an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Chris Bolt Wants to be Taken Seriously….

…..but then he goes and spoils it completely by posting the following in a comment on his blog

I realize that atheists do not want to accept the claim that an omniscient being told us that they hate God.

Yeah, that’s right, Chris, we don’t want to listen when you say that an invisible super being, for which there is no evidence, and which cannot be proven to exist (despite the best efforts of theists of all stripes over the last 2000 years), has spoken to you. We don’t want to listen when you tell us that this being has told you that it’s omniscient, and that we hate it. Yeah, that’s about sums it up Chris! What a slam dunk argument! Please, Chris, explain the EXACT nature of the conversation you had with this being, outlining exactly what it said.

And then you can start on the challenge I laid down when you claimed that I ‘hate Jesus’, it’s pretty simple….to prove that I hate this ‘Jesus’ of yours, you will have to do the following – 

1. Prove that gods exist,
2. prove that your version of your particular god is the ‘right’ one,
3. prove that I believe in your particular version of your particular god,
4. prove that Jesus Christ existed,
5. prove that he was the son of your version of your particular god,
6. prove that I believe that he was the son of your particular god,
7. read my mind to understand my true feelings towards this individual (if you’ve been able to successfully fulfill the previous 6 steps)

I am genuinely excited about your answers.

Single Post Navigation

11 thoughts on “Chris Bolt Wants to be Taken Seriously….

  1. In a previous comment on the same blog, Bolt also stated: "The burden of proof is upon the individual making a claim."Hmmm… This statement itself appears a claim. To be consistent with what it affirms, the individual making this claim must accept the burden of proving it. So how does Chris go about proving it?Bolt also wrote: “A Christian could know the thought processes of an atheist better than does the atheist if the omniscient being who created that atheist told the Christian about those thought processes.”I’m curious how a believer in supernatural revelation, such as what is being described here, can reliably distinguish what he says originates from a supernatural source from his own prejudices, fallible inferences, imaginings, preferences, etc. I’d love to see how Bolt or other presuppositionalists would address this. How exactly do *they* go about ensuring that what they call “God’s revelation” is not really something they’re thinking on their own, imagining, wrongfully inferring, emoting, preferring, etc.? Then, once they’ve explained how they validate their claim that what they are repeating is in fact supernaturally sourced, can the explain to us how *we* can *reliably* distinguish what they call “God’s revelation” from what they may in fact be imagining, mistakenly supposing, impulsively inferring, etc.? If so, what is that explanation? This is the stuff of epistemology, and if Christians in fact have an epistemology suited for man’s mind, these questions should be easy to clarify, especially if they have an omniscient and infallible standard to guide them.The concern here is to make sure that the believer hasn’t confused what he says “God told me” from something that is not genuinely divinely sourced. One would think that Christians would share this concern, and have developed an epistemology by which such concerns could be reliably satisfied. And yet, look at all the competing versions of Christianity out there. Since presuppositionalists apparently want us to accept not only the view that Christianity is true but also the assumption that *their* version of Christianity is the correct version, this concern becomes all the more important. Presumably Christians don’t want us to accept what they claim on their mere say so, so some principle by which their doctrines can be reliably distinguished from mere inventions of the human imagination (whether their own, or of the ancients who penned “Scripture”).Chris also wrote: “Further, there are probably a number of examples where people do know other people's thought processes better than do those people (i.e. think of parents, or psychologists).”Yes, I’m thinking of ex-Christians reviewing the claims of those who presently confess Christian doctrine.Regards,Dawson

  2. Wow…should I feel honored about this? Good thing I don't give my last name on these damned posts…I don't want my electronic footprint to get too big with this kind of stuff!Anyhow, I posted a 3 part reply back on where this all began.

  3. This post has been removed by the author.

  4. Chris,I see that you're cutting off contact with Alex. I'm sorry it came to that. But I'm supposing you'd be willing to carry on the conversation with me? If so, do you think you could address some of the concerns I raised in my message above?Also, I have some questions about the uniformity of nature that I think are topical to the presuppositionalist perspective. Perhaps you'd be able to address those as well?Regards,Dawson

  5. Re: Bolt's last post: All that from the same guy who cut me off for "preaching atheism" on his blog? What a hypocrite. Check the links, you can see what I said, and I did nothing of the sort.And again, he shows the typical xian arrogance of assuming that Alex already knows that biblegod exists, and asks him to repent…maybe try doing what Alex asks in this blog post and showing that your god exists first.Just blindly assuming that your god exists, plus blindly assuming that we all know it but just prefer sinning instead is doing nothing but to convince us of your arrogance.Oh, but you won't answer his questions will you? You're "cutting" off contact.Gee, I should have seen that coming.

  6. Chris, I'm sorry to see that you cannot meet my challenge, and have resorted to some ooga-booga magical thinking coupled with threats and insistances that I'm a wicked sinner. To be honest I expected you to last at least a little longer before having a melt down, but I guess I was wrong!

  7. Bolt should be taken seriously. It's a simple matter of security; disturbed individuals, pose a significant risk and we should always be "taken seriously"!

  8. Pingback: As Some of the Choosing Hats Gang Have Decided to Show Up…. « an atheist viewpoint

  9. Bobby McGee on said:

    “to prove that I hate this ‘Jesus’ of yours, you will have to do the following”

    Complete non sequitur. None of those things “have to be proven” to prove that you hate someone. For one thing, it’s possible to hate a fictional character, so failing to prove that he exists–or even producing affirmative proof that he doesn’t exist–has no bearing on whether or not you hate him. You might, and you might not. Establishing whether he exists or not brings us in no way closer to knowing whether you do or don’t.

    For a different example, if you were the child of a single parent, you might hate your father for abandoning you. This despite the fact that nothing is known about his identity. And if you later learned that in fact you were cloned in a laboratory and implanted in your mother, and that you in fact have no father at all, it would not alter the fact that you hate this nonexistent being.

    • “Complete non sequitur.”

      No, it isn’t. I’ve clearly laid out the steps that Chris Bolt would have to work through to prove that *I* ‘hate’ his version of his particular god.

      It’s not my problem if you cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy and find yourself hating fictional characters. In your case there would obviously be fewer steps for Chris to work through, but you are not me.

      • Bobby McGee on said:

        You clearly laid out a non sequitur: completing all the steps you identified, would still fail to prove the conclusion you wish to draw. I’ve explained why, and you appear unable (or unwilling? perhaps due to pride?) to admit your error.

        Note that I’m not supporting you or Chris in your little squabble. Nor am I supporting theism. The only bit of interest to me is the quality of your logic. If it’s a comfort to you, you’re wrong, but Chris isn’t even wrong. Your logic is faulty, but Chris’s statements don’t even merit the term “logic.” You can take that as a victory, if you like. Don’t squander the victory by defending your faulty logic.

        If you want to repair your argument, you should start not with the implied premise that nobody can hate a fictional character, but with the (unfalsifiable) claim concerning yourself that, “I personally fell no emotion one way or the other about what I understand to be fictional characters.” Having said that, the discussion is really over, since you are the only one who can confirm or deny whether (1) you understand God to be fictional, and (2) you personally have emotional reactions to fictional characters. Having put the starting premise outside the realm of verifiability, everyone has no choice but to accept the conclusion, since the argument is in the form of a valid syllogism:

        * I don’t hate what I perceive to be fictional.
        * I perceive God to be fictional.
        * Therefore, I do not hate God.

Leave a Reply to Dawson Bethrick Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: