ShockOfGod calls Atheists of Florida

Rich Allen Garcia, known on YouTube as ShockOfGod, posted YouTube videos of an excruciating call to a 24 November 2009 podcast by Atheists of Florida. This call was such a train wreck, and Rich gave the hosts such a runaround, that some mistook the call for an apologists’ hoax.

ShockOfGod later misattributed this call to The Atheist Experience television call‐in show, which recently refuted it on their blog.

I transcribed ShockOfGod’s call, noting where I think things went wrong. Never having heard Atheists of Florida’s podcast before, I’m unfamiliar with its hosts’ voices. Apologies for any names I got wrong.

For the first nine minutes of the program, the hosts discuss a public meeting they’d just held to talk to the community about their billboard.

Frank: I did note though that there were two of the Christians using the tactic of using up our time to silence the atheist viewpoint. Let’s just say it’s nothing more than a censorship tactic to dominate the discussion with something that’s irrelevant. Cause we weren’t there to argue religion or the existence of god, we weren’t trying to debate anybody, all we were trying to do is to let other atheists in the community know

[Rich’s YouTube videos begin here.]

Frank: we were here.

Rob Curry: Oh, I think there may have been— we didn’t clarify, you know, we didn’t state right up front there’s a no preaching rule. But we really wanted to hear their feedback, even if some of it was a little bit lengthier than we thought it would be. Speaking of feedback, I wonder if we have any callers coming in. Ed?

[Rich’s editing eliminates the context about the public meeting at the library, so listeners might get the impression the radio show has a “no preaching rule”.]

Ed Golly: Caller, are you there? Hello?

Rich Allen Garcia: I’m here. Can you guys hear me? I don’t know if you picked up my line.

Rob: Yes indeed! What’s your name, caller?

Rich: My name’s Rich. I’m a Christian, I used to be an atheist. And I had a question for you guys, I was wondering if you could answer it.

Rob: Go right ahead, Rich. Are you calling from Florida?

Rich: No, I’m calling from California.

Rob: Okay. What part of California?

Rich: Southern California. I’m over here,

Rob: [All right.]

Rich: you know, where Los Angeles is at where we get free lighting from the police helicopters every Friday night.

[Laughter.]

Ed: That’s a great description. So…

Joe: I used to live in Remington(?) Beach.

Rob: Ah, Joe used to live down there. So, Rich, you have a question for us. Go right ahead.

Rich: Yes! And I want to say I love your guys’ show because I believe it’s bringing a lot of people to Christianity. I actually play your show to some of my atheist buddies and we agree to disagree about really a lot of things.

But here’s what I see— I was listening to your show, I do enjoy your show, even though I’m a Christian and I disagree with everything. But, what I see a problem is, why atheists cannot— are having a problem getting people to believe in the humanist religion of atheism is that there is no proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.

And here’s the question— Every time I ask an atheist to provide proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct, they cannot provide it, except you guys on your show, you say that proof and evidence is important. So here’s what I would like to ask— here’s the question—

[The hosts prompt Rich to get to the point.]

Ed: Go right ahead. [We’re waiting.]

[In this transcript, bracketed words at the end of a line indicate words that the next speaker talks over. You’ll be seeing a lot of them.]

Rich: Without answering the question with a question, which atheists always tend to do, when I [ask]

Ed: Do we?

Rob: [Well, okay]—

Rich: the question, here’s the question— NOTICE I JUST SAID IT and he says “Do we?”! Ha ha ha.

So here’s the question— What proof or evidence can you guys provide that atheism is accurate and correct. And let’s see if you can do it without asking a question with a question. And then I’ll tell ya how ya did!

[At this point, the hosts should’ve recognized that Rich probably misinterprets atheism as a claim that there are no gods, and intends his incoherent question to mean “What proof or evidence is there that there are no gods?”]

Ed: That’s a fair condition, I think. [I’ll go first]—

[I disagree. It would’ve been fair to answer with a question like “what do you mean by atheism?”. In retrospect, they may wish they had.]

