Responding to 10 Questions for Atheists

This is a response to this video by @BraxtonHunter
10 Questions for Atheists

0:00 Introduction
1:09 Q1 What facts about reality are better explained sans belief in the Christian God?
18:56 Q2 Is atheism just a lack of belief versus a definitive disbelief?
22:09 Q3 Do you accept that atheism just looks like a good excuse to do things Christians think are sinful?
28:51 Q4 Another question on "lack of belief".
31:52 Q5 Are you bothered that non-deistic explanations for the origin of the universe are hard for our brains to comprehend?
39:17 Q6 Is there an argument for God that resonates with you?
42:09 Q7 What evidence would convince you that God exists?
46:54 Q8 To what extent did social and moral values lead you to atheism?
49:26 Q9 What were the last three academic books you read on the subject?
56:05 Q10 If you found out that Christianity was true would you accept it?

Links:

The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Kenneth R. Miller Lecture

Daniel Dennett on William Lane Craig

Open Yale Courses
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

Open Yale Courses
Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

[lucaclemente]

I had no idea I was an "agoblinsluggist." Thank you so much, Noel, for helping me to know myself a little better.

[WorthlessWinner]

How nostalgic, I feel like it's 2009 again

[Venaloid]

I think Q1 deserves its own reverse ask: why does it matter if one worldview has more explanatory power than another? That doesn't make it true. I could sit down and invent a supernatural-based worldview which explains everything perfectly (some kind of polytheism would be my best bet), but what would that prove? As another example, string theory beautifully explains physics, but there's no real evidence for it, so we don't believe it.

[vitalspark]

58:18 "To think that you would face down the Christian God and not do exactly what he told you to do." But what if I've got an iron chariot?

[sirskeptic]

Ah, classic Noel Plum. The reason I subbed in the first place.

Not to say your modern stuff isn't also good. But I kind of miss this solid, simple classic stuff.

Good and evil seems more innocent than a lot of the stuff we've seen this year.

[BrianFedirko]

Noel's idea that he can't wrap his head around a universe that would ceaser his existence made me LOL, because I'm right there with you man!!! That is some funny real shit. It saddens me that my lifelong quest of proving the non-existence of god probably will not be achieved in my stupid lifetime. (I do believe there can be a collection of words that would "end" anyone's belief, as soon as it's written down or spoken)

[CaseAgainstFaith]

Wow! That was like the best atheist response to a "questions for atheist" video I have ever seen. Thanks! Of course a few of the questions I might answer differently. But that would always be the case.

[Pebkio_Nomare]

Q1: Apart from him missing that atheistic worldviews *do* attempt to explain nearly all of those things... I’d say that atheistic explanations are better, in general, because they attempt to just describe reality. Meanwhile, religious explanations are tainted by the goal of making even the most horrific events seem acceptable because their deity of choice is ultimately supposed to be in charge. So no matter how bad a thing is, the goal is to explain it away. Making it a *much worse* way to evaluate reality.

[EliosMoonElios]

From the very first question he say "My stuff can answer EVERYTHING!(God did it!), your stuff can do that?
Me: [Roll eyes like Racing tires]

[bdf]

If you find it hard to comprehend what it would be like for you to no longer exist, just remember back to before you were conceived. It feels exactly the same.

[FractalMachine]

i am fully on board with playing along with theists, and giving them benefit of doubt, but i heard this guy say something that blew my mind and i can't get passed.
he stated as ONE of his examples for "things an atheistic world view (whatever that is) cannot account for" - the rapid expansion of the early church.
wait...
1)since when can't we account for that? what else is history for?!
2)why is this even remotely something atheists should feel obligated to account for? even if the expansion of the early church was unprecedented and unparalleled (both of which are absolutely not the case with christianity), so what? i really don't get it. what is this meant to prove about worldview-correctness?
3)if we were to grant that rapid expansion of a religious sect is some divine indication, then i believe we should all stop eating pork immediately, and start praising allah!

[MarcLombart]

"I can't imagine the universe existing without me." Reminds me of an old claim I made back in high school. I'm the only thing that exists, everything else is a figment of my Imagination. Which just proves how warped my imagination is.

