The Ignorance of Atheistic Denial of God

[Stonepillar]

I don't understand the question.
...pertaining to physical gods?

Physical evidence ^

Im asking you if your speculating from physical evidence theists try and provide.
If not, then what?

 

[Revoltingest]

Physical evidence ^

If I understand correctly, then my answer is.....
I see no physical evidence for the existence of gods.

 

[icehorse]

And what's your grounds? And I don't appreciate the insult. Especially from an openly ignorant atheist who can easily play as a median to truth and lie.

He and I and others told you - his premise(s) are based on straw man arguments. In other words, he's responding to arguments that are seldom spoken and that do not represent the common attitudes of atheists. In other, other words, I'm basically an atheist I don't don't say what he says I say.

 

[Sapiens]

He and I and others told you - his premise(s) are based on straw man arguments. In other words, he's responding to arguments that are seldom spoken and that do not represent the common attitudes of atheists. In other, other words, I'm basically an atheist I don't don't say what he says I say.

What he said I say too, "I don't don't say what he says that I say."

 

[LuisDantas]

Idk why you bother breaking apart every single sentence when I prefer that you look at the message as a whole. Im not a writer. Keep it short and simple, please.

Short and simple then: I'm just not seeing a clear point in what you say.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

(An excerpt from James Cutsinger's The Sound of a Lecture Undelivered)

In responding to the opening question tonight, I began by pointing out that it actually included a trinity of related issues all rolled into one, and unless I’m mistaken that’s true as well of the challenge you’ve posed. Your three questions might be expressed in a more or less rhetorical form—though unlike you I’m far from thinking them rhetorical questions. First, isn’t it obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, something weak or childish people use to cope with a world that’s otherwise too harsh to bear? Second, isn’t it true there’s no evidence for the claims of religion? Third, doesn’t it follow that atheism is a more intelligent position than theism?

Let me assure you I can understand where you’re coming from, and frankly I admire your chutzpah in speaking out as you have, though your question is a bit of a tangent to my main theme tonight. In an academic climate that is in many quarters growing less and less hospitable to religious conviction, it’s inevitable that thoughtful people, including believers themselves, would be asking such questions. Obviously a book might be written in answer to each. About all I can do here tonight is provide just a hint—just the briefest of intimations, really—as to where I might start were I authoring these books. My answers, as you probably expected in any case, are no, no, and no.

First of all, no, it’s not obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, or at least it’s not obvious that it’s necessarily so. I add this qualification because I agree that certain forms or levels of belief can be rather childish, as is the faith of the grownup who still thinks God has a beard, or sits on a throne, or exists for the sole purpose of dispensing chocolate. But there’s also such a thing as childish disbelief. In my experience, many atheists haven’t been given all the chocolate they want and are therefore mad at God for not existing. William James’s distinction between the tough- and tender-minded applies to both theists and atheists. In both groups we find people whose perspective on life is based on what they regard as objective facts and good reasons (those are the tough- minded in James’s terms) as well as other people whose perspective is based on purely subjective desires (those are the tender-minded). In any case, it’s important to realize that the sophistical dismissiveness skeptics often employ in debate, which takes the form of saying, “Oh, you just think that because you’re immature, or uneducated, or depressed, or had a dysfunctional family, or are subject to some sort of chemical imbalance”, is a game two can play. Perhaps the atheist is just afraid of commitment or responsibility or being thought a fool by his friends. According to Freud, religion is really just repressed sexuality, but there’s nothing to stop us from countering that sexuality is really just repressed religion.

No again, it isn’t true that there’s no evidence for the claims of religion. The crucial word here, of course, is “evidence”. I’m pretty sure when you use the term you’re thinking exclusively of empirical evidence, and thus buying into the assumptions I was critiquing earlier in responding to my first two interlocutors. Like many people on today’s college campuses, you’re assuming the only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for—and for which we might apply for some grant money!—things we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, either directly through one or more of these five natural senses or indirectly through the mediation of an instrument, like a microscope, that’s been designed to magnify or amplify the reach of those senses. What I’m not sure you’ve noticed, however, is that the statement “The only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for” is not something there is, or could be, any physical evidence for. The claim of the empiricist or positivist is therefore just as metaphysical as the claims of the world’s religions, which he means to deprecate. For he asserts a truth, or in this case a falsehood, about the way things ultimately are, and he does so in a way presupposing some non-empirical, or supersensible, intuition or insight.

