Common Atheistic Fallacies?

MouthFlush

I am an atheist of 5 years or so, but this thought just occurred to me... We all know of theistic arguments that are so clearly fallacious in nature that they both enrage us and affirm our beliefs. An example can be found on this very page: "if God doesn't exist, then why do you talk about him so much?" is either the work of a troll or that of one who would insult his/her very cause. My question is this: do any atheistic counterparts exist?

It would be arrogant to assume that we are the last bastion of intellectual rigour, so I am wondering if anyone knows of similarly fallacious atheistic arguments? I know that many theists would fiercely contest 'the problem of evil' (though I would disagree with them on this), but I wonder if there are more concrete examples of poor atheistic reasoning. Better to tighten up our own reasoning than to constantly look for holes in others'...

Galvasean

- Assuming that all religious people are automatically stupid

that's the main one that comes to mind right now.

MouthFlush

Galvasean wrote: »

- Assuming that all religious people are automatically stupid

that's the main one that comes to mind right now.

That's one that slipped my mind, I know what you're talking about. It brings to mind a quote of Einstein's that I stumbled across some time ago, which concisely describes this type of intellectual arrogance. He speaks of "the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth".

That quote really struck a chord with me at the time, because I saw some of myself in it. The freedom and excitement of religious liberation can sometimes lead to an over-correction; I know some atheists who are as irrational and dogmatic as those they deride.

Focalbhach

Galvasean wrote: »

- Assuming that all religious people are automatically stupid

MouthFlush wrote: »

The freedom and excitement of religious liberation can sometimes lead to an over-correction; I know some atheists who are as irrational and dogmatic as those they deride.

Another manifestation of which is the discounting of any good that devout believers have done on the back of their belief, merely because they are religious. I'm thinking particularly here of some atheists of my acquaintance who deny that Irish missionaries in developing nations (for example) have by and large been a positive force - i.e., that their work in healthcare, education, human rights, and so on is clearly outweighed by their belief in a deity and their desire to pass that belief on to others. I would disagree.

Similarly, I have a lot of personal respect for the priests in my local parish and former teachers who were priests, from whom I learned a lot, regardless of my being atheist. My aforementioned acquaintances find this rather puzzling :pac:

Improbable

One that I see quite a bit is using specific examples from specific religions as an argument against the existence of god. One of the debates going on in A&A at the moment is the contradictions in the bible. We should take care to note that these contradictions are merely the product of humans messing with the writings, either those of the original writers or anybody who may have modified them after that. The contradictions themselves are not proof of the non-existence of a god, they are merely proof of contradictions and that the lack of coherence means that it cannot be taken as an accurate account of verifiable truth.

Zombrex

Everyone if left to themselves will default to atheism. This isn't true, if left to ourselves we will just make up our own supernatural agents.

Theism is a mental problem, fault or abnormality. This isn't true, theism is the default state of the human mind (related to the 1st fallacy), the one where is processes the world around us in the state of least stress or confusion.

The religion is the origin of various immoral ideas, such as homophobia and if religion didn't exist neither would these. Religion is the product of human psychology not the origin of it, it doesn't simply make stuff up that has no bearing on this, it is a reflection of our hangup and fears.

Improbable

Wicknight wrote: »

Everyone if left to themselves will default to atheism. This isn't true, if left to ourselves we will just make up our own supernatural agents.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. If we take it that religion is based on trying to explain what goes on around us and provide answers (as I think it is), then people can find answers either through faith or through reason. I don't think that either is the default position but rather that there are a wide spectrum of positions that people will take.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

The religion is the origin of various immoral ideas, such as homophobia and if religion didn't exist neither would these. Religion is the product of human psychology not the origin of it, it doesn't simply make stuff up that has no bearing on this, it is a reflection of our hangup and fears.

I don't think this is nearly as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Religion has definitely manufactured, exacerbated and sustained all sorts of nasty stuff. No, it is not the only source of horrible thinking, but it is a bountiful font none the less.

Pushtrak

Personally, I have never been fond of the line that some atheists use of believers. The one that goes something like, "If you believe a loved one is going to be in a better place, why mourn their death?" I never really found that a good line, just the reversal of the religious "why do atheists have morals" really.

I've long been unhappy with such an approach to debating theists so it came to mind immediately. It is the only thing to do so at the moment.

seamus

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think this is nearly as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Religion has definitely manufactured, exacerbated and sustained all sorts of nasty stuff. No, it is not the only source of horrible thinking, but it is a bountiful font none the less.

