[Applause]

Good morning.

Very, very excited to be here.

This, I think, is probably the largest crowd

that I've spoken to before.

And it's kind of interesting to see how ...

I probably wouldn't be here

if it wasn't for going out and learning

and practicing Street Epistemology.

And I think one of the reasons 
why I'm up here is

because this approach has 
really sparked an interest.

I'm just a regular guy 
who decided to go out

and just have conversations with people.

And I think it's gotten a lot of attention

from folks and I'm very excited 
to share it with you.

I think this actually could be

a turning point for atheism.

I forgot that I have slides. 
There we go.

[Laughing]

Okay.

And I think Street Epistemology is going

to be critical to the success of atheism.

Which is why I'm very excited 
to tell you about it.

We're gonna get really into

my journey and this method.

Okay.

I also want to talk a little bit about truth.

I want to kind of take a step back a little bit.

When we have conversations with people,

usually we're interested in

changing their mind or helping them to

believe true things and usually we want

to believe true things as well.

So, we engage in debate or dialogue

or conversation with them.

But we have to remind ourselves

that we ourselves are just 
as capable of believing things

that are not true.

It's entirely possible

that a lot of the things 
that I believe are not true.

So, what is the best way 
to determine what is true?

What is the best way
to determine what is not true?

These are questions that have troubled 
humanity from the beginning,

but as atheists I think we try 
to accomplish this question about God

when we engage in debate 
with people we tend to argue

with them or discuss the finer points

of the Bible, for example.

And it's oftentimes hard to get

into the mindset of a believer

unless you discuss 
what that person believes.

We tend to focus a lot about that.

We tend to focus a lot about 
what the person believes

as opposed to their 
reasons or their method.

And I think it's really important

that as atheists we need 
to find a better way

of figuring out what is true

and helping people figure out what is not true.

And again that's why 
I'm so excited to be here

to tell you about this method

because I think this might be the thing

that helps atheists have better conversations

with the believers who are making these claims.

Okay.

I brought along--

Oh, did I kick out...

Bruce here?

Can you maximize that?

Okay, that may have been my fault--

Okay. So, I brought along 
a couple of video clips here.

So, just still just a little warning.

The first video clip I want to show you

is about two minutes long.

I've got five video clips total,

but I want to kind of show 
you how I used to go out

and have talks with believers.

This is a street preacher 
in front of the Alamo.

And this was back in 2012.

This is about two minutes long.

He does talk about hell during this video.

So, fair warning if that troubles you.

You might want to be aware of that.

Oh, there are some people that are 
really troubled by it and that's fine.

So, just fair warning.

And this is NOT an example 
of Street Epistemology.

Don't watch this video, 
walk out and think:

�Oh, that's what Street Epistemology is.�

And the other takeaway 
I wanted to let you know

is that I'm not really 
proud of this exchange.

[Laughing]

So, here we go.

Street preacher Phil.

IL: Jesus says,

[Playing video clip]

"My mother and my brotheren are these

which hear the word of God and do it."

AM: You said that already.

IL: You have the Word of God. 
It's in the King James Bible.

It's not the Book of Mormon.

It's not the Kabbalah.

It's not the Babylonian Talmud.

There's just a word of God.

The King James Bible.

AM: There's just as much evidence

for those Gods as there's for your God.

IL: Not really.

AM: Yes, there is.

There's zero evidence.

IL: The Scripture says:

"Christ Jesus came 
into the world to save sinners."

AM: That's what it says, but why 
should we believe it today?

Why should we believe that?

IL: Now are you a Mormon 
or a Baptist or a Catholic

or a Methodist, but are you saved?

The Bible says we must be saved.

Jesus saved me in 1987 in the month of December

and I'm not going back to what I was.

I'm no better than anybody else

but, my friends, as a street preacher

I gotta warn you: There is a hell 
and you're going there.

AM: There's absolutely no there's

absolutely no evidence for a hell

or a heaven or a purgatory.

There's no evidence for that at all.

IL: You'll find out!

AM: How could you believe in something now

without even knowing that it's true?

AM: You point to the Bible again.

There's no evidence 
that the Bible is true.

IL: You don't believe it, dude.

