The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

[InterestedAtheist]

?

You’re claiming that your specious arguments have something to do with whether or not God exists. Prove it.

Sorry, you're quite wrong.
The person making the claim is you: "God exists". In order to believe it, I'll need to see some evidence.
I get that you don't like that, because you don't have any. But there we go. That's your problem.

 

[Tom 1]

Sorry, you're quite wrong.
The person making the claim is you: "God exists". In order to believe it, I'll need to see some evidence.
I get that you don't like that, because you don't have any. But there we go. That's your problem.

Nope, it’s your claim. You may think it’s a problem for me - but, that is something you think, not a real thing - see the difference?

To save time, an ‘honest’ approach to your line of reasoning would be to first put your own position on the table to be examined. You can do this by proving convincingly that nothing that might be considered supernatural does ever happen, has ever happened or will ever happen. This would be an honest beginning to the argument. You could then invite people to prove you wrong.

Instead, you string together a few specious notions based on some vague and slippery ideas and expect it to be taken seriously. What you are offering is not something to be taken seriously. You are using a straw man so vague it can’t be argued against - your response to any question is one form or another of a get out of jail free card. You offer neither evidence for or even an explanation of your own position, nor do you attempt to address or even understand how to address the issue you claim to be addressing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

To save time, an ‘honest’ approach to your line of reasoning would be to first put your own position on the table to be examined. You can do this by proving convincingly that nothing that might be considered supernatural does ever happen, has ever happened or will ever happen. This would be an honest beginning to the argument. You could then invite people to prove you wrong.

You've just proved you don't understand what we're talking about.

Saying that I think nothing supernatural ever has happened or ever will happen is exactly my position. And I am here, as you say, inviting people to prove me wrong.

Congratulations, Tom, you've just made a fair summary of the atheist position.
I do not believe that a God exists.
I invite you to prove me wrong.

 

[Tom 1]

You've just proved you don't understand what we're talking about.

Saying that I think nothing supernatural ever has happened or ever will happen is exactly my position. And I am here, as you say, inviting people to prove me wrong.

Congratulations, Tom, you've just made a fair summary of the atheist position.
I do not believe that a God exists.
I invite you to prove me wrong.

It’s your debate, offer up your proof. Going through that process might begin to give you some inkling of what the idea ‘an honest argument’ means.

 

[Tom 1]

I think nothing supernatural ever has happened or ever will happen is exactly my position.

Your position is that you think something - that’s it? What is the point of this debate if you don’t make a convincing go at offering some solid proof of what you think?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It’s your debate, offer up your proof.

Well, you've just proved - again - that you don't understand what you're talking about.
Just look up burden of proof. You're just making yourself look silly otherwise.

Your position is that you think something - that’s it? What is the point of this debate if you don’t make a convincing go at offering some solid proof of what you think?

This debate has actually been quite profitable.
We've seen that you are unable to offer any evidence for your position.
I, on the other hand, don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making the claim.
Tell me, do you know what Russell's Teapot is?
If you don't, then no wonder you don't understand what your problem is.

 

[Tom 1]

I, on the other hand, don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making the claim.
Tell me, do you know what Russell's Teapot is?
If you don't, then no wonder you don't understand what your problem is.

Sure, but you are making a number of claims, you just aren't aware of it. Without some elaboration and proof of those claims, your questions have no value, i.e. no bearing on anything real. If creating specious straw men arguments is your thing, then knock yourself out, however you regularly mention notions about 'intellectual honesty' and so on. Were you to engage in some of that yourself, the debates would be of actual interest.

 

[Tom 1]

Tell me, do you know what Russell's Teapot is?

Russell's teapot characterises your own mode of argument quite well - an argument from within a mode of thought that finds itself incapable of understanding other modes of thought, and can therefore only come up with analogies relevant to itself.

 

[AACJ]

The following is adapted (a little light editing; see the link for the original article) from The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism
I’ve assembled below a list of everything I can think of that I would accept as proof that a given religion is true. Also included are things that I would accept as circumstantial evidence of a particular religion’s truth and things that would not be acceptable to me as proof of anything.


The first category deals with things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion. If shown any of these, I would convert on the spot.

Verified, specific prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived.
No points for trivial, vague, contrived or self-fulfilling prophecies.

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn’t possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me.

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
It wouldn’t have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer.

Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I’m not that hard to convert; I’ll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person


The second category deals with things that would not be conclusive, but that would count as circumstantial evidence. Show me one of these and I might not convert right away, but your religion will look a lot better to me.

