I’ve found this rather amusing post from a self-decribed “philosopher” and evident theist, most likely christian about how one should approach us atheists.
this is my reply for the wannabe predator:
“I argue that evidence of God is emic and subjective and first requires a leap of faith.”
which works out quite well for any cult’s claims. If you have to believe before it becomes believable, then you have no evidence, just opinions that have nothign to support them.
So, do tell why you don’t believe in any god but your own? It seems that per your argument here, all you need to do is just believe e.g. take that leap of faith.
What’s stopping you?
I was a christian and now am an atheist since there is no evidence for this god or any gods. No evidence for the supposed events this god and other gods supposedly caused. No evidence for the miracles that supposedly happen, and surprise, christians can’t even agree if they still happen or not.
” I spoke to several church leaders on a related topic and Christian Lépine, the Archbishop of the Catholic Churches of Montreal, told me that every person eventually receives an invitation to the experience of God in some form or another. Whether this be through a friend, family member, or even someone on the street preaching the love of God. He also pointed to love: God and the Spirit is found within (community) love—love for one another.”
all cults say much the same thing, and surprise, no evidence for their claims at all. And per the christian bible, this god doesn’t offer the invitation to everyone. Both Jesus and Paul claim that this god has already chosen who it will allow to accept it and then damns the rest for no fault of their own.
That’s not love just like the sadistic fantasies of hell aren’t love either. Those are just a pitiful reaction by christians when they realize that no one needs them.
“All things that begin to exist came into existence by something else.
The universe is something that began to exist.
Therefore, the universe came into existence by something else.
He then goes on to argue that this “something” must most likely be eternal and rational (and powerful enough to make this occur).”
the typical lies of a christian who needs to logic his imaginary friend into existence. He must baselessly claim that what started the universe is his god since he has defined his god as what started the universe. Lovely circular arguments.
As for citing C.S. Lewis, you may want to reconsider since Lewis said to lie to possible converts since the fact of the splintering of christians and their “truth” might disuade them. That’s lying, something his god supposedly hates. Nothing like pure hypocrisy.
“Another route is to break open the echo chamber the atheist may be trapped in. This is not an easy task, but the theist must befriend and gain the trust of the atheist in order for the atheist to listen at all.”
nothing like predatory christians. I could rewrite this as “another route is to break open the echo chamber the chritsian may be trapped in. it is not an easy task but the Muslim/Hindu /Wicca/Shintoist/Manson worshiper/Hare Krishna, etc must befriend and gain the trust of the Christian in order for the christian to listen at all.”
Doesn’t sound so great now, does it?
Addendum: The author of the original blog post has responded. You can see his reply on his blog or where I have copied it in the comments below.
Club Schadenfreude 
Hi clubschadenfreude, thank you for your opinions and engagement with my post. I’ve replied to your comment on my post on my blog.
LikeLike
You are welcome. I’ve copied your reply and it is below:
“Hi clubschadenfreude, thank you for your comments on my post.
First I would like to ask how, from a post aimed at understanding and increasing discourse and effective communication between theists (the religious) and atheists (the nonreligious) that you speculate that my character is “predatory.” This seems like a misrepresentation. I’ve never forced anyone to accept religion, and I never will force anyone. Religion and belief is a choice and it is a choice the believer must make. A favorite saying is “you can bring a horse to the water but you can’t make them drink.” On what basis do you claim I am predatory?
Second, on what basis do you refer to established religion as a cult? Although they may have characteristics in common, a religion is not a cult.
Perhaps this speculation comes from a major distrust and skepticism toward religion. And that’s okay. It’s good to be skeptical. However, don’t let hate, emotions, or bad experiences of human activities color your reasoning toward necessary transcendent truths and speculation about the character of others.
Below is a summary of your arguments in my post and my response. However, there is a lot to wade through here.
You claim that faith is based on “no evidence” and are “just opinions that have nothing to support them.” This is actually the definition of “blind faith.” Faith is very prevalent in everyday decisions and is even used in science. Scientists have faith in other, prior scientist’s work and their findings when they pursue their own research. We have faith that the laws of physics hold when we posit hypotheses. Many theists don’t just believe through blind faith, there is the interaction of reason and faith in the decision to believe. There is much evidence that God might exist, however this evidence is not concrete evidence, and requires a faith aspect. In fact, without faith, there is no religion. Just like there’s no science without faith: science must assume, unfoundedly, that there’s an external world that exists and that this external world is exactly as we perceive it. Faith, in some capacity, is necessary in almost every decision and action we take in life.
