Things Got Hilarious When This Atheist Encountered A Blessedly Blunt Christian

There are no short cuts to either thoughtful faith or reasoned non-belief. Comedian Jeff Allen shares how he learned that particular lesson on life’s spiritual journey:






Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here:

11 thoughts on “Things Got Hilarious When This Atheist Encountered A Blessedly Blunt Christian”

  1. The great challenge to him who wants to be secure in his convictions — whether theist or atheist — is for him to be sincerely convinced that he knows the subject. He who simply dismisses theism as “impossible” or “improbable” and stops there is, as Jeff Allen’s acquaintance said, merely lazy. He might also be suffering from a case of intellectual vanity. But he who seriously researches the subject can be reasonably confident that he knows his stuff…even if his researches are incomplete, and even if others disagree with his conclusion.

    Sincere men can differ about the persuasive power of the evidence for the ministry, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, but he who merely waves it away is cheating himself above all else. He who has never even acquainted himself with it, but waves it away in ignorance of it, is a fool posturing as a pillar of wisdom.


  2. Theists always seem to misunderstand what Atheism is. They usually assert that it is a believe system, as was suggested here. It’s not. I’m an Atheist. That says NOTHING about what I actually do believe, only something that I don’t.

    Here’s how it works. We are all agnostic – lack of KNOWLEDGE about God. If you don’t agree, stop reading now. – Because you’re intellectually dishonest. You may think there is a god in the heavens, be 99.9999% sure about it even. But you still can’t be certain. That is, if you are honest with yourself.

    Now, I’ve read the Bible. I was raised in a conservative, god-fearing household, attended 12 years of Catholic school and considered the priesthood as a career option a very long time ago. All that I’ve read, seen, witnessed, discussed etc over the years leads me to this conclusion about God in general and the Judeo-Christian God in particular – I don’t believe it. I can’t find a way to make any sense of it. That’s it. None of the ways that God is discussed here on earth makes any sense to me.

    I have zero knowledge of whether or not there is a God. Or an afterlife, or a heaven or hell. Or what happens to us after we die/pass. I’m okay with that. What I am most confused about though is why that makes me a social pariah. In the USA, past polls have suggested that atheists are considered morally equivalent to rapists or that we are all inherently immoral and evil because of our lack of belief. That’s sad – mostly because it’s untrue.

    As an atheist, I’m open to whatever is actually true. – God or no God. At this point, after decades of thought, reading and discussion, my conclusion is that there is no God. I’m going to continue thinking that until I see evidence to the contrary. I’ll never understand why theists find that so threatening


    1. This theist isn’t threatened at all by your beliefs, Tom, and I certainly don’t consider you a social pariah. But let’s be clear about something fundamental here: For precisely the same reason you say you can’t know if there is a god, you cannot say there isn’t a god, either, because, by your description, you have no knowledge on it. Thus, your view is based on faith, not knowledge.

      But allow me to pose a question and a challenge for you: Assuming you have already examined all of the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ three days after His death on the cross, what is your explanation for the empty tomb? If you didn’t examine the evidence on this issue before concluding there is no god, why not let me send you a free copy of “More Than A Carpenter,” which provides a solid introduction to the evidence that He was indeed resurrected. You read it and then let’s continue the discussion.


      1. I think you may have misunderstood me. I never said there isn’t a God. I’m open to the idea that there might indeed be one. I just don’t think that there is. That’s not a belief, at least in the same sense that you believe . That’s a conclusion reached by me after my lifetime/examination of the issue – based on evidence or more precisely, lack of same.

        Regarding your challenge, I respectfully decline. I have no explanation for the empty tomb because I’m not convinced there was a tomb at all. In fact, I’m currently pondering whether or not Jesus actually lived. I know about Josephus and Nero and Ovid etal and their comments on the matter, but they fail to persuade.

        In the video, the Christian called the Atheist a moron – intellectually lazy – for not comprehensively reviewing world views, religions before dismissing the possibility of a deity. Do theists do that? Do they study each other’s religion and their Bible, Torah or Koran?

        Do theists ever seriously consider everything they’ve been taught starting from the viewpoint that God doesn’t exist? Have you?

        My observation is that theists (overwhelmingly) tend to practice the faith of their family – usually ancestors too. What could be lazier than that?


      2. You disappoint and surprise me, Tom. Let me know if you change your mind. By the way, the claim there never was the Jesus of the Gospels is addressed in MTAC and is contradicted by a half dozen ancient secular sources.


  3. I believe that leprechauns don’t exist. I realize that it may be impossible to prove, but I nevertheless affirm leprechauns’ nonexistence. I am comfortable doing so not only because I see no evidence of the existence of leprechauns but also because I cannot imagine the hypothesis that leprechauns exist ever having any explanatory potential–,i.e., there is nothing about the world that makes any more sense by positing the existence of leprechauns. I have reached this conclusion despite the fact that I have done no independent investigation into any stories about leprechauns, pixies, gnomes, sprites, or fairies.


      1. With all due respect, I think that you might just as well ask, “How do you apply that reasoning to the pots of gold at the ends of rainbows?”

        I don’t apply my reasoning to the empty grave of Jesus any more than I apply my reasoning to the pots of gold at the ends of rainbows: I apply my reasoning to the evidence for the empty grave of Jesus. The evidence for the resurrection consists of a collection of mostly anonymous ancient writings based on unknown sources written for the purpose of proselytizing. These writings are filled with fantastic stories recorded decades after the events they purport to recount. These stories were removed from their originators an unknown number of times in an oral tradition before being recorded. The originators of the stories may or may not have had any firsthand knowledge of the events. I wouldn’t consider this particularly good evidence even for the occurrence of mundane events.

        Based on my knowledge and experience, I suspect that the most likely explanation for any supernatural story—whether it’s the Resurrection or the Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates—is going to be some combination of human foibles such as ignorance, delusion, superstition, wishful thinking, gullibility, and prevarication. I happen to have looked at the evidence for the resurrection quite a bit, so I have some theories. Nevertheless, I don’t have any qualms about assessing most miracle stories as unlikely without specifically investigating each one.


    1. As I said, I don’t have any explanation for the empty tomb. I do have a hypothesis about the story of the empty tomb: I think that it was probably a later invention. I suspect that the earliest appearance experiences were some sort of hallucinations or dreams. For the men who experienced them, they were sufficient to convince them that Jesus had been raised from the dead. As the story spread, however, details were added. Someone hearing about Peter’s vision from Peter himself would have been more impressed than someone hearing about it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from Peter. As the story moved from one person to the next, the story was embellished to make the encounters with the risen Jesus more physical.


      1. OK, that’s your privilege. But, as Paul, said we Christians are the most foolish of men if Christ was not raised from the dead, as He said He would be beforehand, and as a wealth of logic, history and scientific evidence indicates. You can assume it’s just a fairy tale, but that’s avoiding the issue.


Comments are closed.