Rich: I think so. Cause there was no evidence when I looked for it, that’s why I left the humanist religion of atheism. But go ahead, I’ll listen.

Ed: All right.

Rob: Thank you very much.

Ed: I’m going first. Atheism accurate and correct. Well—

Rich: No, what proof or evidence.

Ed: First we have to make sure we understand what atheism is, because you keep talking about “the humanist religion of atheism”, and I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. You say you were an atheist, you [seem to have a very peculiar view]—

Rich: So atheism’s not humanism?? [Atheism’s not humanism?]

[Rich’s tone is incredulous, as if this assertion were absurd.]

Ed: You want me to answer? Go ahead and let me [get a chance to answer]—

[Atheists of Florida, let me introduce you to the hold button. When you have a caller who won’t shut up, put them on hold, say your piece, then turn off the hold and let them respond. Watch how Matt Dillahunty on The Atheist Experience deals with difficult callers, his hold-fu is strong.]

Rich: Go ahead, what proof or evidence.

[Rich moves the focus off his (indefensibly) calling atheism a religion.]

Ed: Give me a chance to answer first. We have to make sure we’re talking about the same thing, Rich, or otherwise, we’re only going to be talking past one another. [Now, when we talk]—

Rich: Listen, whatever way you want to define it, alls I’m saying is what proof or evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct.

[Rich seems not to comprehend that how atheism is defined makes a difference to what constitutes evidence for it.]

Ed: Fair enough, then I won’t—

Rich: It’s a very simple question. Try not to hem and haw and avoid the question, just simply answer it. You should have all kinds of proof and evidence. But I’ve been on

Ed: [(indistinct)]

Rich: about a minute, and I haven’t heard anything.

[Actually, Rich has been on about four minutes at this point.]

Ed: You want me to answer, I will do so. Are you ready?

Rich: I’m ready! I’m on the edge of my chair.

Ed: Okay—

Rich: You’ll be the first atheist ever to answer it.

Ed: Don’t fall off. Very well, we won’t touch on your definition. I’ll give you my definition. [My definition of atheism]—

Rich: No, any definition— atheism’s madness. So who cares what the definition is, it’s madness. But go ahead and go for it! I’ll listen to [see what]—

[Rich reveals he really has no interest in what the hosts think, but the hosts continue to treat his questions as if they were honest inquiries.]

Ed: I would really appreciate your listening. So, [atheism]

Rich: Go ahead!

Ed: is exactly, no more and no less than not having a belief in god. But evidence that atheism is correct for me is that I, through introspection, I know for a fact that I do not have any belief in a god. Therefore, I’m an atheist. Atheism is a description. [Just like]—

Rich: Where’s your proof of that? Where’s the proof [and evidence of that?]

[Rich stops listening when he hears the phrase “know for a fact” and pounces, oblivious that he just inanely asked Ed to prove he doesn’t believe in a god.]

Ed: My proof that I’m an atheist? [Are you saying you want me to prove that I’m an atheist?]

Rich: You want your proof and evidence— Where’s your proof and evidence that— You’re avoiding the question! See, typical atheist, with the spine of spaghetti. What proof or evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct? I ask a second time.

[Rich doesn’t recognize his own stupid question when Ed restates it, and unjustly accuses Ed of ducking his question. Rich isn’t listening, he’s scanning for keywords.]

Frank: The problem, Rich, is that we’re atheists because of the lack of evidence for a god.

Rich: So there’s lack of evidence for atheists, so what proof or evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?

Ed: Okay, look, please, you’re talking enough, already.

Rich: Third time.

Ed: Rich. Rich. I have answered your question, because— you keep interrupting me— [let me just try it without— let me try this]—

Rich: Where’s the proof?! You didn’t supply any proof. You failed miserably on live radio to provide any proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.

Ed: Well, this does remind me of last night a little bit.

[Ed refers to the two Christians filibustering the previous night’s meeting, as Frank mentioned just before this call.]

Ed: Let’s try this without you interrupting, will you allow me to complete a sentence, [yes or no?]

[Rich won’t even let Ed complete that question.]