We are naturally predisposed to be suspicious and wary of things which are new and different. Even as children, those who don't conform to the group thinking or who act differently are shunned and ridiculed. Yes, this behaviour is somewhat enforced in the home, but from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense to stick with what you know and only slightly vary from the norm. A massive departure from the norm and from the group will likely lead to being expelled by the group or killed by your curiosity.

I don't think religion manufactured any prejudices, it simply reinforces them by writing down on paper that "being different is evil".

I don't know if the decline of religion in western society is a cause of or a symptom of our explosion in scientific and social progress over the last 200 years. Those who take risks and go in new directions are now praised for doing so rather than beaten and stoned to death like they were in the middle ages.

nozzferrahhtoo

MouthFlush wrote: »

My question is this: do any atheistic counterparts exist?

"Faith is belief without evidence“ is not exactly a fallacy but it is not right on the money either, and it also suffers from being a conversation stopper in that when a theist hears this, he will likely view you as some kind of “fundamentalist atheist” and will likely not bother really listening to anything you have to say anymore.

In fact they have a lot of evidence; it is all just apparently fallacious. This is for a number of reasons, but the most common I have personally come across is confirmation bias, or in other words the practise of assuming to be true that which you want to show is true.

Evidence that is only evidence if you first assume the conclusion helps nothing however and I often feel moved to redefine faith as “Faith is the willingness to assume to be true, that which you want to show is true”.

“Seek and you shall find” the bible tells us. Of course you will. It actually would be a miracle if you didn’t.

Zillah

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"Faith is belief without evidence“ is not exactly a fallacy but it is not right on the money either, and it also suffers from being a conversation stopper in that when a theist hears this, he will likely view you as some kind of “fundamentalist atheist” and will likely not bother really listening to anything you have to say anymore.

In fact they have a lot of evidence; it is all just apparently fallacious. This is for a number of reasons, but the most common I have personally come across is confirmation bias, or in other words the practise of assuming to be true that which you want to show is true.

Evidence that is only evidence if you first assume the conclusion helps nothing however and I often feel moved to redefine faith as “Faith is the willingness to assume to be true, that which you want to show is true”.

“Seek and you shall find” the bible tells us. Of course you will. It actually would be a miracle if you didn’t.

Evidence is only evidence if it is not fallacious. Otherwise it is...nothing.

I believe in ghosts. Because orange. Is it unfair to say that I do not have evidence?

nozzferrahhtoo

Exactly, that is my point just put another way.

However it is worth remembering that theist feels they have loads of evidence and merely declaring they do not (even if this is true) is a conversation stopper and I have long learnt to operate under the opinion that anything that prevents discourse is a bad thing.

We hear lines from theists all the time like “Look in the mirror, YOU are evidence that there is a god”. It is not only limited to theists either. The 23ists will find “evidence” everywhere that the number 23 really is controlling everything.

So as I said it does not count as a fallacy per se, but it’s use is proportionally more damaging than any use of it could bring benefits.

Discourse is all we have as a species really, and anything that damages it I think is worth acknowledging. As the OP pointed out, there are fallacies that damage it and are no better than trolling sometimes and I think trotting out “Faith is belief without evidence” may often be one of those things.

However I have little more than anecdote to back that up I am happy to admit, but I have noticed that taking a more “let us look at your evidence together” approach rather than a “You simply have no evidence” approach has kept discourse lines open for me and has led to much more productive conversations with the “other side”.

Focalbhach

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think this is nearly as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Religion has definitely manufactured, exacerbated and sustained all sorts of nasty stuff. No, it is not the only source of horrible thinking, but it is a bountiful font none the less.

I think I'd sway more towards Wicknight's contention that religion is an outlet for various biases/prejudices/whathaveyou. Where I think your positions overlap is that religion provides a source of legitimacy for those ideas - in the eyes of believers at least, which has been most people for most of our history.

Black Swan

While exuberantly pointing out the inconsistencies obvious in theistic positions, not exhibiting the same level of skepticism and caution about the certainty of science. For example, conveniently ignoring or otherwise avoiding Hume's problem of causation, or how Kant and Popper failed to solve it, thereby rendering the certainty of science somewhat less than certain.

nozzferrahhtoo

Maybe the fallacy is in thinking there IS certainty in science in the first place. There isn’t and nothing in science is, or should be, considered 100% true.