A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
True inerrancy is, so to speak, the holy grail of theism. Almost every religion claims their scripture is perfect, but none that I know of have actually met this exacting standard

A religion without internal disputes or factions.
It seems reasonable to expect that, if there existed a god that was interested in revealing itself to humanity and desired that we follow its commands, that god would write down whatever instructions it had to give us in a way that was only amenable to one interpretation.

A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
If a given religion’s sacred text consistently promotes peace, compassion and nonviolence, and if that religion’s history reflects that fact, that religion would look much more attractive to me.

A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.
Strangely, none do. One can only wonder why.

The final category deals with things that would not convince me; none of the following would persuade me to rethink my position. To date, all the evidence I have ever seen presented for any religion falls into this category.
Speaking in tongues or other pseudo-miracles.
To convince me, a miracle would have to be genuine, verifiable, and represent a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary. Anything that can be explained by peer pressure, the power of suggestion or the placebo effect does not count. Favorable coincidences or kind or courageous acts performed by human beings also do not meet this standard.

People’s conversion stories.
I’m not interested in the testimonials of people who converted to a religion, not even if they used to be atheists. Everyone has moments of weakness in which emotion overrides logic. Instead of telling me how fast a religion is growing, how much of a difference it’s made in people’s lives, or how devoted its converts are, let those converts explain what logic and evidence persuaded them to join in the first place. If they can’t do this, their stories will not affect me.

Any subjective experience.
Saying “I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart” or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists – members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?

The Bible Code or similar numerological feats.

Creationism of any sort.

It appears as if are you trying to convince people on this thread that its atheism against world religions. As if atheism is somehow the default position pertaining to worldviews. It is of course a matter of fact that your worldview is faith-based, just like every other worldview.

The reasonable approach to take in attempting to ascertain the validity of one worldview over another is to compare worldviews according to a specific criteria that can demonstrate which worldview provides for a rationale, livable, and comprehensive system--not seeking 100% certainty through an evidence-based approach, such as you seem to be requiring.

I'll turn the table on you. You meet the evidence-based standard providing 100% certainty to validate your own worldview that you have required of the Christian worldview in your post. If you cannot do this--and of course you cannot and will not--then we can take a more reasonable approach involving examining each worldview to see which one can account for or best explain the available data.

 

[AACJ]

The following is adapted (a little light editing; see the link for the original article) from The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism
I’ve assembled below a list of everything I can think of that I would accept as proof that a given religion is true. Also included are things that I would accept as circumstantial evidence of a particular religion’s truth and things that would not be acceptable to me as proof of anything.


The first category deals with things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion. If shown any of these, I would convert on the spot.

Verified, specific prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived.
No points for trivial, vague, contrived or self-fulfilling prophecies.

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn’t possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me.

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
It wouldn’t have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer.

Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I’m not that hard to convert; I’ll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person


The second category deals with things that would not be conclusive, but that would count as circumstantial evidence. Show me one of these and I might not convert right away, but your religion will look a lot better to me.

A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
True inerrancy is, so to speak, the holy grail of theism. Almost every religion claims their scripture is perfect, but none that I know of have actually met this exacting standard

A religion without internal disputes or factions.
It seems reasonable to expect that, if there existed a god that was interested in revealing itself to humanity and desired that we follow its commands, that god would write down whatever instructions it had to give us in a way that was only amenable to one interpretation.

A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
If a given religion’s sacred text consistently promotes peace, compassion and nonviolence, and if that religion’s history reflects that fact, that religion would look much more attractive to me.

A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.
Strangely, none do. One can only wonder why.

The final category deals with things that would not convince me; none of the following would persuade me to rethink my position. To date, all the evidence I have ever seen presented for any religion falls into this category.
Speaking in tongues or other pseudo-miracles.
To convince me, a miracle would have to be genuine, verifiable, and represent a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary. Anything that can be explained by peer pressure, the power of suggestion or the placebo effect does not count. Favorable coincidences or kind or courageous acts performed by human beings also do not meet this standard.

People’s conversion stories.
I’m not interested in the testimonials of people who converted to a religion, not even if they used to be atheists. Everyone has moments of weakness in which emotion overrides logic. Instead of telling me how fast a religion is growing, how much of a difference it’s made in people’s lives, or how devoted its converts are, let those converts explain what logic and evidence persuaded them to join in the first place. If they can’t do this, their stories will not affect me.

