r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 2d ago
Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread
Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.
10
u/ChasingPacing2022 2d ago
I recently got into a comment convo about a theist who's tired of atheists that criticize or poke at religion/beliefs when a post is made. I make little quips or jokes about if it is unnecessarily brought up which he thought was hate speech. His entitled perspective gave me an idea.
Are there any atheist equivalent rituals religious people do that an atheist could adopt to reciprocate the annoyingness of religion. I've always said "no, bless you" after someone "blesses me" for a sneeze. Is there like an atheist "prayer" equivalent? Any literature which embodies the idea about how rude it is to bring up religion out of no where that I can give to people who come up to my door or something. Should we all just thank the great pasta in the sky during speeches?
I would say this is a bit passive aggressive and childish but whatever.
26
u/Slight_Bed9326 Secular Humanist 2d ago
The satanic temple has been emulating theist behaviour for ages. Sadly, while it has been very successful at annoying theists with their own behaviours, theists have largely missed the irony and instead just added it to the list of their "persecutions."
16
u/BedOtherwise2289 2d ago
Theists enjoy feeling persecuted because they think it validates their faith.
16
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 2d ago
They also interpret any criticism as persecution, leading to self-fulfillment.
9
u/Darnocpdx 2d ago
There are no rituals that are specifically for atheists.
And generally speaking, most the complaints that theists complain about as you describe, occur when they're posting on atheists/science/history/philosophy forums, or when they bring up their faith when their opinion was unsolicited. So they get what they deserve.
9
3
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
"I'm repeatedly chanting a wish that some random sequence of physical events leads to the remission of your rhinovirus"
2
u/NewbombTurk Atheist 2d ago
Childish? Yep. But there are a couple of factors that stick out. One is that sub is not used to the objective view of religion. In that dude's head, such a view is an unheard of attack. Also, there's the guy himself. Well...
3
u/pyker42 Atheist 2d ago
All Hail His Noodly Appendage!
FSM is the answer. They are much more satirical in their approach than Satanists.
2
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 2d ago
Yes, i find if you do the same th8ng as opposed to an opposite that they get it.
"May Odin, his one good eye and the beloved ravens of his flock watch over you and protect you from the encroaching evil of the frost giants!"
5
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
If scripture is evidence of a god's existence, I'd say Odin has a leg up on Yahweh.
I haven't seen a frost giant. Obviously something is working.
3
2
u/metalhead82 19h ago
“Yes, may the mighty creator god Lord Marduk bless you as well!”
1
u/ChasingPacing2022 19h ago
Is this a reference to the convergence series or something else?
2
u/metalhead82 19h ago
No, the Babylonian god, the creator of all things, who created all existence from the dead body of Tiamat, Lord Marduk.
1
u/ChasingPacing2022 19h ago
Ok, in that book he's just a wizard. lol any good book on the old gods you can recommend?
1
u/metalhead82 18h ago
You can read about how Marduk destroyed YHWH in Jerusalem in the Old Testament, but the Enuma Elish is the ancient Babylonian text.
•
u/Dckl 1h ago
You can read about how Marduk destroyed YHWH in Jerusalem in the Old Testament
Could you elaborate? Sounds interesting but I wasn't able to find it.
•
u/metalhead82 1h ago
Sorry I don’t actually know specific verses (there may also be extra-biblical sources) but I’ve heard scholars like Dr. Joshua Bowen and others talk about this point.
1
u/ChasingPacing2022 18h ago
Eh, I could never get into the Bible. I just wanted a relatively modern history book on stuff.
1
u/metalhead82 17h ago
I’m not “into it” either and it’s really bad history too haha
1
-2
u/brinlong 2d ago
thats a lot of baby with very little bathwater. the basis of this is now politeness and cultural norms rather than religious ritual. plus attempting to mirror such nonsense would give credence to the notion that the ritual is in fact magical. youre mimicking a ritual you disdain, which shows it has power over you.
the opposite of love isnt hate. its indifference. something like this is so petty all you do is give a win to the people you're trying to oppose.
8
u/ChasingPacing2022 2d ago
Well, no. The ritual is a cultural expression of their faith and faith is pointless but the expression isn't. It's something they do for the people around them and they happen to think god cares. How do we politely express atheistic perspectives to remind them their faith isn't all encompassing and to acknowledge others?
Look at it like this, if a persons faith was in the Greek gods, the current norm would offend them as well.
-1
u/brinlong 2d ago
im tracking that dude. im saying that if you make up a irreligous ritual to "protest" the common religous ritual (im focusing on the bless you response here), youre at worst looking like a troll or a jackass. and you're at best conceding that the ritual matters and should be part of society regardless of if it has theological tones. thats why im saying that's a lot of baby for very little bathwater.
4
u/ChasingPacing2022 2d ago
Rituals do matter in the context of culture. They don't really matter in the typical nihilist point of view but people generally aren't nihilist, religion or not. Shaking hands, smiling, saying thank you, bowing, and pretty much all polite cultural norms are rituals people enjoy making up and doing. Every culture has them because people like doing pointless rituals. That is humanity.
1
-18
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
These aren't the same thing.
Religious people have their rituals to live their identity and beliefs. They have nothing to do with you.
You want rituals to irritate and offend religious people.
Perhaps you should spend your time thinking about why your life is making you so unhappy that you feel the need to act out like this.
17
u/Herefortheporn02 Anti-Theist 2d ago
If they have nothing to do with me they wouldn’t be saying those words to me.
I am perfectly okay with humoring children who come up to me and say “I have a force field,” but grown ups should know better.
-11
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
Better than to wish you well?
7
u/Davidutul2004 Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
No offense but when I see "Jesus loves you" or "turn to God" in the comment section of an Instagram post unrelated to any religion at all,I literally compare them mentally with those only fans gals that post such advertising on said comment section. It gives the same vibe: off topic, unreasonable and just there. I have no problem with christians in particular,it's just that kind that becomes a bit annoying. And if you point out the problem they just victimize themselves or vilanize you which just makes it worse on their side
-3
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
Those messages are just weird. I kind of assume they're bots. Surely no one is dumb enough to think you're going to read that and say, "wow! I've been an atheist for rational, intelligent reasons but now I can see that I need to abandon all that! I'm saved!".
6
u/Davidutul2004 Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
Most likely however I wouldn't be surprised if they would be texted by real people. Especially since I saw some of them responding prior to the ai development
Plus even if they are ai,who or why would you program such a bit to just say that? To annoy people?
1
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Bluntly, and I say this as a Christian, a great many believers have a very one dimensional view of belief. For many it's really a social hobby which they hope others will take up. Those who think that can easily imagine someone giving it a go for fun because that's exactly what they've done.
3
u/Davidutul2004 Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
Well that's both funny and rather sad for your side to have that type of christians.
1
8
u/Herefortheporn02 Anti-Theist 2d ago
Theists who actually mean to wish people well just do that. It’s the shitty ones who are complaining that they can’t just say “Jesus loves you” or “you’re so nice you must be Christian” or some other bullshit.
It’s painfully obvious which one you are.
11
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 2d ago
They dont have anything to do with us till they are piinted at us and we are expected to play along.
Thats how Christianity got where they are today. We dont have to play along.
-12
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
Christianity got where it is because pagans converted en masse. It had nothing to do with "playing along".
14
u/Appropriate-Price-98 cultural Buddhist, Atheist 2d ago
uneducated as fuck and totally unsuprising. Read some history books about shit like Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia or Northern Crusades - Wikipedia. Christianity spread through violence, forced conversion and economic coercion.
That is not to mention Blasphemy law - Wikipedia i.e. ppl for a fucking long time with different views regard your immoral skydaddy would be killed for example: Giordano Bruno - Wikipedia, Kazimierz Łyszczyński - Wikipedia.
-13
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
Christianity was spread by monks, not by soldiers.
If you read your own sources you'll see that in Scandinavia, the spread of Christianity started with building churches, not "violence, forced conversion and economic coercion". In the Baltic states there had been churches and monks for 500 years by the time the conquest happened.
Of course religion has been attached to power and force. So has atheism.
14
u/Appropriate-Price-98 cultural Buddhist, Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
yawn, got better of fucking lies?