Finally, no, atheism is not the more intelligent position. On the contrary, atheism is self-contradictory. Think about it. The atheist says, “There is no God.” Now anyone who says, “There is no _____,” is giving voice to what a logician would call a universal negative proposition, whatever might be placed in that blank. It’s negative because it says “no” and denies something, and it’s universal because the field it encompasses is unlimited. If I said, “There is no platypus in this chapel,” I would also be uttering a negative statement, but it wouldn’t be universal because the context would be restricted to this building, and we could verify, or disconfirm, the truth of my statement by arming everyone in the room with a flashlight, fanning out throughout the building, and engaging in a systematic platypus-hunting exercise. Notice, however, that when atheists say, “There is no God,” they’re not saying, “There’s no God in this chapel,” or “There’s no God in Greenville,” or “There’s no God in our galaxy.” They’re saying, “There is no God anywhere in the entire universe, no God at all wherever one might look throughout the full extent of reality.” But in doing so they’re implying that they’ve done the looking. They’ve carefully inspected all the nooks and crannies of existence, even as we’d need to inspect all the nooks and crannies of this building to know there’s no platypus in it. If however they’ve truly looked everywhere there is to look—if they can honestly say they’re personally acquainted with the full extent of reality—it follows that they must be omniscient. But omniscience is an attribute of God. Therefore, in saying “There is no God,” atheists are implicitly claiming to be God, and thus inevitably contradicting themselves.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you a couple quick questions before moving on. Just nod or shake your head. In my lecture I referred to a number of key authorities on what might be called the “technology” of the spiritual life, and I’m wondering whether you’d ever heard of them. How about Patanjali? No, I didn’t think so. Nicephorus the Solitary? No, again. Maybe Jalal al-Din Rumi? You’re cautiously nodding on this one, so I guess the name rings a bell, probably because of the popularity of his poetry. But have you actually studied his teachings? No. Well, let me ask you this: have you ever tried to concentrate on only one thought, and have you noticed that it’s almost impossible to do so for more than three or four seconds? Yes, good, so that’s a familiar experience. You’re familiar with the fact that your ordinary, day-to-day consciousness is highly undisciplined—in fact, almost completely out of control.

Here’s my point: each of the three sages I mentioned—the first, Patanjali, was the most renowned of all Hindu teachers of yoga; the second, Nicephorus the Solitary, was a Hesychast master of the Christian East; and the third, Jalal al-Din Rumi, was a great Sufi shaykh—each of them taught his students a method for gaining control of their consciousness, for bringing it into a state of stillness or stability that could in turn serve as a portal (I’m tempted to say “as a launching pad”!) to levels, modalities, or dimensions of consciousness ordinarily hidden or dormant, dimensions through which and in which they might come to experience directly the Ultimate Source of All Things.

You wish to have evidence. You want somebody to “show” you God, you said. Very well, these and other great masters, both past and present, are fully prepared to assist. But they’re going to require what any “serious, scientific person” like yourself already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until you’ve done that, I’m sorry to say it’s just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the world’s religions are not verifiable—an ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until you’ve done that, I’m sorry to say it’s just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the world’s religions are not verifiable—an ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites!

This is an ignorant argument! Such a shame that an obviously intelligent man has decided to abandon reason.

 

[Sapiens]

This is an ignorant argument! Such a shame that an obviously intelligent man has decided to abandon reason.

I have to agree, I've know middle school kids who could shred that argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

(An excerpt from James Cutsinger's The Sound of a Lecture Undelivered)

So your opinion and views are dictated and controlled by James Cutsinger? You have no ideas, thoughts, input, or analysis of the text to provide on your own?

It's easy to just post a huge post with a quote from someone. Responding to it only means that's a response to Cutsinger, not to you. So perhaps it would be more efficient if you just linked to his website and we can all go there and talk to him directly instead of talking to you since you have nothing to contribute... :sarcastic

By the way, to respond to James (not you since you're just quoting someone else), his claim is that the atheists say, "There is no God." But that's not true. They don't say that. Some do, but most atheists say "I don't believe in God" or "I believe there is not God." Few atheists say with a straight face that they know for absolute certainty that there is no God. They're quite confident, sure, but with absolute certainty, no. Most have a reasonable acceptance of being somewhat agnostic in this area.