Second, you claim that there’s no evidence for God. The purpose of this post is to show how and what type of evidence is asked for and useful for the atheist. I provide at least two sources of this evidence: religious experience and a logical deductive argument.
Then you criticize the community of spirit and love that is present in religion. You claim that there’s no evidence of spiritual love through God. I do not want to speculate or make inferences about your conception of life from that statement, but life requires community and love. We need each other and we need love. It is a basic need of humans. Christian Lépine is a suitable authority to quote here, as he has been a Church leader for many years and has studied academic theology for many years, too. I don’t know your academic background but I would tend to defer to authorities.
Next, you criticize the Kalām cosmological argument using a strawman (this means you misrepresent the argument), claiming that the argument claims God’s existence. It in fact does not claim God’s existence, it claims a universal Creator, which we typically know as “God.” The Kalām cosmological argument is a deductively sound argument, at least that’s what Carlo Alvaro claims, but I agree with that claim. This means that it’s an argument that must have a true conclusion. The only way that this argument can fail is if a premise is false. If you think any of the premises are false, I’m open to hearing which premise you think is false and why. There are many similar arguments that show, logically, that there must be an eternal entity which is the first mover or first cause or we run into a logical contradiction (see Aristotle Metaphysics XII, 1072a). Aristotle was not a Christian or theist, but still gave an argument for a single Creator.
You statement “Lewis said to lie to possible converts since the fact of the splintering of christians and their “truth” might disuade them”: I’m not quite sure what your claim is here. Something C.S Lewis said elsewhere does not affect the truthiness or falsity of any of his other claims. To claim it does is a fallacy called “poisoning the well.”
You claim that converting the atheist by trying to break down an epistemically faulty situation, an echo chamber they may be trapped in, is “predatory.” Then you give the tu quoque fallacy (“well, what about you”). I will admit that just as atheists may be trapped in echo chambers, so could Christians. However, I do not claim all atheists are trapped in an echo chamber, only that it is a possible reason why atheists reject evidence. Not all Christians are in echo chambers either.
To expand on that, having one religion “convert” another religion is different from converting one who doesn’t believe. All religions are just different interpretations of the same Creator. The analogy of your argument would be to convert one person to change their brand of beer against converting someone who doesn’t drink at all. Or converting someone to change the cuts of meat they eat vs converting a vegan. The former is much different than the latter.
I believe in religious pluralism where all religions are important to understand the mystery and transcendence of the Creator. Christianity is not the best and only religion. Religions need each other. We need each other to tell each other that our view is only one view into this mystery. There is more than one window required to view the whole landscape. I am but one voice, one window into the vastness of the Creator.
Further, you appear to be rejecting the use of faith and reason in theist thought, but try to rationalize your own ideas using faith and reason, leading to a double standard. Using logic to defeat logic while dismissing the interlocutor’s logic as an appeal to something beyond its scope is faulty logic itself.
Finally, I’m disheartened that to hear that you were once a religious person. Often, theists convert to atheists when they have a bad experience in a church, lose hope and faith, or fail to see their prayers come to fruition. But remember not to confuse man-made religion who interpret supernatural truths with the supernatural truths themselves.
I thank you for your discursive thoughts and engagement with my post. However, be careful of baseless, sweeping conclusions and accusations coming from negative emotions.”
LikeLike
and my response:
I find it not to be a misrepresentation that you feel you must “befriend” us and that your intent is “ This post will discuss this very argument, what it is, what the atheist is actually asking, and how atheists can gain proper evidence for the existence of God.”
You want to convert us, that’s all you want to do. “Atheists often ask for but reject evidence for God’s existence. However difficult as it may seem, this is not a lost cause. “ We aren’t “trapped” anywhere. “Another route is to break open the echo chamber the atheist may be trapped in. This is not an easy task, but the theist must befriend and gain the trust of the atheist in order for the atheist to listen at all. “
All cults use this tactic. In its most extreme form, it’s “love bombing”.
All religions are cults. And we can look at what your cult leader, aka jesus says: leave your family for the cult, give up all you have for the cult, mutilate your genitals for the cult.
I distrust religion since it has no evidence for the claims it makes. Unsurprisingly, you seem to be using a common Christian excuse by falsely claiming that it is some emotion that I feel that prevents me from believing in your claims. The “my cult is true even if you were hurt by members” doesn’t fly very well.
You have no transcendent truths, and all religions aka cults claim to.
Yep, Christians have blind faith, and that is lauded in the bible. Scientists have trust in other’s work thanks to evidence, so no faith there either. Faith is not used in science.
We have trust in the laws of physics since evidence shows that they work.
Theists of all types claim they use “reason” but that has yet to be demonstrated. They often try to point to the supposed logical argument for their various gods, but those arguments never get to a god at all.
You claim “much evidence” but show nothing. Per the bible, there should be plenty of concrete evidence, and there is none. It is convenient to claim evidence that is not concrete; that’s just a baseless opinion.
ROFL. I do love the appeal to solipisism here. Unfotunately, reality exists and your attempt to claim we can’t be sure so my god must exists fails as usual. I’m sure you wouldn’t put your hand in molten steel with your disbelief that it isn’t real.
Yep, your post was all about how to convince an atheist and I demonstrated how that oesn’t work very well. With your claims of “religious experience”, that can be used by any cult. Now, why aren’t you believing in Allah? The wicca goddess? Ahura Mazda? All of those have religious experiences claimed by their followers too.
I see no deductive reasoning that gets to your god. Where do you think it is in your post?
“Spirit and love”? No, I criticize the lies, ignorance and fear in religion. There is no evidence of any god, nor love from that god, and surprise, you have nothing to show to support your claim. Life does need community and love and it doesn’t come from your imaginary friend. Church “leaders” are nothing special. I defer to no authority of someone who believes in magic and things some imaginary being agrees with him and only him.
Yep, I do criticize the failed cosmological argument. I’ve already said that the argument never gets to this god. It claims *something* caused the universe to exist, not that it was a creator of any type, including your god. And no “we” don’t typically know that your god is the creator at all. It is an argument that starts with a presupposition, that something is needed to create, and as such, since that presupposition cannot be shown to be true, it fails.
And it can indeed fail sine there is nothing showing that the universe isn’t eternal and we simply see different iterations of it. There are indeed many claims that a eternal entity is need, with the usual claims of how it is “necessary”, but not one theist can show that their god is necessary at all. A simple force can be the first cause. Aristotle fails too, and the claims that he is always right is amusing from a Christian.
I am not saying that what Lewis said affects his other claims. I am saying that using him as an unimpeachable source can have its problems since he has no problem with lying to dispense with issues in Christianity. “And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son” preface, Mere Christianity
Unfortunately, you have yet to show that there is anything at all “epistemically faulty” with the idea of atheism, the conclusion that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist. You invent this lie of an ‘echo chamber’ to try to claim that atheists wont’ listen to anyone else. That is false. We listen to the claims of theists and then hold them to account when they claim those thing true.
It’s nothing new to have such common lies about atheists made by theists. The “possible reason” fails. As for “poisoning the well”, you do a good job with these baseless claims.
No evidence for your nonsense that all religious are just different interpretations of the same nonsense. That’s a typical Christian bit of garbage in their need to pretend everyone ‘really” agrees with them. It fails since all of these gods want contradictory things. By the logic you claim to care about, they can’t be the same creator. The conversion is a complete change in ideology. And gee, your god is all about hating other gods.
I know you have made up your religion as you want it. That doesn’t make it any more true than allof the other theists who have done the same thing. It’s hilarious when religions do tell each other entirely contradictory things about the same thing: reality, and not one of them can show their lies to be true.
I reject the lie of gods, dear. And do show where I’ve used “faith” at all in my thought. Nice lie though.
I’m sure you are disheartened that I don’t’ agree with your nonsense. Again, you trot out the lie of “bad experience”, and fail with that too in your need to ignore the reason I use. Nothing new, just tedious garbage. You are just one more human who makes up a religion and claims to know supernatural truths, which you can’t show are true at all.
LikeLike
ScirePhilosophia, this line jumped out at me: “Scientists have faith in other, prior scientist’s work and their findings when they pursue their own research. We have faith that the laws of physics hold when we posit hypotheses.”
Other scientists’ work can be tested and potentially falsified if an experiment cannot be replicated. There really isn’t anything similarly testable in religion, so the word “faith” is being used in two different senses. In other words, this is an equivocation fallacy.
LikeLike
yep. For supposedly fancying himself such a philosopher, he makes some elementary errors.
LikeLike
and more comments from scire
“Thank you again for your opinions. I am sorry you feel that way about religion and those who support religious ideas.
Outside of mostly rhetorical effects and pathos, there are two decent salvageable counterargument in your previous comment that I can work with that relate to the cosmological argument. But before that, to simply state something isn’t the case, then deferring your evidence to others to make the argument for you, isn’t an argument. This is a common theme throughout your comment.
For the Kalām cosmological argument, again, you seem to be misinterpreting the argument even after I clarified it to you. The argument claims that the universe came into existence by “something else.” You’re correct this may or may not be the theist God, and I already address this in my post. It points directly to Deism. This is because this “something else” must be powerful and intelligent. Thus, an eternal intelligent entity must have created the universe.
Your claim “there is nothing showing that the universe isn’t eternal” is missing the major supporting premise with Alvaro’s argument, that I also address in my post. The fact that the universe is finite is supported by the best-supported cosmological theory of our time–The Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory–a scientific theory–posits the universe is finite and originated form a singularity. Carlo Alvaro discusses this in the article I reference in my post where this argument originates. Reading it may help your understanding of the argument. I will agree with you that the Abrahamic or theist God is not philosophically necessary. However, I also engage with this in my post and claim that an argument for the Theist God is not a sound argument.
A few questions:
1. How does Aristotle’s first mover argument fail? Simply claiming it fails is not persuasive.
2. I present with ample evidence for God’s existence but you claim I do not give any evidence at all. Thus, this leads me to believe that what I consider evidence is not what you consider evidence. Let me ask you: What sort of evidence do you think would be sufficient in persuading you that God or a Divine Creator exists?
A few comments:
1. An echo chamber is not something invented by me. It is a real formal concept used in the formal philsophy of knowledge (epistemology). Anyone can be in an echo chamber for a number of reasons. What I claim is that it can occur in the specific discussion between theists and atheists and may be a cause of the miscommunication between them. Again, I do not claim ALL atheists are in an echo chamber.
2. I recommend you look up the definition of “poisoning the well” because you are misusing it here.”
and my response:
It’s notable that you pick and choose what you want to reply to, and make false claims about the rest.
Unfortunately, you show not a single instance where I’ve supposedly done what you claim: “But before that, to simply state something isn’t the case, then deferring your evidence to others to make the argument for you, isn’t an argument. This is a common theme throughout your comment.”
I have not misinterpreted the cosmological argument. It certainly does claim that the universe was caused by some external thing, be it a force or entity, like theists claim. No evidence of any deities at all, and no evidence of them being creators. Again, no need for “intelligence” at all, what we see would argue against intelligence unless you want to postulate a malicious god, and I am still waiting for you to show why intelligence is needed. Why can’t it be simple a force like the laws of physics?
What we see as this reality may be finite. The universe? Not so much. The BBT actually is under question if it did come from a singularity, and it will go on forever with no end, just cooling slowly until everything stops. Now, some hypotheses postulate a bounce after this when it starts again from quantum effects. You may want to keep up with current research.
I didn’t simply claim it fails, I have already pointed out why a first cause argument fails when using an intelligent mover. And again, why believe Aristotle? He was intelligent but not correct about everything. This appears to be a common appeal to authority from a theist.
you do not present “ample evidence”. You give baseless claims. Again, you give the supposed logical arguments for your god which, as I have shown, fail.
What evidence would I accept? This entity creating something, right here and now. You reference “God” and seem to be a Christian. Am I correct? If this is the case, then it surely can show itself to me since it supposedly has appeared to many in the stories about this “God”. I was a Christian, prayed not to lose my faith and this god did nothing at all, just as if it were imaginary. I’m not fussy, a lovely burning bush would suffice. I would believe it exists. The question if I would worship it is another question, and if this “God’ is the bible one, nope, I have no need to worship such a disgusting entity.