Rich: As long as the next words out of your sweet, lovable atheist mouth is proof and evidence. We want— we, the world— if we’re going to risk denying Jesus Christ, and we’re going to have to believe in some other type of proof or evidence, you guys are going to have to supply more proof and evidence than Jesus Christ supplied. And what is so good about atheism— where’s the proof and evidence of atheism that would allow a rational person like me— an ex-atheist, who got two things: I got a brain, and I read the Bible. I’ve got a heart, and I humble myself when I confess I’m a sinner.

[Rich dubitably claims to be an ex-atheist with atheist buddies. But it seems more plausible, especially given his narrow definition of atheism, that Rich once did not worship actively, than that he ever thought no gods existed.]

Ed: [Thank you.]

Rich: So, I’m not hearing any proof or evidence that atheism is accurate [and correct. I]—

Ed: I know you’re not hearing, you’re not taking a pause to breathe, from my point of view!

[Laughter.]

Rich: (singsong) Go ahead.

Ed: Now that you’ve answered, try [not to]—

Rich: Just try not to go off on a tangent!

Ed: Rich, you said, define atheism and I tried to—

Rich: NO, I DID NOT SAY “DEFINE ATHEISM”. See, you’re lying. Play back the audio,

[Ed is wrong. Indeed, Rich was saying “who cares what the definition is”. But Rich’s outrage is over the top.]

Rob: [No, Ed, play the tape back]—

Rich: I said what proof or evidence do you have?

Ed: [Listen,]

Rich: Don’t lie.

Ed: we have this recorded, [if you want]

Rich: How unfair!

Ed: we’ll play it later and hear what you said. [Eight minutes. (?)]

Rich: Yeah, play it back, I never said “define atheism”, I said “what proof or evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct”.

Ed: [But, Rich]—

Rich: And I’m going to be really quiet and listen to the proof and evidence. Go!

Ed: Thanks. Atheism is lack of belief in a god. When I say atheism is correct, I mean I don’t have any belief in a god. Do you understand that so far, yes or no only please?

[Ed tries to walk Rich through it step by step. Rich doesn’t cooperate.]

Rich: I understand you haven’t supplied any proof or evidence.

Ed: Thank you.

Rich: Yes, I understand you haven’t supplied any proof or evidence.

Ed: Give me [a chance]—

Rich: Yes, I understand you haven’t supplied proof or evidence.

Ed: [(indistinct, laugh)]

Rich: So where is it, though?

Ed: Okay, the evidence [that I]—

Rich: Put someone else on the line that can at least answer the question.

[Rich is conversationally bullying Ed here.]

Ed: Rich, first of all, the evidence that I don’t believe in god is my say-so. I’m saying I don’t believe in god because I know that for a fact. The same way if you ask someone what’s your favorite ice cream [flavor]—

Rich: How do you know it for a fact?

[Rich’s keyword filter triggers on “know for a fact” again, and he again inanely asks how Ed knows what Ed believes.]

Ed: They say it’s vanilla—

Rich: Where’s your proof?

Ed: How— What’s the [basis(?)— Where’s your proof that your favorite ice cream is vanilla?]

Rich: What’s the proof you know it for a fact?

Ed: What is your proof that your favorite ice cream is vanilla, can you [prove that, do you have evidence for it?]

Rich: Where’s your proof for a fact?

Rob: Ed, [we’re just wasting our]

Rich: Where’s your proof?

Rob: time.

Rich: Listen! We want proof [and evidence.]

Rob: I can [give you proof of abstract mathematical questions. Do you have a mathematical question for me, Rich?]

[Mathematics? This probably would’ve been a pointless, unpersuasive digression, if Rich hadn’t drowned it out with scorn.]

Rich: You have FAILED miserably. Listen my sweet, lovable atheist, this is why I left the MADNESS of atheism. It’s based on faith. 100% faith.

[Once again, Rich uses “sweet, lovable atheist” as a pejorative.]

[Indistinct crosstalk in background.]

Ed: He doesn’t even understand what atheism is.

[Background crosstalk, laughter.]