So James, you don't know atheists. Therefore, since your premise is completely and utterly wrong, also any conclusion or claim you make afterwards are equally wrong. Get it right James before you speak about other people.

 

[Ouroboros]

Idk why you bother breaking apart every single sentence when I prefer that you look at the message as a whole. Im not a writer. Keep it short and simple, please.

I think the short and simple response is:

James is an idiot.

(James is the author of that excerpt in the opening post)

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Physical evidence ^

Im asking you if your speculating from physical evidence theists try and provide.
If not, then what?

Well, now I'm curious as well.
What physical evidence did you have in mind, if I may ask?

 

[philalethes]

Dear Ouroboros,

Greetings of Peace. I find your Avatar and pseudonym quite nice.

So your opinion and views are dictated and controlled by James Cutsinger?

By no means. I just thought that the quote would make for stimulating discussion. At the very least, it has certainly stimulated discussion.

You have no ideas, thoughts, input, or analysis of the text to provide on your own?

I think that the arguments that he provides are very reasonable and substantive. Most of the objections I have seen so far are evasive and dismissive and do not seem to broach the actual arguments put forth. For instance some people have simply replied by saying "Straw Man" as if that settled the matter. Others have attempted to insult me or the author, or objected to the piece in its entirety due to a semantical disagreement. I believe that your recent response falls into this last category.

As for myself, I have contributed to a few of these replies with both a question and a related observation which have not garnered much of a response. You may have overlooked these due to the significant number of posts that have been contributed to this thread. I also do not feel that it is necessary to provide a response to every comment, especially if it is mean spirited.

In Peace,
Desmond

 

[philalethes]

Dear Lewisnotmiller,

Greetings of Peace. You wrote:

2) assumptions of evidence meaning physical evidence. Here I get somewhat confused. I can allow for the fact that evidence can exist outside our ability to discern it. But if said evidence is outside my ability to discern it, then it is meaningless to my decision making processes.

Atheism isnt a claim that science knows all the answers, and doesnt preclude that there could exist things we are unaware of. However it is not defensible to believe in something that is beyond our ability to perceive directly or indirectly.

If we can directly or indirectly percieve something, then it speaks to its nature. It also suggests evidence, even if this evidence is suggestive rather than compelling.

The author was pointing out that the person who believes that only empirical evidence is valid is unwittingly engaging in the assumption of a metaphysical insight concerning the nature of reality, specifically that reality is limited to or encapsulated by the physical domain.

Historically, reality has been viewed as hierarchical with the physical representing only one level or state of being. Similarly as regards knowing, the human being has been viewed as possessing various faculties of knowledge. To empirical knowledge is correlated the faculty of sensation which possesses the quality of immediacy. This is often coupled with reason, the faculty by which we may reflect upon an experience such as a sensation or otherwise a non-sensible observation such as a thought or feeling. The traditional claimants to knowledge of God, the gnostics (as opposed to the agnostics) which include virtually all classical philosophers, theosophers, and mystics of various traditions both eastern and western also posit the faculty of intellection which possesses the immediacy of knowledge characteristic of sensation but applied to supra-sensible or non-physical domains of reality. What the author had in mind in the final paragraph concerning the "technology" of Patanjali, Nicephorus, and Rumi are methods whereby intellection may be cultivated and God may become known with the same sense of immediacy as those things which are seen, touched, or tasted.

As I mentioned in my first post, I wasnt 100% sure what your question was ... if you could list your main question (s) based on that, I'm happy to respond.

My original question was, "What kind of evidence would you [i.e. an atheist] consider sufficient proof for the existence of God?" I later came to believe based upon some of the general responses that I have read, that most atheists are predisposed to a negative conclusion as a matter of faith and are either unwilling or unable to consider other possibilities, much less those requiring non-mental effort. Therefore, in the end, I seem to have answered my own question.

In Peace,
Desmond

 

[Koldo]

My original question was, "What kind of evidence would you [i.e. an atheist] consider sufficient proof for the existence of God?" I later came to believe based upon some of the general responses that I have read, that most atheists are predisposed to a negative conclusion as a matter of faith and are either unwilling or unable to consider other possibilities, much less those requiring non-mental effort. Therefore, in the end, I seem to have answered my own question.

You are outright lying. That was your preconceived notion before you even created this topic.