All of science is just what is most likely, in our opinion, to be true given the evidence and data that is currently available to us at the time.

Mark Hamill

Pushtrak wrote: »

Personally, I have never been fond of the line that some atheists use of believers. The one that goes something like, "If you believe a loved one is going to be in a better place, why mourn their death?" I never really found that a good line, just the reversal of the religious "why do atheists have morals" really.

It seems like a perfectly logical question to me. They believe their loved ones and themselves are going to heaven, so why are they sad when their loved ones die?
"The why do atheists have morals" question is just retarded.

Pushtrak

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems like a perfectly logical question to me. They believe their loved ones and themselves are going to heaven, so why are they sad when their loved ones die?
"The why do atheists have morals" question is just retarded.

In my experience, that is the comfort line, that the person is in a better place, so that is something they believe in, so in that context they are aware of it. But of course someone is going to mourn the passing.

I think the problem stems from the fact a lot of atheists think that those who buy into the religious mumbo jumbo will place a null value on this life, which just isn't the case.

I can see the train of thought, but I'll not be jumping on it.

Mark Hamill

Galvasean wrote: »

- Assuming that all religious people are automatically stupid

that's the main one that comes to mind right now.

Tbh, I see that as much of a theistic fallacy as an atheistic fallacy. It is true that saying "religous people are stupid" is a fallacy and, I'm sure that plenty of atheists who say it mean it exactly the way you say. But there are those, such as myself, who mean it a different way. Theists are stupid, but in the same way that people who buy homeopathic/naturalistic medicine are stupid, in the same way that people who believe in tv psychics are stupid - they are stupid not for what they believe, but for why they believe it. They suspend the critical thought and the desire for evidence that stops them from giving bank account details to "deposed nigerian princes", they succumb all to easily to confirmational bias, they argue almost gleefully with wilful ignorance on complex and established subjects.
They are no worse than the types of people who go straight from staunch catholic to atheist because of the abuse stories (those who base this decision on "I cant trust catholic priests, therefore no god exists"), but for all of these types of people, all of these types of things are, for want of a better word, stupid.

Mark Hamill

Pushtrak wrote: »

In my experience, that is the comfort line, that the person is in a better place, so that is something they believe in, so in that context they are aware of it. But of course someone is going to mourn the passing.

But doesn't "of course someone is going to mourn the passing" only make sense from an atheistic point of view (well, a point of view that doesn't asume heaven)? If someone honestly believed that a loved one was honestly going to heaven, then jealousy is more likely than sadness, no?

Pushtrak wrote: »

I think the problem stems from the fact a lot of atheists think that those who buy into the religious mumbo jumbo will place a null value on this life, which just isn't the case.

I think its because a lot of atheists see that the religious are supposed to put essentially a null value on this life (compared to their time in heaven), if they took their religious doctrine seriously (for most religions we are here to worship god, life is a test fro how well we worship him), but they dont, so we point out this contradiction. Its like pointing out Matthew 19:21 and asking why people dont sell all their possessions.

MouthFlush

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems like a perfectly logical question to me. They believe their loved ones and themselves are going to heaven, so why are they sad when their loved ones die?
"The why do atheists have morals" question is just retarded.

To be honest, I'm not sure there really is a contradiction here. Life is full of examples where happiness is intertwined with sadness: think of all the individuals who decide to emigrate for a better life. The family they leave behind are upset, but understanding. The fact that they are upset does not mean that they believe the move is not for the best.

It is a 'selfish' mourning, I suppose, but it does not appear to be contradictory (in my view, anyway). Even if it was, it is more an observation of the theist's lack of conviction rather than a critique of the conviction itself.

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Tbh, I see that as much of a theistic fallacy as an atheistic fallacy. It is true that saying "religous people are stupid" is a fallacy and, I'm sure that plenty of atheists who say it mean it exactly the way you say. But there are those, such as myself, who mean it a different way...

Being accused of doing something stupid - and being called stupid are very different. No matter how it's "meant" it will automatically be taken as a general insult.

Similar to calling someone ignorant. They may indeed be technically ignorant on the topic under discussion, but to simply call someone ignorant is, to my mind, an insult.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems like a perfectly logical question to me. They believe their loved ones and themselves are going to heaven, so why are they sad when their loved ones die?