I know what an echo chamber is. And you have yet to show that an atheist is in one, and that they need to be brought out of it. You claim “miscommunication” but all you seem to be complaining about is that we simply don’t accept your claims. I don’t care if you literally say “all” or not. Theists do mean all when they try this nonsense. Despite their claims, they can never present any atheist they do not include. You may give examples if there are atheists that you don’t include.
and I did use “poisoning the well” correctly. This is a definition for it: “Poisoning the Well
(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics, appeal to ethos [form of])
Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem (abusive) attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.
Logical Form:
Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented.
Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.
Example #1:
Tim: Boss, you heard my side of the story why I think Bill should be fired and not me. Now, I am sure Bill is going to come to you with some pathetic attempt to weasel out of this lie that he has created.
“
and considering how you make such false claims about atheists, you are doing this. Here are a couple of examples that I consider your “poison”:
“However, atheists often demand evidence before they can take this leap of faith or are trapped in their own echo chambers. One must have faith and the intellectual courage to submit in order to reach this evidence. Only in this subjective experience of God is sufficient evidence found.”
Right here you claim that we aren’t honest or courageous if we don’t accept your claims.
““This is some kind of illusion!” exclaims the atheist.”
This is a claim about what we supposedly all would say. It is not true. Making up a strawhorse to pretend that we are unreasonable is again poisoning the well with an assumption to influence what the reader things of atheists.
“The problem with logical argument is that atheists ask for a logical argument for God’s existence and then reject the argument.”
No, we reject what you claim is a “logical argument” and as I have done, give reasons why. You try to poison the well, by insisting we do something we do not do.
“Echo chambers are considered an epistemic failure to be open-minded and are very hard to escape from.”
This is a typical bit of poison when the theist tries to claim that the atheist isn’t open minded if we won’t immediately accept their claims.
and here are more instances of your faulty claims:
“Many atheists believe the Bible to be work of mythology, despite it being scrutinized by thousands and thousands of scholars and believers over two thousand years.”
So what if lies are scrutinized? That doesn’t make them true.
“We can ask here what type of evidence is the atheist asking for? Here, witness evidence is not sufficient. By just saying “because I experienced God,” the atheist may scoff and call you delusional. If you point to the Bible, the atheist will reply with the problem of translation, interpretation, or the book as a tool used to control the masses. “
Now, do you feel the same about other religions? Do you use the same reasons not to believe what another theist claims?
“Here the analogy is that to understand the experience of the light beam, or God, one needs to be within the experience of God. The scientist, or we may claim here also the atheist, looks at the light beam. They need to have some faith and step into the light beam in order to have the evidence they need. However, they do not want to step in the light beam unless you first prove to them the experience of the outside exists. A dizzying circular justification.”
so I need to believe before I can see what you claim exists but have no evidence for. That is a typical cult tactic. There is no light beam you can show exists, why should I blindly trust you and again, there should be plenty of existential evidence for this “God” of yours. Curious how there is none. Any cult can make your claims, and an atheist’s points aren’t circular at all. No light beam, no reason to assume it is there. And personal belief and experience is not another form of evidence, it is a claim that needs something to support it, just like any claim of alien visitation, etc.
“This purpose of Jackson’s argument is that if experiencing color teaches Mary something new, then mental states, like color perception, can’t be completely described by physical facts. “
Actually it can be since color perception is a function of the brain and the intellect that perceives it is from the brain too. No soul, no baseless duality claims.
“ Atheists may demand evidence in order to have faith, but in relation to God, we need faith in order to have this evidence. You see the problem? We first need to submit to God and believe, we need to have faith, and only then do we find the evidence within our own inner subjective experience. For knowing God, we cannot only observe outward, but must first turn inward.”
Cult claims that any religion can and does use.
“Ask them about any time they’ve had a transcendental experience. This could be with music: let them discuss their favorite song and why they think the song is so qualitatively beautiful. Then, tell them that you cannot understand why they like the song. Tell them to provide evidence of the song’s beauty. Then tell them that this is the exact type of argument atheists use on theists.”
Beauty can be subjective, funny how you have no objective evidence for your god, and try to claim they are the same. Again, you try the common nonsense that “emotions” are supposedly intangible so your god must exist. Unfortunately for your claim, the perceptions of beauty, love, etc require matter, aka the brain.
LikeLike