The Canadian Atheist (The CA)

Episode 63

This week, in studio, is Sye Ten Bruggencate! We have a discussion that included epistemology, touched on The Bible, fallacies & how we could “know” or determine anything to be true. We did it in true Canuck fashion with fewer “sorrys” than Americans will believe & we did it still sucking WAY less than The US can! You know…with it’s current dictator and…well…never mind. Enjoy!


40 thoughts on “The Canadian Atheist (The CA)

  1. Wow A respectable and intellectual conversation. It’s the first time I hear one. Did not even know that it was possible. Pleasantly surprised and in structed. Many thanks!!


      1. I’ve noticed the same thing in your podcasts, I really have to pump up the audio to get it to the point where I can here the discussion. I haven’t had the problem with other podcasts though.


  2. Hey guys,

    I’m from Bristol in the UK. I’m an Anglican and confirmed in the Church of England.

    I really enjoyed your engagement with Sye Ten Bruggencate. I especially liked that it was cordial and you were listening to one another. I hope that you get the chance to do it again as I’m eager to hear your answers to his questions.

    Meanwhile you might be interested to learn you’ll have another listener from the UK. My motive is that I love to hear what secular humanists/atheists believe and why they believe it.

    Given your temperament and mastery of the english language (being Canadian), I reckon you can really help me grow in my understanding of the unbelieving worldview that I might, in turn, get better at bringing the truth to my neighbours.

    Soli Deo Gloria

    Yours ever



    1. I welcome a Christian listener. I think it’s interesting you comment “answer his questions”. When we do round 2…my hope is more of our questions get answers….especially ones that aren’t fallacious. Cheers.


  3. Ooh this atheist is easy task. How do you know your reason is valid? Oh reason! It’s bad because it’s bad! This is so funny because atheists like to see themselves as smart


      1. Asking the question “which one” presupposes you believe or have been taught that there are or could be more than one God. Logic alone would dictate that there can only be one ultimate. Are you a Hindu?


      2. Oh, silly…no it doesn’t. It was a shorter form of the whole question, Which god do you think is real? You’re partially right. I was indoctrinated into religion. A monotheistic one. A combination of reading supposed holy books & seeing the utter lack of anything that qualifies as evidence leads me to believe/convinces me there are apparently no gods. I could be wrong! ALL I would require is some of the aforementioned EVIDENCE to convince me otherwise. Got any?


      3. Please forgive me, denominations can be a sensitive area, I did not mean to pry where I was unwelcome, I am sorry. If you did feel at any stage willing to share the denomination into which you were indoctrinated it would nevertheless help our understanding. I’m afraid to say, your question again reveals a false premise. This is not a matter of my thoughts in regard “which god”. God is who he is regardless of our thoughts; He does what he does because he is who he is. I’m not being pedantic just trying to be precise. A more helpful question you might ask would be, “what is your doctrine of God?”. My answer to that question is best summarized in article 1 of the 39 Articles of Religion found in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (there are other confessions I would affirm). Now, would you be willing to share with me, if you have considered it, your doctrine of God please?


      4. And you said: I know my reasoning is valid the same way you do. Through your senses? You know your reasoning is valid through MY senses?


  4. Further to my previous post in regard “which God”, and to save you looking up the 39 Articles of Religion, here is the text which I understand given God’s Revelation provides a helpful articulation of my Doctrine of God:

    THERE is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

    2. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very man. THE Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God of one substance with the Father, took mans nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joyned together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

    I hope that helps clarify my and the historic position of the church as affirmed and articulated above and in the seven primary ecumenical councils along with the Reformed creeds and confessions: Continental Three Forms of Unity, Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Confession.


    1. Cool story, bro. How is this different from any story any faithful person could say about any religion quoted from any holy book? You know what would be awesome?? Something to show anything you believe to be true is real!


      1. Thanks. I tried to help with your question “which God” by offering my doctrine of God as revealed in Scripture and published in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. You do not seem to think it’s true (a story) which is unsurprising given the premise within your question. So I would invite you to return the courtesy and share your doctrine of God.


  5. In order not to believe in God you would need a notion of who you don’t believe in. I’d be interested to know. It’s not that important really.

    To respond to your request for something to show the reality of what I believe I would present the impossibility of the contrary. Moreover, your conscience and reason are my allies as they bear witness to the reality of the triune God spoken of in Article 1 of the 39 Articles.


  6. To further explain my question regarding your doctrine of God. You may for example, while yet claiming you don’t believe in God, understand that to be God, God must be; ultimate, not composite, all knowing, all powerful, all present, and just. He must also be self existent, eternal (or the necessary being), beyond the dimension of time, space and matter. As creator God must be personal, have a mind, be truth and be love. You could, while remaining unbelieving, acknowledge those are the attributes you would expect God to have in order to be God. With a doctrine of God, you can when presented claims from those claiming to know God, have a standard from which to examine their claims.


  7. I was bothered by Sye’s comment about where does logic come from, what is the basis of logic, and his argument that if you can’t explain it then his assumption that it comes from God is as good as any other (if I understood the arguement correctly). I had to do some digging about what the basis for logic is and where does it come from, however I think the following link was pretty good, if you know of others I’d like to know about them.


  8. I would also note that you still have not answered my question about which denomination you belonged to growing up. It would help understand your doctrine of God which you shared with us in the latest episode. Thank you,


      1. Okay very good. So on the face of it you were indoctrinated into what I would acknowledge as orthodox Christianity not some marginal denomination, From Wiki: “The United Church of Canada is a mainline Reformed denomination and the largest Protestant Christian denomination in Canada, and the largest Canadian Christian denomination after the Catholic Church. In 2011, Statistics Canada reported approximately 2 million people identifying as adherents.” They should in theory have taught you a classic doctrine of God, trinity, all the omni characteristics, just, merciful etc That settles that then so thank you again for your podcast.


      2. Thank you, that is interesting. In my post of 2 Sept at 10:06, I suggested to you that with a considered doctrine of God, you would have a standard from which to examine the religious doctrines such as those you encountered in the UCC. Will you think about developing a better ‘doctrine of God’? In other words, in order for God to be God these are, at least some of the attributes, he would necessarily require.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s