Any subjective experience.
Saying “I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart” or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists – members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?

The Bible Code or similar numerological feats.

Creationism of any sort.

I just read the first sentence of the article you linked to. The author employs some slight of hand right from the start, stating:

"In several years of debating atheism and theism, I have made an observation. Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, “Nothing – I have faith in my god.” (The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism)

This is a type of question that is structured to place the person being questioned in a no-win situation. That is, the question actually contains more than one hidden knowledge claims including the claim that supposedly it is possible that there is some kind or quantity of defeating evidence out there that, once known, any reasonable and professing Christian should realize invalidates the Christian worldview. The question is predicated on more than one false assumption and therefore has not right answer. It's just a disguised claim that assumes the following:

1) It is a true proposition that it is at least possible that there is in fact some kind or quantity of defeating evidence out there that, once known, any reasonable and professing Christian should realize invalidates the Christian worldview.

2) The Christian is not reasonable if he/she does not agree to point 1.

3) It is not possible for the questioned Christian to have already obtained legitimate knowledge--that affirms that the Christian faith is valid--through or by some means or source other than empirically-based evidence.

The question is similar to other incoherent questions like, "if Thor was the one true God, would you Christians worship him? It makes it difficult for Christians and Atheist to engage in meaningful and productive debate if either Atheists or Christians engage in such underhanded tactics.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Sure, but you are making a number of claims, you just aren't aware of it.

Am I? Well, do feel free to explain what they are. So far you've come up with nothing.

If creating specious straw men arguments is your thing, then knock yourself out, however you regularly mention notions about 'intellectual honesty' and so on.

Again, pure projection. You're just describing yourself.

Were you to engage in some of that yourself, the debates would be of actual interest.

Uncanny, really, how you do this. Are you aware of the way you sabotage yourself with every post?

Russell's teapot characterises your own mode of argument quite well - an argument from within a mode of thought that finds itself incapable of understanding other modes of thought, and can therefore only come up with analogies relevant to itself.

Ah. You don't understand it, then. I thought not.
Here you are:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

So, what it comes down to is this:
Can you prove that there is not a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars? If not, then by your own reasoning, you must believe that there is.

You might reasonably object to this. "Why should I have to disprove your ridiculous teapot theory?" you ask. "You're the one who ought to be providing evidence for it if you want us to believe it."

Congratulations. You've grasped the burden of proof.

 

[Larniavc]

It's a very basic reality. If I presented you with a box of cereals and claimed that it's contents had been designed to adapt to the physionomy of anyone who tasted it, making it the most amazing thing they had ever eaten, the rational thing to do would be to take a handful and eat it to see what the experience is like. You could instead, however, choose to embark on a long and meaningless quest to establish the veracity of the claims about 'the cereal' using some yardstick you feel is 'rational'. Were you to choose option 2, I'd still find you 10, 20, 50 years later still chasing your tail.
How can you expect to understand what the bible is without taking it on its own terms? You really need to think about that, to avoid wasting so much effort in pointless circular arguments.

Are you talking about reading the a bible or believing it’s claims?

 

[Tom 1]

Ah. You don't understand it, then. I thought not.
Here you are:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

So, what it comes down to is this:
Can you prove that there is not a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars? If not, then by your own reasoning, you must believe that there is.

You might reasonably object to this. "Why should I have to disprove your ridiculous teapot theory?" you ask. "You're the one who ought to be providing evidence for it if you want us to believe it."

Congratulations. You've grasped the burden of proof.

Missing the point...I seem to be using that phrase a lot here. The teapot analogy might be used as an, albeit improbable, one for something like 'is there life on mars', to which the answer might be 'we don't know, but we have the means of finding out', similar to the idea 'is there is teapot circling the sun?' - well, probably not, but if there was we have the means of finding out. Russel's teapot is ostensibly a teapot, but the idea of a teapot impossible to discover by some technological means, spot with a telescope etc., is not actually a teapot. About a teapot things can be known - someone made it, you can make tea in it, someone put it in orbit around the sun; it is a physical thing with a defined form and physical presence. You can prove things about it using the established means for proving any other physical phenomena. That being the case, then a teapot-er would at least theoretically be able to provide proof in conformity with those norms.

If you were to change the analogy to some kind of 'essence of teapot', a 'spiritual teapot' then you would have an analogy for - what? If you wanted to ask what the proof might be for a non-material teapot then you'd have to find some relevant criteria.

