Do you think people care about your tweets, Facebook posts, your Instagram posts or your meme re-blogging/posting? You cannot just change the world, you can change yourself, and after you’ve changed yourself, the world will decide if it wants to listen. As you attempt to change the world, either it will listen, or it will ignore you and tell you to fuck off. Then, of course, you die.
” Hi, my name is Richard S. H. Winklestein, and I’m a professor at Yurgenshack University. I have PhD’s in whocarestics, astrophysics and neuroscience. I’ve written several books, including Why You Should Listen, and I Know How The World Works. I’ve appeared on many television shows, including The Wankenarski Show, Wankenbacher Live, CNN, MSNBC, and Wankenstone TVmany times. I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DON’T JUST AGREE WITH ME! “
— Richard S. H. Winklestein
Am I saying that you can never change the world? No. I’m saying that you need many people listening, and in order to make that happen, you’ll have to give them an incentive, unless, of course, you possess the weapons to force them to listen and obey you, in which case this article would be titled ‘How To Be a Dictator.’
” all that matters is that your message is compatible with the listeners’ world views “
After you can get an audience, and you’ve convinced them that they should take you seriously, your message has to at least make sense in their eyes. It doesn’t matter if what you’re saying is or isn’t objective, logical, reasonable or even true; all that matters is that your message is compatible with the listeners’ world views. You’re, in some ways, providing a service to the listeners, and if you fuck up, the chances of them coming back for seconds is obviously diminished.
The overwhelming majority of people in the West believe that if one could only achieve the first step, which is to occupy a supposed ‘influential’ communicative or media platform, that this is all one needs in order to change minds. That somehow new beliefs can be imprinted, via the mere burning exposure of information, onto the conscious and unconscious mind. This common, and simplistic, belief is explained in more detail by something called the Mere Exposure Effect. However, the belief that new learning, brainwashing or subversion is done merely by exposure to information, is what I’ve coined the Mere Exposure Effect Fallacy.
” The Mere Exposure Effect is itself mere conjecture, because it presupposes the existence of poly-linear unconscious thought “
The Mere Exposure Effect is itself mere conjecture, because it presupposes the existence of poly-linear unconscious thought, or Freud’s unconsciousness theories, but without any empirical evidence to support it. I’ve explained why unconscious belief and/or desire contradict what we can demonstrate to be true about human psychology. [see The Mere Exposure Effect in The Godless Glossary]
Ethos and pathos, which I would argue are both inferior to and subsets of logos, are always overused by those attempting to brainwash their audiences with exposure techniques. You can’t have ethos or pathos without logos, but that’s another topic. You must introduce new facts that would work like updates to an audience’s operating system. Talking about your feelings is only one fact: your feelings. Trying to change how other people feel, without having a logical argument or without lying, is a silly challenge that I enjoy seeing some people fail at.
Again, to change minds, you will generally need three things: the platform, the credibility and the arguments which do not contradict the listeners’ own presupposed world views or perspectives.
I have given you the tools. Yet, you’ve almost certainly dismissed much of it already because it contradicts your own world view. But I already knew that would happen.
Thanks for reading God’s Autopsy! Leave your comments below.
You shouldn’t simply give up trying to convince that friend, girlfriend, boyfriend or relative that they’ve been wasting their whole life on a fictitious character, but you may have to do just that if they aren’t ready to change. Also, I am not trying to insult theists personally, so if you have a good reason to believe in the supernatural, I am willing and ready to hear it.
I will be referring to the person you are debating as simply ‘your friend’. Now, assuming your friend is honestly trying to rebut your arguments for atheism/agnosticism, here are some signs that that person has drifted too far into oblivion, or are just in the willfully ignorant category. They may be too [Ray] Comforted?
10.) They Get Angry and Defensive Every Time You Bring it Up:
Although this is frustrating, it may be a huge fallacy that these people won’t ever change. Anyone who gets heated at the mere mention of faith being wrong, has probably not spent much time debating or even thinking critically about their faith. This would mean that you can easily shake their view on God, and thus making them uncomfortable. However, it’s more likely that they are 100% certain of God’s existence, and are just angered at the idea that anyone would have the audacity to disrespect God by questioning his existence in the first place. (I will be referring to any god or gods as simply ‘God’ for the sake of simplicity.)
9.) They Keep Making Moral Excuses for Their God-Figure:
When questioning the moral character of God, bringing up all the people God has killed, and the problem of evil, the believer always has an excuse. As in all monotheism, the god-character insists he is, himself all benevolent, peaceful and loving, however, his actions and the world’s suffering logically contradict this. A theist will probably tell you that God doesn’t stop the sinner from committing horrible immoral acts, because that’s why we have free will, and that’s why Jesus died. However, God promises to sometimes intervene, and perform the miracle of protection from harm. But wait, God was kind enough to insert a little loop hole — he doesn’t promise tomorrow — so don’t be surprised or blame God when tragedy strikes.
8.) They Can’t Get Past Evolution:
Although the theory of evolution is just as solid a fact as the theory of gravity, it’s still rejected by your friend. Let’s face it, they just don’t like the idea that we are apes, and probably don’t have a clue how evolution really works. You’ve probably explained several times already that we humans didn’t ‘come from chimps/monkeys’, but that we are related to them. Show them a documentary on YouTube [click link] about evolution and see how they react when watching scientists hold skulls and discuss fossils, skeletons and other forms of rock hard evidence (literally). If they are still hell-bent on rejecting the theory, then hard evidence doesn’t matter to them as much as you’d hoped.
7.) They Demand Ultimate Respect be Shown to Whatever Holy Book or Faith They Hold Dear To:
Explain to them how religions have absolutely no respect for atheists or even agnostics. Most religions, especially the monotheistic ones, only respect blind faith. If you don’t put your reasoning and skepticism behind you and get on your knees, you deserve to burn forever, because you’re scum (thought crime). If you’re going to suffer for all eternity, then why the heck should you respect their religion or flawed holy book? Religious people push the fallacy that criticizing their holy book or faith is somehow criticizing the believer themselves. Challenging and debating faith should be as free as challenging and debating in politics or sports.
6.) They Show a Double Standard for Any Contradictions in Their Holy Book:
The first time someone told me about the contradictions in the Gospels, I thought he simply didn’t know what he was talking about, and dismissed it. If only that person could have been more specific, but he couldn’t remember what the exact mistakes were. I believed that the Bible was incorruptible and I hadn’t read the Gospels in their entirety. Many years ago, biblical contradictions were unheard of to many people of faith (still so), so I assumed that this person must have been mistaken, and swayed by his bias. However, if your friend seems skeptical in other areas, but always makes excuses for biblical contradictions, then they probably aren’t very open minded.
5.) They Are Big On Conspiracy Theories:
This is a really bad sign for obvious reasons. A conspiracy theorist is a person who disregards the major fundamentals of reason. They rely heavily on their own inductive reasoning skills, gleefully hopping to conclusions. If they can’t imagine something, they fill in the gaps with imaginary scenarios (of conspiracy theories). Anything that personally ‘makes sense’ to them is assumed as fact! We’ve all seen the Illuminati & 9/11 videos on YouTube. The theorist will look for evidence to support their theory, while excluding any evidence to the contrary. Their religious narrative is just another of those theories; they will reject any evidence against their faith, and more than likely welcome any evidence that suggests their religion is true. “I found my keys! Jesus did it! Thank you Jesus!”
4.) You Have to Keep Re-Explaining a Scientific Theory or Model to Them:
If you have to keep explaining what it means to be related to chimps rather than coming from chimps, or why chimps are still extant, you’ve got a problem. If you have to keep saying that an omnipotent god is self contradictory, you’ve got a problem.
For example, an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot make a rock he cannot move (so he can’t do all things). He cannot truly forgive and forget, if he can forget a thing, he can’t carry on being omniscient, can he? Also, I love it when apologists use Ockham’s razor as a way of saying God is the simplest solution, so therefore he exists.
3.) They Demonstrate a Religious Double Standard for Science and History, Even After You’ve Pointed Out the Contradictions:
If you believe in a young-Earth (6,000-10,000 y.o.), the creation of all species in their present form, or homeopathy, you clearly aren’t requiring a lot of evidence to form an opinion. A young-Earther has to reject radiometric and carbon dating techniques which confirm the ages of fossils and other materials. He or she would also have to reject the reliability of DNA evidence. I’m sure most young-Earthers accept DNA identification for criminals and relatives, but ignore its identical correlation to the fossil record.
2.) Evidence is Proven Not to Be Important, Even When They Keep Losing Debates With You:
You explain how logic and reason work, and use analogy, but they don’t think any of this should apply to their god. They may stress that God is beyond all possible human understanding. Your rebuttal to this argument is to ask them if they believe the human mind is fallible, and in its fallibility, one can’t be 100% certain of anything, especially about the nature of the creator of the universe. How can you know God’s character with absolute certainty when your brain is fallible? How can you be certain God is who he claims to be, or if he is even benevolent?
If they keep whirling back to the assertion that ‘only God is infallible’, then you’ve begun a circular argument, and they’ve been backed into their assertive corner. If they can’t be convinced that the ‘God is perfect, therefore he’s infallible and exists’ argument is circular, then they can’t see past the fallacy.
1.) They Simply Can’t Seem to Grasp the Basics of Logic:
When debating your friend, if you’ve demonstrated the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, or inductive and deductive reasoning, but have to keep explaining how reasoning works, you are either a bad teacher, or your friend has a learning disability. It seems that if you point reason in the direction of any religious or holy book, reason shreds religious assertions like the vary paper its printed on. If your friend can’t digest logic, how can the two of you possibly have a logical exchange?
Failed Arguments for God – Rebuttal to William Lane Craig’s Top 5 Reasons to Believe
last updated 2015/7/24
William Lane Craig is respected in the Christian Apologetics community and is well known to anyone who follows debates on the existence of a god. Here are his top 5 arguments and my annotations to them in red.
1.) The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
1. “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.” Premise one may already be an assertion. It may be a false dichotomy which states that everything that exists must have either come into existence by an external force/cause, or it exists through the very necessity of its own nature.