I went to Australia for a year a while back. My mum and sister blubbered for ages. I moved to London, again, many tears. My wife goes home to her parents for a week or two, and she cries leaving me. Now as much as I'd like to think that my company is just so amazing that people simply can't do without my presence, it more comes down to missing a person you love. Having hope in Christ and trust in his promise certainly gives solace at a time of death, but one still mourns their passing in varying degrees. It may be logical to ask the question, but its certainly NOT logical to think that a Christian would or should not mourn for the passing of a loved one.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I went to Australia for a year a while back. My mum and sister blubbered for ages. I moved to London, again, many tears. My wife goes home to her parents for a week or two, and she cries leaving me. Now as much as I'd like to think that my company is just so amazing that people simply can't do without my presence, it more comes down to missing a person you love. Having hope in Christ and trust in his promise certainly gives solace at a time of death, but one still mourns their passing in varying degrees. It may be logical to ask the question, but its certainly NOT logical to think that a Christian would or should not mourn for the passing of a loved one.

Most people though, including Christians, don't morn the death of someone in the same way they get upset when their son/daughter is leaving for Australia.

There is an instinctive realization that the person is gone for good. While theists can try to rationally a way to believe they will see the person again, I think deep down they know they won't. Hence the overwhelming sadness.

Mark Hamill

MouthFlush wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not sure there really is a contradiction here. Life is full of examples where happiness is intertwined with sadness: think of all the individuals who decide to emigrate for a better life. The family they leave behind are upset, but understanding. The fact that they are upset does not mean that they believe the move is not for the best.

People are not upset at relatives immigrating to nearly the same extent as they are at relatives dying (I'd say, in this day and age, what with skype and facebook and all that, plenty of people dont get all that upset at all at the thought of relatives emigrating).

MouthFlush wrote: »

Even if it was, it is more an observation of the theist's lack of conviction rather than a critique of the conviction itself.

I agree with this. I would only point it out because it looks to me to be a contradiction between what someone claims to believe in and how they act based on that belief. I would not see it as being in anyway an argument for the invalidity of the belief itself.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

Being accused of doing something stupid - and being called stupid are very different. No matter how it's "meant" it will automatically be taken as a general insult.

Similar to calling someone ignorant. They may indeed be technically ignorant on the topic under discussion, but to simply call someone ignorant is, to my mind, an insult.

True. I am more and more trying to make sure that I say that "what people do"/"why they do it" is stupid, as opposed to just insulting them and saying they are stupid (despite the temptation ).

Des Carter

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Tbh, I see that as much of a theistic fallacy as an atheistic fallacy. It is true that saying "religous people are stupid" is a fallacy and, I'm sure that plenty of atheists who say it mean it exactly the way you say. But there are those, such as myself, who mean it a different way. Theists are stupid, but in the same way that people who buy homeopathic/naturalistic medicine are stupid, in the same way that people who believe in tv psychics are stupid - they are stupid not for what they believe, but for why they believe it. They suspend the critical thought and the desire for evidence that stops them from giving bank account details to "deposed nigerian princes", they succumb all to easily to confirmational bias, they argue almost gleefully with wilful ignorance on complex and established subjects.
They are no worse than the types of people who go straight from staunch catholic to atheist because of the abuse stories (those who base this decision on "I cant trust catholic priests, therefore no god exists"), but for all of these types of people, all of these types of things are, for want of a better word, stupid.

This is a perfect example of an atheistic fallicy. You assume all theists just follow blindly and dont use rational thinking and are ignorant on certain subjects. Now this may be true for many theists it is not the case for all and you assuming it is, is a fallicy.

Des Carter

another fallicy is the belief that there is no God because of all the wrong that was done in Gods name.

Just because people use God to justify their wrong-doings does not mean God doesnt exist.

nozzferrahhtoo

Des Carter wrote: »

This is a perfect example of an atheistic fallicy. You assume all theists just follow blindly and dont use rational thinking and are ignorant on certain subjects. Now this may be true for many theists it is not the case for all and you assuming it is, is a fallicy.

That is exactly why I made the two posts above that I did.

Even the most rational and intelligent person can simply be wrong.

Confirmation bias for example is no small effect. Even the most rational of us can fall into it’s trap.

The issue is not that Theists have no evidence to work with, or that they are somehow stupid or irrational. The issue is that there appears to be no evidence on offer that actually leads to the conclusions they claim it does.

