“What Apologists Think of Atheists” – VIDEO


The whole video:



Leave a Reply

30 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
30 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
The Amazin' Zedd

1. Lack of evidence is enough to justify disbelief, is it not? 2. Apologists desperately want Atheism and Agnosticism to be entirely distinct and separate things so they can attack them separately (divide and conquer and all that). 3. Apologists desperately want the Problem of Evil to be the "popular" argument against the existence of God. Theologians have spent centuries writing snappy comebacks for that one. Allow the apologist to recite from a list of them now. Beats having an actual argument. 4. The whole ''trajectory from believer to Atheist" thing allows this apologist to indulge in his narrative and… Read more »

Doc Tyler

I love that comment about people in church lying and sabotaging other people, sounds like a great place! LOL


The argument AND response are off base. There is no conflict with being both agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism addresses what a person believes can be known; atheism addresses what is believed on the topic of a god. Agnosticism holds any god to be unknowable, as opposed to gnostic who claim to know god. Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term as an alternative to certain belief in god and certain belief in gods non existence, both of which are equally unfalsifiable and without evidence. A belief in the certainty of gods existence is as illogical as as a belief in the… Read more »

A talking dragon

He took one example and used it to make atheists look like they don't believe because they're angry. That's obviously not a good reason to become an atheist. The situation of Christians being an ass did happen to me but the reason I left my faith is because I became skeptical and realized how silly it all is.


So the christian guys argument is make strawman then argue against the position atheist dont hold.


On the atheist burden of proof. An atheist I claim that I do not believe in a god. My proof is that I do not believe in a god. Burden met.

Likewise any theist out there has met their burden of proof for simply being a theist.

Now, if you want to convince ME there is a god, that's a whole different story. You've got a pretty heavy burden there. But as I by and large do not care what YOU believe, it's not a burden I share.


The POE does disprove God if the god is described as all-good and all-powerful since its shows a contradiction.


I like your analysis of this apologists analysis. I think he needs more tea pots in his life.


Edwards seems to be asserting that he will be justified in believing any claim, until he has proof to the contrary. This is not an intelligent position, and we have a word for it – gullibility!


This should be really simple stuff. Atheism is a statement on belief; agnosticism is a statement on knowledge. An atheist may also be agnostic (most are), and many theists will also admit to a degree of agnosticism. It is not a dichotomy.


I am an atheist and I didn't have any problems in church, I deconverted because I couldn't reconcile the inconsistencies in the bible any more


it's actually pretty simple for me. i became an atheist almost over night after discovering that the bible, specifically in regards to creation, wasn't 100% completely and accurately true (far from it). no god would allow their holy scripture to be so completely wrong so frequently.

since i couldn't do the rationalizations other christians did (anything evidently untrue is an allegory) i just came to the conclusion there was no god. the bible was moot and without it what did christianity even have to base its beliefs on?


Fun fact: The problem of evil attributed to Epicurus isn't found anywhere in his surviving writings. Our only record of it actually comes from Lactantius, a Christian author writing against atheism. Irony on a stick.

Glei, Reinhold F. (1988). "Et invidus et inbecillus: Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13,20-21." Vigiliae Christianae 42(1): 47-58.

John Harvey

I wonder if it ever occurred to this person to actually ask any atheists what they believe.

Allen S

I'm agnostic to the notion of there being 'more' out there, or something 'higher', etc etc… But I'm Atheist to all of the pitches I've heard thus far.


And besides,, most Atheist are not saying there is no God,, we are just saying that their god (bible/quran) is bullshit.
Big differences,


I will never assert that unicorns do not exist with 100% certainty.

…But there's no evidence for their existence, so why would I accept them as real? I can't know they don't exist (agnostic), but I have no good reason to think they do and plenty of reasons to think they don't (atheist). Just replace unicorns with god, or anything else, and that's how I think.

Deep Ashtray

Deviant behavior, like teaching critical thinking skills.


It could be true that a god exists but is hidden. It could be true that Cthulu lies dead and dreaming in the sunken city of R'lyeh. It*could* be true that underwear gnomes steal all humanity's mixing u undergarments. It could be true that I'm dating Scarlet Johansen. Without compelling evidence of these extraordinary claims, why the hell should I not act as if / believe these things don't exist? Otherwise, don't I have to act as if / believe that every logically possible, though unevidenced, claim ever maid is likely true, just to be consistent, imo

Walter Unglaub

"Suppose there was literally no evidence for the existence of _____ (e.g., that people weren't even aware of the concept of _____ ). It's possible for both _____ to exist and for there to be no evidence of _____ 's existence. It could be that _____ exists but has kept itself hidden." There is literally an infinite number of concepts that could fill that blank. The Higgs boson, for example, was such an unknown unknown in the 19th century – the difference, of course, being that a testable model for its existence was created in the following century, and it… Read more »

Hal Barbour

If there is no evidence for any god, and a god of some kind exists, and is hiding or chooses to not show itself, then how is that any different from not existing at all? This god does nothing, has no impact on the Universe, something like the deists god, put things in motion then split for dimensions unknown. How could this god blame human's for being skeptical? and that is if it even knows or cares.The only one's promoting this are people who are theists who just happen to be correct concerning a god, but not even their particular… Read more »


If only they just practiced their religion and stayed out of politics, there would be no problems. It's only when the religious think everyone should live by their rules does it become a conflict. In other words, no, you are not your brother's keeper.


"There is no requirement that God must be all-good and all-powerful. None of the Christian creeds contain the words "all-powerful' and 'all-good' (or their surrogates)" …
except the ones that describe the Christian god as "Almighty" and say "God is Love" … which is ALL of them, so you can't use blatant lying to weasel out of the Problem of Evil.

"… all sorts of deities have been invoked by religions and philosophers down the ages", but we're discussing the Christian god, the only one you think is real, which is described as having those attributes


Will we ever find a fucking theist that actually understands what atheism is, and the difference between atheism and agnosticism? judging by the last few thousand theists videos if watched, I won't hold my breath.

David H

This might be TMM's longest video ever.


TMM philosophy lines destroyed you in this already. You don't understand that atheism requires a burden of proof just like the theist


Atheists are atheists because Becky talked behind the back of Starla in church one time.

That dipshit is really clueless, isn't he. Who is it, InsipidPhilosophy or whatever his name is? Vigilant Christian? They have the same kind of brainless parroted speech.


What sucks is Theists will never realize they're wrong after they die because they're dead, and all the "Near Death or After death (heart attack)" experiences where people see God or the light don't count because they don't actually know if they saw God when they were dead or right before they died and time was basically slowed down for them as the brain was releasing chemicals.


1:53–2:58 Many if not most atheists are, at least in part, IGtheists. That is, they judge the notion of 'God' as found in developed theism (especially Abrahamic theism, and all the more especially in specifically Christianity) to be insufficiently (IF, n.b. AT ALL) metaphysically coherent (and/or intelligible) to warrant being taken seriously. For IGtheists, the notion of 'God' as found in developed Christian theology is, ontologically, more-or-less on a par with the notion of a spherical cube. Now, that said, it's important to note that, contrary to what this apologist says, the 'God' of developed Christian theism IS indeed supposed… Read more »

Michael Sommers

Regarding the "hidden" god: If no possible experiment can distinguish between a universe in which X exists and an universe in which X does not exist, it makes no sense to say that X might or does exist, because in such a case X's existence can never be detected. In other words, X can have no effect upon the world. This reasoning applies to the luminiferous ether, and it applies to gods.