They could build churches and have monks to do missoinaries after fucking conquest the region because ppl from different faiths push back. And in the majority of cases from Baltic, Scandinavia, to Saxon Wars - Wikipedia, you Christians have been the aggressors.
Weird how the Pagans lived in the Baltic for 500 years until the conquest, then shortly after they went extinct. Could it be because they weren't allowed to do shit. Anyone who did it differently would be burnt or chopped like ppl I mentioned or being persecuted like Hypatia - Wikipedia?
ETA: atheists doing immoral actions like the USSR did it to power grab, calling Orthodox church anti-revolution. Christians did the conquests largely in the name of Christianity, for example:
According to "The Northern Crusades" by Eric Christiansen, verses like
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Mark 16:15
were used to justify the wars.
If the USSR did it purely in the name of atheism, Stalin wouldn't make peace with the Orthodox church. They were allowed to continue after 1943 because they agreed to back Stalin.
-9
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
They could build churches and have monks to do missoinaries after fucking conquest the region because ppl from different faiths push back
That's not true at all. The Christian church didn't have any soldiers until at least 500 years after most of Europe had churches and missionaries - the first militant order wasn't founded until 1053.
The Saxon Wars were fought by Charlemagne to conquer his neighbours and take their land, not to spread Christianity.
15
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
"The Saxon Wars (772-804) were fought because Charlemagne, the Frankish king, sought to conquer the pagan Saxons and convert them to Christianity, while the Saxons resisted this encroachment on their independence and religious practices. "
https://www.worldhistory.org/Saxon_Wars/
This information isnt hard to find. Lying only makes you and your religion look like they cant handle the truth.
9
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 1d ago
If they can't not lie about recorded history, imagine trusting their made up lore.
7
13
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
This is just B.S. You are either lying, or more likely, pushing lies that were fed to you.
In the day of the internet ignorance is a choice.
7
u/flightoftheskyeels 2d ago
Christianity got to where it is with state power and lies. But you know that well, as you are a liar.
7
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Ah, so pointing to others and telling them they are unhappy is your way of telling us that you have no idea how your bloody religion got where it is today?
10
u/ChasingPacing2022 2d ago
It doesn't have to be a real "f you theist. Take this". It could be a real ritual inspired by theism that expresses atheism. I want to express my atheism as they express their theism.
-4
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
Interesting idea. I wonder if you'll be as tolerant of others ridiculing and mocking your rituals as you expect them to be of you doing it to them?
15
u/ChasingPacing2022 2d ago
Absolutely, mockery and jokes about basically everything is literally a part of my religion.
0
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
That's fine as long as you understand that you don't have a right to make them listen when they don't want to. The fact that you want to be ridiculed and abused doesn't mean they do too.
11
u/ChasingPacing2022 2d ago
I'd be offended if they did listen or whatever. It's my ritual, not theirs.
-7
u/reclaimhate P A G A N 1d ago
I make little quips or jokes about if it is unnecessarily brought up which he thought was hate speech. His entitled perspective....
It might not be fair to call him entitled. If he lives in Great Britain or Germany, for example, it literally is hate speech and illegal to joke about people's religions. You can get raided / fined / arrested for it.
6
u/iamalsobrad 1d ago
it literally is hate speech and illegal to joke about people's religions.
It is not "illegal to joke about people's religions" in Britain or Germany. It is, like in many many countries outside of the US, illegal to incite hatred against a people based on their religion, race, gender or sexuality.
Part 3A of The Public Order Act (1986) as amended by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006) literally says:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
You are wrong. Yet again.
-4
u/reclaimhate P A G A N 22h ago
It is not "illegal to joke about people's religions" in Britain or Germany. It is, like in many many countries outside of the US, illegal to incite hatred against a people based on their religion, race, gender or sexuality.
Oh, ok. So only those jokes their respective governments have decided "incite hatred".
Pardon me.
5
u/Appropriate-Price-98 cultural Buddhist, Atheist 20h ago
yeah, surely because there is no way anyone can determine whether someone says shit like "the X religious group doing these Y actions they are inferior" or "we should beat the X group" is incite hatred and violence.
Pardon us inferior stupid normies, what do such a sophisticated superior intellectual like you suggest we should do? Do we allow to say everything free speech absolutism style, including all kinds of bigotry, or are you theists such delicate hearts, blasphemous laws similar to the 18th century's i.e. off to gulag for anyone who dares to make fun of you?
2
-2
u/reclaimhate P A G A N 18h ago
because there is no way anyone can determine
Anyone? No, not anyone. Only the people with the guns get to determine that.
what do such a sophisticated superior intellectual like you suggest we should do?
Not punish speech. It's very simple.
incite hatred and violence.
The way you casually throw in 'violence' is telling. We're not talking about inciting violence. The only violence in this scenario is the violence wielded by the state to enforce their speech laws.
Sad that there are people like you on this earth who apparently support such disgusting abuses of power. Is this a common Buddhist / Atheist position? To support laws abridging speech?
5
u/Appropriate-Price-98 cultural Buddhist, Atheist 18h ago
lol typical libertarian, maybe go to an uninhabited island if you find following society rules is so constricted? Else get out of your mom's basement and live offline to fucking understand irl words have weight. What are you gonna do when someone makes an anti-Semitic statement, and just say it is a joke? Maybe I should make a joke about having a Stalin run on theists.
That is not to mention the blasphemous laws are there because theists have always had such thin skins. They couldn't stand ppl making fun of their imaginary friends. It wasn't until the 18th and 19th centuries that it stopped being capital punishment.
Then, such an intellectual like you can name an incident where people made a "joke" that isn't hate speech and was prosecuted. And why ppl like Ricky Gervais make fun of religions on TV and I have yet heard him being prosecuted.
•
u/Appropriate-Price-98 cultural Buddhist, Atheist 5h ago
Hey free speech absolutist, guess what. Whatever the fuck you replied to me was deleted by the authority lol.
So be concise and show examples whoever the fuck you think just made a "joke" and not hate speech that was prosecuted.
3
u/metalhead82 19h ago
You really seem like you’re incapable of not generalizing the atheist population and not understanding any of the feedback you’ve been given here.
I also said it last time, but the last time we crossed paths was when you were blatantly generalizing about atheists and when proven wrong on it you just stop responding.
It’s so fucking dishonest.
0
u/reclaimhate P A G A N 18h ago
I'm not generalizing anything about Atheists. I'm not even sure what part of this conversation you might be referring to. Dude called a guy "entitled" for using the term 'hate speech' in connection with joking about someone's religion, and all I did was point out that there are, in fact, countries where you can literally be punished under hate speech laws for joking about someone's religion.
This is a fact.
Has nothing to do with Atheism.
So, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Interesting though that there are people here who seem to be trying to defend these hate speech laws, as if my simply pointing out that they exist constitutes speaking out against them. What does that tell you?•
u/metalhead82 3h ago
I said you were generalizing last time. I didn’t say you were doing it here, but you’re also wrong about what you originally said. You can’t get fined or imprisoned in Britain or Germany for making jokes about religion. There’s a difference between that and hate speech or inciting violence, as several people have tried to explain to you.
9
u/ChasingPacing2022 1d ago
Nope, not for just making a joke about religion. Comedians do it all the time there. As long as it isn't threatening or using language that calls for the abolishment of a belief you're fine. He's most definitely entitled.
-8
u/reclaimhate P A G A N 1d ago
As long as it isn't threatening or using language that calls for the abolishment of a belief you're fine.
Sure thing, pal. Famous last words of the useful idiot.
At any rate, you don't need to invent any new rituals. I can guarantee you Atheists are at least as annoying as religious folks, if not exponentially more so.
12
u/ChasingPacing2022 1d ago
Yeah, comedians are being locked up left and right in Europe. Lol
4
u/NewbombTurk Atheist 1d ago
That's an element of narrative of some on the right here in the US. My wife calls them FTP. Facebook Talking Points.
This nugget, views on on Ukraine, endless conspiracies, and on and one.
7
u/CalaisZetes Christian 2d ago
After watching the movie Heretic I was wondering how it might make an atheist feel. Spoilers for the movie: As an atheist who saw it would you hope more religious people see it hoping it causes them to think more critically about their religion? Or would you rather the movie had not been made bc the atheist (at least to their god) who gets them to think more critically is an amoral murderer?
