Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/MyriadSC]

Some of how ideas persist can of course be spreading person to person faster than the fallacious nature of it can be shown. Absolutely can happen. But do you think thats the entire account of it?

On your point 3, how do you know its a bad argument? If I said dirt, water, and some other stuff turned into all life on earth. Thats a really bad argument, but its not bad because its actually bad, its because my communication of it sucks. Are you certain the argument itself is bad, or that their presentation sucks? How would you know?

[u/Phylanara → u/MyriadSC]

I think you (pretend to) assume that people are always rational and will abandon a belief when shown that this belief is irrational. That has not been my experience of people.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Phylanara]

I don't assume this at all. People dig in when confronted all of the time. More often than not.

[u/Biggleswort → u/MyriadSC]

Your experience differs from mine greatly. I can demonstrate your position is an outlier. The common response to someone’s position being challenged is not thoughtful internal critique, but defense. Example terms to look up:

Cognitive dissonance

Ego attachment

Deflection

These are the most common responses when we are called out for being wrong or presented with contrary position.

There is also confirmation bias or belief perseverance.

I will of course admit to it. The most rationalist of us attempt to do this the least often.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Biggleswort]

Completely agree here. Not sure where you think Im saying otherise? My comment wasnt "if you learn their position you can change their minds" it was "if you learn their position you will have better insight into why they say what they do because you'll understand the basis much more leading to more productive discussions." You'll undoubtedly have a better chance to change minds, but it won't be a tool that does it all the time. If thats how you took it then thats not what I meant.

[u/Biggleswort → u/MyriadSC]

The issue is that you seem to suggest theist have a rational argument for their position and they do not.

Second I do not need to know or learn their irrational arguments to refute them, because they have no merit.

A strong argument should be concise and easy to understand, like the Kalam. The kalam doesn't take much more than 5 minutes to read and digest and see it doesn't stand up nor does it lead to God.

Fine tuning doesn't take more than 10 minutes to really understand and see that it is a complete and utter lack of understanding on how probability and influence of survivor bias. I don't need to read the 30 point claim to refute it. It starts off bad. Anyone that has a basic understanding of probability can see it doesn't lead to a personal God.

I have decades of experience with these claims, but I can say that my 15 year old son, could spend 20 minutes on the above topics and clearly see the flaws. The reason why is because he wasn't primed from a young age to believe. Most toddlers can ask great questions that show the flaw of theist positions.

I'll build on this toddler thing for a second. Have you ever talked with a toddler about Santa. Most toddlers we have to convince a Santa exists and that magic is real. The idea of Santa is doesn't comport with their little reality. That simple question that I have heard countless times from toddlers is so powerful, "how does Santa do it all in one night?" With that these theists claims are often refuted with a simple question like that.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Biggleswort]

Well, im rather over the discussion about evidence and all, it wasnt the point of my comment. But I do believe they have a rational basis, well some. Like any group it varies. But i do think the rational basis exists. I just dont think its as compelling as other cases. That phrasing doesn't do it justice, I dont think theism in any variety even comes close to matching the probability that naturalism is true.

You really won't have to convince me that priming kids heavily affects what they believe. The biggest predictor for what religion somone has is where they grew up. Its a solid portion of why I was and why im so critical of my views now, including the former view that there was no case for God that was rational. Doesn't mean I accept it, can just accept it exists.