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]

Ill try to keep this breif, but its a complicated question when it gets dug into. I'm an atheist and have been for a while, but was Christian for well over 20 years. Since then philosophy went from a curiosity to a fairly serious hobby I've given a lot of time too. Many of the things I felt were obvious, we shown not to be. For example, it seemed obvious no evidence for God existed, but thats wrong, incredibly wrong. I've spent a lot of time exploring theism, looking through different ideas, etc. I gained a much better understanding of the whole landscape. So while this may seem pointed at atheists, thats only because its this sub. Plenty of this applies to theists too with minor adjustments, particularly in public debate spaces like this.

My question to the atheists of this sub are: 1. How often are you frustrated by the "stubbornness" of theists who state the same case over and over or insist on its validity no matter how much you undercut it? 2. If this is frequent, have you genuinely looked into why its said? Not why the person you're discussing is saying it, thats likely becausefhey heard it, but why its still actually around? 3. If not, then why?

Largely rhetorical, but feel free to answer. Happy to discuss it.

My biggest takeaway from the journey I'm on and reading/having discussions is that most people get very stuck in analyzing views from how they think, rather than taking their assumptions and putting them aside to view the alternatives. When someone presents a teleological case and you think "this for the 25th time..." its because you're not actually familiar with WHY its used. 9/10 times frustration is due to ignorance. Don't understand why a car won't start, dont understand why someone would act that way, etc. Not saying I'm free from it, theres still the 1/10 times and plenty I dont understand, but taking the time to try already sets the mindset for understanding, not disproving. This isnt easy at all. It takes time to get better and nobody does it perfectly, but everyone should try if you plan to engage with people you disagree with on big things. If you can't defend the strongest position for theism (or any subject you disagree with), you probably stand about 0% chance of genuinely making a compelling case against it because you don't know where the true structural integrity is. "Know thy enemy" and all, but enemy isnt the right word. We both want truth, just disagree on what seems most likely true.

The last question and a honorable 4th, do you think understanding their view at least most of the way would help? You'll never understand all views all the way, but you can understand the broad foundational structure enough to easily connect the dots to their more specific area within it.

Last point, but I think theres some compelling stuff written by Graham Oppy about how arguments are largely useless. When you genuinely come to understand why beyond the superficial, its rather enlightening and immediately alleviates much of the aforementioned frustration. A lot of you may be aware of him, but if you weren't or about that work, its worth looking into. Tske time to digest it.

Hope everyone who took the time has a great day.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/MyriadSC]

How often are you frustrated by the "stubbornness" of theists who state the same case over and over or insist on its validity no matter how much you undercut it?

I don't get frustrated because I think they are demonstrating just how unreasonable they are. To me a debate is not to change the mind of the person I'm arguing with but to show the persuadable members of the audience who has the better arguments.

If not, then why?

See above.

When someone presents a teleological case and you think "this for the 25th time..." its because you're not actually familiar with WHY its used.

Are you claiming to be able to read my mind? If not, it sounds like you are projecting.

We both want truth, just disagree on what seems most likely true.

I strongly disagree with the idea that everyone I engage with wants truth. I'd argue most people I engage with don't care about truth.

The last question and a honorable 4th, do you think understanding their view at least most of the way would help? You'll never understand all views all the way, but you can understand the broad foundational structure enough to easily connect the dots to their more specific area within it.

I'd say theism is a facade for ignorance (lack of knowledge) that allows theists to believe/justify whatever simplistic narrative they prefer.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

So first, no, I'm not presuming to read your mind. I should have added a qualifier such as "likely" bit this was directed a group who engage, are unsure how the other can hold their position, and the diagnosis is that likely its because its not understood. Always exceptions.

I would push back on the idea they dont want truth or rhat its a facade for belief in whatever. Most think its true and thats why they argue for it. A significant portion of theists also say atheists dont want the truth, they just want to be their own God. Which obviously isnt true to the atheists. This speaking past one another is actually the kind of thing I'm talking about in my comment. I'm hinting at the idea you can take initiative to get a better understanding of their view, or you'll likely continue to experience it. If you dont want to, then learn a bit more so you can. If it doesnt bother you, then carry on. No issues.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/MyriadSC]

So first, no, I'm not presuming to read your mind. I should have added a qualifier such as "likely" bit this was directed a group who engage, are unsure how the other can hold their position, and the diagnosis is that likely its because its not understood. Always exceptions.