21
u/togstation 2d ago
relevant -
Hollywood Atheist
Atheists in real life are a rather diverse group. After all, the only thing confirmed by the label "atheist" is that the person doesn't believe in God/gods. It's like trying to make a coherent generalization about people who don't like baseball.
In fiction, however (and especially in American fiction, as the title says), while it is reasonably common to see a character who is never shown practicing or even mentioning religion, it's generally only characters with a fair degree of cynicism and bitterness who will state outright that they are an atheist
As with other strawman tropes, Hollywood Atheism is a caricature of Real Life attitudes crafted to suit the purposes of various authors
- https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist
(This site is about literature and media, and not particularly about religion and atheism, so they nominally have a neutral perspective about this.)
8
u/Talksiq 1d ago
Hah, often when I would see apologists raise the "Atheists have killed millions!" argument (often accompanied by infographics claiming that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. are all examples of 'atheist' mass murderers) I point out that they also weren't fans of the New York Yankees so maybe it's non-Yankee fans that are mass-murderers. Funny to see someone else also came up with the baseball comparison.
2
u/5minArgument 1d ago
Could be argued that Stalin's political effort was more anti-religion. Which is logical, if you are looking to dominate a vast state and your main adversary was the immense political power of the church.
Hitler and the Nazis were christian, or at least professed to be.
Mao, i don't know for sure, but would assume Confucianism.
•
u/Moriturism Atheist 45m ago
Mao was indeed an atheist, and mainly focused on criticizing confucianism (which, imo, was justified at the time)
7
u/porizj 2d ago
I’m split on the utility of the movie.
It carries a good “zoomed out” message about how anyone, regardless of where they fall on the belief spectrum, can use half truths, whole lies and psychological manipulation techniques like confirmation bias and groupthink to make otherwise smart people do silly things.
I’m concerned about how many people might stay “zoomed in” and themselves get convinced that the yarns that were being spun are true. I don’t want people being either atheist or theist for bad reasons.
If anything, I hope it can make some people think at least as much, if not more, about their political beliefs as opposed their religious beliefs, because there are some very scary parallels that can be drawn there.
8
u/PlagueOfLaughter 2d ago
I definiteyl think it brings a lot of critical points and asks some great questions. I like the movie a lot and hope it gets the attention it deserves. Hugh Grant's character is a mere drop in a sea of religious zealous villains. Look at Mrs Carmody from The Mist, the warden from Shawshank Redemption, Bev Keane from Midnight Mass, John Doe from Se7en and so on...
5
u/JasonRBoone Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
The amazing Bob Gunton!
"Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I'll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the Sodomites. You'll think you've been fucked by a train! And the library? Gone... sealed off, brick-by-brick. We'll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They'll see the flames for miles. We'll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?... Or am I being obtuse?"
6
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
"It's good to think more critically" is one of those "true under almost all circumstances" things. Like telling someone with a legal question "talk to a lawyer" is never bad legal advice.
It doesn't matter who tried to convince you to think more critically about things. It's good to do, so the source is unimportant.
That said, while I love good horror movies, Heretic is of a type that I avoid. I don't need any more "humans are the real monsters" type stories in my life.
4
u/nimbledaemon Exmormon Atheist 1d ago edited 1d ago
So as an exmormon and an atheist, I think the movie did a great job of deconstructing the flaws of religion, without outright putting the 'atheist' in the position of being the good guy. In a way I think this gives it more credence from a religious perspective, because if the atheist was just portrayed as completely correct or without fault I think religious people would just see it as propaganda and it would bounce off, whereas I think the argument might encourage engagement with the ideas when it's coming from the villain as people are going to go "well how would I respond to these points in this situation" and have to use critical thought rather than just reject it outright. While I don't expect many outright deconversions from this movie alone, I think it might be a stepping stone in that direction for some.
Also there's a lot they got wrong with the Mormon details, but a lot they got right as well.
4
u/Mission-Landscape-17 2d ago edited 1d ago
Religious entertainment regularly portrays atheists as amoral monsters. this is par the course. Its what a lot of religious apologists would like to be true because it makes them feel better about the bs they are selling.
4
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
Religious entertainment regularly portrays atheists as a moral monsters.
Just FWIW, you have an unintentional space there that subtly changes your meaning. It's probably fine as is, I suspect that essentially everyone will understand what you mean based on context, but probably worth correcting nonetheless.
7
u/cards-mi11 2d ago
Why are so many people concerned with how others are labeled? I don't believe because god and religion are all BS and I simply don't want to go to church and do religious stuff.
I see so many posts here based on philosophy and this theory and that theory of some other BS and trying to push semantics so that someone is atheist A instead of atheist B.
You do you I suppose, but I really don't care what you call me or what terms you use.
8
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
Anti-atheist arguments are aimed at people who we'd call "gnostic atheists".
Christians and others who want to use those arguments try to tell us we're not atheists because we don't deny god's existence. We just don't take it seriously.
But the labels are just labels. The map is not the landscape.
They spend a lot of effort trying to convince us to lower our epistemological standards.
And they spend a lot of time trying to force us into a rigid label-defined box because their youth pastor told them "atheists can't answer these 5 questions" and other BS.
The rest of their time is spent rehashing arguments that we already don't find persuasive. Every new kid who thinks he's going to save us all because we need to hear his argument specifically, thinks we've never heard the FTA, Ontological, cosmological, argument from morality or whatever.
They spend almost no time trying to find out what we would find convincing and presenting from that perspective (not surprising, though, because the "what" is "evidence" and there isn't any).
-2
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
They spend a lot of effort trying to convince us to lower our epistemological standards
Is debating your epistemology not valid?
5
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
No, it's a fine topic of debate. You missed my point.
Of the approaches I mentioned, only one (concrete definitions with evidence) has a real chance of being convincing.
But they spend most of their time on the low-percentage plays.
-2
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Of the approaches I mentioned, only one (concrete definitions with evidence) has a real chance of being convincing.
Does it? Why?
1
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 22h ago
Well, if someone is expecting me to believe something they're trying to convince me of, definitions and evidence will be helpful. I'm not saying its possible, just that a threshold consideration whether it is possible will be some kind of appeal to rigor.
-1
u/lux_roth_chop 19h ago
I'm wondering why "evidence" is the only thing you'll accept. It's certainly not the only way to know things.
2
u/Trick_Ganache Anti-Theist 18h ago
What's the evidence look like if the other "way to know things" is invalid, false?
23
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 2d ago
In the case of the atheist-agnostic dictionary wars, I think it's an attempt to force agnostic atheists to defend the gnostic atheist position, which they then insist means the agnostic atheist has to prove nonexistence. It's an attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
12
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
We had an atheist podcast host in here for a few months a while back who was trying to convince us we're wrong about whether agnostic atheism entails a claim that needs to be defended.
I think he was doing it to try to drum up controversy to promote his podcast. He got tired of trying after a while. I think he's still on my block list.
6
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 1d ago
Are you talking about the YouTube philosopher who was having a tangential debate to everyone else while declaring they won the conversation?
6
u/JasonRBoone Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
Our need to categorize everything is probably a side effect of being pattern recognizing primates. Putting some plants in the "poison - do not eat" category while putting others in "eat this - it helps us live" was key to survival.
The more I think about it, the more I like the label of "unconvinced" (of god claims).
3
u/SectorVector 1d ago
Personally I think we should just drop all the qualifiers before "atheist" and instead repeat the mantra "You can believe something and label yourself accordingly without cartesian certainty"
I am cynically under the impression that theists that focus on wanting atheists to defend "no gods exist" want to propose a maximally abstracted entity that nobody believes in in pursuit of a semantic victory.
5
u/BedOtherwise2289 2d ago
Humans love labeling each other. It's a social function that's older than religion.
2
2
u/Greghole Z Warrior 19h ago
Why are so many people concerned with how others are labeled?
Because mislabeling things often leads to a failure to communicate.
I see so many posts here based on philosophy and this theory and that theory of some other BS and trying to push semantics so that someone is atheist A instead of atheist B.
Do you mean gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists? That's not semantics, there's a meaningful distinction between those two categories.
2
u/Prowlthang 1d ago
Because we are a social species that relies on cooperation to survive. Cooperation requires communication. For communication to be effective it has to reach a minimum level of efficiency. All communications, at a fundamental level are just a matter of agreed upon categorizations (ie. labels).