[Rich triumphantly descends to snotty gloating.]

Rich: You guys seem like you’re pretty upset now. We have shaken the foundations of atheism and now just the whole world and everyone on your show knows there is

[Background goes silent a moment.]

Rich: NO proof or evidence for atheism.

[Background crosstalk.]

Rich: Someone please supply it?

Frank: I’ll tell ya, I can tell ya the same thing for Christianity—

Rob: Now we’re going to get Frank an opportunity to speak, so Rich, zip it.

[At last, someone tells Rich to shut up. You should’ve done that three minutes ago.]

Frank: It’s just [a matter of]—

Rich: AS LONG AS I— Am I going to have a chance to talk [after Frankie-boy here?]

Rob: Ed, Ed, Ed, cut him off, we’re going to let Frank talk.

Rich: OHHHHH, running from the debaaate!

Ed: No, no, no, you’re not [(indistinct)]—

[Crosstalk in background.]

Rich: All right, bye. If I can have the chance to talk after Frank...

Ed: We run the show—

Frank: You called in to ask us what we think—

Ed: Just mute him. You can mute him—

[Crosstalk.]

Rich: No, I asked what proof or evidence— [Proof and evidence.]

Ed: All right, here it comes. Stand by.

Rob and Ed: Go ahead, Frank.

Frank: We have come to our conclusion that there is no god because of the lack of evidence. Extraordinary claims like we’ve got in the Bible require extraordinary explanations. And we haven’t seen hardly any explanations at all that aren’t just drawn from fables. So we have come to the conclusion that there is no god, and everything that happens to man is either accomplished by man or is destroyed by man. There is no god there to guide us.

[The extraordinary claims in the Bible may have a very ordinary explanation: they’re fiction. Frank has bungled Carl Sagan’s maxim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” He also contradicts Ed’s definition of atheism, and accepts Rich’s, by saying atheists conclude there is no god.]

[Rich's part 2 video begins here.]

Rob: OK, and Joe.

Joe: [I mean the thing is like]—

Rich: Well, that was a failure!

Joe: [What?]

Rich: That was no proof or evidence, that was opinion, but go ahead, let’s go to Joe, let’s see if he’s got something better.

Joe: Well, it’s like if Gray says, “Okay, I have $5”, I’m like, okay, yeah, that’s fine. But if he says, “Well now, I have a whole unicorn in my pocket”—

[Joe seems caught unprepared.]

Rich: A UNICORN! Yes! You guys have Santa Syndrome. You guys have Santa Syndrome. That’s what it is.

[To a listener unacquainted with Rich, it sounds like he’s saying people who don’t believe in Santa Claus have a psychological disorder, “Santa Syndrome”. However, it’s not that Rich still believes in Santa and is mocking people who don’t.

What Rich means by “Santa Syndrome” is that the hosts became atheists because they’re still sad that Santa Claus isn’t real. Seriously, that’s what he means. Rich has a series of YouTube videos diagnosing various nonbelievers with Santa Syndrome.]

Joe: I mean, what proof do you have for Christ and for Christianity?

[Not only does Joe come off flustered and defensive, but he derails the conversation and gives Rich an invitation to preach.]

Rich: Okay, I’m going to go ahead and dip my toes in the water even though you guys, everyone would agree that you have— I’m going to answer the question even though you guys will agree that you— would you agree you have not provided proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct? You’ve provided opinion?

[Even Rich realizes he’s overstated that everyone, even the hosts, will agree. He backpedals and asks for their agreement.]

Joe: Well, [let me begin by]—

[The first word wasn’t yes, so Rich cuts him off. Rich doesn’t want to hear their disagreement.]

Rich: Where can I look for proof and evidence that atheism is correct besides the UNICORN. Wait, can I ask you a question, what do you atheists got with Santa Claus and unicorns? You just love ’em.

[Rich sounds smug, thinking he’s scored a point here. He hasn’t.]

Joe: Because it’s just [directly comparable to]

Rich: And the Spaghetti Monster.