Criteria that are relevant for, say, comparing Christianity with Islam, or understanding by what means the character of God in the bible might be defined are different from those required for determining whether or not there is a teapot circling the sun. If you start from the relevant criteria, then you have a debate, if you attempt to apply the flying teapot criteria, you have already made the claim that the same criteria are applicable, hence you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that is indeed the case.

To make it simpler:

Do we have an agreed set of criteria for verifying life on Mars/teapot orbiting the sun - yes

Are those criteria applicable to the question 'does God exist?' - this, as in previous posts, is your burden of proof, as your claim 'yes they are applicable' is the basis of your questions.

 

[Tom 1]

Are you talking about reading the a bible or believing it’s claims?

To understand the bible you need to approach it on its own terms, if that's what you are asking. Faith in some of its claims isn't a necessary requirement, no.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Missing the point...I seem to be using that phrase a lot here. The teapot analogy might be used as an, albeit improbable, one for something like 'is there life on mars', to which the answer might be 'we don't know, but we have the means of finding out', similar to the idea 'is there is teapot circling the sun?' - well, probably not, but if there was we have the means of finding out. Russel's teapot is ostensibly a teapot, but the idea of a teapot impossible to discover by some technological means, spot with a telescope etc., is not actually a teapot. About a teapot things can be known - someone made it, you can make tea in it, someone put it in orbit around the sun; it is a physical thing with a defined form and physical presence. You can prove things about it using the established means for proving any other physical phenomena. That being the case, then a teapot-er would at least theoretically be able to provide proof in conformity with those norms.

If you were to change the analogy to some kind of 'essence of teapot', a 'spiritual teapot' then you would have an analogy for - what? If you wanted to ask what the proof might be for a non-material teapot then you'd have to find some relevant criteria.

Criteria that are relevant for, say, comparing Christianity with Islam, or understanding by what means the character of God in the bible might be defined are different from those required for determining whether or not there is a teapot circling the sun. If you start from the relevant criteria, then you have a debate, if you attempt to apply the flying teapot criteria, you have already made the claim that the same criteria are applicable, hence you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that is indeed the case.

To make it simpler:

Do we have an agreed set of criteria for verifying life on Mars/teapot orbiting the sun - yes

Are those criteria applicable to the question 'does God exist?' - this, as in previous posts, is your burden of proof, as your claim 'yes they are applicable' is the basis of your questions.

In the situation described - and you may note, Russell took care to point out that the teapot was, under present circumstances, completely undetectable - do you think it's reasonable for me to say this:

"You have to believe that the teapot is there because you can't prove that it isn't"

Just a yes or no will do.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It appears as if are you trying to convince people on this thread that its atheism against world religions. As if atheism is somehow the default position pertaining to worldviews. It is of course a matter of fact that your worldview is faith-based, just like every other worldview.

The reasonable approach to take in attempting to ascertain the validity of one worldview over another is to compare worldviews according to a specific criteria that can demonstrate which worldview provides for a rationale, livable, and comprehensive system--not seeking 100% certainty through an evidence-based approach, such as you seem to be requiring.

I'll turn the table on you. You meet the evidence-based standard providing 100% certainty to validate your own worldview that you have required of the Christian worldview in your post. If you cannot do this--and of course you cannot and will not--then we can take a more reasonable approach involving examining each worldview to see which one can account for or best explain the available data.

Hello AACJ. Welcome to the discussion.

Okay, here we are. My worldview is this:

We live in this world.

Do you agree with that?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I just read the first sentence of the article you linked to. The author employs some slight of hand right from the start, stating:

"In several years of debating atheism and theism, I have made an observation. Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, “Nothing – I have faith in my god.” (The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism)

This is a type of question that is structured to place the person being questioned in a no-win situation. That is, the question actually contains more than one hidden knowledge claims including the claim that supposedly it is possible that there is some kind or quantity of defeating evidence out there that, once known, any reasonable and professing Christian should realize invalidates the Christian worldview. The question is predicated on more than one false assumption and therefore has not right answer. It's just a disguised claim that assumes the following:

1) It is a true proposition that it is at least possible that there is in fact some kind or quantity of defeating evidence out there that, once known, any reasonable and professing Christian should realize invalidates the Christian worldview.

2) The Christian is not reasonable if he/she does not agree to point 1.

3) It is not possible for the questioned Christian to have already obtained legitimate knowledge--that affirms that the Christian faith is valid--through or by some means or source other than empirically-based evidence.