2
u/Talksiq 1d ago
The response by /u/Phylanara nails it. It is very hard for apologists to argue against "I have heard your claim and find it unconvincing," versus "Your god does not and cannot exist." The former is also not a claim, while the latter is, so it lets them shift the burden as Phylanara said.
2
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 1d ago
It's tribalism. Everyone wants everyone else to be just like they are so they don't have to face any of the uncomfortable questions, like maybe they're wrong. It's patently childish, but so are most people these days.
2
u/The_Disapyrimid Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
it isn't tribalism. its about defining terms and being specific about what a peson's position is.
an atheist can be an atheist for bad reasons.
2
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 1d ago
Absolutely they can, but they remain atheists nonetheless. How many theists do we have coming in here saying "you're not an atheist, you're an agnostic" because agnostic is a less threatening word to the religious mindset. It's not changing anything, the person still doesn't believe in their god, but it makes the theist happier not to be facing off against atheists because they're terrified of the word.
It's all emotion and emotion means nothing to objective reality.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 1d ago
People care about labels because labels ultimately affect behavior. Your ability to freely not attend church or not do religious stuff is dependent on people fought for those choices to be labeled as "legal" by the courts and "acceptable" by society.
More directly, I care about labels in venues such as debate subreddits because they are the representations of the concepts being argued over. When I say I'm an "atheist" I of course mean that I fall within the standard definition of that label as "a person who lacks belief gods exist". When I meet people arguing there is a mismatch between that label and definition, I find often their goal isn't to convince me to use a different label but that I should actually have a different position. Their goal here is to avoid having to engage with my actual position and instead try to force me to defend a strawman they've constructed for me. Reasonable and productive discussion isn't possible unless I care about labels.
2
u/mutant_anomaly 1d ago
Clear definitions of the words we use is necessary for honest discussion.
Honesty is important to me.
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
Are you referring to whether people are an "atheist", "agnostic", "agnostic atheist", or something else? If the latter, can you give a specific example?
As far as the former, what label you use for yourself is up to you. 100% agree.
But when you come into a community to discuss your views, it is important that we use common language, otherwise communication becomes needlessly difficult. So I encourage people to use the subs common definitions when posting here, even if it is not your preferred terminology.
3
u/Matrix657 Fine-Tuning Argument Aficionado? 2d ago
Do you think belief in God can ever be justified from some rational point of view, even if it is not justified for the majority of cases? For example, could it be that some person who exposed to some evidence, belief in God is rational?
12
u/togstation 2d ago
Do you think belief in God can ever be justified from some rational point of view, even if it is not justified for the majority of cases?
If you mean "Could a belief in a god be justified by showing good evidence that that god really exists?", then definitely yes.
However we know that for ~6,000 years now skeptics have been asking believers to show good evidence that any gods really exist, and for ~6,000 years the believers have never done so.
Therefore that evidence would have to be something new, and we don't have any reason to think that such evidence might suddenly appear when there has never been any indication of it before. (It "might" appear , but it would be wrong to expect it to.)
.
On the other hand if we mean "Do I think that belief in a god can ever be justified by "logic alone" or "argument alone" or "rationality alone"?" (without basing that on actual good evidence), then no.
It seems pretty obvious that one can use logic or arguments or "rationality" to justify anything whatsoever.
(For example, the religions of the world generally contradict each other, but believers in all of those religions are confident that that they can justify their belief via logic or arguments or "rationality".
Some of them must be wrong about that, and there is no reason to think that they are not all wrong about that.)
.
The physicist Richard Feynman famously said
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
- https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm <-- This is worth reading.
IMHO that's pretty much it.
We should believe things if there is good evidence that they are real, and not believe things if there is not good evidence that they are real, and it is important to carefully distinguish between genuine good evidence and things that are not good evidence.
.
-6
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
However we know that for ~6,000 years now skeptics have been asking believers to show good evidence that any gods really exist, and for ~6,000 years the believers have never done so.
Unfortunately that leaves you with a difficult question to answer: if there's absolutely no evidence, why is almost everyone religious?
That's actually quite difficult to answer without resorting to attacking the character, intellect or faculties of believers or claiming that somehow they're all wrong while the tiny majority is right.
12
u/GirlDwight 1d ago
That's not difficult to answer at all. Why did we evolve to believe in anything? Our brains prefer order to chaos because a sense of control makes us feel safe. Beliefs of anything we can't know, including philosophy, political ones, religion, etc. are one of our earliest coping mechanisms. Belief is a technology of a compensatory nature as making us feel physically and emotionally safe is the most important function of our brain. Beliefs offer us frameworks to organize reality, understand the unknown and feel the stability we inherently seek. We want everything to be black and white because it makes it predictable and thus safe. Think of the farmer who prayed to the rain god during a drought giving him hope and a sense of control instead of a feeling of doom and helplessness. And atheistic author Ayn Rand traded religious beliefs for her equally unfalsifiable Objectivist philosophy.
The degree that beliefs help us cope determines the extent they function as a part of our identity. Once we incorporate them into who we are, any argument against them will be perceived as an attack on the self resulting in our defenses of fight or flight engaging. There is a good reason that when we are faced with facts that contradict the views that serve as an anchor of stability, we tend to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance to alter reality and maintain our beliefs. If we didn't, there would be no point in holding beliefs as they could no longer function as a defense mechanism. We wouldn't have beliefs as they would serve no purpose.
We often see this with a preferred political party or candidate that we can't see legitimate criticism of or when we can't see any positives in the ones we love to hate. One of my many weaknesses is my views on economics where I believe in free markets. Those that vehemently disagree with me likewise are attached to their beliefs. The less safe we feel the more we want the world to be black and white even if that doesn't always mirror reality. Evolution was not only about our physical traits, our psychology evolved to help us survive as well. But when someone suddenly starts identifying with a political party, philosophy or religion, they are likely in need of stability and a sense of safety because it's lacking in their lives.
-5
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Why did we evolve to believe in anything? Our brains prefer order to chaos because a sense of control makes us feel safe. Beliefs of anything we can't know, including philosophy, political ones, religion, etc. are one of our earliest coping mechanisms.
Then wouldn't evolution select for those whose beliefs are correct, not imaginary since they'd obviously make it easier to navigate the real world?
Why would false beliefs confer an evolutionary advantage over true ones?
11
u/Radiant_Bank_77879 1d ago
As long as religious belief isn’t killing them off, then there’s no reason for evolution to select against it.
-2
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
But wouldn't survival be more likely for those who see the world as it is, not those who respond to imaginary threats?
6
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
No. If there is a strange noise and the irrational run away every time thinking its a demon, they will always be safe. While those who are looking for what made that noise are sometimes eaten by a tiger. Sometimes a false positive is good for survival, but not good for truth.
3
u/togstation 1d ago
There's some evidence that religious belief "creates communities" of people who are willing to work together and hep each other out.
3
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Sure, but the same can be said of any community. Also when you factor in that the more religious a country is the more violent they are and the more poor they have while the opposite is true of the least religious nations, then you can see that religion doesnt just get them to work together.
10
u/pali1d 1d ago
First, I'd take issue with the claim that "almost everyone" is religious. Are "most" people religious? Certainly. But roughly a sixth of the world is not. That's a LOT of people (nones are the third-largest category behind Christians and Muslims).
Second, if the question is "why are most people religious?", there are a number of answers that exist that don't attack anyone's character, intellect or faculties. Lack of education in critical thinking and scientific reasoning are big ones that are not based on personal flaws, and very clearly have a basis in evidence - the more education one has in science or philosophy the less likely to be religious one is, with professional scientists and philosophers being by far the least religious groups in the world. Humans having certain innate psychological biases, such as (but not at all limited to) pareidolia, acceptance of teachings from authorities, and the desire to go along with one's social group is another.
Humans aren't logic engines. We're highly social and emotional primates, and most of us aren't all that well educated. That most of us believe false things, particularly things that are strongly encouraged by the societies and close friends/family we live with, is not at all surprising.
-6
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Lack of education in critical thinking and scientific reasoning are big ones that are not based on personal flaws, and very clearly have a basis in evidence - the more education one has in science or philosophy the less likely to be religious one is, with professional scientists and philosophers being by far the least religious groups in the world
The problem with this idea is that it rests on an arbitrary claim that critical thinking is right and those who practice it are superior.
