A few weeks ago, I challenged a YouTube user called TheAtheistAntidote to a debate.  He swiftly replied, telling me he had to weigh my request against my use of ad hominem attacks in my videos.  I wrote him back, laying out the rules for my proposal and waited for his reply...  and waited, and waited, and waited.  Finally, I became frustrated and wrote him again.  When my second letter received no response, I posted several comments to his channel as well as his videos.  These were also evidently not worth his attention, so I sent him another short letter.  Finally, I produced a video entitled "Brock, I'm calling you out...  Let's Debate!" and sent it to him.  He replied within a few hours, calling me a liar and accusing me of slander.  Both of those accusations are false.  If you want to check it out for yourself, the video is available on my YouTube channel at youtube dot com/user/InModiasWeTrust (sorry, but no links are allowed in HubPages).

     I sent him two more letters regarding his reply and, when he failed to respond, I decided to aim a few videos at him.  I promised to begin making video responses to everything he has posted, only stopping when he agreed to debate me.  This morning came and went without a reply, so I produced my first response called "Re: Atheism on the Couch".  The text from that video is posted below as a transcript.  If the language is odd at times, it is because I am going back and forth between addressing Mr. Lawley directly and addressing my viewers.  Enjoy!

Response to "Atheism on the Couch" -

     Hello Brock.  In the description, you refer to this video as a psychological look at why an atheist is an atheist.  The only definition with which this makes any sense is "of or pertaining to the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group".  Based on your content, the line in your description is the first of your many ill-informed arguments if not outright lies.  That leads me to conclude that you are willfully misleading your subscribers with incorrect assertions which are potentially harmful.

     You discuss "the hate and spewing of vulgar bile by the average atheist..."  Can you give me an example of what you mean by the "average" atheist?  No?  You cannot even manage to get past the first sentence in your first video without making a gross generalization, mis-characterizing an entire group of people.  You are beginning your argument under false pretenses which take away from its meaning, for the thinking person that is.

     You tell us that "The truth is, they are very emotionally damaged people".  This is unfair because, even if it was true, it has nothing to do with the atheist's atheism.  Atheism is simply the default position.  It is plainly a lack of belief in the existence of a deity.

     You tell us that a lot of atheists stopped believing as a result of negative experiences with the church.  There are a lot of people who have had such experiences.  For example, when I was very young, my father (that's my actual father, not the one you refer to as heavenly) and I got up and walked out of the church when the minister said "God hates gay people".  However, for myself and anyone else able to think outside of their emotions, that statement didn't affect my belief in God.  We changed churches and I went on as a Christian for another decade. 

     You say that some of us blamed God for our negative experiences.  We blamed God?  Well, that makes the least sense of all so far.  Again, I feel compelled to point out that atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in a deity.  Only the psychologically impaired would say they blame their problems on something which does not exist.  To use your phrase, the "average atheist" in my experience is of sound mind.

     "This is a complete thread that runs through the whole situation..."  Do you mean the whole community?  I'll assume you do.  If I am right, you are wrong.  Again, lack of belief is simply the default position and has nothing to do with the aforementioned.  Plus, I have never, not even once, come accross an atheist who has told me they came to their conclusions as a result of blaming God for their problems.  Also, those who had problems in the church may have left their church as a result, but they didn't become atheists because of it.  The closest I have found to that line of thinking are people who left church and claimed atheism afterward, but who were already atheists remaining in the church for one socio-cultural reason or another.

     "If you look through the major atheist names on YouTube, you can kinda' see the evidence there..."  Well, clearly this is another mis-representation.  Who do you consider the major atheists on YT to be?  Where is the evidence, and if it is so clear, why don't you cite so much as a single source.  That's a common trend with the "average YouTube Christian".  You don't cite your sources.  For those of us used to reading scientific journals, hell even the newspaper, we are used to being able to find and cross-reference a given article's sources.  Have you ever considered becoming a lawyer, Brock?  I think you'd be good at it.

     "They're like (referring to atheists) children lashing out at a parent who disappointed them or something...  A father who wasn't there or something..."  You just aren't getting this are you, buddy?  Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.  The only way your statement about lashing out at parents makes sense is if the parents never actually existed.  Clearly this is an absurd assertion as, if the parents never exited, there would neither be anyone at whom to lash out, nor would there be anyone to do the lashing out.  The second part of your statement makes a tiny bit of sense, though I'm pretty sure it isn't what you were going for.  I am an anti-theist as well as an atheist, which means that I don't want there to be a God, at least no one as defined by any religion with which I am familiar.  However, there are those in the community who wish there was a God and in that sense, their position is similar to dealing with a father who wasn't there because, in light of the poorly written fiction on the subject, they see no evidence to suggest a God.  Therefore, broadly, I suppose you could say they are atheists because their "father" (read "Holy Father" this time) was never there.  But I'm mis-characterizing your statement by giving you more credit than you deserve.  Let's move on.

     You tell us that what you have said so far represents a major psychological tenet of atheism that is missing from many of our videos.  Brock, the psychological tenet of atheism is soundness of mind.  We don't have the delusional impresion that something for which there is no evidence is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and ever-present.  We further acknowledge the patent absurdity of the idea that, were such a creature to exist, it would be concerned with the mating and feeding habits of one species of sentient animals inhabiting one tiny speck of existence in the universe.  We also see how silly it is to suppose that such a creature would need or want his creations to worship him on high or grant uttered requests by animals which, in the grand scheme of the universe, are smaller than the tiniest specks of dust and whose existence is only important to other animals on their tiny planet.

     You say "I know I'm going to get hate for this," referring to the video itself.  You won't receive any hate from me, but I would be doing you a disservice if I failed to point out how little you know.  You are discussing my field of study and you know so little about it that you hardly have any business saying the word "psychology", let alone discussing its application to religion or the lack thereof.

     You want to start a "give an atheist a hug campaign", eh?  Tell you what, you start it up and I'll set up a charity to give theists a proper education.  How's that sound?

     "The real point of this is just obvious... disappointment, pain, psychological damage.  I think what Christ offers is healing and a real breaking of bondage in that regard..."  and "The thing they are most angry at is that which will save their lives..."  The real point of this is straight thinking and the non-requirement of dependance on something that doesn't exist to give us hope.  I have a lot of hope for our species, Brock.  I know we can accomplish great things with science, and have done.  I have seen some works of art which hold indescribable beauty.  When the concept of God is taken out of the picture, it is much easier to appreciate just what humanity is capable of.  We are truly remarkable creatures and we wouldn't need to be validated by your God, even if he did exist.  As to "that which will save our lives", I know you were making a metaphorical statement regarding a snake-bite victim, but you build a bidge to the discussion of eternal life.  This afterlife consists of eternally worshipping your God and singing his praise.  I can't imagine anything more horrible.  How would we ever get anything done?  If we're not meant to get anything done in your heaven, what's the point of being there?  Also, eternity...  That is a period of time for which we have no measurement nor means by which to understand it.  I don't know about you, but I don't WANT to live forever.  I think after a few hundred thousand years or so, I would beg for true death.

     Finally, this antidote you offer is nothing more than an opportunity to become delusional.  The amazing ability to suppose arrogantly that somehow you are important to hang out in the universe, in your current form, forever.  Frankly, that sounds a bit more like poison to me.

-Modias