To the Anti-Religious

[England my lionheart]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

I have no problem with organised religion as long as it isn't in a position of power,if someones beliefs gives them comfort cool.

 

[Smoke]

And if you claim that there is no god(s), you share some burden of proof given the fact that very few people share that view. It's extraordinary.

But I don't claim that there is no god. I simply don't believe there is any god. There may be a god or gods somewhere; I just don't have any evidence for them. I have no burden of proof because there is nothing to prove.

My counter to that claim is to observe that (by a wide margin) most people throughout history and contemporarily believe in God and in his activity in their lives and/or in history. Those who deny this are in the puny minority.

Really? Which god is that? Yahweh? Jesus? Zeus? Odin? Yemanya? Perun?

I argued from this, not that theism is true (or atheism false), but that atheism is in fact the extraordinary view.

However, I explicitly said that I was not arguing that theism is uncommon. (That would be a pretty stupid thing to argue, after all.) When I say that theists make extraordinary claims, I mean the nature of their claims is extraordinary. I do not mean that such claims are unlikely to occur. Do you understand now?

The skeptic, in short, is in no intellectual or dialectical position to simply sit back and wait for the theist to provide an argument, idly remaining smug in their skepticism. The skeptic owes us one, too.

Nonsense. I no more owe you an explanation for being an atheist than you owe Muslims an explanation for being a non-Muslim, and Hellenic reconstructionists an explanation for being a non-reconstructionist, and people who believe in leprechauns an explanation for your not believing in leprechauns. The fact that your belief belongs to a broad category of beliefs which, taken together, make up a very common type of belief does not mean that an explanation is logically or reasonably required of those who do not hold that type of belief.

The fact that large numbers of people hold a certain kind of belief is not any evidence at all that that type of belief is likely to be accurate -- especially when, as is the case with theism, the beliefs that fall within that type of belief are in many cases mutually contradictory.

Let's say that I believe that Friday the 13th is an unlucky day, but I can show no evidence that it is. But I can show that many people believe it, and many other people believe that breaking a mirror or spilling salt or walking under a ladder is unlucky. I can say that most people throughout history have been superstitious about something or another. If I tell you that most people throughout history have been superstitious and it is therefore rational and reasonable to be superstitious, and rational to believe that Friday the 13th is an unlucky day, will you find that argument convincing?

 

[rageoftyrael]

I would also like to note, that atheism is not so puny, dunemeister. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but atheism is by no means as small as you seem to think it is. Of course, why is atheism becoming more widespread?

Well, if you were to ask me, i would say that due to the increasing population, more intelligent people are born, thus more atheists. Essentially, believing in god is natural, it takes a more intelligent person to pull themselves out of that instinctual belief, to actually see the world for what it really is.

To adress the instinctual part, did you know that children will come up with a god, without having been told about one? Not your god, but a god. Why? Most likely to explain the unexplainable, at least what they think is unexplainable anyway.

On another note, i don't care if there is only one person in the entire world who doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, if he says he doesn't believe, those who believe have the burden of proof. Why? DUH! Because you have something to prove, don't you?!? You say there is a god, who can't be proven in any kind of scientific way, and honestly think that that is not an extraordinary claim? Really? Just because it's "obvious" to you, doesn't make it anything other than an extraordinary claim.

Burden of proof is on you! Of course, we atheists are game, and will do our best to indicate why your god is a logical fallacy, while theists whine about having to do the hard job of actually thinking. But that is just cause we're actually fairly decent people, who, although we know the burden is fully yours, will try to take some of your burden from your shoulders.

I doubt i changed your mind. That would require actual thought, untainted by your desire to believe in a god. That's right dunemeister. Most theists will never change their minds, not because they have actual evidence of their god, not because atheists arguments are illogical, but because they WANT their to be a god. Heck, I want there to be a god, a lovely little heaven to go to for all eternity and traipse around upon, after i die. Thus making me essentially immortal. But logic and reason does not allow for that belief.

I was able to pull myself out of that instinctual fallacy, and see the world for how it is. A lot of people can't. I would say that was their problem, but seeing as their beliefs has led to much grief for many people, it makes it my problem as well.

Just to note, just so you don't all jump me about the whole intelligent thing, there is a study on it. I'll see if i can find it, and post the link.

 

[Vile Atheist]

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not arguing that theism is true because most people believe it. Truth isn't a matter of popularity. Rather, I'm refuting the claim that theistic (or Christian) belief is extraordinary. In terms of statistics, it's atheism that's extraordinary. For whatever that's worth, and it may not be worth much, but then, I didn't bring this issue up first.

Alright, but I don't understand why this even came up in the first place. It's a horrible point that conveys absolutely nothing.

 

[Azakel]

intelligent people are born, thus more atheists.

Right, because you can only be an Intelligent Person if you're an Atheist

Burden of proof is on you!

Only if a Theist is try to prove to you that there god is real yes. But just because someone believes in a god(s) doesn't mean that they automatically have the BoP.

 

[PureX]

But I don't claim that there is no god. I simply don't believe there is any god. There may be a god or gods somewhere; I just don't have any evidence for them. I have no burden of proof because there is nothing to prove.

Why should what you don't believe matter to anyone? Why should what you don't believe be discussed at all? If you have nothing to say, why should anyone listen to you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why should what you don't believe matter to anyone?

Perhaps there is value in understanding the reason why someone does not believe.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps there is value in understanding the reason why someone does not believe.

But for us to have such a discussion, one would have to posit a position and defend it. One would need to state that gods do not exist because ..., or that gods do exist because ..., but to state "I believe but I don't know" posits nothing but an undefended opinion. "I don't know" is not a position that anyone can gain any insight from. It's simply an excuse for not defending the belief.

I understand and sympathize with the position, however. I do not know if "God" exists or not. And I do choose to believe that God does exist. I recognize that this is a choice that is not based on knowledge and I recognize that I could be wrong in believing that God exists.

However, for the purpose of discussion and debate, I also understand that I must pick a position and defend it. I may or may not 'believe' 100% in the position I choose to defend at any given time, but for the debate to work, I must choose a stance and try to defend it. This is how we learn from such debates. It's not about winning, and it's not about who believes what. It's about choosing propositions and then defending them as best we are able, so as to explore each proposition as thoroughly as we can.

If, on the other hand, we want to explore a specific person's specific set of beliefs, that's a different kind of discussion. That becomes an interview, and then we should avoid debating with the interviewee, lest we be labeled a 'troll'.

This is in the debate section, after all.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Well, if you were to ask me, i would say that due to the increasing population, more intelligent people are born, thus more atheists. Essentially, believing in god is natural, it takes a more intelligent person to pull themselves out of that instinctual belief, to actually see the world for what it really is.

Oh Please where does this line of BS come from?

 

[Beaudreaux]

So why should I have to produce evidence? I may need to do so if I want you to change your beliefs.

We have a winner! No one is arguing that you can't believe whatever you want to believe. Invisible, Omnimax sky daddy is fine in that regard. The MOMENT you start to tell others about your belief and speak of it as if it is true for all of us as well, you have a burden to produce evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One of the take-home lessons, at least from the discussion between me and MSizer, is that there is no objection to the rationality of (Christian) faith that doesn't presume the falisty of Christian belief. So it's simly not open to an objector to take the position of "Well, no one can prove Christianity is false, but whether or not it's false, it's irrational to believe it." If Christianity is true, it's probably rational to believe it. If it isn't, it may still be rational to believe it. The anti-religious actually need an argument for the falisty of Christian belief. It's not enough to show that all the arguments for Christian belief are not completely compelling. The Christian can admit that without it affecting the rationality of their belief. For they believe that they have a source of warrant for their belief independent of argument -- faith.

There's a big difference between rationality and truth. And whether or not your belief is coincidentally true doesn't really matter if it's true for reasons you didn't know beforehand.

As an analogy, say I take a coin and claim that on the next flip, it will turn up "heads". I explain that this is because I had rubbed my thumb around the edge of the coin three times, and this makes coins turn up heads (but only when you do it properly, in case you had any ideas about replicating this yourself ). There's a very good chance that the coin will turn up heads, but even if it does, the foundation for my belief was entirely irrational.

 

[PureX]

There's a big difference between rationality and truth. And whether or not your belief is coincidentally true doesn't really matter if it's true for reasons you didn't know beforehand.

As an analogy, say I take a coin and claim that on the next flip, it will turn up "heads". I explain that this is because I had rubbed my thumb around the edge of the coin three times, and this makes coins turn up heads (but only when you do it properly, in case you had any ideas about replicating this yourself ). There's a very good chance that the coin will turn up heads, but even if it does, the foundation for my belief was entirely irrational.

Well, not necessarily. It appears irrational because we can't see any causal connection between rubbing the coin and it turning up heads. That doesn't mean that there can't be one, however. And in fact one could rub the coin and have it turn up heads every time. But that still only would make the irrational appear rational. As with a magic trick.

The important thing about skepticism is that we apply it equally to the accepted solution as to the rejected one.

 

[Commoner]

Well, if you were to ask me, i would say that due to the increasing population, more intelligent people are born, thus more atheists.

How would an increase in population lead to relatively more intelligent people being born?

 

[Amill]

I understand and sympathize with the position, however. I do not know if "God" exists or not. And I do choose to believe that God does exist. I recognize that this is a choice that is not based on knowledge and I recognize that I could be wrong in believing that God exists.

So it's possible to choose to believe that bigfoot exists? I can choose to believe in Nessie? How does one go about choosing their beliefs? Because I find plenty of ufo "sightings" interesting, and I want them to be real, but I am still not convinced. Am I just naturally more skeptical? Is it possible to drop my skepticism and believe they are real?