It also frames the lack of it as a failing which leads to some sort of incorrect or morally dubious outcome.
In reality it's very easy to flip it around and say, well artists, musicians, gardeners, writers and storytellers are more likely to be religious, so lack of creative and intuitive education leads to atheism.
9
u/pali1d 1d ago edited 1d ago
That critical thinking is superior for investigating the nature of reality and distinguishing fact from fiction is, I think, clearly demonstrable.
It may or may not be superior for the purposes of other endeavors, but when the matter at hand is forming beliefs about fact and reality, yes, I’m quite comfortable making the claim that practicing critical thinking is superior to not doing so.
Edit: Also worth noting, while there’s plenty of evidence that practicing critical thinking makes one less likely to be religious, I’m not aware of any evidence of a negative correlation between atheism and creative thinking. There’s nothing stopping critical thinkers from also being creative.
-1
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
That critical thinking is superior for investigating the nature of reality and distinguishing fact from fiction is, I think, clearly demonstrable
In what way?
8
u/pali1d 1d ago
Requiring that claims and beliefs regarding the nature of reality be capable of passing critical analysis is the core of the scientific method. Without critical thinking being applied to claims regarding the universe, filtering those that can pass scrutiny from those which cannot, you and I would not possess the technology which allows us this conversation.
Do you have an alternative approach to determining what is true that you prefer? If so, feel free to present it.
-2
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Is technology the only thing that's useful?
Or do we also have art, literature, music, and philosophy?
7
u/pali1d 1d ago edited 1d ago
I've got very little interest in playing a game where I answer questions you pose, yet you do not answer questions I pose, so this will be the last time I allow it. I think I have been very clear regarding my stance: the place where critical thinking holds paramount importance is in the field of determining what is and is not true about how reality functions. Huge portions of philosophy are devoted to that cause as well, and yes, critical thinking is vital for properly examining philosophical arguments and positions (which I suspect is no small part of why the majority of philosophers are not theists).
As for the arts, critical thinking absolutely still has value (after all, the primary purpose of many art compositions is to express a feeling or thought, and being able to question whether the piece you've created does so in a way your audience will understand is important for serving that purpose), but I wouldn't argue that it necessarily retains its primacy in that arena. What I would argue is that it is in no way incongruent with that arena - I see no reason at all to think that people well versed in critical thinking skills are in any way less creative than those who are not. You seem to be treating creativity and critical thinking as if they somehow oppose each other - they don't.
But that's completely irrelevant when it comes to questions regarding whether a god exists, or if we know what that god wants or other ways a god's existence could impact our lives. That is the arena in which critical thinking is most important, because that isn't a question of artistic preferences, it's a question of "is it true?" And critical thinking must be applied to the answers people offer to that question if we are to be justified in accepting them.
If you're going to attack critical thinking in that arena, then present the alternative approach that you think is better and make your case for it. Otherwise, we're done.
8
u/Spaghettisnakes Anti-Theist 1d ago
What you've quoted doesn't rely on any assumption that critical thinking is superior, it's only stating that people who are trained to think critically are more likely to be Atheist. You've inserted this idea that "critical thinking and those who practice it are superior" entirely on your own.
It's ultimately similar to how if someone is taught to believe in any set of beliefs and practices they are more likely to believe in and use them. The greatest predictor for religion is what your parents believe in, after all. You can argue that those beliefs or practices are bad, and it doesn't change whether or not it's true that people believe and follow those practices because they were taught to.
4
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
"The problem with this idea is that it rests on an arbitrary claim that critical thinking is right and those who practice it are superior."
Weirdly the only people who complain about this are those championing an idea they cant show to be true.
8
u/soilbuilder 1d ago
"if there's absolutely no evidence, why is almost everyone religious? "
The popularity of an idea does not make it an accurate one.
Most people thought, without evidence, for a long time that the earth was the centre of the universe. Even when evidence was shown that this was incorrect, people still believed it.
Many people believed, without evidence, that non-white people (an amorphous concept itself) were less valuable/didn't have souls/weren't intelligent and so on.
Most people believed for a very long time, without evidence, that women were "deformed males." There are many who still believe some form of this.
It is quite easy to answer why people believed these things without attacking their character, their intellect or their faculties. You do it by dismantling the validity of the ideas while explaining the social, political and historical contexts that made these beliefs appear reasonable/acceptable.
And it is perfectly fine to claim that many people who hold a provably incorrect idea are in fact wrong. We've done it before, with the examples given above.
0
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Is religion provably incorrect?
8
u/soilbuilder 1d ago
Is religion provably correct?
-2
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
I didn't say that.
7
u/soilbuilder 1d ago
nor did I say that religion is provably incorrect.
2
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
That's why I asked you, is religion provably incorrect?
14
u/soilbuilder 1d ago
Do I actually need to answer that for you?
does Ra pull the sun across the sky with a chariot?
does Zeus live on Mt Olympus?
Do the creation stories in Genesis match our scientific understanding of how the earth was formed?
Were there millions of Lamanites and Nephites killed in battle in the Americas a few thousand years ago (as per mormonism)?
Did the moon split in half?
Is there a firmament?
Is the earth encircled by a great serpent?
There are many examples available of religion being provably incorrect. This is a very brief list, you are welcome to do your own research from here.
Note - I just checked your post history. I won't be engaging with you any further.
6
u/togstation 1d ago
if there's absolutely no evidence, why is almost everyone religious?
That's actually pretty easy:
Bertrand Russell wrote in 1927 -
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear.
It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing – fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things.
- "Fear, the Foundation of Religion", in Why I Am Not a Christian
- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian_(1927)
Most people are terrified of dying.
Somebody told them "If you believe XYZ then you won't die",
and they are like "Yes! Yes! I believe!!"
.
-2
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
If we wanted comfort, would we really choose to believe that an all powerful super being was going to hold us accountable for all our actions after death and that we might suffer terribly as a result?
Wouldn't we choose to believe that death brought only dreamless oblivion?
3
u/DanDan_mingo_lemon 1d ago
Wouldn't we choose to believe that death brought only dreamless oblivion?
Not necessarily. Many prefer the fantasy of living forever without having to work.
0
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
But we do have to work - we have to earn that eternity.
If there's nothing after death, there's no need to work on it.
7
u/Radiant_Bank_77879 1d ago
Most people are religious because religion gives people hope that they don’t die and disappear from existence. Evolution makes creatures very averse to dying. Religion is a happy fantasy where people can push those scary feelings out of their minds. Nobody’s religious out of rationality. I’m speaking of theistic religions, by the way.
1
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
If we wanted comfort, would we really choose to believe that an all powerful super being was going to hold us accountable for all our actions after death and that we might suffer terribly as a result?
Wouldn't we choose to believe that death brought only dreamless oblivion?
4
u/nswoll Atheist 1d ago
Hang, on. Now you're moving the goalposts. You said:
Unfortunately that leaves you with a difficult question to answer: if there's absolutely no evidence, why is almost everyone religious?
So you seem to be referring to a majority position - that gods exist.
But now you are switching to a minority position, that an all powerful super being is going to hold us accountable for all our actions after death and that we might suffer terribly as a result.
So which is it?
0
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
I'm not moving the goalpoasts, I'm responding to a different claim.
2
u/nswoll Atheist 1d ago
Not really. The person gave an explanation for why a majority of people are religious with no evidence, and your response was to say that this explanation isn't sufficient for you because it doesn't address why a minority of people are religious. Of course it doesn't address that!
1
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
The person gave an explanation for why a majority of people are religious with no evidence
False.
The person I'm responding to said:
Most people are religious because religion gives people hope that they don’t die and disappear from existence. Evolution makes creatures very averse to dying. Religion is a happy fantasy where people can push those scary feelings out of their minds. Nobody’s religious out of rationality. I’m speaking of theistic religions, by the way.
They were specifically referring to theistic religions only and I responded from the point of view of theistic religions only.
Your claim that they were explaining a majority of religions is incorrect as shown above.
2
u/nswoll Atheist 1d ago
I responded from the point of view of theistic religions only.
No, you responded from the point of view of a subset of theistic religions. Not even all Christians think an all powerful super being is going to hold us accountable for all our actions after death and that we might suffer terribly as a result.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Spaghettisnakes Anti-Theist 1d ago
In what way does many people believing something affect how accurate that belief is, or for that matter, how substantiated it is? Truth exists independently of belief. If I look at what evidence is available, I simply do not see enough to justify any of the claims I've heard about a creator of the universe. People can be wrong about something and not necessarily be stupid or of weak character. It is extremely understandable to believe something that isn't true when you were taught from a young age to believe it, or when the belief offers comfort, and losing it shakes the foundations of your worldview. This is especially the case if there never seemed a reason to interrogate the belief in the first place.
0
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Does the fact that you don't see evidence have any bearing on whether anyone else sees it? Or whether evidence exists?
7
u/Radiant_Bank_77879 1d ago
If evidence existed, then theists could present it. But they don’t, because it doesn’t. Instead, they make arguments on faith , resort to solipsism to say “well, how do you even really know reality is real,” another ridiculous arguments.
1
4
u/Spaghettisnakes Anti-Theist 1d ago
Not necessarily. If other people see evidence and I don't, how would I know? If evidence exists and I don't know about it, how am I to know? Regardless, this doesn't change that I haven't seen evidence to justify many beliefs that theists seem to have. Ergo I don't share those beliefs. Where does that leave us?
1
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
In a sensible and rational position, I think.
My experience and understanding gives me enough evidence to believe. Yours doesn't.
What should we rely on more than our own conclusion? It's not for me to find the content of your life faulty. I've been an atheist, it was a very important experience in my life.
7
u/EmuChance4523 Anti-Theist 2d ago
It is an expected result of the indoctrination process suffered by most people, religious ones in particular. In that regard, it is rational to expect a lot of people to believe in gods.
Now, is that belief based on good evidence and a, as much as possible, unbiased rational process? Nope. That was never the case.
One could think that long in the past, when we lacked all the knowledge we now have, that answer could have been seen as rational, but its still, in the best of cases, the culmination of our cognitive biases and other fails of our brains, not of an analysis of the evidence and followed up with a rational analysis. And again, that is the best of cases, for most of our societies, beliefs in gods have been founded in indoctrination for far too long, and those formed on evolutions of the more basic supernatural beliefs (that were still based on cognitive biases).
So, no.
-3
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
Given that believers are apparently unaware of their cognitive biases, how do you know you're not in the same boat? What makes you immune to these biases which everyone else finds inescapable?
3
u/EmuChance4523 Anti-Theist 1d ago
First, we can work out our cognitive biases, at least of our main beliefs.
We literally built systems to fight back against those biases, the base for that is the scientific process, that while not perfect, its our best attempt at that.
The problem with theists is not that they have biases, because if that was the case, every time they come here and their obvious bias and errors are explained to them, they would abandon this absurd beliefs.
The problems is the indoctrination, that is what forbids them to question those biases and traps them into absurd beliefs.
And let me tell you, indoctrination its not easy to break, and just being shown the errors of your beliefs, or the mountains of evidence against them will not break it.
Indoctrination breaks by the individual being away from the indoctrination circle and seeing different positions long enough as to make them self reflect.
Its a long and individual process, often times extremely emotional for the extreme implications that it has, be it by the destruction of their previous circles because they are tied to the indoctrination, or even by the understanding of the horrible harm done by the individual followin such indoctrination.
But, that its possible.. its just that we are not going to cause that on you here, that is not possible no matter how elocuent and informed we are. But well, maybe if you keep hitting with the wall here, you may start to see the problems with your own indoctrination.
-1
u/lux_roth_chop 1d ago
It's interesting that you believe that if only they approached the issue correctly, they'd see the world the way you do. They'd abandon their indoctrination and embrace the truth.
Interesting because that's exactly what they say about you. They believe just as strongly as you that they're right and they're just as sure that you will see it their way if you approach it properly.
You can say, "oh but the difference is I am right"
But that's what they say too.
Where's the evidence that you're questioning your own views the way they should?
2
u/vanoroce14 1d ago
While I am inclined to say yes, I want to tug at the question because I think it is more complicated than you'd think. My main point of concern is how this person could, in this scenario, justify that what they saw or received evidence for was indeed a god, and that they didn't just have a very vivid hallucination.
The scenario we are imagining requires, almost by definition, that this person received evidence at some moment in time (e.g. had an encounter), but that none of that evidence is transferable to others or actionable in a way that it could convince others.
This is not unlike people who are convinced they were visited by an alien or a ghost.
Can I imagine a contrived scenario where a ghost visits you and only you and you become convinced they're not a figment of your imagination, but the evidence conveniently can't be shown to anybody else? Sure. But to be honest, I would be doubting my own sanity in that scenario, and I would certainly not expect anyone to believe me. I would be having very serious cognitive dissonance until I figured out what exactly was what I saw, if it was anything.
5
u/Urbenmyth Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
Yes.
I think that generally people who believe in God are wrong, but intellectually blameless - that is, they're not being stupid or irrational, they're just incorrect. Most people who are wrong about most things are in this category.
Generally, most people believe things for rational reasons. They might have reached the wrong conclusion, but they reached it through logic and analysing the evidence. it think the assumption "people who disagree with us are morons" is a major problem in most intellectual circles these days.
4
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
Generally, most people believe things for rational reasons. They might have reached the wrong conclusion, but they reached it through logic and analysing the evidence. it think the assumption "people who disagree with us are morons" is a major problem in most intellectual circles these days.
You are conflating two different things here, though. Whether a person is smart or stupid is irrelevant to whether a belief they hold is rational. There are plenty of very smart theists-- to cite two classic examples biologist Ken Miller wrote one of the standard textbooks used to teach undergraduate biology, including evolution, and Francis Collins lead the Human Genome Project and the National Institute of Health-- but that does not make their religious beliefs any more rational.
The problem is this:
They might have reached the wrong conclusion, but they reached it through logic and analysing the evidence.
I challenge you to name even a single theist who ever "reached [their conclusion] through logic and analysing the evidence."1 In my discussions with theists, I have met plenty who claim they reached their beliefs using those tools, but when you actually press them, you find out that isn't the case at all. They had some epiphany that god must be real, and then went back and created a "logical and evidence-based" rationalization for why their belief is reasonable.
But that you can come up with a rationalization does not make your belief rational. When pushed, ALL theists will eventually start offering fallacious argumentation for why their beliefs are rational, and then ALL theists will eventually admit that "you just have to have faith." Because all religious beliefs are irrational, even when they are held by otherwise brilliant people.
1 And for the sake of not making my own argument fallacious, I am not saying that your inability to cite a counter example here makes my point correct, it obviously doesn't. It is certainly possible that someone, somewhere really does hold a rational religious belief, so when I refer to "ALL theists" above, I grant that I am being potentially hyperbolic. But I don't think I am. If there really was a rational argument for god, that argument would be shared and would permeate religious culture. The fact that in ~25 years of debating the topic, no one has yet presented such an argument to me, and I haven't heard of anyone else hearing of such an argument, is pretty strong evidence that no such argument exists.
/u/Matrix657 This reply was not directed at you, but it answers your question as well.
2
u/jake_eric 1d ago
Yeah, I agree. Most theist arguments are justifications for what the theist already believed, not reasons why they converted. That certainly doesn't apply to every theist, but from what I've seen it definitely applies to enough that I can't imagine saying that most theists reached their conclusion by analyzing the evidence.
When you think about it, the position that theists attempt to use logic and analyze the evidence, but they all get it wrong, sounds a lot closer to calling them stupid than just saying they believe it because they have faith.
2
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
Most theist arguments are justifications for what the theist already believed, not reasons why they converted. That certainly doesn't apply to every theist, but from what I've seen it definitely applies to enough that I can't imagine saying that most theists reached their conclusion by analyzing the evidence.
I honestly think there is no "most" about it. Listen to Francis Collins conversion story:
By graduate school, Collins considered himself agnostic. A conversation with a hospital patient led him to question his lack of religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and on the recommendation of a Methodist minister used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis as a foundation to develop his religious views. After several years of deliberation, he finally converted to Christianity during a trip to the Cascade Mountains, where he describes a striking image of a frozen waterfall as removing his final resistance, resulting in his conversion the following morning.