Joe: Jesus. In that there’s no—

[Didn’t you mean “to God”, Joe?]

Frank: Spaghetti Monster, that’s—

Rich: Well, who do you guys think Jesus is?

[Ping! “Jesus” keyword detected.]

Joe: [(indistinct)]

Rich: I’ll ask you a question. I’m going to let you guys escape the question because you obviously cannot provide proof or evidence on live radio.

Joe: [(indistinct)]

Rich: Well, who do you guys think Jesus Christ is?

Joe: You have to hold—

Rob: Well, it depends on which Jesus Christ you’re talking about. There’s the Jesus Christ of the literary Jesus Christ, of the cananical [sic] gospels, the Jesus Christ of the gospels that didn’t make it [in the canon,]—

Rich: So who do you think he is?

Rob: Basically, it’s whatever you imagine, it’s who do you think he is.

Ed: A legend.

Rob: There are about as many different views of Jesus Christ as there are people. Look at the pictures people draw, the statues people make: Jesus is white, Jesus is black, Jesus is Jewish, Jesus is Aryan, Jesus [is whatever you make up, guys]—

Rich: I can tell you— I can prove to you guys God exists. [Are you ready to listen?]

Rob: Jesus is whatever you make up in your mind and— The point is, you’re asking for proof or evidence of atheism and—

Rich: No I’m not! I’m saying is it accurate or correct?

[This hairsplitting makes sense from Rich’s perspective, thinking that “evidence that atheism is correct” is not the same thing as “evidence that atheism exists”.]

Ed: He’s angry. [He’s]—

Rich: I’m not angry at all. I love you guys!

Frank: [Well, you’re replying]—

Rich: I love you guys, I used to be an atheist.

[Indistinct.]

Rich: Do you guys love me?

Ed: Hold on one moment, let’s [go back to what you did ask for.]

Rich: Wait, do you guys love me? I love you guys.

[Rich ostentatiously and pridefully declares his enemy-love for the hosts he sneered at a minute ago, and repeatedly challenges them to say they love him back. The subtext is “See, Christians like me are more loving than atheists”.

Mean kids in parochial schools bully like this, but it’s less effective on people who don’t feel obliged to love everyone. Rich expects the hosts to feel uncomfortable, and be too polite to say, “No, we don’t love you, Rich, because you’re an arrogant, unlistening, pigheaded jackass.”]

Rob: Go ahead.

Joe: All right, hold on a second, hold on, Rich.

Rob: Okay. This is our show. We’re going to get an edge in. We’re going to get a word in edgewise. The question that this caller asked was “What proof or evidence do you have that atheism is accurate?” Of course, the moment we start touching on that, he immediately interrupts and just repeating himself over and over again like some maniac. He talks about the madness he was in, I don’t think he’s left it yet.

Now, what we need to do, if you’re going to give proof or evidence of anything— I’m trained in mathematics, I know what proof is. Proof is something that you demonstrate rigorously. Now that’s great, if someone has a mathematical definition of god, I’m willing to hear it.

[What’s with the math again?]

But let’s stick with evidence. The evidence for atheism is the simple fact that people don’t believe in a god. Atheism is not a claim that god does not exist. I think that’s the basic error that this caller is having. He thinks that atheism is the claim that god doesn’t exist.

[“Atheism is not a claim that god does not exist” should’ve been said way back at the beginning of this call.]

Rich, you’re wrong. That’s not what atheism is. Atheism is a description of being without god, being without a belief in god. We don’t believe in god. What’s there to prove about that? There’s nothing that needs to be proven.

Now if you want to say, “Well, when we’re considering the question ‘Is there a god?’, can you prove there’s not one?” No, but who cares? I can’t prove there’s not a million things. I can’t prove there isn’t a god hiding on the other side of Mars right now. Maybe there is. Maybe there’s ten of them, or twenty. That doesn’t matter. Just because I can’t prove it, doesn’t mean I have to believe in it, just like you don’t have to believe in Santa Claus or leprechauns or whatever other fairy tales you might imagine, in order not to believe in them.