AM: Of course I don't. 
I'm not convinced that it is true.

IL: Well, that's all right.

I'm not condemning you 
because you don't, man!

AM: You're making the claim.

You need to prove to me that it is true.

IL: I don't have 
to prove to you anything.

AM: Yes, you do!

You can't stand out here 
and make claims as if it's a fact!

IL: Right here, man, that's my facts!

AM: And scare these people and young kids.

IL: Hey, listen dude ...

AM: What's wrong with you?

[Laughter]

[Applause]

I was kind of hoping that would 
NOT draw an applause line�

[Laughter]

You know, at the time it 
felt good to humiliate him.

It really did.

He was saying this nonsense 
and just yelling things and ...

I wasn't aware that there is

a potentially better way 
to interact with believers.

So, I was arguing with him.

I was just doing what just seemed natural

to point him to evidence,

to challenge what he was saying.

And I didn't realize it at the time

that it probably 
didn't make me as an atheist

look very good standing out there.

As I watch this even I noticed 
that he explains

why he believes that it was true.

He had a difficulty way back

when he gave an exact date.

There was some momentous occasion

and he didn't want 
to go back to that time.

He didn't want to go back

to that time of where he was hurting.

So, there's the motivation behind his belief.

But I couldn't even see it

because I was so interested in arguing

with him and tearing him down.

However, that approach 
I think does have its place.

If you look there's people 
in the background watching.

There's a young couple there.

Behind the sign there's a little kid.

And you never know what that

takeaway may have been.

They may have been 
shocked to hear somebody

standing up to a believer making a claim.

They may have gone home 
to figure out is the Bible true.

You never know how that may

have landed with people observing.

But let's think about Phil.

Do you think that his mind 
was changed that day?

It's probably unlikely.

More than likely he went home, 
read his Bible, said a prayer

and was emboldened by that conversation.

He's probably thinking that it's 
more true now than ever before

because his belief stood up

to the scrutiny of somebody yelling at him.

And just a little side note:

I follow the street preacher 
community a little bit.

They love it when people argue with them.

They love getting crowds.

One of the worst things I think you could do

is argue with a street preacher

and draw a crowd because 
they see that as a success.

So, please try to avoid 
doing that if you can.

Now, I wasn't that aggressive 
with my family members.

Okay, there was a brother-in-law.

Maybe I was a little bit like that.

[Laughter]

But I'd laugh at them

and I'd spend hours digging up facts

to show that they were mistaken

and I jeopardized those relationships

and I'm still trying to rebuild them.

Even though my style has 
changed completely from that,

I'm still trying to repair 
those relationships

and that's what kind

of one of the reasons 
why I'm so eager

to be talking to you today

because I suspect that 
many people have damaged

relationships with their loved ones

and friends and co-workers and so forth.

And I'm really excited to be able

to tell you about this approach.

So, let's talk a little bit

about Street Epistemology here.

Okay.

I think Street Epistemology might be

the best approach for having 
one-on-one conversations

with people about their deeply held belief.

I understand that that's a bold claim,

but I've been doing this for five years

and I've had profound 
one-on-one conversations,

sometimes two-on-one.

I'll talked to a Mormon couple.

And we've talked for 30 minutes 
and it was one of the best conversations

that I think I've ever had.

So, before I could explain why I think

Street Epistemology is going to be

fundamental to the success of atheism

--that it's a turning point

--I need to explain to you 
what Street Epistemology is.

So, the "street" part of it simply means:

"laymen engagements."

You're having a conversation 
with somebody.

You're not necessarily 
an expert in the Quran

or the Bible or what the claim is,

but you can engage with them.

It's actually one of the strengths 
of this method, I think,

is that you don't really have

to be well-versed in the doctrine

to have these dialogues.

In fact, I think the less 
you know about the claim

the better questions you'll form

when you have these conversations.

So, the "epistemology" part 
is the study of knowledge.

It's how a person determined 
that their belief is true.

When you hear the word "epistemology",

my recommendation would be:

Just think of the word "method".

Think of technique, think of approach.

Something like that.

I like to think of SE 
as a tool that we can use

to challenge people respectfully.

And this isn't my creation.

I didn't come up with this.

This came from a book called

'A Manual for Creating Atheists' 
by Dr. Peter Boghossian.

And it's based on the Socratic Method.

I read the book,

I started looking for examples online

and there were no examples at all.

And I would go out.

I was going out to try to
do Street Epistemology.

There was one good "why" question in there.

When I was yelling at that preacher:

"Why do you think that it's true?"

But there was no rapport building,

the tone was horrible,

and I certainly wasn't trying 
to understand his methodology.

So, I've been going out

and trying to sort of perfect that

or hone this method 
the last five years.

Here's the definition of it.

Couple points of here.

Street Epistemology 
is a conversational tool.

It's not a debate.

It's a polite discussion and it is a tool.

It's something that you can use

if the situation is appropriate 
depending on your goals.

And the conversations tend

to help people reflect or think

about their belief long 
after the conversation ends.

When I have a dialogue with somebody

if they think about it then and there

but never think about it again,

then that's really 
not much of a success to me.

I want these conversations

to resonate with folks.

And then we challenge 
the method that they used.

Did they use a reliable method

to come to that conclusion?

All right.

So, one of the things I think

I need to kind of get 
out of the way really quick

are some misconceptions of this,

because the word "street" is in there

and a lot of the examples are people

going out with video cameras

and uploading their conversations

and they're like; "Oh, you're just like

proselytizing for atheism there.

�This is like Ray Comfort or something."

There are no bananas 
in Street Epistemology.

[Laughing]

[Applause]

Street Epistemology honestly 
is about helping people.

It's helping people slow down

and think about the belief 
that they formed.

And did they use a reliable method.

And it's not just about God claims.

It could be about anything.

Some of my best conversations have been

with atheists who are dogmatically 
sure there are no Gods.

SE is really good about encouraging

people to be less dogmatic

about the beliefs that they formed.

And we try to uncover truth.

Now these conversations 
can be initiated or organic.

My preference is 
to have an organic chat

like when I get in an Uber,

I almost always have a chat

with the driver about something.

They make a claim and it's game on.

I can start asking questions 
and we usually end it on good terms

and they usually give me a 5 star rating.

So, I think that's okay.

And I do the same for them.

So, I can understand how people 
might make the connection

that this is like atheist 
evangelizing or something

and I'm here giving a talk on Street 
Epistemology to American Atheists.

So, I could understand how 
you can make that connection.

But this is a tool that can be used 
for all different types of claims.

It doesn't just have to be 
about challenging people about God.

And this is so much about placing 
a pebble in a person's shoe,

helping the person reflect 
on their belief formation process,

so later, when the conversation�s over,

they can ask themselves: 
"Do I need to maintain this belief?"

"Do I need to lower 
my confidence in this belief?"

"Should I discard this belief outright?"

So, I wanted to put Street 
Epistemology in graphical form.

Now, I have had a thousand 
conversations at least.

I started looking at transcripts

and I started noticing a little pattern:

That we spend a little bit of time talking

about what they believe,

a little bit more time talking 
about why they believe it,

but we spend a lot more time talking

about how they determined that 
that belief is true.

And that I think is what makes 
these conversations unique,

and Socratic, and Street Epistemology,

is that we're interested in their methodology.

Here's a different way of looking at it.

Same pyramid, but different words.

So, we're interested in what they believe.

We want to understand their reasons,

their main reason,

but it's the methodology 
that they used.

So, when you think of Street 
Epistemology, think "method."

We're very, very interested in the method.

Because if the method is faulty,

all the other things above it collapse.

Okay.

Now, that doesn't mean that 
what they're believing is not true.

If they've based it on it
[on an unreliable foundation].

I could base something on faith.

I can realize it's a faulty methodology

and what I'm believing 
could actually still be true.

I get that, but ones confidence should 
probably be adjusted accordingly

if they learned that 
their method was unreliable.

Okay.

A couple of video examples here.

I want to talk to that actually.

So, I was also thinking 
about these little [pyramid] sections here.

When we talk 
about what a person believes,

that's usually what the preacher 
tells you in Church.

�This is what the Bible says,"

�This is what we believe."

When you get to the apologists,

the people that defend the faith.

