Why do representatives of religions group together against atheists?

[Nigel Hoath]

I have seen this behaviour in discussions and debates often. The question might be for example “Does God exist?”. The participants on one side will be a group of people representing various religions. On the other side will be a group of atheists. Invariably the religious will seriously outnumber the atheists and the time distribution will reflect this.

My observation is that often the religious people will fall over backwards to try and unite and show a common front against the atheists. Even when by doing so they cast doubt on the veracity of their own belief.

Seems odd to me when surely the true relationship is:

The real God ------- The Atheists ------- The false Gods

Reminded me of an encounter I had a few years back. I was in a taxi (minicab) in Glasgow. We were stuck in traffic. The driver started talking about his grandson being born out of marriage. His son was Scottish, the son’s partner was Indian. His son and partner had decided to not christen the baby and let it decide its direction in relation to religion at a later date. At this point the guy was close to exploding. He then said: “At least I noted a small red dot on my grandson’s forehead. I knew her parents had been over. Thank God someone had done something for him”.

I was thinking about this when the good people here and elsewhere were talking about the value of debates. Would debates be better if religions were kept apart? Especially when the question is generic.

 

[Sunstone]

Human nature. Group against the outsider.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You haven't been on RF very long, it seems.

The scenarios you're talking about don't really occur here. It may be perceived to be the other way around sometimes. But I think the skeptics on this site argue with each other just as much, if not more, than we argue with the pious.

It's all in the name of rooting out bad ideas... or at least teaching people how to get from one idea to the next in a more logical and proper way.

As to your real world scenario, it's because skepticism is a threat to any belief system, even politics. People don't like the naysayer. But the naysayer plays an integral part in keeping societies healthy and on a straight line. People are prone to the extremes. The purposeful pull against that is not very popular, regardless of where it comes from.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't see that too often, but this is probably because contemporary Paganism as a movement has come to house both theistic and non-theistic perspectives. This phenomena isn't unique to contemporary Paganism, though - there are plenty of religions out there that are non-theistic. Perhaps what you meant to remark upon are representatives of theistic religions uniting against the perceived threats of non-theistic religions or perspectives?

On that order, I'm not sure I see much of a common front either. I mean, around RF alone I'll get thrown through a wringer for honoring what some other theists consider "false" gods (yeah, whatever pal) and then again by non-theists who think me honoring things like the sun as a god is meaningless or word games (again, whatever pal). If I let it get to me, it's really quite exhausting. If only there was some sort of backup like you imply.

What you say about discussions or debates being better of religions are kept apart has some merit, though. If by "kept apart" one can take that to mean "recognize that different religions, whether theistic or non-theistic, have fundamental and important differences." It's common that discussions about religion get thwarted by erroneous assumptions or bad generalizations. Like the assumption that all religions are theistic. Or that all religions have dogma. And so on.

 

[Nigel Hoath]

The scenarios you're talking about don't really occur here. It may be perceived to be the other way around sometimes. But I think the skeptics on this site argue with each other just as much, if not more, than we argue with the pious.

Jonathon fully agree. I don't see this place as a debating platform. More a source of facts and opinion. For sure here you have to weed out the trolls but while they are repetitive they are easily recognised. Occassionally a bit of a debate breaks out but normally gets side tracked and becomes disjointed.

I'm talking more of the debates and discussions with life audiences.

 

[LuisDantas]

On a wider field it happens fairly often, probably because there is a popular trend to take the presumed shared belief in the existence of a deity as expected common ground for eventual mutual acceptance and understanding of some kind.

By that light, atheists are easily mistaken for good-for-nothing vandals or broken people that somehow can't or won't concede anything towards that nominal goal - "not even something that is both obvious and good for them".

Personally, I think that there are serious, unworkable problems with lending god-concepts much significance. And there are certainly other serious problems with expectations of making atheists lie about their lack of belief for presumed "moral" reasons.

TLDR: Because they mistake theism for good will and morality, out of naivete or ill faith.

 

[Earthling]

Here?!

[looks around]

Not here they don't.

 

[Polymath257]

I've noticed this in real life also. Theists seem often to be content when you believe in *some* 'higher power', even if it isn't *their* higher power. Not all of them, mind you, but enough that it is an interesting phenomenon.

In some ways, I think this is a good thing. It shows the growth of religious tolerance, as opposed to the divisiveness that is so common.

 

[viole]

I have seen this behaviour in discussions and debates often. The question might be for example “Does God exist?”. The participants on one side will be a group of people representing various religions. On the other side will be a group of atheists. Invariably the religious will seriously outnumber the atheists and the time distribution will reflect this.

My observation is that often the religious people will fall over backwards to try and unite and show a common front against the atheists. Even when by doing so they cast doubt on the veracity of their own belief.

Seems odd to me when surely the true relationship is:

The real God ------- The Atheists ------- The false Gods

Reminded me of an encounter I had a few years back. I was in a taxi (minicab) in Glasgow. We were stuck in traffic. The driver started talking about his grandson being born out of marriage. His son was Scottish, the son’s partner was Indian. His son and partner had decided to not christen the baby and let it decide its direction in relation to religion at a later date. At this point the guy was close to exploding. He then said: “At least I noted a small red dot on my grandson’s forehead. I knew her parents had been over. Thank God someone had done something for him”.

I was thinking about this when the good people here and elsewhere were talking about the value of debates. Would debates be better if religions were kept apart? Especially when the question is generic.

Yes, and this is why the atheist will always have an easy life as long as there are so many different mutually contradicting religions. With same claims of miracles, revelations and such. And none of them holds the absolute majority.

For, all she has to say is: your belief is totally unreliable, since it can be easily proven, on pure logical grounds, that the majority of you guys is deluded. And if we include all beliefs in the past, then a very strong majority of you guys is and was deluded.
For this reason, come back to me when you all agree on only one God (or not empty set of gods). Until that point, it is rational to not take beliefs in any god seriously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nigel Hoath]

Well thanks all for your thoughts.

I think I would prefer it if in debates generic topics about anything being the cause of our existance is clearly seperated from any debate relating to religions. It frustrates me that it seems impossible to discuss what was the other side of the big bang without it being hijacked by supporters of a religion.

I like what you say Viole.

Perhaps for another thread, but the absolute obvious falseness of all organised religions leads me to believe that the world is more than 50% atheist. And if it wasn't for child indoctrination that figure would be much higher. I find it hard to believe that the Pope, Mitt Romney, the arch bishop of Canterbury, ........................ are not atheist.

But I'll continue my search for well balanced debate.

 

[Valjean]

Common threats unite.