 

[Looncall]

Dear Lewisnotmiller,

Greetings of Peace. You wrote:



The author was pointing out that the person who believes that only empirical evidence is valid is unwittingly engaging in the assumption of a metaphysical insight concerning the nature of reality, specifically that reality is limited to or encapsulated by the physical domain.

Historically, reality has been viewed as hierarchical with the physical representing only one level or state of being. Similarly as regards knowing, the human being has been viewed as possessing various faculties of knowledge. To empirical knowledge is correlated the faculty of sensation which possesses the quality of immediacy. This is often coupled with reason, the faculty by which we may reflect upon an experience such as a sensation or otherwise a non-sensible observation such as a thought or feeling. The traditional claimants to knowledge of God, the gnostics (as opposed to the agnostics) which include virtually all classical philosophers, theosophers, and mystics of various traditions both eastern and western also posit the faculty of intellection which possesses the immediacy of knowledge characteristic of sensation but applied to supra-sensible or non-physical domains of reality. What the author had in mind in the final paragraph concerning the "technology" of Patanjali, Nicephorus, and Rumi are methods whereby intellection may be cultivated and God may become known with the same sense of immediacy as those things which are seen, touched, or tasted.



My original question was, "What kind of evidence would you [i.e. an atheist] consider sufficient proof for the existence of God?" I later came to believe based upon some of the general responses that I have read, that most atheists are predisposed to a negative conclusion as a matter of faith and are either unwilling or unable to consider other possibilities, much less those requiring non-mental effort. Therefore, in the end, I seem to have answered my own question.

In Peace,
Desmond

You have not addressed the problem of whether the experiences of mystics arise from anything outside of themselves. As they all belong to the human species, it is to be expected that similar practices would stimulate similar experiences. It is for this reason that I dismiss this argument from mysticism.

It is irrational to believe something without good evidence for its truth. It is illegitimate to step from "I don't know" to "I am justified in claiming my fantasies as truth".

The fact that others may share your fantasies does not help your case. The fact that they have been shared over long periods of time does not help either. Nor does anyone's inability to demonstrate that your fantasies are false.

 

[icehorse]

philalethes -

It doesn't make any sense for you to say that we should respect arguments based on straw man claims. I'm still not convinced you grok the idea of a straw man... do you?

Also, in spite of the bad article, you've gotten some responses. I'll reiterate one of them: All I need to change my mind about theism is good, solid, scientific evidence. Any all powerful God ought to be able to provide such evidence.

For example, one day "God" could tell everyone around the world, out loud, in all the location appropriate languages, that for this one day he will suspend gravity up to 10 ft off the ground. So for that one day we could all float around.

That would be awesome! That would make me a believer in a superior being!

 

[Alceste]

(An excerpt from James Cutsinger's The Sound of a Lecture Undelivered)

In responding to the opening question tonight, I began by pointing out that it actually included a trinity of related issues all rolled into one, and unless I’m mistaken that’s true as well of the challenge you’ve posed. Your three questions might be expressed in a more or less rhetorical form—though unlike you I’m far from thinking them rhetorical questions. First, isn’t it obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, something weak or childish people use to cope with a world that’s otherwise too harsh to bear? Second, isn’t it true there’s no evidence for the claims of religion? Third, doesn’t it follow that atheism is a more intelligent position than theism?

Let me assure you I can understand where you’re coming from, and frankly I admire your chutzpah in speaking out as you have, though your question is a bit of a tangent to my main theme tonight. In an academic climate that is in many quarters growing less and less hospitable to religious conviction, it’s inevitable that thoughtful people, including believers themselves, would be asking such questions. Obviously a book might be written in answer to each. About all I can do here tonight is provide just a hint—just the briefest of intimations, really—as to where I might start were I authoring these books. My answers, as you probably expected in any case, are no, no, and no.

First of all, no, it’s not obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, or at least it’s not obvious that it’s necessarily so. I add this qualification because I agree that certain forms or levels of belief can be rather childish, as is the faith of the grownup who still thinks God has a beard, or sits on a throne, or exists for the sole purpose of dispensing chocolate. But there’s also such a thing as childish disbelief. In my experience, many atheists haven’t been given all the chocolate they want and are therefore mad at God for not existing. William James’s distinction between the tough- and tender-minded applies to both theists and atheists. In both groups we find people whose perspective on life is based on what they regard as objective facts and good reasons (those are the tough- minded in James’s terms) as well as other people whose perspective is based on purely subjective desires (those are the tender-minded). In any case, it’s important to realize that the sophistical dismissiveness skeptics often employ in debate, which takes the form of saying, “Oh, you just think that because you’re immature, or uneducated, or depressed, or had a dysfunctional family, or are subject to some sort of chemical imbalance”, is a game two can play. Perhaps the atheist is just afraid of commitment or responsibility or being thought a fool by his friends. According to Freud, religion is really just repressed sexuality, but there’s nothing to stop us from countering that sexuality is really just repressed religion.

