely material universe
love must be understood as nothing more
than a sentimental I
chemical reaction that sells well let's
do this believes this
Minister think they write am it and
suddenly there is this assumption that
atheists believe in a purely material
universe
yes ma'am whereas buddhists for example
which is an atheistic religion
they have no de ti in many forms
buddhism ambush do not maintain that the
universe is purely material so they are
not required to think of love in those
terms
am and even if we weren't to think I've
love simply in terms of a sentimentalist
chemical reaction
well so fucking what yet here doesn't
change what it feels like what it means
that it exists although it's still
fucking brilliant
and understanding the rainbow enhances
our enjoyment of it it does not detract
from it
absolutely welcome points7
we have to believe that the universe has
no design
everything else in the universe has a
different russia now if we see something
I signed we assume a designer
but not with the universe itself not
even the intricately designed language
if DNA
it all got accidentally written somehow
ok and they can I just keep
jumping on something here right he
saying unlike everything else in the
universe
did the universe itself didn't have a
design sent by everything else in the
universe
at best he means still for nurse than
we've seen
that which is as a percentage the
universe fucking small
distracted by University means every the
star
planets item everything that's not
decided what we know is designed
what we can act as it is designed to
visit before getting the whole argument
from design which has been a
fuckin done over a million times and an
EA is incredibly robust in the way that
to you can debunk it
but the whole idea that everything we
know
in one country and the University his
ridiculous to get that done on a seesaw
school
it's the universe that on the floor with
dangling up in the air is not the other
way around we'll
very small set it up there and
because better any point as well Wade
eighties and said nothing about how
whether you think the universe was
constructed by a
another for tonight as you said it could
been space station for the future
absolutely no sono a it could have been
designed by some mortal creature instead
of instead ago he could've been designed
by someone guided bottom-up process like
natural selection
for example and or I could be the sole
to make issues never considered the
question like proving tribesmen and
therefore cannot believe the universe
beyond designed because I've never
considered the nature the universe
in am he also is making a
very contradictory argument and he says
that the universe has no design
advances that everything else in the
universe has a different rationale
because if you see something in the
universe which is designed to be seen as
a designer
he then says the atheists think that the
universe itself is difference but the
example he gives
DNA is something that's in the universe
a
not the universe itself I
I that's a very good point
a.m. aniline gonna get into the fact
these making a basic argument from
design here
yeah thank you wanna know more about the
out with design I'm available skeptics
in public just
and programs that most skeptics know if
you can .8
life has no purpose or meaning week to
week about last week
yet this seems to be a favorite to
Charles A there's no goals in life has
no meaning except as we discussed last
episode
it does yet and fuck you am .9
you have to believe a human life is not
sacred that's pretty obvious he says
because to an atheist
nothing can be sacred doesn't salish say
to his sister value judgment the humans
make
day he lives in Iowa that God exists its
colloquially sick wid
sacred yet in that you don't wanna fuck
over someone's only chance at life
so we should give everyone is better
chance we can to live their lives
without persecution
year yet but in a sacred the sensor home
we like
which is at Kolkata exactly the problem
is the word sacred means dedicated to
reserved for some daisy
and so without belief in a day eighty
you can of course not have any notion of
sacred
boat even then it doesn't mean that all
atheists are required to believe a human
life is not sacred
because the way chance to stretch it is
article he is asserting a positive
belief that atheists must possess
you cannot logically get from I reject
claim x2 I accept claim white
become we don't know on notional
atheistic Peruvian tribesmen has no
belief in God because he never encounter
the concept and therefore couldn't
possibly
hold a belief in a goal but he's also
never contemplated the possibility of
something being sacred
yet don't think the less prudent rise
when the mall County now animals as
opposed to see a
exactly ironically a sacred cow a sacred
cow herself did not know how sacred is
but he therefore cannot possibly
actively believe that human life does
not possess the quality sacred
because he doesn't know what's sacred is
do so
the final point point n his this is
gonna be a game-changer so far he's not
commit to me
its it's not an impressive and he says
you have to believe that Jesus was crazy
or dishonest
G is making the same point is invalid
for the Bible writers essentially
in not you do you know you can't believe
he's wrong deluded
aural tradition exaggerated et cetera
yeah I also believe
he didn't exist or if he did he did you
and mister for the diary was reported on
him
retrieve the plebeian amalgamation have
multiple miss built up over time and
passed down other
many different only soldiers you believe
all sorts of things I haven't put down
crazy
and you can still believe these crazy
not doesn't affect whether the
government of
he's got this andrea from CS Lewis
ionizing CS Lewis police are coming
forward and known as the Lion lunatic a
lord argument
which CS Lewis book for them in a BBC
radio broadcast
million and the like did that a few
times and socially minutes write a book
about the
ann lewis suggests that the veggies is
making you know when he said he was a
sauna got
and all he really thought he was on a
gold but he wasn't he was just crazy
I'm all they actually Wilson got so you
know it's it's a lie a lunatic Oh Lord
think am but ultimately it's a false
dilemma as but United said
and or false trial a min in this case
here there are other possibilities
beyond those three
such as legend legend is a possibility
geez was my goal all crazy or a lie he
was fiction
yeah all maybe Jesus wasn't gold all
crazy or a liar or fictional but the
words indeed a tribute to him by the
Bible
never happened and he didn't even say
those things he actually that's
differently
manacles once again atheism has nothing
to say on the subjective
Jesus no am our Peruvian tribesmen has
no opinion on Jesus because you never
heard in she can possibly think he was
crazy all that he was a liar
both even if CS Lewis was right am
any wasn't about Lila musical Lord and
even she met charles is right
and he isn't I about how being an
atheist means you have to reject Lord
as as as an option C in the left with
with their crazy or dishonest
that makes cheese is a liar a lunatic
well
so fucking what if atheists believe them
be who cares
yeah do I have to have no interest in
Jesus in this light is on but even the
about it but don't really give a shit
about
a child ends the peace with a fairly
from any PC schtick
and his piece on Japan included the
phrase am there are many difficulties in
explaining tragedy from a Christian
worldview
but there are just as many problems from
an atheistic want know who
this article finishes with fearsome has
a lot of questions which it must dance
to be true
biblical Christianity is even more and
sometimes has done an adequate job of
providing them
but atheism has it own beliefs to depend
on honestly
I haven't found anybody adequately able
to do so so
he seems to enjoy playing this fall's
humility card love they're out of
questions but your questions that offer
so we must be right
in am in fact eighties and does not
imply any beliefs
you cannot given the knowledge that
someone is rejected the gold claim
did use anything about what they
actually do believe
or tells you is that you know one thing
about what they don't believe
and you can infer things about what they
believe you can infer show was a huge
they probably accept the evolution is
true
and but you cannot did use mmm
and you cannot know for sure you can
make educated guesses but you can't know
for sure somebody believes given
the information that this person does
not accept that they claim back elitists
am ultimately this is one big fast Roman
from Charles
and he paints a picture of an atheist
who I do not actually believe exists
am and if they say fees did exist I B is
happy the next guys have a few choice
words for them
about people she believes