[steve]

He may not recognize it, but the first point is a weakness of his worldview. If a theory can explain any result of any experiment, it is not predictive - it just rationalizes outcomes.

[shadow-iqx]

Man I've seen Braxton get shredded over this list. He comes across so sanctimonious it's absurd. He really thought this list was gonna stump us I guess.

[MrGonzonator]

I had the most vivid and convoluted dream last night. It involved waking up at various points and explaining my dream to someone, only to later wake again and realise I had been dreaming still... I believe I was four dreams deep before I truly woke, shaken by it, trying to discern meaning.
I pondered this as I made the coffee, fixed the youngest his breakfast, put of load of washing on...
Then quite suddenly, as I slurped down the dregs of my coffee and the caffeine really started to kick in, I realised the extraordinary arrogance I was displaying by assigning it any meaning whatsoever. The world is under no obligation to make sense to me, and the imagined goings on inside my unconscious mind even less so. It was my overinflated sense of personal worth that made it so natural to divine purpose in the random scattered meanderings, half remembered, of my dreams.
So I stopped my scrutinising and got on with my day. I drove in torrential rain into town and got stuck in traffic. I stood in socially distanced queues, looked at this and that, delighted myself with my comparison shopping and bought a bargain. Waited 10 minutes in the drive in queue and ate my Big Mac in the car. Listed to the radio all the way home. And yet, .... and yet somehow still I can't shake this feeling that I'm somehow special:
That traffic light changed for ME.
That bargain was waiting for ME.
That Big Mac (their 100th of the day) was MY Big Mac.
Those radio presenters were speaking to ME, for MY entertainment.
It's inate, it's a natural state to imbue greater importance on myself than on anyone or anything else.
And then as I watched your video and realised you have the exact same experience as me! Your internal grandiosity is the same as my internal grandiosity. Thanks for restoring my sense of medoicracy!

[Oswlek]

I also find the "lack of belief" mildly disingenuous, but the primary focus of that response isn't to be dodgy. Instead, it's about _setting proper burdens for each side of the argument._

As an atheist - even a strong atheist - I have no need to prove god doesn't exist. All I need to do is show that the evidence provided is insufficient to warrant belief. So no matter how firmly entrenched in my atheism, the ball is in theists' court to show god exists. And if they keep providing lousy arguments full of obvious fallacies and scientific errors, I have no more work to do once I point out those issues.

[GetMeThere]

Regarding reading the "scholarly" side: I have yet to hear a SINGLE plausible or reasonable statement from any believer which incites in me the slightest idea of any real meat to belief. Based on that I find it highly unlikely that such ideas exist even in scholarly articles on the topic.

[rationalmartian]

The way Braxton here appears to assume the responding Atheist is naturally going to be disingenuous or even downright dishonest, is a little off putting. Is he possibly projecting? Or is he merely blind, blinkered and delusional.
I find it somewhat arrogant, the way he couches things often. I can't help but feel he's maybe ever so slightly passive aggressive in a couple of parts.

He also appears to assume EVERYONE is a theist or began as one and so will naturally have some "conversion" story.
He needs to have a brief sojourn over to Europe, or here back in good old Blighty. He'd have a shit fit.
One of my arguments, I never hear are. How would these believers and apologist respond to say a typical type of bloke I know. Who has never accepted the small teaching of what amounts to stories as a child, and has barely ever given it any serious consideration. When they say, "No, I don't believe your stories. Do you have anything more than the Hindu or Muslim chap stood at the side of you"? They rarely ever have a response. Other than preaching of course. Which doesn't count, as the others can also do the same. Talk is cheap, as they say.
It's kind of strange to me when they start with all the books, scholarship and convoluted apologetics. I mean, does this all knowing, all powerful and all beneficent deistic entity or god only intend for the learned and scholarly people to ever be able to understand and grasp what's going on? Are the plebs merely to unquestioningly accept and believe whatever they are told?
I don't think Braxton asked these questions remotely in good faith.

[andrewshaw]

Random note. In decline and fall of the roman empire by gibbon, he cites the forgiveness aspect of christianity as a major selling point that helped cause its rise within the empire since roman paganism was far less forgiving of criminality

[Devious_Dave]

Thanks, Noel. I love your old-style response vids.