u/centeriskey

I have heard many times and I have seen a few videos where Alex is great at steelmanning his opponent positions. This appears to be only done with arguments he knows he can defeat or for anything besides atheist arguments.

In the video linked it doesn't take Alex long before he starts to diss on atheists by giving their arguments in some of the weakest forms. Here is one example:

>“Consciousness is clearly a mystery, and I think that when you speak to most atheists, you might rub up against a kind of materialist, emergentist, oh, consciousness is just something science hasn’t explained, it will get there one day. I’m not like that. I think consciousness needs to be taken seriously.”

Just because I say I don't know and that science will one day find the answer doesn't mean that I don't take it seriously. Neither do the scientist that are constantly studying consciousness.

This was a trash statement which is usually made by some amateur but not by someone as educated as him. Unfortunately this isn't the only example as I have pointed out about his video on statements that atheist need to retire. I'm left only to conclude that either he is doing it intentionally to get a good interview/engagement or that he can only defeat the weakest examples of atheist arguments.

Everyone start registering names like michael_stevens1, the_michael_stevens, the_real_michael_stevens, and so on. This will either force Michael to act quickly to get back on reddit or if he doesn't then he would have to choose something different or be the 7000th Michael Stevens. Now sure he was ok with being the billionth dad but would he be ok with being the 7000th Michael Stevens?

It is very hard for me to believe in a god that wants a personal relationship with me yet would only leave evidence that requires faith and not hard evidence. Especially if I will get punished for eternity if I don't seek or hold a relationship with them.

So why faith? Why expose yourself as a god in "ancient times" yet hold people thousands of years apart to a different standard? Why put on a show of Jesus' death and rebirth for some yet require others to only have faith that those were true? Why would god create me, someone who is swayed by evidence and can't be moved by faith alone? Remember I'm not all powerful and am only working with an above average monkey brain (still pretty amazing). Nothing is stopping an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god from getting in contact with me to save my misguided soul from a punishment for eternity.

All of these questions lead me to the conclusion that if a god does exist it is not one that created the universe for us or that they care/have a plan for us individually on a personal level.

First, I wanted to say this show is just brilliant and I will definitely be relistening to the whole show once I catch up.

Now on to the meat and potatoes.

I just recently found this podcast about a month or two ago and have been devouring the older content. Well there was an episode where Micheal mentioned that there was going to be an episode on instinct. This peaked my interest because I had just listened to the old unexplainable episode titled "who taught beavers to build dams?" This episode questions not only what we call instincts but also those of us who still use the word instinct.

Mark Blumberg a behavioral neuroscientist said that people who use the word instinct are using it as, and I quote, "Covert expression of ignorance and lack of imagination". So is that true Micheal are you lacking imagination and saying stuff out of ignorance? I mean you have used that word in a few episodes, I can't remember if Hannah has used it but the question lies at her feet as well.

Since this show loves to talk about language and some good ole dishing of dirt I hope it makes you two (Hannah and Micheal) move faster on this episode.

But while we are waiting what do the fans think? Let's talk about instinct or about how Micheal lacks imagination.

Ps, I don't think either Hannah or Michael lack imagination or are purposely ignorant on the subject.

When a theist brings up the fine tuning argument to argue for a god, I’m left with the feeling that they don’t understand what they are arguing about. Because the reality we find ourselves in doesn’t support their claims that the universe was made for us or that god cares about us.

The fine tuning arguments goes something like this.

The universe was made for human life due to the tight constraints of the existence that we find life and the universe in. If one thing was slightly off (such as gravity, the distance of the planets, etc) life wouldn’t have happened or the reason one thing was slightly off (theory of the Big Bang needing more matter than antimatter) is why we have a universe. Since it seems very coincidental that life and the universe does exist then there must be an omnipotent being that made it for us. This is just a summary so it’s missing a few steps but please correct me if I’m missing key parts of this argument, not like I have to tell people on Reddit to correct someone.

