Monday, May 21, 2012

Atheist Deconversion Evangelism

Jake Farr Wharton discusses why Atheists should stop the abusiveness and try to be nice during deconversion processing; he posts over at Pribble’s place as a “morally superior Atheist” (a clue to his demonstrable delusion):
“What we need to be doing is three-fold;

1. Continue to actively counter the claims of those holding irrational beliefs with evidence refuting their claims.”
Here’s a claim: Atheists have no logic or evidence to support their own claims, which are mere denials and/or rationalizations, not syllogistic proofs, or experimental falsifiable data.

Here’s another claim: Atheists believe with blind faith that there is no existing non-physical rational agent; it is blind faith because they have no evidence to the contrary, nor do they have any logical refutation.

Here’s another claim: Atheists depend on asymmetrical and escalating skepticism for defending their beliefs – when they are not rationalizing or making false claims.

Here’s another claim: Atheism presents no morals other than what Atheists make up for themselves, perhaps daily or as required, or which someone else made up and they accept.

Here’s another claim: Atheists have no evidence or logic which proves incorrigibly that there is no continuity of life which is not attached to the dead corpse.

“2. Doing it very nicely, so that those who invariably leave the belief see atheists as delightful bastions for intelligence, reason and rationality (rather than bearded curmudgeons with tiny penises and halitosis).”

That would be good, the nicely part; it’s so rare in Atheist land as this article admits. The remainder is delusional, which fits with the Atheist idea that they know something which stupid people don’t know. But they know nothing of the kind. They believe it without evidence or logic: blind belief, and truly self-delusional. And in that capacity they are superior and oh so moral.

“3. Be there to help pick up the pieces when the house of cards topples.”
Dream on. This only happens when the deconversion target becomes as irrational as the Atheist. Given any amount of rational capability and logical discipline, the target will see that the house of cards is actually supporting Atheism, in the form of irrationality, amorality and self-delusion.


@b said...

JFW's post urges those who agree with him to behave well when trying to persuade. Do you not agree that's nice? an effective tactic?

It sounds like your main objection is to persuasive efforts (evangelism) by those factually mistaken about the divine. ie, those whose rhetoric is leaky (not logical) and procedes from premises the result of misplaced trust (blind faith). In that objection, I'm sure most who trust eggheads over holymen are in furious agreement with you.

Stan said...

I;m pretty sure I already said that nice is nice... yes here it is:

"That would be good, the nicely part; it’s so rare in Atheist land as this article admits."

As for your eggheads vs holymen comment, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't subscribe to any Appeal to Authority; I subscribe to the personal journey of learning the processes of disciplined logic, the underlying axioms, and their use in determining rational probability of propositions such as are implicit in Atheism. I do understand why Atheists don't want any part of that. But it doesn't seem to fall out at the junction of eggheads & holymen.

So maybe you could elaborate on your comment?

Jake Farr-Wharton said...

Hey Stan,

I was so mother-flipping gratified by your response, that I respondde in kind:

I hope you enjoy it.

Warm regards,

Jake Farr-Wharton

Chris said...

I just came across an interesting site: Metaphysical Speculations at

One his latest books is entitled "Rationalist Spirituality". He seems to be highly critical of materialism and yet, as a scientist, he rejects supernaturalism. hmm. I'm going to have to read on.

yonose said...


By the classical definitions of materialism and supernatualism, both are obviously mutually exclusive.

The rejection of philosophical materialism, accompanied of the rejection of supernatualism, most of the time, leads to a specific strand of deism, or something similar, like naturalistic pantheism (which does is not meant to be classified as any strand of theism per se).

Kind Regards.

Chris said...


It would seem that there are many people out there who believe that the problem of material monism can be "solved" with the adoption of various forms of "spiritual" monisms. I presume that this radical opposition to transcendence(and consequently to theism) emanates from a fundamental committment to the unity of Reality.

From this perspective, the "dualism" of creator/creation is the "flaw" of theism. But monism, whether material or idealist, doesn't escape this dreaded dualism either.

I'm inclined to think that a panentheistic position of "non-duality" is best suited to reconcile the poles of absolute/infinite; Divine/temporal immanence/ transcendence; freedom/fate; etc; etc...