I've never heard a compelling argument for how someone chooses a belief. You're either convinced by the argument or you're not. If you think belief is like a lightswitch, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

And atheists can present arguments, just not in the name of atheism. We can present arguments for how we and this world came to be naturally, and we can present arguments for why people should be skeptical of metaphysical claims. We can also go about disproving claims made in the religious texts, hoping to get people to become more skeptical of books that tell people to destroy other faiths.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How would an increase in population lead to relatively more intelligent people being born?

I believe 'relatively' was your addition. That impresses me as a a bit disingenuous. No?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've never heard a compelling argument for how someone chooses a belief.

No, you've never heard an argument that you deemed compelling. It's not quite the same thing. But, leaving that aside for the moment, just how much about indirect doxastic voluntarism have you read?

 

[Commoner]

I believe 'relatively' was your addition. That impresses me as a a bit disingenuous. No?

I think it was a pretty straightforward statement.

 

[PureX]

So it's possible to choose to believe that bigfoot exists? I can choose to believe in Nessie? How does one go about choosing their beliefs? Because I find plenty of ufo "sightings" interesting, and I want them to be real, but I am still not convinced. Am I just naturally more skeptical? Is it possible to drop my skepticism and believe they are real?

I've never heard a compelling argument for how someone chooses a belief. You're either convinced by the argument or you're not. If you think belief is like a lightswitch, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

I don't know if you're sincere or just looking for an argument, so I will take this post at face value.

It's not my job, nor anyone else's to "compel" you to believe anything. If you aren't compelled that's your own choice. You choose what you will allow to compel you and what you won't. Also, as to your being held back from believing what you choose because of the evidence against it, that's also of your own choosing. You are deciding what you will accept as evidence.

You say you want to believe that extra terrestrials are visiting Earth, then what's stopping you? What evidence do you have that they are not? Why do you believe it? Couldn't you be wrong? I personally don't know of any irrefutable evidence that would prove that extra-terrestrials are not visiting Earth. So if I met someone who believed that they were, I wouldn't presume them to be irrational, or self-deceived.

Once we understand that we actually know very little about ourselves and the world around us, we begin to recognize that a whole lot of things are possible that we wouldn't have thought possible, before. And as long as it's possible, we are free to hope that it's probable, because the truth is we don't know.

It's through the unknown that we are free to have faith. And to have that faith is our choice.

 

[Beaudreaux]

just how much about indirect doxastic voluntarism have you read?

I wish I had a nickel for every time I was asked that question.

 

[Amill]

I don't know if you're sincere or just looking for an argument, so I will take this post at face value.

It's not my job, nor anyone else's to "compel" you to believe anything. If you aren't compelled that's your own choice. You choose what you will allow to compel you and what you won't. Also, as to your being held back from believing what you choose because of the evidence against it, that's also of your own choosing. You are deciding what you will accept as evidence.

You say you want to believe that extra terrestrials are visiting Earth, then what's stopping you? What evidence do you have that they are not? Why do you believe it? Couldn't you be wrong? I personally don't know of any irrefutable evidence that would prove that extra-terrestrials are not visiting Earth. So if I met someone who believed that they were, I wouldn't presume them to be irrational, or self-deceived.

Once we understand that we actually know very little about ourselves and the world around us, we begin to recognize that a whole lot of things are possible that we wouldn't have thought possible, before. And as long as it's possible, we are free to hope that it's probable, because the truth is we don't know.

It's through the unknown that we are free to have faith. And to have that faith is our choice.

I am just honestly trying to figure out how exactly a person chooses what to believe. Because I honestly haven't ever heard an explanation. Not even an example. How do I choose what compels me? How do I choose what evidence is required? There are certainly circumstances where I know of ideas and evidence that could make me believe something, but I didn't directly choose the kind of evidence. I honestly don't think it's as simple as choice, at least for me it certainly isn't. I think we can try to believe, put ourselves in positions to become compelled, but I would like to hear arguments or just examples where we believe things based on choice.

I CANT simply believe that ufo's are visiting. I wouldn't be surprised if some were true, but I am skeptical because of the vast distances of space. Sure there could be some pretty advanced civilizations out there that could travel with ease, but there are other small reasons I'm skeptical we've been visited as well. I just cannot say that I believe ufos visit our planet. I don't see how a person makes a conscious decision on their beliefs. It is an argument that I hear very often, but cannot ever get an explanation on how someone can choose. Maybe I just cannot.

I'm sorry for coming off as a dick at first but it's hard to fathom that you or anyone else believe in god because of some choice. You must have at least "thought" that a god "probably" existed, before you "chose" to believe it to be true? I just don't think that someone can be sitting on the fence, not knowing what to believe, and simply pick a side and start believing that it's true. And I certainly don't think that someone can somehow switch what they think to be true, without being convinced by some kind of argument or evidence first.