Which can only mean that:

1) They are simply mistaken in their thought processes somewhere
2) They are being dishonest and claiming conclusions the data does not support
3) There is data they have they are leaving out and not telling us which actually does support their conclusions.

It would be my personal impression that those three points are in the order of the proportion that they occur in (1 is in my own experience more common than 2 and 2 more than 3 in that I have found no reason to think 3 is happening anywhere and I see 1 happening nearly all the time).

seamus

Wicknight wrote: »

Most people though, including Christians, don't morn the death of someone in the same way they get upset when their son/daughter is leaving for Australia.

There is an instinctive realization that the person is gone for good. While theists can try to rationally a way to believe they will see the person again, I think deep down they know they won't. Hence the overwhelming sadness.

While I'm all for talking about the unknown subconscious and instinctual drives which may shape our perception of the world, I'm not entirely sure if you're on the money with that.

I think for most people of a religious persuasion, there's a constant internal battle being fought - there's the side that really, really wants to believe and for all intents and purposes does believe, and then there's the other side; the little man who says that there's no evidence, that it's possible that it's all just made up and there is no God at all.
This is why so much of religious activity focussing on "building" or "strengthening" faith and constantly reassuring yourself that you're being watched over. If you were sure of it, you wouldn't require constant reminders and reinforcement. I don't need to spend the whole night telling myself to "have faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. I know it will.

And I think it's this internal battle which is manifested most strongly at the time of the death of others or when your own mortality becomes apparent. While you have can really, really want to believe that your loved one is still there and you will be united again, there is the possibility that they're gone, that's all they wrote. The death of a loved one is probably the most traumatic thing any of us will experience, so it's only natural that the idea that they're gone and never coming back is profoundly strong and upsetting.

It doesn't mean that religious people instinctly know that it's all a load of nonsense, but it's the one place where the ramifications of being wrong are the most depressing/upsetting and therefore this possibility stings them the most strongly.
I'm sure there's a name for this kind of biase (Edit: negativity biase, maybe?). It's like when you're doing a project, you have a tendancy to put a lot of effort into preventing the unlikely but potentially major disasters while overlooking the smaller but much more likely bumps in the road.

I find a tendancy between people who are "resolved" on either side of the fence (theistic or atheistic) to handle death with that bit more grace and finality than theists (or indeed atheists) who are simply participating in the rituals of their ancestors and "waver" in their belief from time to time.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Most people though, including Christians, don't morn the death of someone in the same way they get upset when their son/daughter is leaving for Australia.

Of course not, thats not what I meant. My example was meant to point out our desire to be with loved ones and want them around. Obviously death is incomparable on an emotional scale.

There is an instinctive realization that the person is gone for good.

We enter the realm of the personal now. I can categorically state that no such instinct exists in me. I've lost a 50 year old father and a 23 year old brother. Not once did it occur that they were gone for good, NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. No 'what ifs', nothing. However, it is still extremely hard to take that I will not see them for the remainder of my life. Watch my 2 week old nephew oblivious that he will grow up never knowing his father etc.

While theists can try to rationally a way to believe they will see the person again, I think deep down they know they won't. Hence the overwhelming sadness.

I can understand why someone with your outlook could not fathom the Christian outlook. Much like a theist who due to their outlook can believe an atheist is really just denying God deep down. Such is the power of our countering convictions in ourselves, we can find it hard to believe how the other feels.

Ghost Buster

The most common is possibly that there is any point or satisfaction to be had from debating rationally with a creationist

Knasher

Des Carter wrote: »

another fallicy is the belief that there is no God because of all the wrong that was done in Gods name.

Just because people use God to justify their wrong-doings does not mean God doesnt exist.

That's an argument as to why religion shouldn't exist, not to why god doesn't exist.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course not, thats not what I meant. My example was meant to point out our desire to be with loved ones and want them around.

This doesn't answer Mark's question though. They are not sad in the way that people are sad when a son or daughter leave for America, and thus merely desiring that your love ones are around doesn't explain why they are sad.

JimiTime wrote: »

We enter the realm of the personal now. I can categorically state that no such instinct exists in me. I've lost a 50 year old father and a 23 year old brother. Not once did it occur that they were gone for good, NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. No 'what ifs', nothing. However, it is still extremely hard to take that I will not see them for the remainder of my life. Watch my 2 week old nephew oblivious that he will grow up never knowing his father etc.

