Greg Koukl: How to Respond to a Hardcore Agnostic 

I love seeing the Plato book in the background.. one of the first (if not the first) to bring up the morale argument 😅 (against protagoras)

I totally agree!

Enjoyed this very much. I've got nothing against agnostics but I think he's right. Cleverish indeed.

Agnostic asks questions they are logical rational they are skeptical okkk

Yes we are very skeptical of 2000 year old claims of miracles and resurrections written down 40-90 years after the events by anonymous authors who spoke a different language than the actual eye witnesses would and are at best 4th hand accounts. Question: why aren’t you????

What in the world is a "radical skeptic?" A person is unconvinced until they become convinced. What does 'extreme unconvinced' look like? And hardcore agnostic... "I'm not just unsure, I'm incredibly unsure!!"

Great analysis. Thanks for breaking it down. This can be used in so many arguments and situations.

To be fair I think you can say that there are unfalsifiable concepts like a deistic God that you cannot know. But of course, as with Russels teapot, you can act as if they don’t exist while acknowledging the possibility it may exist

I think its ridiculous to think that the most extreme skepticism would lead one to believe that a man died 2000 years ago and then rose from the dead. I also don't think the base claims undergirding that claim are much better either. At a base default level, the truth claims of Christianity are not much better than any other religion which is why agnostics exist in the first place.

Your opinions of their level skepticism dont make them wrong or you right just cause you feel differently you discredit any points they do make to justify your own it seems

Greg, have you ever argued someone into the kingdom?

Amen. Nice insight. Glory to God.

Good argument, my friend.

It’s amazing how many people think this type of skepticism makes them “erudite”. LOL.

The last statement "if you are going to be intellectually honest", it's the key statement, because unfortunately, many people don't want to be truly intellectually honest, but only kind-of intellectually honest, or straight out dishonest (and you can see it in the comments section). Many people don't care about truth, they believe whatever they want to believe, illuding themselves that to believe something to be true, makes it actually true.. And skeptics replying with "But Christianity has no evidence, there is no evidence for God's existence, the Bible is not reliable and it contradicts itself, it's wishful thinking, it's blind faith, etc etc etc", proves exactly Greg's point: those skeptics are either ignorant of the evidence for God or Christianity, or they believe something false about it or misunderstand it, or they think the evidence it's not satisfactory or enough or that God should make Himself more obvious (which is a logical fallacy, called "personal incredulity fallacy"). Glad if this helped, God bless!

I feel sorry for these lost souls I truly do.

You're agnostic regarding which rugby team is the best? goodness gracious.

Empty talking from proffessional believer , saying nothing .

This is just meaningless word play. Sorry, Greg

That was stupid.

Total non-sequitur demonstrating a lack of understanding of metaphysics and epistemology.

Greg Koukl--you are the kind of person who pretends to be smart. Your job is keep Christians from walking away. First, skepticism is not a point of view-it is a reaction. And being skeptical is not the problem-you are. You are skeptical of anything you don’t believe at first. Since you present no evidence for God, and then you expect someone to believe in God just because you say he’s real, and if they don’t you have to go after their skepticism rather than doing your job of presenting evidence. Now, you would say next that there’s lots of evidence for God, however, you just say it but don’t present it. Any evidence that theists try to present is anecdotal, arguments from ignorance, feelings, thoughts, and of course the Bible-none of these things are evidence. If I tried to get you to believe in a different religion using your tactics-you would be skeptical of it. Then I should say that you don’t even understand your own skepticism-sound familiar? You can’t draw a conclusion from a presupposition like you do when you simply assume that there is a god and then try to tune up someone’s perspective so that they will share your misconception. Bottom line--it doesn’t matter what a skeptic, agnostic, or atheist thinks, feels or believes-you should be able to present evidence for your god regardless. If your god is so real, then it shouldn’t be so hard to prove him now should it? The fact that God needs books and preachers and desperate apologists like yourself to speak for him, and he cannot speak for himself, ever, is pretty good evidence that he does not exist. And you would say the same thing about any other god. So stop going after the skeptics and go after yourself and ask yourself: “how come I can’t prove God?”

Your teachings are amazing!!!!! I'm taking notes.

Excellent video!

Very insightful and practical stuff. Skeptics themselves could learn from this info.

Not exactly David.... if you ask an atheist "do you believe in God", they're response would be "No, I dont believe in God. The key word BELIEVE. Belief is an attitude of accpetance. They have a belief that there is no god. Therefore , they have a belief.

Thanks for the reply John. A couple of thoughts; first, my point was not that he automatically knows what he is talking about simply in light of his degree. My point was that he is studied in this stuff and travels around the world giving talks on it every week. There would have to be good evidence to suggest he doesn't get the meaning of "agnostic". This is part of his entire career.

Good points as always, Greg! Also, why don't people come to Jesus? We read: "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." -John 3:19

I like Brumbies myself. :)

How did Greg proselytize agnostics in this video? What particularly did he say that gave you that impression?

Very true!