There was a guy [during the Q&A of the previous speaker]
who said he was an apologist..

These are folks that defend the faith.

They come up with reasons 
to justify the belief.

Okay.

So, there's this reason level,

but very few people 
are looking at their foundation.

And that's why these questions 
I think are powerful.

Because we're not concerned 
with what you believe.

We're not really concerned with why, 
but how did you determine that it's true.

And the apologists 
are taken aback by this.

I'll get into this a little bit later.

They're a little worried about this.

Okay!

When I first started doing this 
there were no video examples.

Today there are hundreds and some 
of my favorites are not even mine.

It's really neat to see other people

going out, people in France and England.

Finland, for example.

They are going out and having talks 
all across the United States.

And this is probably an understatement,

but Street Epistemology 
did not come naturally to me.

I was arguing with
street preacher Phil there

for a good year and a half, I was.

But I was getting out of it.

It was evolving, but uploading these 
videos, as horrible as they were,

I was getting feedback from folks saying;

"Hey, is that really Street Epistemology?"

And, "Shouldn't you be asking questions 
rather than telling them what to think."

So, it was changing 
the way that I was behaving,

it was changing my interactions, 
and I think, for the better.

So, I realized that it's kind of difficult 
to explain what Street Epistemology is.

I want to show you a couple of examples.

I have four little video clips, 
and they're super short.

This next one this is a good one.

A couple of things here.

I'm going to make sure 
not to laugh into the mic.

So, a couple things here.

Set aside your view on pornography 
whether you think it's harmful or not.

That's not the point of this little clip.

The point is to demonstrate 
the mechanics of Street Epistemology.

This also shows that you don't have

to use Street Epistemology 
for just God claims.

It's excellent for it,

but in this case the topic 
of pornography comes up here.

And the other takeaway, I think,

is try to set aside your biases.

When I'm having a dialogue with a person,

my stance on pornography 
is not important at this point.

I want to understand why HE thinks 
that it's harmful for example.

So, that's what 
this conversation is about.

And pay close attention to the real reason

why he holds his view on pornography.

IL: The scientific evidence is

just like any kind of drug, you know,

like, the first time you watch it.

AM: Do you value scientific evidence?

IL: Yeah, yeah, definitely.

AM: Denzel, if we can provide you,

if I can provide you or 
somebody that follows us closely..

If I discovered some scientific evidence 
that showed that everything

that you've just 
described very eloquently,

that it doesn't work in that way.

They've interviewed 10,000 porn stars

and a hundred thousand men and women.

And the overall result 
suggests that it's a positive.

All right.

People feel better about themselves. 
They�re living longer,

marriages are actually prospering,

crime is going down, like across the board.

And I don't even know 
if that can even be measured,

but if it could, 
if there was a reliable study that

showed something completely different 
than what you're outlining just now,

would you change your mind on it?

IL: No, I wouldn't.

Because at the end of the day

I do value like, you know, 
scientific evidence, historical evidence

and that kind of stuff.

But at the heart of it I'm a Christian.

So, I live by a finite set of principles.

Okay.

That was Denzel.

So, we could have 
spent a lot of time wasted

just discussing pornography,

because he admits there 
that it's not based on evidence.

Even if he was shown evidence

that it was not harmful, 
he'd still hold the belief.

And that's what I love about 
this method is that it's efficient.

You don't have to spend any time 
arguing about things that don't matter.

If somebody raises contradictions 
in the Bible as their reason, but they�d

still believe if every contradiction 
was adequately explained,

don't discuss contradictions with them.

Move on to the real reasons.

Get to the core.

Get to the lowest level.

And that�s what I think is so great 
about Street Epistemology.

If I were to meet with him again,

I wouldn't discuss porn at all.

I would talk about why 
he thinks his God is real.

And what's really interesting is

that once that God belief goes,

so many other beliefs fall away.

Well, and I'm sure many people 
here used to believe in God..

Once you lose that God belief,

so many other things fall by the wayside.

So, I'd love the efficiency of this approach.

And you may have noticed that

I didn't give him statistics

to show how beneficial pornography 
was or anything like that.

It probably would've been way more

likely [this this talk] would have been

a waste of time with this individual.

