by Matt Slick

This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.

Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.

Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.

Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?

Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.

Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.

Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.

Matt: Then you know there is no God?

Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes . . . Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism . . . Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist . . .

Matt: That is what I said . . . which are you?

Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained . . .

Matt: So, you know there is no god?

Atheist: Yes.

Matt: How can you know that?

Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.

Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.

Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.

Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.

Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.

Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.

Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith

Matt: One subject at a time . . . You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this; therefore, your atheism is illogical.

Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.

Matt: Correct.

Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge . . .

Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.

Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god . . .

Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.

Atheist: And so must you . . . But you picked a side.

Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable . . . You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.

Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.

Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?

Atheist: Atheist.

Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry . . .

Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over . . . but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.

Matt: You have been cornered . . . It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let's talk faith.

Atheist: Alright faith. you first.

Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists.

Atheist: Proof.

Matt: I have none.

Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove?

Matt: No . . . not at all . . . I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe.

Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well.

Matt: No . . . because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions.

Atheist: Evidence . . .

Matt: Yes . . .

Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game . . .

Matt: Which is?

Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned."

Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated . . . 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before.

Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one . . .

Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?

Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real.

Matt: That's good . . . Now . . . what would constitute evidence for God's existence?

Atheist: An instance of superiority . . . Something humans could not do . . . OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then . . .

Matt: That's good . . . now . . . what would constitute evidence for God's existence?

Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly.

Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways?

Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation . . . And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation . . .

Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts?

Atheist: You never have all of the facts . . . Reasonable assumptions, remember?

Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you?

Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here . . . ]

Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right?--that is, if you don't have all the facts--all of them.

Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts?

Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence . . .

Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later?

Matt: If you want . . .



I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.