Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I think it is a fallacy because it avoids dealing the subject at hand (namely God), arguind for or against in any logical or reasonable way... and instead just resorts to comparing that belief to something that most people would ridicule. Hence, it is called 'appeal to ridicule'.

  In what way? Believers are arguing for an invisible, undetectable, unproveable and unpredictable creature. How is that any different from a fairy?

  Perhaps it only sounds ridiculous because you don't believe in fairies.

  EP, you are spot on about ridicule. That is exactly the tactic of some atheists on this forum.

  I don't understand what you mean....
• 

  Christ Alone

  Yes, it is a fallacy. On this site and on others, there is a tendency to replace arguemtn with name calling. The argument is constantly put forth that faith is "irrational"and that belief is "mythology" or "fairy tale".

  I've never seen these words given definitions. I belive that is becauses definitionally belief and fairy tales cannot be equated. There is never a case made for why these different terms are synonymous. Instead, the words are used carelessly in order to taint the associations that someone has with belief and faith and liken it to a COMPLETELY different idea: fairy tales.

  If an atheist calls faith irrational often enough, people will start to associate the two with each other, even when there is not a good reason to do so.

  If I say that in our experience, everything has a maker, that makes sense. I knows this is a simple overused example, but please humor me. If I took a watch and said that it had no maker, I would be viewed as delusional. It obviously had a maker. But if I infer that same thing with the earth, I am called delusional and that I believe the same as those that would believe in unicorns and fairy tales. Do you see the OBVIOUS fallacy here? You cannot equate belief in a creator who is the original cause, with a mythological character. This line of reasoning (if it can be called that), merely seeks to make the believer look ridiculous instead of face the reasons for why the believer feels the way he/she does.

  I think this line of thinking is very similar to a straw man. I've seen it happen also on this board where someone says "Look at the terrorism done in the name of God! Religion has been responsible for horrible atrocities, thus God can't exist." The believers view has been weakened in the eyes of others because of the focus on what PEOPLE have done. It has distorted the believers view, and so it makes it easier to knock it down.

  Now, atheists are not the only ones that use these fallacies, obviously. Stephen Naylor Thomas, a philosopher and author of Practical Reasoning in Natural Language , ties in how atheism (as well as theism) commits the ignorantiam fallacy when it claims existential affirmation via denying evidence to the contrary when he says:

  This fallacy occurs in both of the following examples: There is insufficient evidence to establish that God exists. Therefore, God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist. Therefore, God exists. The reasoning in both these arguments is fallacious, because ignorance or lack of proof or evidence about a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false. pp. 321-22.
• 

  NewChapter

  There are people, today, that believe in fairies. I saw a documentary on Iceland, and many of the people, although Catholic (mostly, I think) also believe in elves, and magic, and other Norse mythological characters. Since most non-atheists don't believe in these, but it is a valid belief among many people, it does seem to be a fair comparison to give a non-atheist a sense of how we view some of the things we say. Unless non-atheists want to scorn other kinds of believers (believers in fairies) then I don't see what the problem is.

  However by their insistence that talking fairies reduces their god to the ridiculous, then I must assume that they that fairy believers believe in something ridiculous. Now they understand exactly how an atheist may feel about belief in gods. And if that is scorn---then they too, are scornful.

  I don't think it is scorn against the person, but the belief. But clearly, some beliefs are held up as more valid than others. Through biased eyes, it makes sense, but when pulled apart and looked at, it kind of looks bad for the fairy scorners---or good---depending on your point-of-view.
• 

  NewChapter

  The argument is constantly put forth that faith is "irrational"and that belief is "mythology" or "fairy tale".

  Tell that to those that really believe in 'fariy tales'. Fairies were not always a part of children's stories, but were religious actors. There are still people that believe in them today. Yet you do not hesitate to reduce THEIR beliefs to 'mythology', 'fairy tales', 'ridiculous'.

  Why the double standard?

  There is no obvious fallacy. You want there to be an obvious fallacy, because you have the comfort of not believing in fairies in a world that is biased against those that believe in fairies. I would say their belief is just as valid as your belief, and if you think their belief is ridiculous, then what can I say? It is all belief, it is all faith, and scorning someone else's belief does not exactly bolster your case that only atheists scorn, because non-atheists are also full of scorn. Is this wrong? To scorn a belief? I don't think so, but since non-atheists think it is a problem, I think it is bad form to scorn beliefs that you don't hold.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Yes, it is a fallacy. On this site and on others, there is a tendency to replace arguemtn with name calling. The argument is constantly put forth that faith is "irrational"and that belief is "mythology" or "fairy tale".