In fact, there's this thing 
called the backfire effect.

I don't know if I'm...

Show of hands, who's heard of this before?

Lots of hands, good. 
Okay.

So, this is somewhat controversial.

This is a hypothesis that suggests

that if you provide people with evidence

that shows that they're mistaken,

especially on a belief that's 
very tied to who they are,

they are less likely 
to accept your evidence

and let it change their mind.

Now, the backfire effect part of that

is that some people even 
believe what they believe even more.

There does seem to be some 
new research that suggests that

people sometimes 
might accept your evidence,

but their attitude doesn't 
change about the belief.

So, I think we're still good 
with the SE thing here.

And that's the beauty of this approach.

We're not debating what they believe.

We aren't dismissing their reasons.

You don't need to know anything

about their holy book 
or anything like that.

You don't even have to provide evidence 
to a person when you have these talks.

It kind of takes the pressure off.

"I'm a questioner, help me understand,

teach me why you think that this is true."

When you start looking at 
these conversations that way,

I think it's really like I said,

it does take the pressure off.

It makes these conversations 
so much easier.

And somebody once described this approach

as making people "comfortably uncomfortable."

You may have noticed the difference

between the conversation with Denzel

and the one with Phil.

How drastic a difference.

I was asking him questions.

I was listening to him, 
and that type of thing.

Okay.

One more video clip.

I've got about 15-16 minutes, 
it looks like, left.

This is Gordon. 
This is two and a half minutes long.

He's elderly and I picked this one

because a lot of the early examples

that I uploaded was me interviewing

college-age students on campuses

and people would say
�you're just picking on young,

inexperienced people."

So, I said "I'm gonna go 
talk to some older people."

So, for the last two years I've been

on this hiking trail, talking to people,

and this is Gordon.

So, there's really no age limit

but during this little talk,

which is two minutes long,

the video will stop twice 
when he says something

that I think would be 
raw meat to an atheist.

Where you'd hear it and you're like:

"There's no way he's 
getting away with that."

[Laughing]

So, the video pauses at those moments

and a picture of my face will appear.

I was gonna have a picture
of raw meat show up.

It's just my face like: 
"Mm-hmm� in a thinker�s pose.

When that happens you'll be alerted

to that and there's a really 
big reveal at the end.

So, pay attention.

AM: Why Gordon do you believe 
that a God even exists?

IL: Because I was brought up a Christian.

I've brought up to believe that.

I mean.

AM: How long have you had the belief?

IL: Since I was able to think.

[he laughs]

And it gets stronger as I grew older.

AM: Interesting.

IL: Yeah.

AM: Yesterday I ran into a family that 
had a little four month-old baby

IL: Uh-huh.

AM: and they identified themselves as Christians,

but they could have easily been Hindus or

Muslims or Pagans ...

IL: Doesn't matter.

Well, not Pagans. 
Pagans are non-believers.

[Laughing]

But, it doesn't matter what 
what religion you come from

or what your ethnicity is

as long as you believe in a Supreme Being.

You can call him Allah or God or

Neihu or whatever as long as you believe

in the same being, it doesn't matter.

AM: Let's say that little girl is raised

to believe that there's no God.

IL: Well, I feel sorry for her.

[Laughing]

AM: Would she be just 
as correct in her belief as you

being raised with your belief?

IL: Just as correct?

No, I mean ...

AM: Why not?

IL: Because just we're all 
created for us by God

and we look for eternal life

and that comes through salvation.

And if you don't believe in God 
then you can't have salvation.

AM: Are you saying that if a child

is raised to believe in a God,

they're justified in having the belief

but if a child is raised 
to believe in no gods, they're not?

IL: A young child has no concept

of what's right or wrong at that point.

They believe only what they're told

And so what they are taught

in the first five years of life

will probably be with them 
for the rest of their life.

Which is unfortunate.

[Laughing]

Okay.

So, because I avoided the raw meat

of those two exchanges there

when he said that.

He said pagans are non-believers.

Well, that's not true.

I could have interrupted him

and corrected him 
and we could have gone on

this different tangent, but I didn't.

I just let it go. 
It's not important, really.

And then he said; 
"I'd feel sorry for the little girl

who was raised atheist."