Well as you say it is some what pointless to deal with the personal, but I imagine that the grief you felt when your brother died was much greater than the grief you would feel if he skipped off to Australia leaving his son behind. You can say it wasn't, and we end up in a stalemate, but again I'm basis my position of common observation.

JimiTime wrote: »

I can understand why someone with your outlook could not fathom the Christian outlook. Much like a theist who due to their outlook can believe an atheist is really just denying God deep down. Such is the power of our countering convictions in ourselves, we can find it hard to believe how the other feels.

True, but again people do not react to death the same way they react to separation (which if Christianity is true is all death is). To me this speaks more to how humans view death than claims by religious people to the contrary.

Dades

Des Carter wrote: »

another fallicy is the belief that there is no God because of all the wrong that was done in Gods name.

Just because people use God to justify their wrong-doings does not mean God doesnt exist.

Not convinced.

If someone believes that a real God wouldn't allow people murder/maim in his name, then I'm fine with that. Not as THE reason that God doesn't exist, but certainly ONE reason.

Mark Hamill

Des Carter wrote: »

This is a perfect example of an atheistic fallicy. You assume all theists just follow blindly and dont use rational thinking and are ignorant on certain subjects. Now this may be true for many theists it is not the case for all and you assuming it is, is a fallicy.

Where did I say anything about all theists? I am only talking about theists that succomb to confirmational bias or wilful ignorance. Its true that I have yet to meet a theist whose reasons dont surpass these (or other logical fallacies), but I dont assume I never will, otherwise why would I even bother to talk to people about religion?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

This doesn't answer Mark's question though. They are not sad in the way that people are sad when a son or daughter leave for America, and thus merely desiring that your love ones are around doesn't explain why they are sad.

The analogy is made to point out that knowing that we'll see someone again, and knowing that they are in a good place or whatever, does not mean that we do not feel sad that we shall not have them around. IT DOES NOT AIM TO COMPARE THE EMOTIONS INVOLVED.

Well as you say it is some what pointless to deal with the personal, but I imagine that the grief you felt when your brother died was much greater than the grief you would feel if he skipped off to Australia leaving his son behind.

Of course. Seriously Wicknight, use yer noggin.

True, but again people do not react to death the same way they react to separation (which if Christianity is true is all death is). To me this speaks more to how humans view death than claims by religious people to the contrary.

Again, my analogy was not meant to compare the emotional impact of someone dying and someone going on a holiday, would you not have automatically assumed that I wasn't comparing the two in such a manner?? You baffle me sometimes.

Anyway, apart from this, death IS a separation to me. I would say that if a loved one is sent to a Thai prison for 80 years with no chance of reprise or visitation rights it would be extremely similar to a loved one dying. A mother being taken away from her child would also be similar I'd imagine.

The point anyway is, just in case you still don't get it, is that even if we know we will see a loved one again, we can still be extremely sorrowful at their parting. If my wife was put away for 80 years, My sorrow would be very similar to that of a widower. Obviously worse in that you know the loved one is in anguish, but as far as my deprivation is concerned, pretty much the same as if she were dead.

H1ppy

Dades wrote: »

Not convinced.

If someone believes that a real God wouldn't allow people murder/maim in his name, then I'm fine with that. Not as THE reason that God doesn't exist, but certainly ONE reason.

No, you're assuming that the person's belief that God wouldn't allow people to murder/maim in his name is correct.
Say there is a God. Say he would allow people to murder/maim in his name. Just believing that he wouldn't doesn't mean he wouldn't. You just happen to be right in one belief and wrong in another. Therefore the fact that people do murder/maim in his name doesn't prove he doesn't exist, just because you believe he wouldn't allow it. (The proverbial you, obviously, not the real you, necessarily.)

What we're talking about here, at bottom, is a conclusion drawn from an unsubstantiated assumption. The assumption that God would not allow harm done in his name. The conclusion therefore is that there is no God because harm done in his name proves he doesn't exist. But the foundational assumption , that he wouldn't allow this harm to be done, is unsubstantiated, so can't support the conclusion. For all we know, God would and does allow such harm. Certainly the Abrahamic God gives every indication in the old testement that he's down with that.

IMO the only supported conclusion from the fact of suffering is that, if there is a God, he's a hell of a bastard.