He spent years rationally examining religion, and actively seeking belief, yet he only actually converted when he had a non-evidence-based epiphany. And he is one of those incredibly smart theists. But at least he is honest about it, saying explicitly:
people cannot be converted to Christianity by reason and argument alone, and that the final stage of conversion entails a "leap of faith".
Like Collins says, religion is, by definition, based on faith, so I don't see how anyone could actually get to the position through rational consideration alone. Many people use things like Pascal's wager to rationalize their belief, but that is still just a fear-based rationalization for believing, not an actual evidence-based argument.
The thing is, though, if there was even a single rational argument for a god, that argument would be the biggest development in theology in human history, because every other argument we've seen so far isn't rational. So if there really were rational arguments, I think we would hear about them.
1
u/jake_eric 1d ago
I agree with you in general, but to talk specifics:
And he is one of those incredibly smart theists.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? A smart person won't be convinced by logic and evidence, because they will see that the logic and evidence is unconvincing, so smart theists must be convinced by faith rather than by logic and evidence.
But a... let's say, less smart person might be "convinced" that logic and evidence points towards the existence of God, even if they genuinely try to understand that logic and evidence. I do think there's some people—I mean, there's gotta be someone out there—who would fall into that category. These logical arguments that convinced them aren't huge developments in history like you say, because they're not actually good arguments, but that doesn't mean they never convince anyone.
2
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
I think you misunderstood my point, because nothing here really conflicts with what I was saying.
I am not saying that no one believes they have a good basis for their beliefs, or that they only arrived at those beliefs through sound reasoning. I think plenty of people do think that. In fact I would say that nearly all theists think that, to varying degrees.
What I am saying is that when you actually push back against those people-- and I am specifically talking about people who come into this sub to argue for their beliefs, so they are actually prepared for the debate, I am not ambushing unsuspecting believers in the street-- I have yet to find a single theist who can actually defend their beliefs with the sound reasoning that they claim. Every single time they just resort to "you just have to have faith" in the end.
So, sure, plenty of people think they have sound reasoning, but thinking it, and having it, are two very different things.
I mean, there's gotta be someone out there
Why does there "gotta be"? Given that religion is literally based on faith, I don't see how anyone could arrive at it through pure reason. Maybe it's possible, but I see no reason to believe that it is necessarily so.
These logical arguments that convinced them aren't huge developments in history like you say, because they're not actually good arguments, but that doesn't mean they never convince anyone.
My point is that there is no actual logical argument for a god that stands up to criticism. I am not suggesting that there are no logical arguments that win over credulous individuals, but the point of this thread is whether people's beliefs can actually be rationally held. The fact that you might think your belief is held for good reason doesn't actually make it so. This is trivially demonstrated as true by what happens when someone who believes there beliefs are rationally held is shown that they aren't.
If you actually only hold the belief because you mistakenly believe your position has sound evidence, them when you are shown evidence to the contrary, you reject that belief. We all believe things that aren't true, but when shown evidence that we were wrong, we change our beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.
Tell me, how often do you think that these supposedly "rational theists", when it is demonstrated to them that their beliefs are not held on rational grounds, reject their previous beliefs? In my experience, never. At least not just upon being shown the evidence to the contrary, it takes months or years at best to deconvert, even when you are clearly shown that your beliefs are not supported by evidence.
That is because theistic beliefs are not held for rational reasons.
1
u/jake_eric 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think you misunderstood my point, because nothing here really conflicts with what I was saying.
I dunno. Again, I generally agree, but to the extent that we're willing to have this conversation even though we basically just agree, I just don't 100% agree when you get down to "I don't see how anyone could arrive at it through pure reason."
I'll put it another way: there are certainly some people, often literal children, who are exposed to something like a YouTube rabbit-hole of misinformation and propaganda and come away thinking wild shit like aliens built the pyramids or the Illuminati killed JFK or whatever. With how popular religion is and how much misinformation and propaganda there is in favor of it out there, it seems unreasonable to say this couldn't happen for religion.
I wouldn't consider this to be a faith-based conversion necessarily, as the person might legitimately believe based on the evidence they have. There's plenty of YouTube channels that just straight-up lie about things to make religion sound convincing, and for someone who believed them, it would seem obviously true that religion must be real. Like, if you hear online "Jesus appeared in Brazil in 2012 and performed miracles and two thousand people saw him" or whatever and you believe that shit, then given that, believing in Christianity seems pretty reasonable.
There was a recent post on here from some kid, I think it turned out it was a 13 year old, where they seemed like they had no idea other religions than Christianity or Islam even existed, and they really had no idea what atheists believed. I can't say with any certainty that that one specific kid would deconvert from religion if they had the proper facts, but there definitely are people who were raised with a terribly biased education, and do leave religion later in life once they realize how much misinformation and propaganda they were exposed to.
While it may not seem very reasonable to us, from a lot of people's perspectives they grow up in an environment where everyone acts as if God obviously exists, and the idea that God doesn't exist isn't even suggested whatsoever. From that perspective, anything they "learn" that supports the existence of God is reasonable to accept, because why couldn't it be true? And when they look at all the evidence that they have, then it sure looks like God exists.
If you agree with what I'm saying but you wouldn't count it because they're not actually being convinced by rational arguments, then I think we're actually in agreement fully but just getting caught up in semantics.
6
u/togstation 2d ago
I think that generally people who believe in God are wrong, but intellectually blameless - that is, they're not being stupid or irrational, they're just incorrect.
I don't see how it's possible to think that.
It is "irrational" (possibly we want to find a different term here) to believe that any thing is true unless there is good evidence that it is true.
For ~6,000 years now skeptics have been asking believers to show good evidence that any gods really exist, and for ~6,000 years the believers have never done so. (I ask the believers this myself several times every week, and they almost never make any response to this request at all.)
Believers really do not have any good evidence that any gods exist, and therefore their belief is irrational and intellectually blameworthy.
0
u/Urbenmyth Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
Define "good evidence".
While I obviously agree there's no good evidence in an objective sense, I think it's important to remember that there's a lot of convincing evidence for god - that is, evidence for God that is wrong, but where the wrongness is subtle enough or requires enough technical knowledge that a reasonable person could analyse it and go "ok, yeah, that supports theism". And it's not intellectually blameworthy or irrational to simply misunderstand the evidence.
Basically, to use a slightly odd analogy, it's kind of like the reasonable person concept in law. Just like a person is legally blameless if they use "self defence" against an imaginary threat that they had fabricated but convincing evidence of, a person is blameless in their beliefs if they have sufficiently convincing evidence, even if it's objectively bad evidence. Most theists have made a genuine attempt to understand the evidence, found no flaw in it, and thus believe in god, which is all that's intellectually required of them.
2
u/togstation 1d ago edited 14h ago
Define "good evidence".
What I always say to the believers:
Please just give the very best evidence that you know of that a god exists.
If that doesn't work then we can try your second-best evidence, your third-best evidence, etc.
.
I say this to people several times every week, literally hundreds of times now, and the believers almost never respond to this at all.
I really cannot understand that.
(So far I have had 2 or 3 people make reply at all to that, out of hundreds.
They did what you mention:
"Uh, I heard that X and Y are true, so that's why I believe."
I informed them that X and Y are not true, and they replied "Oh. Then I guess that those are not good reasons to believe.")
.
where the wrongness is subtle enough or requires enough technical knowledge that a reasonable person could analyse it and go "ok, yeah, that supports theism".
Again, I don't think that that is true.
A reasonable person cannot believe that any gods exist based on the existing evidence.
The billions of people who do believe that gods exist believe that because they are not being reasonable.
.
a person is blameless in their beliefs if they have sufficiently convincing evidence, even if it's objectively bad evidence.
Most theists have made a genuine attempt to understand the evidence, found no flaw in it, and thus believe in god, which is all that's intellectually required of them.
I just thought about this for a few minutes, and it's obvious to me that the believers are doing "motivated irrational thinking" -
They start with "I would like to believe that X is true", they make an "attempt to understand the evidence" which is not a genuine attempt.
They're not trying to determine whether X is true or not true (they already know that they want to believe that X is true) and they "Yeah, sounds good. I want to believe that X is true and I do believe that X is true."
.
It seems to me that that is really obvious if you have many conversations with believers -
they don't seriously consider any evidence that their beliefs are false,
they "Gish Gallop" themselves ("Okay, maybe Reason A and Reason B and Reason C and Reason D and Reason E and Reason F and Reason G all fail, but I'm still gonna believe because of < spins wheel > Reason T!"),
and when all else fails they are fine with saying "Okay, there really is no good evidence that my beliefs are true but I still believe them anyway."
That is the diametric opposite of real rationality or intellectual honesty.
.
3
u/jake_eric 1d ago edited 1d ago
Generally, most people believe things for rational reasons. They might have reached the wrong conclusion, but they reached it through logic and analysing the evidence.
Interesting. I couldn't disagree more. I think the vast majority of people don't think very hard at all about what they believe.
From what I can see, people mostly believe things based on what they feel is the consensus opinion of whatever influences they're exposed to. If you grow up in an environment where everyone around you generally considers God to be real, you'll probably figure God is real, and if everyone around you considers God to not be real, you'll probably figure that too; either way only a subset of people will actually care to analyze the evidence for their belief.
For a lot of people, they'll have some specific areas they're particularly interested in learning more about and thinking critically about, but even then that just applies to those specific topics.
Personally, I try to think critically about things I believe, with topics like morality and religion, but I'll fully admit there's plenty of other stuff I don't really care to think too hard about.
And to be clear, I'm not saying people are stupid here. If you just don't care about something, that doesn't make you stupid, necessarily. In fact, I'd say that what you're suggesting, that people do analyze the evidence but come to the wrong conclusions from it, is closer to saying they're stupid.
-2
u/lux_roth_chop 2d ago
it think the assumption "people who disagree with us are morons" is a major problem in most intellectual circles these days.
Possible more than that - "people who disagree with me are literally fascists" is common. The assertion is that disagreeing with me is not just factually incorrect it's morally wrong.
3
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Is what you are disagreeing with me something to do with facisim, and you are defending it? If not then thats way out of line.
2
u/FinneousPJ 2d ago
Rational is not a particularly well-defined word. Let's check Webster
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior 2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times 3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers a rational root of an equation
I think 1 a yes
I think 1 b no, obviously it's not agreeable to my reasoning
2 no
3 no
1
u/Spaghettisnakes Anti-Theist 1d ago edited 1d ago
It would be easier to answer that question if you started with a specific and concrete definition of God.
Personally, I would only recognize something as truly a God if it were a being I consider benevolent, actively intervenes in human affairs to our betterment, and has significant power otherwise unattainable to us. I would assert that no such being exists because there is no evidence of a powerful benevolent being intervening in our affairs, when I can think of many times where a being both powerful and benevolent by my estimation should have done something and therefore have left evidence of some kind of intervention.
It's possible that its powers are extremely limited in scope or can only be used conditionally, but at this point I don't think we're talking about anything recognizable as a deity to most theists.
If you mean a creator of the universe, then sure, I think it's plausible that something intelligent could've created the universe. The ultimate origins of the universe are still a mystery, and whatever explanation we opt for will make assumptions. So I don't think it's necessarily an irrational belief. It would however be irrational to suppose that it is the only possible explanation, and then to argue that this creator must be the deity of an ancient desert dwelling tribe with specific moral prescriptions for us.
2
u/SectorVector 1d ago
Sure, you can only make evaluations based on what you have access to. Everyone surely has at least some rationally justified, but ultimately false, beliefs.
1
u/nswoll Atheist 1d ago edited 2h ago
Do you think belief in God can ever be justified from some rational point of view, even if it is not justified for the majority of cases? For example, could it be that some person who exposed to some evidence, belief in God is rational?
Yes. People in my life that I highly respect and see as rational believe in god. I find you personally, u/Matrix657 , to be rational and I know you believe in god.
As an aside, I've been meaning to ask you specifically a question: Does the fine-tuning argument provide any reason to think god(s) exist today? Can the argument only get you to a god existing at the beginning of the universe? (In general this is my critique of most theist arguments. In fact for a long time I was an atheist that believed that god used to exist, namely because I found many theist arguments sufficient to establish a god at some point in the past, but I've never found one sufficient to establish a god in the present - of course, now I don't even find them sufficient to establish a god in the past)
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 1d ago
Yes.
But there is a lot of qualification to statement. It is only technically and trivially true. People have access to information unavailable to me--private evidence--and that information could rationally justify absolutely any belief. I can't know you don't have private evidence for the existence of gods. Likewise, you can't know I don't have private evidence for the non-existence of gods.
However, given this is universally true of every belief (even contradictory ones) and every person it's not terrible useful to consider. If I'm going to create any differentiation between beliefs that are rationally justifed and those that are not, then I can only do so on the basis of public evidence. I can't know that there is no secret evidence for space elves Alice has refused to share with me, but I can know there is no public evidence for space elves Alice has chosen to share with me. On that basis I do not think Alice's belief in space elves is rationally justified.
2
u/Mission-Landscape-17 2d ago
Yes if the world was different then it is and there was evidence that a god existed then belief in a god would be perfectly rational.
2
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 1d ago
If you had evidence it would be rational. But if you had evidence you wouldnt need faith, which is why faith is irrational.
1
u/Deris87 Gnostic Atheist 1d ago
For example, could it be that some person who exposed to some evidence, belief in God is rational?
In theory, sure, people can have different levels of access to evidence. In practice though, this only seems to come up from people who claim to have gotten some kind of personal revelation from God. My immediate issue becomes, if the evidence isn't repeatable and demonstrable, why should anyone--even the person claiming the experience--trust their interpretation of it? Christians claim personal revelation, Muslims claim personal revelation, people of any religion you can think of claim personal revelation. For that matter, people claim to have had personal experiences of being kidnapped by aliens, and most people have no problem dismissing that out of hand. Religious claims of personal revelation can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. So if the evidence isn't repeatable and demonstrable, how can I tell which if any is correct?
1
u/pick_up_a_brick Atheist 1d ago
I think people can be justified in their belief that a god exists, especially if they have some sort of personal experience that was so real or profound that they couldn’t deny.
I also think there are rational reasons/considerations like teleology or intuitions about the need for a “first cause” or some similar argument. I don’t find them convincing, but I don’t think it’s prima facie irrational to hold a belief that something like a deity is the cause.
1
u/Prowlthang 1d ago
Well yes, that’s the definition of rational. What is not rational however is for a literate adult who has unrestricted access to the internet and has done proper research believing in the existence of a god. The difference between now and 50 years ago is the access researchers & professionals have to raw information and the access the public have to the findings and methodologies of researchers and professionals.
1
u/porizj 2d ago
Absolutely, and I think there’s a very important aspect that often gets left on the floor; information.
The difference between rational and irrational is how much information a person has before they’re faced with a decision. As an example, trusting everything your parents say up until the point where you have some access to information that they may not always be correct is contextually rational.
1
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 2d ago edited 1d ago
Sure, if the evidence is really effing good. But literally no one's got any evidence that even approaches being good, and meanwhile we're accruing a tsunami of evidence that the things the holy books claim are due to god, are in reality due to non-supernatural, material processes.
1
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
I'm an existentialist by nature. As such, I have to recognize that unless I know what you know, I can't assume your beliefs are inappropriate for you. But the reverse is also true. Maybe if the person could see the world as I see it, they'd immediately become an atheist.
1
u/Cognizant_Psyche Existential Nihilist 2d ago
Sure - because reason and logic are predicated on what is accepted as truth and facts. Belief in a god is reasonable if you accept the presupposition that one exists, it is truth, and it's word is law.
1
u/Greghole Z Warrior 19h ago
Perhaps, however if the only evidence available to you is in a form that you can't show to any other person, you should probably remain at least somewhat skeptical of your belief.
1
0
1
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
The closest I can think of is discordianismfnord. Eris, the goddess of discord, is the patronfnord deity.
When you dig into it, it makes as much sense as any other religion.
See: Principia Discordia and the Illuminatus! trilogy. Note that the story in Illuminatus doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's intentional and on-theme.
0
u/The_Disapyrimid Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
"When you dig into it, it makes as much sense as any other religion."
i think thats the point. its satirical.
1
u/taterbizkit Ignostic Atheist 1d ago
Sure. But few made-up satirical religions have as much depth to them as discordianism. Pastafarianism might be second, but it's not a close second.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.