So, we have a really basic shifting of the burden of proof. This a common, very common logical fallacy that so many hysterical religionists make, that they say “Oh my goodness, they’re contradicting what I believe, prove that I’m wrong!” Well, Rich, I’m sorry to disappoint you, I’m not going to prove that you’re wrong, because

1. It’s impossible to prove something when you can’t even define it.
2. I don’t care what you believe. Most atheists don’t. If you let us alone, let us be equal citizens with equal rights, we’re happy. And, we defend the right of anyone to believe what they will, what they won’t, as they choose. At least, that’s what Atheists of Florida does here in the state of Florida.

Joe: I like John Kieffer’s bumper sticker. It says, We have the fossils. We win.

[John Kieffer is president of Atheists of Florida.]

Rob: Well, that’s a different issue.

[Yes, although ShockOfGod derides evilution on YouTube, no one in this call brought up evolution, Joe.]

[Chuckles.]

Rich: Should I hang up? Or am I on the line?

Rob: No, go ahead. We’ll give you your—

[Crosstalk.]

Rich: I didn’t want to interrupt you guys. I thought— Seriously, guys, I think it’s a good— I’m glad you guys have the show, I think it’s very important because I have to choose between the most famous person in the world, the most famous book of all— Jesus Christ, the Bible—

Ed: [Muhammed Ali? Oh...]

[I would’ve said Mickey Mouse.]

Rob: [I don’t know, in the world]—

Rich: or I can believe in the word of Dawkins. Do you guys believe Dawkins is correct, when Dawkins says he believes [about aliens?]

Rob: About what?

Rich: He believes aliens— Dawkins needs to phone home. [Do you know in one of Dawkins’ books, he said,]—

Joe: I think he’s confused him with L. Ron Hubbard.

[Joe doesn’t seem to know what Rich is blathering on about.

Rich’s false suggestion that Richard Dawkins believes in aliens is probably based on his interview in Ben Stein’s propaganda film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer,

Stein: (misleadingly edited in voice‐over) Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

Dawkins: and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.

Dawkins was saying the likeliest scenario for our being intelligently designed would be sufficiently advanced alien designers, but even if that were so, those aliens would themselves have had to evolve.]

Rich: Hey, come on guys! I’m talking!

Remember when Dawkins said there’s no way— let me do my Dawkins imitation for you. “The God of the Old Testament is a bloodthirsty homophobe, an ethnic cleanser, jealous, petty, and proud of it.”

[Rich got the gist of Dawkins’ actual words in The God Delusion:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I notice Rich isn’t asking if the hosts think Dawkins was right about that.]

Rich: But the problem is Ben Stein asked him,

Joe: [(Indistinct. Laugh.)]

Rich: “Mr. Dawkins, where’s your evidence? Where’s your evidence that— Where’s your evidence?” And he goes, “Well, I receive letters.” Dawkins receives letters?? There’s over six billion people on the planet.

[Rich falsely suggests here that Ben Stein asked Dawkins for evidence that God is a bloodthirsty homophobe, etc., and that instead of citing the Bible, Dawkins responded that he gets mail. Then Rich implies Dawkins couldn’t get mail saying that God is a bloodthirsty homophobe when there are billions of potential letter writers on the planet. None of which makes any sense, except to Rich.

Here’s the actual context from Expelled, shortly after Dawkins corrects Ben Stein’s misquote by reading that sentence about the God of the Old Testament from his book:

Stein: So you believe it is liberating to tell people there is no God?

Dawkins: I think a lot of people when they give up God feel a great sense of release and freedom.

Stein: Why do you think that? You’re a scientist, what’s your data?

Dawkins: Well, I’ve had a lot of letters saying that.

Stein: There are eight billion people in the world, so how many letters have you had?

Rich not only does not listen to people on talk radio, he also does not listen to people in movies.]

Rich: The problem is Dawkins says on one hand that God could not exist, then he says that God could exist. So, the question I have for you guys is— It sounds like you’re saying that God could exist. You guys aren’t atheists, you’re agnostics.

