Thoughts on the "No atheists in foxholes" argument

[Skwim]

.

In as much as the claim that there are "no atheists in foxholes" is absurd, I believe one has to ask why such a stupid statement it's made in the first place, which I believe comes down to some psychological need of those who claim its truth.

Soooo . . . . .why do you think people claim it's so?

1) Their need for god is so great they can't imagine anyone else going without it. Atheists are only fooling themselves.
2) Their need for a reassurance their faith is true is so great they deny the possibility that thinking people like themselves could conclude any differently.
3) (Your turn )
4)
.
.
.
.​

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Family members have died defending those cowards sitting in the bar discrediting brave people, i find it offensive

When dying in defense of one's country, the
defended will include all sorts, even skalawags.
It goes with the territory.

 

[ChristineM]

When dying in defense of one's country, the
defended will include all sorts, even skalawags.
It goes with the territory.

Does that mean i am supposed to accept bigotry by religious morons?

 

[Revoltingest]

Does that mean i am supposed to accept bigotry by religious morons?

Not at all.
I just don't see it as disrespectful or bigoted.
It's what they believe, as handed to them by their religion.
If anything, my opinion of their view is even more disrespectful.
I find it ignorant, simplistic, childish, & amusing.
But I avoid saying that....in the interest of civility.

 

[ChristineM]

Not at all.
I just don't see it as disrespectful or bigoted.
It's what they believe, as handed to them by their religion.
If anything, my opinion of their view is even more disrespectful.
I find it ignorant, simplistic, childish, & amusing.
But I avoid saying that....in the interest of civility.

I am not so civil when people abuse the dead in the name of their god

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not so civil...

Well....you are French, after all.

 

[ChristineM]

Well....you are French, after all.

There is a difference between living here and being french. But of course, there is french ancestry, and english and scots and viking and even a little turkish. I am guessing its the Scots

 

[ecco]

.
Soooo . . . . .why do you think people claim it's so?

1) Their need for god is so great they can't imagine anyone else going without it. Atheists are only fooling themselves.
2) Their need for a reassurance their faith is true is so great they deny the possibility that thinking people like themselves could conclude any differently.
​

.

Yep.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Only atheists and fools think this is the argument under consideration.

The argument to consider is whether to trust in the presumed existence of a benevolent God, or to choose not to. And when people find themselves faced with this choice, it's very often because they find themselves in threatening circumstances that are beyond their own ability to control. Which is what the saying about there being no atheists in foxholes is really about: the fear and loss of control that drives us to seek help beyond ourselves. It's not about the actual existence of God. But the choice to trust in the proposed existence of God.

Umm... then why do theists who turn to this always pull it out when face-to-face with an atheist who tells them that they do not believe in God? Ever hear of this "argument" (if one can even call it that - I liken it more to a pretty useless, assuming comment made by a person thinking they are clever) being pulled out when someone says they are simply not sure whether to "trust in the presumed existence of a benevolent God, or choose not to?" Does anybody actually even say this? Or how about when someone indicates that in times of fear and loss of control, they aren't sure if there is anywhere to turn to "seek help beyond [themselves]?" Hmm... does anyone ever state their position like that either, I wonder?

In short: what the hell are you going on about? This reads like nothing more to me than the apparent theist mantra: "obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate." You're not saying much more than the original statement of the "argument" - that it is used as an "argument" for the existence of God - attempting to get the nonbeliever to admit that even they might "believe" in God in dangerous circumstances - and that somehow therefore He exists. Crap is what it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a difference between living here and being french. But of course, there is french ancestry, and english and scots and viking and even a little turkish. I am guessing its the Scots

There's no way I'm letting you off the hook for living in Francistan.

 

[ChristineM]

There's no way I'm letting you off the hook for living in Francistan.

You know not what you are missing, just think of the cheese and faire chabrot.

 

[Willamena]

One of the popular arguments used by Christians is that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I recall a man in my childhood church who was fond of using this statement. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that this statement is true. While many people probably do call out to a childhood deity in times of personal crisis, I highly doubt that everyone does. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the statement is true, and that everyone who is in a foxhole believes in God. How could this possibly be used as a legitimate argument for the existence of God? Do the Christians who are so fond of making this claim really think that a person in a foxhole is in the best frame of mind to rationally weigh the evidence for and against the existence of God and come to a logical decision? If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger. Thus, if anything, I would say that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a better argument against the existence of God then for it, because people in immediate danger are obviously not going to be thinking as carefully about evidence as people who are in an environment where they have time to rationally and calmly consider arguments for and against the existence of God.

It's just a metaphorical figure of speech: in the moment when life is brought into focus by the proximity of death, the question of whether this is 'all there is' is inevitable.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know not what you are missing, just think of the cheese and faire chabrot.

Cheese eating inspires surrendering.
OK....that's not all bad.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

One of the popular arguments used by Christians is that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I recall a man in my childhood church who was fond of using this statement. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that this statement is true. While many people probably do call out to a childhood deity in times of personal crisis, I highly doubt that everyone does. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the statement is true, and that everyone who is in a foxhole believes in God. How could this possibly be used as a legitimate argument for the existence of God? Do the Christians who are so fond of making this claim really think that a person in a foxhole is in the best frame of mind to rationally weigh the evidence for and against the existence of God and come to a logical decision? If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger. Thus, if anything, I would say that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a better argument against the existence of God then for it, because people in immediate danger are obviously not going to be thinking as carefully about evidence as people who are in an environment where they have time to rationally and calmly consider arguments for and against the existence of God.

Actually, as a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God, there really are no atheists at all. Many claim to be. But the Bible is clear that all know there is God. (Rom. 1:18-20)

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, as a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God, there really are no atheists at all. Many claim to be. But the Bible is clear that all know there is God. (Rom. 1:18-20)

Good-Ole-Rebel

Interesting....
We heathens know that Christians really don't believe all that talking
snake, whale condo, Jewish zombie, 6000 year old Earth stuff.
And they, as do we, disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Cthulhu, the FSM,
Allah, Ra, etc. Everyone is an atheist at heart.
But some people just lack the courage to not collect stamps.

 

[Windwalker]

Yeah. The Universe didn't want to kill me that day.

I got new shoes and had moved the clip-ins from the old pair, but didn't tighten the screws properly, so when we stopped at an intersection, pulling out my foot, it didn't release and me and the bike went over, right out in the road. Flat on the street. But I didn't get much hurt. But the car was coming. She wasn't going too fast and managed to stop. My son is still a bit shaken years later, poor guy.

My God! That's unnerving. I ride my bike all the time too, but I just use those power grips straps that I slip my feet into on the pedals. Super simple to quickly pull out of them. Plus, I can wear any shoe I like, like my sandals. I like to stop at parks and practice Tai Chi, or maybe lock the bike and walk around in stores and stuff. I've never tried bike shoes, but they seem like they'd be too limiting for me, plus, apparently, potentially kill you. I'm glad you're still with us.

 

[Milton Platt]

One of the popular arguments used by Christians is that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I recall a man in my childhood church who was fond of using this statement. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that this statement is true. While many people probably do call out to a childhood deity in times of personal crisis, I highly doubt that everyone does. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the statement is true, and that everyone who is in a foxhole believes in God. How could this possibly be used as a legitimate argument for the existence of God? Do the Christians who are so fond of making this claim really think that a person in a foxhole is in the best frame of mind to rationally weigh the evidence for and against the existence of God and come to a logical decision? If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger. Thus, if anything, I would say that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a better argument against the existence of God then for it, because people in immediate danger are obviously not going to be thinking as carefully about evidence as people who are in an environment where they have time to rationally and calmly consider arguments for and against the existence of God.

The statement, "there are no atheists in foxholes" is the reverse of what would be (or should be) true. An atheist does not depend upon praying to an invisible deity to keep him safe. He would depend upon rationally assessing the situation and taking action to protect himself (hide in a foxhole). The theist, on the other hand, should be able to pray to his god for protection and march forth unafraid, if he really believes his god can protect him from bullets and bombs.

 

[stvdv]

One of the popular arguments used by Christians is that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I recall a man in my childhood church who was fond of using this statement. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that this statement is true. While many people probably do call out to a childhood deity in times of personal crisis, I highly doubt that everyone does. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the statement is true, and that everyone who is in a foxhole believes in God. How could this possibly be used as a legitimate argument for the existence of God? Do the Christians who are so fond of making this claim really think that a person in a foxhole is in the best frame of mind to rationally weigh the evidence for and against the existence of God and come to a logical decision? If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger. Thus, if anything, I would say that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a better argument against the existence of God then for it, because people in immediate danger are obviously not going to be thinking as carefully about evidence as people who are in an environment where they have time to rationally and calmly consider arguments for and against the existence of God.

First time I heard about foxholes with or without atheists. Interesting theory.

When you are about to die it will be the ultimate confrontation. No more lies, no more pretending (to be nice). Your real you arises.

It is known that if person is very sick and goes on a fast, sometimes he gets cured.

Some immense power arises to not die. Same can happen when someone wants to kill you or your child.

Again your real you.

What that real you is? Is it/there God?

You really want to know?

We probably only find out and know when we die

 

[Revoltingest]

Again your real you.

What that real you is? Is it/there God?

You really want to know?

Go die, and you know

The real me addressed dying this way....
I refused to be drafted into the Vietnam war.
This atheist would not be found in a foxhole.

 

[Thief]

If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger.

cornered and danger near....you would persist?

nothing Greater than yourself

perhaps God and heaven allow the danger

if that is what it takes to open your mind to the possiblity