No again, it isn’t true that there’s no evidence for the claims of religion. The crucial word here, of course, is “evidence”. I’m pretty sure when you use the term you’re thinking exclusively of empirical evidence, and thus buying into the assumptions I was critiquing earlier in responding to my first two interlocutors. Like many people on today’s college campuses, you’re assuming the only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for—and for which we might apply for some grant money!—things we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, either directly through one or more of these five natural senses or indirectly through the mediation of an instrument, like a microscope, that’s been designed to magnify or amplify the reach of those senses. What I’m not sure you’ve noticed, however, is that the statement “The only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for” is not something there is, or could be, any physical evidence for. The claim of the empiricist or positivist is therefore just as metaphysical as the claims of the world’s religions, which he means to deprecate. For he asserts a truth, or in this case a falsehood, about the way things ultimately are, and he does so in a way presupposing some non-empirical, or supersensible, intuition or insight.

Finally, no, atheism is not the more intelligent position. On the contrary, atheism is self-contradictory. Think about it. The atheist says, “There is no God.” Now anyone who says, “There is no _____,” is giving voice to what a logician would call a universal negative proposition, whatever might be placed in that blank. It’s negative because it says “no” and denies something, and it’s universal because the field it encompasses is unlimited. If I said, “There is no platypus in this chapel,” I would also be uttering a negative statement, but it wouldn’t be universal because the context would be restricted to this building, and we could verify, or disconfirm, the truth of my statement by arming everyone in the room with a flashlight, fanning out throughout the building, and engaging in a systematic platypus-hunting exercise. Notice, however, that when atheists say, “There is no God,” they’re not saying, “There’s no God in this chapel,” or “There’s no God in Greenville,” or “There’s no God in our galaxy.” They’re saying, “There is no God anywhere in the entire universe, no God at all wherever one might look throughout the full extent of reality.” But in doing so they’re implying that they’ve done the looking. They’ve carefully inspected all the nooks and crannies of existence, even as we’d need to inspect all the nooks and crannies of this building to know there’s no platypus in it. If however they’ve truly looked everywhere there is to look—if they can honestly say they’re personally acquainted with the full extent of reality—it follows that they must be omniscient. But omniscience is an attribute of God. Therefore, in saying “There is no God,” atheists are implicitly claiming to be God, and thus inevitably contradicting themselves.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you a couple quick questions before moving on. Just nod or shake your head. In my lecture I referred to a number of key authorities on what might be called the “technology” of the spiritual life, and I’m wondering whether you’d ever heard of them. How about Patanjali? No, I didn’t think so. Nicephorus the Solitary? No, again. Maybe Jalal al-Din Rumi? You’re cautiously nodding on this one, so I guess the name rings a bell, probably because of the popularity of his poetry. But have you actually studied his teachings? No. Well, let me ask you this: have you ever tried to concentrate on only one thought, and have you noticed that it’s almost impossible to do so for more than three or four seconds? Yes, good, so that’s a familiar experience. You’re familiar with the fact that your ordinary, day-to-day consciousness is highly undisciplined—in fact, almost completely out of control.

Here’s my point: each of the three sages I mentioned—the first, Patanjali, was the most renowned of all Hindu teachers of yoga; the second, Nicephorus the Solitary, was a Hesychast master of the Christian East; and the third, Jalal al-Din Rumi, was a great Sufi shaykh—each of them taught his students a method for gaining control of their consciousness, for bringing it into a state of stillness or stability that could in turn serve as a portal (I’m tempted to say “as a launching pad”!) to levels, modalities, or dimensions of consciousness ordinarily hidden or dormant, dimensions through which and in which they might come to experience directly the Ultimate Source of All Things.