But this isn’t what you would expect if this was made for us. You would expect to find a greater barrier for human life to
exist. You would expect that most of the universe would be able to support human life instead of killing it. You would expect a universe ready for human conquest. You would also expect clearer instructions of how to use the universe for our means or at least more descriptions of it. There is barely any information offered up by theistic religions holy books about the universe. You know the 99.9999999999…….% of what is existing.

If you have a naturist viewpoint who thinks that life is not only hard to be developed but it was done through evolution you would actually expect this reality. First you wouldn’t expect to find much of it. Second when you did find it, there would vast amounts of obstacles to it. Third, you would expect life to form around those obstacles closely with a slow progression of trying to surpass those obstacles.

While I do believe that fine tuning is more of a naturalist/atheist argument, I do concede that it doesn’t disprove deistic viewpoints like it does with theistic ones.

Hello strangers over the internet. I'm relatively new to Alex (only a few months or so) so I'm to try not going to make any real hard claims about him but it appears to me that the new atheist movement and its fallout has left a negative impact on him which this slight bias does show up in his talks/videos. I'm not trying to say that he is completely negative or impartial in his talks and I will concede that Alex is well known to really try to steelman any arguments present to him. It just feels like he gives up quicker with atheist points, except for suffering, than other religious views.

Some biases upfront. I have over the past few months become a big fan of Alex's even though I have huge disagreements with some of his arguments. I am a 44 year old scientific skeptic atheist who found Hitchens and Dawkins (the other 2 "horsemen" were not on my radar until way way later) to be breaths of fresh air when I was a budding young rebellious angry atheist. I have limited understanding of philosophy and how my ideas full standup to the current or even classical philosophical or theistic pushbacks. I'm writing this while watching Alex's and Joe's video on "atheist slogans you should stop using" which is not my first video of theirs but I am nowhere near an expert of their full expanded beliefs.

From my understanding Alex is an agnostic atheist who was also positively affect towards atheism by the movement but was also left negatively affected when the movement showed up to be flawed and less philosophical engaged. He has since been growing "more religious" over time but still is the guest speaker widely invited for his atheist arguments. What I'm starting to pick up in his speeches though is that he is mostly readily able to accept his theists arguments over his atheist ones and/or he is quicker to joke/put down atheist viewpoints before religious ones.

My final concession is that that video did what they intended it to do, bring in consumers who will be then driven to rant or rave about what they felt hurt or moved by.

Anywho thanks for listening and I will be back to ~~cry~~ discuss what I think they got wrong in that video.

My thesis is the title. That first cause and necessary being are arguments that eventually fall into the god of the gaps fallacy and that as time and discoveries go by these arguments for a god become weaker and weaker.

First argument is that these arguments are fallacies. They both at one point have to say we don’t really know so…… therefore god.

My brief understanding of first cause is that as the name suggests an argument that states that since, so far, everything has a cause therefore there needs to be something to have started it all. Necessary being states that since everything needs an external cause to act therefore there must be a necessary being to have acted first.

These are rough definitions and aren’t the full arguments. If I’m missing something important or if I have a misunderstanding please let me know.

Second argument is that throughout human history whenever we couldn’t explain a natural event the “god did it” has so far not been the answer. We see paradigms shift after new natural mechanisms are discovered, not after new religious revelations. Newton physics was updated with Einstein’s special relativity which was not “well……god”.

Since it hasn’t been the answer yet, why do we think it is later on in the process?

Aren’t these arguments really just the god of the gaps fallacy if broken down further enough? At one point you have to say I don’t know what was the first ever cause or the necessary being needed to start the contingents objects so therefore god?

Couldn’t we argue that throughout human history when we didn’t understand a natural event the “god did it” has so far not been the immediate answer, or even the complex (in relation to average human understanding) answers. That every time we have been stumped has been due to a lack of understanding of other natural processes not due to “god did it”. So why do we think it’s the case in these arguments?