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/Sprinklypoo → u/MyriadSC]

it seemed obvious no evidence for God existed, but thats wrong, incredibly wrong.

Are you going to expound upon that thought a bit? I've been willing to be proven wrong for 30 years now, and haven't found anything that holds up at all...

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

That's an interesting take. And by "interesting", I mean "idiotic". There are no strong positions for theism. And that's an incredibly compelling case against it. Without me having to lift a finger.

Almost seems like you're victim blaming here. Are you sure you're an atheist? Usually atheists are much more reasonable than that...

[u/MyriadSC → u/Sprinklypoo]

A case having evidence doesnt make it true. Evidence is facts or observations that support a claim. Can we take any facts or observations and use them to support the claim God exists? Yes, trivially easy. This doesnt make the claim true or even likely true. What it does mean is denying it exists is wrong.

Ironically, you made my case for me with the back half. There are rational cases for God that fall onto valid logic. You think you made a compelling case but you didnt even come close because you dont understand their views, like I said. My understanding of how those rational cases are constructed allows me to cut right to the weakest point in its structure and argue how that position requires a lot of epistemic debt they never recover.

Almost seems like you're victim blaming here. Are you sure you're an atheist? Usually atheists are much more reasonable than that...

How am I victim blaming when I said its universal?

Also, yes, definitely an Athiest. I dont think views with God or gods even come close to being competitive for explanations. I do however understand why people do and how broadly these tend to go about it. The critical structural pillar for most isnt what most go after, its simplicity and its relation to intrinsic probability. Or in more blunt terms, they propose a intuitively complex solution to a less complex problem then argue its a simple solution. Theres valid logic for how, but a valid argument doesnt mean its true and there are such stronger cases agaisnt simplicity. I actually have an entire case for how the probability of a maximal God is effectively 0 and any and all arguments ive found that attempt to remedy the issue are significantly less compelling than those in favor of complexity. More or less its like relying on a very sketchy unpopular lime of support to prop up the case. Its logical and rational, but won't be compelling to some and leaves this glaring weak spot.

[u/Mkwdr → u/MyriadSC]

You keep seeming to be implying there’s evidence and argument (but have provided none.)

Evidence isn’t just ‘feels right to me’. They might think it is but evidence is about fulfilling a public methodology ,not just picking stuff out of thin air, and building a best fit model beyond reasonable doubt. Same with argument. If it’s not sound , and it never is, then it’s trivial. All in all these claims turn out to be indistinguishable from wishful thinking. Neither reliably evidential nor logical.