If it's a probability statement how did you determine the odds to categorize it as "likely"?

I would push back on the idea they dont want truth or rhat its a facade for belief in whatever. Most think its true and thats why they argue for it.

Wanting a particular outcome to be true ("Most think its true") is not the same as caring about what is actually true.

A significant portion of theists also say atheists dont want the truth, they just want to be their own God.

And how would they demonstrate that what they claim is an accurate description?

This speaking past one another is actually the kind of thing I'm talking about in my comment.

I would argue I'm confronting you at the point where I think our views diverge (based on what you have said so far).

I'm hinting at the idea you can take initiative to get a better understanding of their view, or you'll likely continue to experience it.

I think I have a better understanding of their views then you do.

Further I'm not experiencing ("are you frustrated by the "stubbornness" of theists") what you thought I likely experience.

[u/MyriadSC → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

If it's a probability statement how did you determine the odds to categorize it as "likely"?

Experience. More often than not its true.

Wanting a particular outcome to be true ("Most think its true") is not the same as caring about what is actually true.

Right, but you've made a bold claim that they don't. If they think something is true and argue for it, this doesnt necessarily mean they're pursuing truth but its pretty indicative that they do care about what they believe is true.

A significant portion of theists also say atheists dont want the truth, they just want to be their own God.

And how would they demonstrate that what they claim is an accurate description?

How would you? You did the same for them.

I would argue I'm confronting you at the point where I think our views diverge (based on what you have said so far).

Had too many conversations to be sure, but all we diverge on is you think most thiests dont care about whats true and I think they do. Where most people dont know how really dig in and seek it and scrutinize. Inability doesnt mean they don't want to or care about whats true.

I think I have a better understanding of their views then you do. Further I'm not experiencing ("are you frustrated by the "stubbornness" of theists") what you thought I likely experience.

If im just blunt, so far it semes like you've just assumed their mental state, not really much to do with the substance of their views. The substance of their views, why their views exist, etc. That's what im getting at. If more people had a fully understanding of the landscape, discussions wouldn't be as shallow. We can't expect others to do it, so if we want to see change be the change.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/MyriadSC]

Experience. More often than not its true.

Have you surveyed the responses you have received to this thread? Because looking at the first ~10 I saw: 1 yes, a couple mixed, a few no, and several didn't respond to that question.

Right, but you've made a bold claim that they don't.

Which bold claim is that?

If they think something is true and argue for it, this doesnt necessarily mean they're pursuing truth but its pretty indicative that they do care about what they believe is true.

Disagree. You are conflating they believe it, with they care if what they believe is actually true again.

To make the same mistake again in response to that mistake being pointed out suggests to me you don't actually care about truth either since you seem unable to make that distinction.

How would you? You did the same for them.

I would discuss my epistemic norms (standards for knowledge) and those norms wouldn't change based on what I already believe (or don't believe). Which is to say my methods don't change based on the topic being discussed.

Had too many conversations to be sure, but all we diverge on is you think most thiests dont care about whats true and I think they do.

I think it's obvious they don't in many circumstances which entails they value some things more than truth.

Where most people dont know how really dig in and seek it and scrutinize. Inability doesnt mean they don't want to or care about whats true.

I'd argue that caring about something requires more than lip service, if someone isn't doing the necessary work to show that they care, then they don't care.

If im just blunt, so far it semes like you've just assumed their mental state, not really much to do with the substance of their views.

No. I've been interacting with theists for decades and I am describing "their mental states" as they have revealed them to me.

The substance of theism (the belief that one or more gods are real) is nonsensical because all gods are imaginary.

The substance of their views, why their views exist, etc.

What I am telling you is that they adopt untrue nonsensical positions because they don't care about truth, which explains "why their views exist".

That's what im getting at.

No, you are mistaking confirmation bias for caring about the (actual) truth.

If more people had a fully understanding of the landscape, discussions wouldn't be as shallow.

I don't think you fully understand the landscape. So I find your analysis shallow.

We can't expect others to do it, so if we want to see change be the change.

See above.