That pisses me off.

I have two kids 
and they're the greatest kids.

But that really has nothing to do with it.

But if I went ... 
If I chased those distractions,

it would have been really 
unfortunate if I had done that

because we wouldn't have had

that wonderful discovery 
at the end, really quickly.

It's easy to be angry 
when you hear stuff like that.

Okay. 
Because let's face it:

We were told lies by the people 
that we love and it hurts.

We have a right to be angry.

We really do and yet most of us 
found our way out.

And I'm hopeful that

we can channel that anger 
into something positive.

Try to let those things slide

for the benefit of the conversation,

for the benefit of the discovery.

Like I did there with our friend Gordon.

Alright. 
I've got one more clip

Gosh, I just have 10 minutes left.

I think I'm going to skip this clip

That kills me to do that.

[Protest from the public]

It's not in my control. 
I'm sorry.

[Laughter]

This clip that's this minute...

I'm trying to decide where to go here.

Alright, let's stop talking about it.

I'm gonna show you one more clip.

I talked about the angry atheist.

This is Joanna, and we're on a trail.

She said she was ninety percent 
confident that God it was real.

She pumps it up to a hundred 
after ten minutes into the talk.

This is about twenty minutes into the talk.

It's a five-minute chat

and I want you to notice

her thinker's pose.
And notice the pacing of this,

notice the calm nature of it,

notice the respect and the attention,

and the intention of 
wanting to fully understand

what she's saying.

AM: If this belief that's in your head

and this hundred percent certainty

that the God exists

is based on a foundation of you being 
raised and taught something,

how can you be certain 
that it's actually true?

IL: That's kind of like we 
we�re talking about earlier.

It's very faith-based.

AM: We're gonna to definitely have 
to unpack this faith based thing.

IL: It's pretty broad.

Um ...

AM: On what is a faith based...

IL: "Faith based" is that you can't see Him.

You can't always hear Him.

You just have to believe that

He'll pull through for your favor.

And even if it isn't in your favor,

that can work into your favor somehow.

'Cause a lot of negative 
things happen in life,

but really depends 
on which route you take.

But...

Gosh...

How...

That's the only way to put it too.

I just think it's something 
that's inside of you as well.

Which could go along other religions, too.

'Cause, like, being out in nature

gives you a lot of peace.

When I pray I have a lot of peace.

I feel like I have more direction.

I pause and reflect more.

You know.

You can never be...

Ahh...

kind of like you're thinking 
about that 90%, but...

I don't know how else to put it!

That's hard.

I haven't actually talked that out 
with somebody before fully.

I don't really have words.

AM: That's fine.

Now can I ask you one more question
and then we'll wrap it up?

IL: Yeah.

AM: I suppose my question is:

if you couldn't use faith 
to conclude that your God exists,

to know with 100% level of confidence...

If a faith-based foundation 
wasn't an option for you,

IL: Mmm-hmm.

where do you think you would be in terms 
of your confidence that God existed.

IL: It wouldn't be very high.

Because like I said before, there's not really ...

He's not literally standing 
in front of us, right now?

IF that makes sense. I mean ...

AM: So, you can't see Him, 
you can't hear ...

IL: A lot of people kind of need 
concrete things in front of them

in order to kind of have that 100% ... faith.

Not faith-based, sorry.

100% trust in something.

Especially something that you 
base your whole life off of.

I feel like if you don't have ...

Faith is one of those things where you 
don't always feel like you're in control.

And I feel like as humans 
we always like to have control.

It's another thing where I kind of stray

everyone kind of strays off of their path,

but I always find my way back.

AM: Okay.

May I ask you one more question.

And I promise this will be 
the last one unless you say:

"Please, keep asking me questions."
But this is my last.

In these conversations

that I've had with lots of people

regardless of what God they believe in

and regardless of how they were raised.

They will often say that 
"I believe it because of faith."

I can't see the God. 
I can't hear the God.

But I believe it and they are believing

in completely different 
deities, wildly different.

IL: Yeah.

So, my last question to you is:

[Sounds]

Is faith a reliable way to come 
to know something to be true,

if anyone can use it for anything?

IL: That's a good question.

Oh. Wow!

You got me there.

It doesn't change what I believe.

But ...

You actually have a good point.

A lot of religions are a lot of faith ...

Um, is faith-based.

AM: I beg your pardon.

Is there another way you can ask that?

IL: Or is it a question or is it kind 
of like an open-ended ...

AM: We can certainly end it on that point 
and if you want to...

you seem like a thinker and 
if you want to think about it

And we can ...

And if I never hear from you again

that's fine but if you want to ping me,

I can give you my email address.

IL: Yeah.

AM: I can rephrase it, 
to leave it with you one more time.

You can think about it 
I'll give you the card.

So, I suppose the final question

that you can either answer now

or just think about it would be:

If anyone can use faith 
to conclude that anything is true,

why on earth would they 
want to use that method?

IL: Mmm-hmm.

That's a good one.

I'm going to ponder.

I'm definitely a thinker.

I have five minutes here.

So, just really quick.

Did you notice the pacing of it?

Did you notice that it was calm? 
I was asking questions.

I wasn't telling her a damn thing.

I was just giving her 
some of my observations.

I was telling a story like 
the previous speaker had mentioned.

The importance of storytelling.

Now this approach is freaking 
out professional believers.

They're worried about it 
because I think they would

rather see us argue like I did there 
with street preacher Phil.

It's a lot easier to demonize an atheist

when I'm behaving like that as opposed to

when I'm having a cordial conversation

with somebody like Joanna there.

Okay. I've got one more video 
and we got like three minutes left.

So, let�s wrap this up.

This one is one and a half minutes long

and I'm showing you this video

because this one is so cool.

It's this couple, we start talking 
how this fellow is getting pressure from one...

He's a Christian. 
He's hundred percent sure yet he's getting

pressure from one of his friends

who's a Jehovah's Witness.

And we had this wonderful conversation.

His wife came up and listened mostly.

And he's extolling the virtues 
of the conversation that he just had

where I was using this approach.

IL: But you got me thinking though, Anthony!

I might have to email you.

James ...

AM: Nothing will make me happier.

[continues giving his email]

IL: Don't put it in the junk folder!

AM: I'll be watching for it.

AM: Yeah, hit me up.

I'd really like to find out if there's

a better way to conclude
that this God exists

other than the reasons 
that you gave me.

Do you find that the reasons

that you've explained to me,

very great, very well...

IL: That's a good question for my friend...

That's a good question for him.

AM: Why?

IL: 'Cause he's so strong in his beliefs!

AM: Mmmm.

IL: You know?

My buddy, Gilbert.

He's so strong in his beliefs,

I'm going to ask him:

"Hey, is there..."

"How sure are you?"

"How?"

And I'm going to see what his...

I think his answers are going to be 
similar to what I just gave you.

But I'm going to ask him.

AM: You know what I think would be really cool

is if you were to learn 
about Street Epistemology,

watch a couple of my videos

and then engage with your friend.

IL: You got videos on that website?

AM: Yeah.

If you email me 
I'll send you the link to my channel

IL: Okay.

AM: And you can check them out.

IL: All right.

AM: Thank you so much, 
really, really enjoyed it.

Lovely talk, thank you. Bye.

Got me thinking now!

Good thing I don't have to work today!

[Laughter]

[Applause]

James!

If you'd like to learn how to do that,

we get into a lot more detail.

We had a workshop yesterday.

The organizers here were kind enough

to schedule another one for
tomorrow at noon in another room.

In that room over there.

You'll find it.

So it's at Noon tomorrow.

We are tabling as well. 
And just to wrap this up...

I've got two minutes.

Let me just wrap it up.

I do think that's this method is changing 
the way atheists interact with believers.

And it's harder for believers to say:

"Don't talk to that person because 
she's asking hard questions."

If you have the truth it should stand up 
to the scrutiny of some simple questions.

And did you notice in that video 
how James was picking up that

I was asked him "how" questions?

"How did he figure out that that's true?"

So, he was getting it there at the end.

And I really do think that

when the history books are written 
on the success of atheism in America

that there will be chapters 
on Street Epistemology.

So, my question to you is:

"Are you willing and able 
to help us make that happen?"

Thank you very much.

[Applause]