[Richard Dawkins did not claim God could not exist, he claimed there almost certainly is no God. The hosts ignore Rich’s several falsehoods about Dawkins, and let him blather on. Finally, Rich almost asks a germane question.]

Rob: [Okay]—

Rich: You need to change the show to Agnostics of Florida. Or do you guys totally just not believe God exists,

Rob: [Well then, Rich, (indistinct)]—

Rich: or do you believe he could exist?

Rob: You’re not a Christian, you’re just a wannabeliever. You don’t really believe in Christianity, [you just want]—

[Oy. That response sucks. Granted, they’ve already defined atheism, and Rich seems ineducable. I get that they’re mocking how Rich is telling them what they believe. But that point may fly over more than just Rich’s head. A missed opportunity to put Rich on hold and explain how atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive for the rest of the audience, even though Rich surely wouldn’t listen.]

Rich: Well, actually, I don’t hate Jesus Christ like you guys do.

Rob: You don’t even love Jesus Christ, [you think that Jesus Christ is as mythical as we do]—

Rich: I don’t hate Jesus Christ like you guys do.

Rob: Neither do we. Why would you think we’d hate a mythical being?

Joe: And you know what? I’ll tell ya something, Rich. I’m more of an atheist who does say there is no such thing as a god, because I understand that all of the 20,000+ gods that have ever been dreamed up by our species were all just the imaginations of the people who dreamed them up. The very word “god” is just a fantasy. It has no [meaning or substance.]

Rich: Well, you guys have not provided proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. And on my radio show— I do a radio show, also, I’m not going to interrupt and give my site out here because I don’t want to disrespect your show— But on my show, I invite atheists to call in and provide proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct, and just like you guys— no offense, I love you guys— but you have failed miserably to provide it.

[I suspect Rich is more concerned that giving the audience the address might lead to disrespect of his show.]

Rob: That’s because you shifted the goalposts. After we gave you the evidence, you [said no, that]—

Rich: No, you said on your show, you said it,

[Crosstalk in background.]

Rich: I’ve got audio of you saying proof and evidence,

Joe: [You’re not atheists, you’re a dolphin!]

Rich: you said it. You guys are hypocrites! You said on your show, I’ve got audio of you saying that you need to provide proof and evidence. Well you guys, you need to provide proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. I’m going to give you one last chance.

Rob: [Already done! You got it!]

Rich: I’m not going to talk, go ahead and provide proof and evidence

Ed: [He’s just going to go in circles until we hang up.]

Rich: that atheism is accurate and correct. Go ahead.

Rob: Okay, [I will repeat]

Rich: I’ll listen.

Rob: that question was asked and answered. The fact that atheism [is accurate and correct]—

Rich: YOU NEVER ANSWERED IT! What’d you say? What was the proof? Where is it? Where can I find this proof and evidence

Rob: [Why don’t you hang up and let our next caller come on?]

Joe: [All right.]

Rich: that atheism is accurate and correct?

[The hosts answered the question Rich asked, and said they’re not going to answer the question Rich meant, but Rich’s ears were closed the whole time.]

Joe: We’ve got another caller. Rich, nice to hear from you.

Rich: Thanks for running from the shooow.

[Rich’s YouTube videos end here, giving himself the last word, cutting the following summation.]

Rich: Thanks for running.

Rob: We are going to repeat the answer for anyone who was curious: The proof that atheism, the evidence that atheism is correct, is that people do not believe in a god, and that is atheism. Non-belief in a god = atheism. Period. The evidence is out there. Every atheist who doesn’t believe in a god is evidence that atheism exists. It’s that simple.

Rich wants to shift the goalposts, he wants to redefine atheist, he wants to be the one to tell us what we are, and he gets upset, goes around in circles over and over again, because we decline to let him define us.

Joe: Okay, next caller! Thanks for waiting!

[The show keeps running, without Rich.]

[Ed. Corrected some errors in the transcript and added some hyperlinks.]

[Ed. 2010-07-28: Fans of The Atheist Experience might also be interested in Matt Dillahunty’s post answering the question that ShockOfGod asks incessantly.]