The question is similar to other incoherent questions like, "if Thor was the one true God, would you Christians worship him? It makes it difficult for Christians and Atheist to engage in meaningful and productive debate if either Atheists or Christians engage in such underhanded tactics.

Sorry, AACJ, I can't see any sleight of hand at work. the question "What evidence would convince you that you were mistaken" seems to me to be a perfectly sensible one, and the author's observation that the answer he gets from Christians is usually "nothing" seems to me to be quite unsurprising.

Also, what exactly is wrong with the question "Would you worship Thor if he turned out to be real?" In my case, the answer would be "If Thor turned out to be real, I would assess his character and the situation I now found myself in before making a decision as to whether or not worshipping him would be a good idea." Isn't that what everyone would say?

I'm trying my best to understand you here, but can't see the point you're making.

 

[Tom 1]

In the situation described - and you may note, Russell took care to point out that the teapot was, under present circumstances, completely undetectable - do you think it's reasonable for me to say this:

"You have to believe that the teapot is there because you can't prove that it isn't"

Just a yes or no will do.

As you can quite plainly see, or not, the analogy doesn’t work. An undetectable teapot isn’t a teapot.

 

[Tom 1]

In the situation described - and you may note, Russell took care to point out that the teapot was, under present circumstances, completely undetectable - do you think it's reasonable for me to say this:

"You have to believe that the teapot is there because you can't prove that it isn't"

Just a yes or no will do.

I’ll try again to put this as simply as possible. You insist that your approach is valid in some way. You are unable or unwilling to demonstrate why.

It is irrelevant whether or not you have some faith in the idea of a God. The thing that tells you there is a God in Judaism and Christianity belief is the bible. From that book you can learn a great deal about what that means. If you have a thorough understanding of that, you can pose useful questions. If you don’t, you can’t, but you can begin somewhere. In an earlier post I invited you to give your opinion of whether it was possible for any sort of supernatural phenomena to exist, you don’t believe they do, you have the usual (rather ironic) faith in some ideas about how everything related to that can be accounted for in ways which involve your imagination and some other ideas you have a vague grasp of. So, to put your money where your mouth is, you could read that article and give us your ‘reality expert’ analysis. That could provide some actual basis for what could actually be a genuinely interesting line of discussion.

But to go on what you have said so far, you don’t appear to want to have one. You simply want to engage is some superficial means of confirming your superficial beliefs about the question ‘does God exist’. Pointing out that a building has no foundation is not sabotage, it’s information.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As you can quite plainly see, or not, the analogy doesn’t work. An undetectable teapot isn’t a teapot.

An undetectable teapot isn't a teapot?
And I suppose I don't exist because you can't see me right now?
I see what you mean, of course, but you're quite wrong to say it. Yes, one of the characteristics of teapots is that they're detectable - under the right circumstances. I trust, however, that you're familiar with the concept of a hypothetical? Russell said it quite plainly.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

I hope you're not about to say that we now have more powerful telescopes than were available in Russell's day. That would be a quite spectacular case of missing the point. If you want to disprove the analogy, you have to do so on its own terms. A person claims that a teapot is there; does the fact that you are unable to prove him wrong mean that you are obliged to believe him?

I’ll try again to put this as simply as possible. You insist that your approach is valid in some way. You are unable or unwilling to demonstrate why.

It is irrelevant whether or not you have some faith in the idea of a God. The thing that tells you there is a God in Judaism and Christianity belief is the bible. From that book you can learn a great deal about what that means. If you have a thorough understanding of that, you can pose useful questions. If you don’t, you can’t, but you can begin somewhere. In an earlier post I invited you to give your opinion of whether it was possible for any sort of supernatural phenomena to exist, you don’t believe they do, you have the usual (rather ironic) faith in some ideas about how everything related to that can be accounted for in ways which involve your imagination and some other ideas you have a vague grasp of. So, to put your money where your mouth is, you could read that article and give us your ‘reality expert’ analysis. That could provide some actual basis for what could actually be a genuinely interesting line of discussion.

But to go on what you have said so far, you don’t appear to want to have one. You simply want to engage is some superficial means of confirming your superficial beliefs about the question ‘does God exist’. Pointing out that a building has no foundation is not sabotage, it’s information.

This is your idea of answering a question?
I told you: all you need to do is say yes, or no.
If you can't even address Russell's question, I'd say you're not in any position to criticise him for asking it.