Dades

H1ppy wrote: »

No, you're assuming that the person's belief that God wouldn't allow people to murder/maim in his name is correct.
Say there is a God. Say he would allow people to murder/maim in his name. Just believing that he wouldn't doesn't mean he wouldn't. You just happen to be right in one belief and wrong in another. Therefore the fact that people do murder/maim in his name doesn't prove he doesn't exist, just because you believe he wouldn't allow it. (The proverbial you, obviously, not the real you, necessarily.)

What we're talking about here, at bottom, is a conclusion drawn from an unsubstantiated assumption. The assumption that God would not allow harm done in his name. The conclusion therefore is that there is no God because harm done in his name proves he doesn't exist. But the foundational assumption , that he wouldn't allow this harm to be done, is unsubstantiated, so can't support the conclusion.

You've pushed what was suggested beyond into the realm of proof. Way further than was intended. My only point was I see no issue with someone being skeptical that a benevolent god would let people murder in his name.

H1ppy wrote: »

For all we know, God would and does allow such harm. Certainly the Abrahamic God gives every indication in the old testement that he's down with that.

IMO the only supported conclusion from the fact of suffering is that, if there is a God, he's a hell of a bastard.

Christians like to ignore the Old Testament and talk about their God of love, etc. - i.e. the type of God that wouldn't condone people running murderous crusades in his name.

H1ppy

Dades wrote: »

You've pushed what was suggested beyond into the realm of proof. Way further than was intended. My only point was I see no issue with someone being skeptical that a benevolent god would let people murder in his name.

Quite right, my bad.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

The analogy is made to point out that knowing that we'll see someone again, and knowing that they are in a good place or whatever, does not mean that we do not feel sad that we shall not have them around.

But why do you feel so sad? Your loved one is in heaven. Sure, you cant contact them, like if they were travelling abroad, but there is no worry, they are safe in heaven.

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyway, apart from this, death IS a separation to me. I would say that if a loved one is sent to a Thai prison for 80 years with no chance of reprise or visitation rights it would be extremely similar to a loved one dying. A mother being taken away from her child would also be similar I'd imagine.

The point anyway is, just in case you still don't get it, is that even if we know we will see a loved one again, we can still be extremely sorrowful at their parting. If my wife was put away for 80 years, My sorrow would be very similar to that of a widower. Obviously worse in that you know the loved one is in anguish, but as far as my deprivation is concerned, pretty much the same as if she were dead.

Heaven is like a Thai prison then? You feel the same sorrow for a loved one who you believe is in the eternal bliss of heaven, feeling no anguish, as you do if they where in some horrible prison?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why do you feel so sad? Your loved one is in heaven. Sure, you cant contact them, like if they were travelling abroad, but there is no worry, they are safe in heaven.

Because it's natural to feel sad when you're separated from your loved ones.

Have you never heard about the 'living wakes' that used to be held in the 19th Century in Ireland before a young person emigrated to America? The family believed that their son or daughter was going to a better life in America, but it was still very humanly natural of them to grieve that they would be separated from each other for years, or possibly all their lives.

To try to imply that Christians are hypocritical because they grieve at being separated from their loved ones for a season is the kind of stupid argument that makes some atheists seem like they are just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Heaven is like a Thai prison then? You feel the same sorrow for a loved one who you believe is in the eternal bliss of heaven, feeling no anguish, as you do if they where in some horrible prison?

As I said, it makes some atheists sound like the kind of argumentative zealot that would pretend that Jimi was comparing heaven to a prison, when it is obvious that he was comparing the long period of separation from a loved one.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why do you feel so sad? Your loved one is in heaven. Sure, you cant contact them, like if they were travelling abroad, but there is no worry, they are safe in heaven.


Heaven is like a Thai prison then? You feel the same sorrow for a loved one who you believe is in the eternal bliss of heaven, feeling no anguish, as you do if they where in some horrible prison?

I give up.

strobe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems like a perfectly logical question to me. They believe their loved ones and themselves are going to heaven, so why are they sad when their loved ones die?
"The why do atheists have morals" question is just retarded.

Well if your Mother or best friend or son was moving to Australia, for example, (somewhere they always wanted to live and thought of as paradise) and you knew you were unlikely to see them again for 30 years. Would you not be a bit sad?