  You keep saying that, yet keep failing to show HOW they are not EXACTLY the same thing.
• 

  Christ Alone

  I did. I said if a watch has a maker, and is less complex that nature, then why is it believing in fairy tales to believe that the universe had a maker?

  I'll put this forward too, and atheists can feel free to disagree with me:

  There is very little that would "prove" to an atheist that God exists other than Him appearing in the sky and saying "Ok guys, see? Is this enough proof for you?"

  I'll illustrate it this way: As an atheist, suspend your disbelief for a second and imagine this. Let's say that the rapture ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Millions of people suddenly vanish from earth. Do you actually think that the majority of humans would actually believe that God came and took His people? Or would there be more "rational" explanations for the vanishing? There would be discussion of aliens. There would be discussion about government programs and technology that we didn't know existed. There would be hundreds, if not thousands of theories as to how it happened.

  And this isn't new. Again, suspend your disbelief, and imagine being alive while Jesus was on earth. He performed hundreds of signs that were supernatural. Did that cause everyone to believe in Him? No. MOST people did NOT believe He was the Son of God. And many wouldn't today. There could be an outright miracle performed today, and it still would have a more "rational" explanation as to how it happened. But God doesn't force anyone to believe. That is why the essential quality that has to be there is faith. Atheists hate the term "faith" because it implies believing with no evidence. But this isn't the case. Logically I believe that every peice of technology has a maker. I don't see why it is so illogical to infer that the rest does as well. Faith is needed to attribute it to God. Faith takes the proof that is available and says "I believe that it must be God that is responsible".

  And this isn't unique to Christians. We talked about Francis Collins either on this thread or another like this. He is not a Christian. But through all of his research in the area of DNA he infers that there MUST be a designer. He is a theistic evolutionist. He believes in science 100%. But would you accuse him of believing in some type of fairy tale because he has concluded that complex systems of information cannot have come about by accidental processes and chance? No. More respect is given to him because of his background and wealth of knowledge.

  I can't help but think that no evidence would be enough for a solid athiest to believe in God. Atheists like to say that there is not enough proof. I could imagine some of the atheists on this board being present at some of the acts performed by the prophets in the Old Testament, and trying to find the reason behind what happened. Take the account where Elijah called down fire from heaven to "eat up" the water drentched wood and meat on the alter. Would not a "scientific mind" have a reasonable explanation for that event to show that it wasn't actually God, but was instead some sort of weather or other type of phenomenon?

  Really, what proof would be enough proof other than God appearing in the sky? And would even THAT be enough proof? Jesus said and demonstrated that He was the exact image of God. However, the proofs that he showed were not enough for most of the people.
• 

  rather be in hades

  Now, atheists are not the only ones that use these fallacies, obviously. Stephen Naylor Thomas, a philosopher and author of Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, ties in how atheism (as well as theism) commits the ignorantiam fallacy when it claims existential affirmation via denying evidence to the contrary when he says:

  i see that the last publication date for that book was in 1996. it is now 2012 and there's been no updated copies from a book originally published in 1996.

  i find THAT very interesting...
• 

  Christ Alone

  New light, hades? With that line of thinking, you could justify the WT only including publications back to 2000 on their site... 1996 was not that long ago. Darwin's book is over a hundred years old and it's still used... Or are you saying that because that single book was not reprinted, it should be rejected? That's not the only book that discusses atheistic as well as theistic fallacies that both groups use in argumentation.
• 

  NewChapter

  Darwin's book is over a hundred years old and it's still used...

  For what? It was great for it's time, but do you think scientists are using his book beyond a point of history and development? His theory has been greatly expanded upon, and we now use very current information in evolutionary study.
• 

  Christ Alone

  NC, his argument was that the book I quoted from was from 1996 without a reprint (yet). I was saying that that doesn't mean that the points contained within are no longer valid. Just as many, not all, points within Origin of the Species are still valid and used by many scientists today.

  And that was the ONLY argument from my 2 long posts? That the book was from 1996? What?!?