You wish to have evidence. You want somebody to “show” you God, you said. Very well, these and other great masters, both past and present, are fully prepared to assist. But they’re going to require what any “serious, scientific person” like yourself already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until you’ve done that, I’m sorry to say it’s just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the world’s religions are not verifiable—an ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until you’ve done that, I’m sorry to say it’s just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the world’s religions are not verifiable—an ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites!

What a rambling mess of sophistry and ad hominem this is. As RFs voluntary editor, allow me to pare this novella down to the essence of the message you are trying to convey:

Atheists are stinky bum bums, nanny nanny boo boo.

There, I think that covers all the points you've raised. Let the debate commence! Here's my offering:

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[columbus]

As for myself, I have contributed to a few of these replies with both a question and a related observation which have not garnered much of a response.

I'm still looking forward to a reply to my post#40.

The standard of evidence I suggested is pretty low.

Tom

 

[Alceste]

Dear Lewisnotmiller,

Greetings of Peace. I was still waiting for an answer to my original question but looking over this thread and others, it would seems that despite requests to the contrary that there is no kind of proof that an atheist would consider satisfying. The proof in this case is an active engagement in activities that he or she would not consider worthwhile because of the predisposition toward a negative conclusion. I am reminded of Frithjof Schuon's apt analogy posted elsewhere that it is like "the alphabet has become bankrupt in a class where the pupils are determined not to learn it."

In Peace,
Desmond

Incorrect. It was zazen meditation that enlightened me to the fact that gods are fictional. I've been into my mind and taken a good hard look at the "evidence" therein.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dear Ouroboros,

Greetings of Peace. I find your Avatar and pseudonym quite nice.

Thank you.

By no means. I just thought that the quote would make for stimulating discussion. At the very least, it has certainly stimulated discussion.

As a recommendation, you should say that to begin with together with your quote. To just throw out a quote without your own input as a "discussion starter" is a bit irritating. It's hard to respond to such posts because the response would be to the original author, and hence the discussion is with him, not the poster. Just a tip so you know.

I think that the arguments that he provides are very reasonable and substantive. Most of the objections I have seen so far are evasive and dismissive and do not seem to broach the actual arguments put forth. For instance some people have simply replied by saying "Straw Man" as if that settled the matter. Others have attempted to insult me or the author, or objected to the piece in its entirety due to a semantical disagreement. I believe that your recent response falls into this last category.

It is a strawman argument. No doubt about it. If you know what strawman arguments are, you'd know why they're not good arguments.

The author shows a very limited knowledge about atheists and also experiences from mediation. He presents some people's experiences with mediation and therefore he draws the conclusion that atheists are wrong. Very limited knowledge, and very limited reasoning. He's excluding so many other possibilities. He's not considering the wide variety of views by atheists and non-believers that it becomes a strawman.

As for myself, I have contributed to a few of these replies with both a question and a related observation which have not garnered much of a response. You may have overlooked these due to the significant number of posts that have been contributed to this thread. I also do not feel that it is necessary to provide a response to every comment, especially if it is mean spirited.

Well, it's all great that you contribute more after the discussion has started, but it's a polite thing to open the first post with making some comments about why you posted it. The fact that you just posted someone else's text without explanation feels a bit rude to people who are on the other end, like me, who wants to discuss it. Who are we debating? You or him? I won't know until later posts. That's unfair.

But that's just water under the bridge since I now know what you were going for.

So let's debate this issue then.

There are Native American tribes who use or used to use certain drugs to have spiritual experiences. They experienced talking animals, spirits of different kinds, and other things. Do these experiences disprove Theism do you think? Or are they just high and have crazy visions? My point is, there are many aspects of experiences by many different people. If someone has an experience of God during mediation, it doesn't prove God, and it doesn't disprove atheism. (And also remember that atheists in general do not say "God does not exist" in this strong assertive way, but most of the say, "I don't think there is a God" or "I don't believe there is a God.")

 

[Alceste]

I never retaliated against religion. I was a non-believer before I ever even heard of religion.


I am an atheist because I'm ignorant of any reason to believe otherwise.
Ignorance works for me.
(Btw, I'm an atheist in the speculative sense because one cannot prove there are no gods.)

I never retaliated either. I still have great affection for my childhood church, and Jesus, and the positive work my denomination does in advancement of social justice, and the moral foundation, and the free singing lessons, and the bake sales and what not. I just didn't end up believing in any of the supernatural stuff at the end of it. Or even the beginning. I don't think I ever realized that some people in the pews thought what they were hearing was more than a story.