*Edit: Ahh, I see I have posted before reading the rest of the thread again....... (anyway I agree with PDN and Jimi)

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Because it's natural to feel sad when you're separated from your loved ones

Have you never heard about the 'living wakes' that used to be held in the 19th Century in Ireland before a young person emigrated to America? The family believed that their son or daughter was going to a better life in America, but it was still very humanly natural of them to grieve that they would be separated from each other for years, or possibly all their lives.

To try to imply that Christians are hypocritical because they grieve at being separated from their loved ones for a season is the kind of stupid argument that makes some atheists seem like they are just being argumentative for the sake of it.

To try to imply that christians grief at a loved ones death is the same as the the sadness of someone emigrating is the kind of nonsense that makes atheists question whether theists really have the capacity to even understand how silly that reasoning is.
Its not the sadness that doesn't make sense, its the extent of the sadness. Especially nowadays, where things like skype and facebook mean you can have immediate, video conversations with your emigrated loved ones almost whenever you like, the sadness at a loved one emigrating should be nowhere near the level of someone dying, but only if you dont believe in heaven. If you do, then there is no worry about whats happening to them (a large part of the sadness of someone leaving) and while you cant communicate directly with them, plenty of people believe that their oved ones can at least observe them.
Then there is why christians at funerals are just as sad as atheists at funerals-its the atheists that dont believe in life after death, they have lost more, so why are christians equally sad?

PDN wrote: »

As I said, it makes some atheists sound like the kind of argumentative zealot that would pretend that Jimi was comparing heaven to a prison, when it is obvious that he was comparing the long period of separation from a loved one.

Jimi said:

I would say that if a loved one is sent to a Thai prison for 80 years with no chance of reprise or visitation rights it would be extremely similar to a loved one dying

snip

If my wife was put away for 80 years, My sorrow would be very similar to that of a widower.

Seems to me that Jimi has to be comparing heaven to a prison, otherwise his comparison makes no sense. Why would he feel the same as a widower, if his wife was going to a horrible thai prison for 80 years and that widowers spouse was in the eternal bliss of heaven? What worry would the widower feel about what happens to his wife, that Jimi would feel about his wife? They are both seperated, but the circumstances of seperation are massively different and whats happening to the wife after the seperation is different, so assuming he isn't saying that heaven is like a thai prison, the comparison isn't really apt then.

Mark Hamill

strobe wrote: »

Well if your Mother or best friend or son was moving to Australia, for example, (somewhere they always wanted to live and thought of as paradise) and you knew you were unlikely to see them again for 30 years. Would you not be a bit sad?

*Edit: Ahh, I see I have posted before reading the rest of the thread again....... (anyway I agree with PDN and Jimi)

Well yes I would be sad, but not nearly to the same extent as if they died. I would have no worry if they died, because they would be in heaven and nothing bad at all could happen to them, so that would lessen my sadness greatly (assuming I believed in heaven). Do you not think its telling that theists and atheists grieve at funerals in the same way, as if both sets believe they will never see their loved ones again?

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well yes I would be sad, but not nearly to the same extent as if they died. I would have no worry if they died, because they would be in heaven and nothing bad at all could happen to them, so that would lessen my sadness greatly (assuming I believed in heaven). Do you not think its telling that theists and atheists grieve at funerals in the same way, as if both sets believe they will never see their loved ones again?

Thats exactly it. Not eradicate etc, but certainly lessen it.

Dades

I'm with the Christians on this one.

Can we agree to disagree Mark Hamill, and move on?

Tim Robbins

Religion is to blame for all the trouble in Northern Ireland is definetly one even Mr. Dawkins is to blame for.

Others -

1. indoctrination is a form of child abuse.
2. Assuming that people are only against abortion (or even things like breast feeding in public or that it is better for a family if one parent stays at home with the kids) because they are religious.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1. indoctrination is a form of child abuse.

Don't get me started on this one, even theists think indoctrination is a form of child abuse :pac:

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats exactly it. Not eradicate etc, but certainly lessen it.

So your sadness is lessened when someone dies, because you know they are in heaven, but its still similar to the level of if your loved one was in a prison?

Jimitime wrote:

If my wife was put away for 80 years, My sorrow would be very similar to that of a widower

It still doesn't answer how atheists and theists react to funerals in the way and to pretty much the same extent of sadness, despite massively different views on what happens afterwards. Your sadness doesn't seem greatly lessened compared to an atheist whose wife has died.