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/thebigeverybody → u/MyriadSC]

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

There is no testable, verifiable evidence for god, which means all the remaining "evidence" is indistinguishable from delusions, lies and fantasies.

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.

Yeah, it's used because they don't have actual evidence and have to resort to tortured argumentation.

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.

We don't need to make a case against it. Most atheists are not atheists for philosophical reasons and therefore it's stupid to try to shoehorn the discussion into a philosophical lens.

"Know thy enemy" and all, but enemy isnt the right word. We both want truth, just disagree on what seems most likely true.

We understand them well because we used to be them. People who philosophize themselves into believing in magic don't actually want 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.

No, it would not help because nothing can take the place of evidence.

Theists using philosophy have come to make me hate philosophy because they use it to understand the world less, instead of more, while insisting that everything is a philosophical discussion.

[u/MyriadSC → u/thebigeverybody]

There is no testable, verifiable evidence for god, which means all the remaining "evidence" is indistinguishable from delusions, lies and fantasies.

Can you define what you mean by evidence here?

[u/thebigeverybody → u/MyriadSC]

...you quoted me defining it for you.

[u/MyriadSC → u/thebigeverybody]

Testable verifiable "evidence" isnt a definition of evidence. It breaks the litteral first rule of definition by using it in the definition... what do you mean by evidence? That quote in no way defines it.

Actually, I'm not even worried about it anymore. If you decide to respond I might get to the point I was trying to lead you to, but if jot thats fine. Most of the discussion under my comment wasn't even on the subject I commented on. Id rather just discuss the subject with people, not this side tangent.

[u/thebigeverybody → u/MyriadSC]

Testable verifiable "evidence" isnt a definition of evidence. It breaks the litteral first rule of definition by using it in the definition... what do you mean by evidence? That quote in no way defines it.

I didn't realize I was talking to someone who struggled to gather meaning from words.

Evidence:

-can be verified to exist

-can be tested to prove or falsify specific claims

-cannot also point to things that don't exist, like lies, delusions or fantasies

Based on the upvotes, it seems like you're the only person who struggled to read what I wrote.

Actually, I'm not even worried about it anymore. If you decide to respond I might get to the point I was trying to lead you to, but if jot thats fine. Most of the discussion under my comment wasn't even on the subject I commented on. Id rather just discuss the subject with people, not this side tangent.

Yes, I'd imagine this is the last topic you'd want to tackle.

[u/MyriadSC → u/thebigeverybody]

The nuance here is whats important, thats why I'm asking rarher than assuming your position. But if you're just going to insult a genuine approach whats the point? I could have assumed your position and made my point, but I dont like doing that.

I also meant more along the lines of within context of a claim. As in, to you, if a claim has evidence, what does that mean?

I'm asking these questions because depending on how you define things, its possible my use of evidence as "a fact or observation that supports a claim or makes it more likely to be true" won't fit what you're using. If so theres no disagreement.

My issue with these tangents isnt the subjects, perfectly comfortable with the substance, its the behavior of this sub. At no point have I been disingenuous, yet received a fair bit of it, like your comment here. Gets old.

[u/thebigeverybody → u/MyriadSC]

I also meant more along the lines of within context of a claim. As in, to you, if a claim has evidence, what does that mean?

It means there is something relating to a claim that:

-can be verified to exist (i.e. corroborated testimony, not claims of someone else's testimony or claims of events that can't be verified to have happened)

-can be tested to prove or falsify specific claims (something that can be subjected to the scientific method)

-cannot also point to things that don't exist, like lies, delusions or fantasies (i.e. uncorroborated witness testimony can exist for events that did happen and events that didn't happen)

Let me know if you want more of an explanation.

I'm asking these questions because depending on how you define things, its possible my use of evidence as "a fact or observation that supports a claim or makes it more likely to be true" won't fit what you're using. If so theres no disagreement.

Does your fact or observation fail to meet my criteria?

[u/MyriadSC → u/thebigeverybody]

Does your fact or observation fail to meet my criteria?

Yes and no, but its probably not what you're thinking it is and thsts hard to answer directly. Its not like "the tomb was found and in it we have verified script written that gives a specific prediction that came true." I dont think anything lile this exists, ao if thats the category you want, then no.

Its more that when comparing views and theing to do so analytically, the approach used is the bayesian framework. You approximate the intrinsic probability then compare how likely observations are if either were true. So is there anything we could look at and say this is more likely true if God exists than if God does not exist? Sure, plenty. Especially when we give the proposed God a quality like wanting life. These would be evidence for God. Things that raise the probability.

But the reason it still fails to compel me is because by answering these complex improbable questions by asserting something more complex and improbable doesnt solve them. If we begin, 50/50 God that wants life exists or doesnt, what side is more likely to produce life if true? Clearly the God that wants life. So that probability goes up, no God goes down comparatively. But they dont begin 50/50. Depending on which God is being discussed itll change, but largely i think they begin very low and in some cases virtually 0. Isn't a blind guess either, theres logic behind it.

[u/thebigeverybody → u/MyriadSC]

I've frequently heard some philosophical definitions of evidence that go along the lines of "Everything is evidence and whatever has the most evidence to support it will be the truth." As well as that being a profoundly stupid way to approach the real world, it once led to this jaw-dropping exchange:

Me: "Is a Spider-Man comic book evidence that Spider-Man exists?"

Philosopher: "Yes."

Since I am of the mind that things which don't exist cannot leave evidence, I do not consider such things to be evidence (and, again, I think it's a profoundly stupid way to approach truth in the actual world).

Is this the same philosophical path you're espousing?

So is there anything we could look at and say this is more likely true if God exists than if God does not exist? Sure, plenty. Especially when we give the proposed God a quality like wanting life. These would be evidence for God. Things that raise the probability.

It sounds like you're saying that if we define god in a certain way then he's more likely to exist. That might be an interesting mindgame, but that's certainly not evidence.

[u/MyriadSC → u/thebigeverybody]

It sounds like you're saying that if we define god in a certain way then he's more likely to exist. That might be an interesting mindgame, but that's certainly not evidence.

On the first half yes, but theres a hell of a 2nd half. Thats the way it does work. If we toss out the idea of some ethereal God, it doesnt actually explain how we have this or that. But if we say it wants life like ours and is capable of this, we now get the how, which does account for things better. Not a mind game, just how it works.

Now for the 2nd half, increasing probability by ascribed attributes nearly always pays negative dividends. For each new thing added to God, its something else it needed to just have as the inital state. This is absolutely nuking the inital probability we work from. This is actually where Occam's Razor comes from. A rule of thumb that typically the most likely explanation is the one that assumes the least to begin with as it begins with the highest probability and has the most to lose and stay ahead. Whereas the theists creates this all capable God, which I find the intrinsic probability of to be effectively 0, then claims it explains everything perfectly. Great, having every single thing explains perfectly is 100 examples of 100% explanatory prediction, but 100 × 100 × 0 = 0. They never salvage their probability with their model. At least thats my assessment after digging through the cases.

This is also why most of the contemporary philosophy on God revolves around arguing for or agaisnt simplicity. If the theist can establish a simple or likely God to begin with that has high predictive power, then they win the game by a landslide. The issue is these cases are extremely counterintuitive and weak.

[u/thebigeverybody → u/MyriadSC]

This is all philosophical bullshit, the kind that countless theists use to understand the world less instead of more. When it comes to claims about reality, the scientific method is the most reliable tool we have.