Skeptics do not necessarily think that religious claims are false. They merely claim that the religious claims have not met their burden of proof. Importantly, being an agnostic does not mean that there is a 50/50 chance of theism being correct or incorrect. It does NOT mean being a fence-sitter. Agnostic simply means not knowing for certain. Just as we are all agnostic about there being life on Mars. We don't KNOW either way if there is life on Mars, so we are agnostic about knowledge of life on Mars since there is little compelling evidence to think that there is life there. Agnostic=don't know.

Second, he is not confusing terms, you are confusing his point. I have met a hardcore agnostic that dismisses all religion completely. Some dismiss it by saying its impossible to know religions claims, therefore, any religious claim is dismissed. Other agnostics simply say that they themselves don't know the answers (yet). In either case, Koukl is not mistaken on the meaning of agnosticism.

Most arguments/debates are just 2 people talking past each other, each with different definitions of logic. Unless you can actually agree on what constitutes logic, you are both wasting your time.

How did you come to the conclusion that every Christian that proselytizes his theology hasn't thoroughly examined his own basis for belief?

I've met plenty of people with a college education that don't know what they're talking about. Simply going to school doesn't make you smart. You actually have to learn while you are there. If you are really listening to what he is saying its clear he is confusing terms. Have you ever met a "hardcore" agnostic who dismisses all religion completely? Because if you have then you are actually talking to an atheist.

He has a Masters in apologetics and a Masters in the philosophy of religion. He also travels the world giving talks about all of this stuff. He knows exactly what the definition of agnostic is.

you don't respond, Romans 1. you live out your life reflecting the way Christ live and that can move their heart or cannot

I dismiss most things that have no evidence. How do you confront someone who evaluates reality with the use of science and testable hypotheses? I suppose you offer them verifiable evidence to back up your claims. I suppose you offer them more than anecdotal assumptions based on filtered and manipulated texts.

Word salads spoken forcefully do not make any more sense than if babbled by babies.

What is the result of a skeptic being skeptical of his skepticism? Does that result in anything other than a deeper and more profound skepticism? Inviting skeptics to be more skeptical creates a more consistent skeptic. And I don't think that Greg is talking about a hardcore skeptic at all (in the technical sense of the word). When someone finally says "You can't know about 'x'" you have reached the end of their skepticism. Skepticism ultimately is the admission and expression of doubt.

Isn't a person who doesn't believes anything at all, a atheist?

This is a circular answer.

The justification for "hardcore" agnosticism or atheism is quite obvious to me, and to anyone else who wasn't raised in a religious household. To us, all religions are equally absurd and illogical. Theists, on the other hand, are biased in favor of their own religion, but believe all believers in other faiths are wrong. To me,"faith" is the operative word. How is it any more logical to have faith in one god over another? It isn't. Religion is a worldwide phenomenon that has existed in human cultures for many thousands of years. There have been countless followers of countless faiths, many of whom have killed and died for that faith, because they were "sure" that they were going to heaven or someplace similar. If history had gone differently, Chistians would be worshipping Zeus right now, and would believe in him just as wholeheartedly as they believe in Jesus. Religion obviously fills some sort psychological need in humans. The god or gods that are worshipped are irrelevant. I think we all have a fundamental need for mythology and ritual, to explain who we are and where we're going, and that that need is particularly strong in theists. Perhaps we agnostics and atheists simply recognize this as a psychological rather than a spiritual need.

I don't think this guy really knows the definition of Agnostic. His description is more in line with Atheists. While an agnostic person wont really believe in a religion they don't just out right deny them like he is claiming either, they believe one of the religions could be possible but require more proof before they are willing to put in the effort of following one. Its more a question of faith then skepticism.

There are so many things wrong with this guys point of view, I'm sure I'm going to miss things. As a skeptic, skepticism is a pragmatic necessity of life, and it does not need to be justified! *As long as I want to accept things that are true, and not accept things that are false, skepticism is required*. Without skepticism, I accept everything by default, and believe everything, and will likely believe false things. I reject theistic claims because I have no way to know if they are true. As for the idea that I'm convinced that religious claims are false, that's not true at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims of religions should also be falsifiable, if you want me to even consider accept them. To the "have you weigh the evidence?" I say: Yes, I have. Nothing presented to me so far as come anywhere close to even beginning to meet the burden of proof that religious claims have. More specifically, I don't need to weight anything again the religious claims, because the evidence for them is so poor. The above said, I'm reasonably sure that there are no deities, just like I am sure there is no Bigfoot, but I'll change my mind of somebody can present evidence. I can defend the anti-theist point of view if need be... Regarding my view of materialism/naturalism. When somebody can present to me a way to actually know that something other than nature exists, I cannot justify accepting it. It may be possible, but at the moment, I have no way to know.

Go and prey on the vague and uneducated, and leave our kids alone to make their own mind up.

This guy is delusional. He describes the different forms of agnostic behaviour and throws in the term "evidence" and runs to next point. What evidence ? If you mean that story called the bible written 60 or so years AD based on hear say and vague recollections AT BEST.. End of discussion. That books first writing (genesis) speaks of how god created the earth and universe and man ?? Yet its proven beyond any doubt and accepted by vatican that big bang and evolution HAPPENED !! Shut the book !!!!