• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Common Bad Beliefs Among Atheists?

Holy Crap!*

(*this is a figure of speech, as I do not actually believe anything is "holy")

I am sorry to see the relentless attack here on what I Am the Scum is asking.

I don't really see the major problem with the question he is putting forward.

As far as I remember, I Am the Scum is an atheist himself, and the way that I read the OP was something like this, "While many atheists (such as myself) find religious beliefs to be incorrect or uncompelling for one reason or another - which is what makes us atheists in the first place - are atheists such as ourselves also prone to mistakes that are less common in theists and will nonetheless have no significance on the question of whether theists are correct or not?"

Hmmm...maybe that's a mouthful.

I think there may be bad arguments for atheism, as well as very good ones, if that is what I Am the Scum is talking about.

For example, I think Steven Weinberg, makes a bad argument here:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Click to expand...

I think that the argument could only be made by an atheist, but it is poorly argued. It's vague in the extreme what "good people" and "evil people" are, but can religion really be the only determining factor of "good people" stepping off the "good" path? Are there no other environmental factors such as war, famine, brain tumours etc... that could make good people do evil things? Could people not be "brainwashed" by political systems or manipulated by people even more evil?

I think it makes sense to examine and reject bad arguments on "our" side just as much as it is important to do the same for the other side.
 
angrysoba said:
I don't really see the major problem with the question he is putting forward.
Click to expand...

I just think some of us sort of reflexively see a request for us to, essentially, seek out and locate the "worst" of "us" to parade them around to be used as bad examples as a little too "Do me a favor and mix up the poison for your well" sorta thing.

It's a demand for token figureheads of a "bad example" of "your side" that no one's ever denied and that almost always carry ulterior motives. I'm just inherently skeptical of demands for big showy concessions to the (metaphorical) Argumentative Gods of All Arguments Must Be Fair and Balanced and All Extreme Points of View Are Equally Bad.

I've just never been in a discussion where "Now admit someone for your side can be bad too!" was coming at me from an open and honest place.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
I just think some of us sort of reflexively see a request for us to, essentially, seek out and locate the "worst" of "us" to parade them around to be used as bad examples as a little too "Do me a favor and mix up the poison for your well" sorta thing.

It's a demand for token figureheads of a "bad example" of "your side" that no one's ever denied and that almost always carry ulterior motives. I'm just inherently skeptical of demands for big showy concessions to the (metaphorical) Argumentative Gods of All Arguments Must Be Fair and Balanced and All Extreme Points of View Are Equally Bad.

I've just never been in a discussion where "Now admit someone for your side can be bad too!" was coming at me from an open and honest place.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand it. There is no dogma among unbelievers except believing would mean that you are not an unbeliever. No one gets excommunicated for say being a Republican or a vegetarian. Maybe certain things can be found that are common, but where do you start and what is bad that is exclusive to atheists? I seriously can't think of a thing.
 
JoeBentley said:
I just think some of us sort of reflexively see a request for us to, essentially, seek out and locate the "worst" of "us" to parade them around to be used as bad examples as a little too "Do me a favor and mix up the poison for your well" sorta thing.

It's a demand for token figureheads of a "bad example" of "your side" that no one's ever denied and that almost always carry ulterior motives. I'm just inherently skeptical of demands for big showy concessions to the (metaphorical) Argumentative Gods of All Arguments Must Be Fair and Balanced and All Extreme Points of View Are Equally Bad.

I've just never been in a discussion where "Now admit someone for your side can be bad too!" was coming at me from an open and honest place.
Click to expand...

That's no more than an admission of prejudice.

From what I can see, this is an open and honest request for a discussion about mistaken beliefs, and it may be that taking a look at weakpoints in your own argument does you a favour because then you will not use them in an argument with theists who might exploit the weakness.

acbytesla said:
I just don't understand it. There is no dogma among unbelievers except believing would mean that you are not an unbeliever. No one gets excommunicated for say being a Republican or a vegetarian. Maybe certain things can be found that are common, but where do you start and what is bad that is exclusive to atheists? I seriously can't think of a thing.
Click to expand...

There's no shame in not being able to think of one, but that doesn't mean you have to wreck discussion; maybe someone else can think of one.

For example, I posted an argument above that is fairly commonly used by atheists, and used exclusively by atheists?

My question would be to you, is it a good one or a bad one?
 
acbytesla said:
I just don't understand it. There is no dogma among unbelievers except believing would mean that you are not an unbeliever. No one gets excommunicated for say being a Republican or a vegetarian. Maybe certain things can be found that are common, but where do you start and what is bad that is exclusive to atheists? I seriously can't think of a thing.
Click to expand...

And the subtext of these request is always that if we don't have an "On the Ready" example of our side being "bad" it's somehow evidence of us thinking "our side" is perfect and flawless and can do no wrong.

It's a trap question. If I say "Sure Bob the Atheist is a douchewad" it's the "Well your side is just as bad" trap, if I don't "Oh well you think your side is perfect." comes out.

I don't see atheism as a club I belong too or a political party or a social movement, I just see it as an intellectual standard. Asking me to provide a token example an atheist being wrong is like asking me to provide an example of a person who doesn't believe in Bigfoot being wrong. Sure I can do it on a technical level but I can't associate with the demographic or see the point.
 
angrysoba said:
That's no more than an admission of prejudice.
Click to expand...

If that's the way you see it.

As I noted above this becomes a lot clearer if you swap out "atheist" with... well pretty much any other stance.

Let's say one of the hard core Bigfoot Supporters started a thread asking for Bigfoot Skeptics to provide an example of "their side" doing wrong.

Let's say that in the *groans* Knox threads someone started a thread specifically to ask the "other side" to provide example of something their side does wrong.

It's just weird and sorta suspicious to me. Not through prejudice but by simple pattern recognition. In every religious debate there's a push from the religious side to pin the sin of "Being strident" on atheist and it's a game I no longer desire to play nor engage in apologetics for.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
If that's the way you see it.

As I noted above this becomes a lot clearer if you swap out "atheist" with... well pretty much any other stance.

Let's say one of the hard core Bigfoot Supporters started a thread asking for Bigfoot Skeptics to provide an example of "their side" doing wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's say it.

There's a common bad belief among Bigfoot Skeptics that something that hasn't appeared on a David Attenborough documentary does not exist.*

* I made it up, obviously. But if it were real, then it would be a bad belief.

JoeBentley said:
Let's say that in the *groans* Knox threads someone started a thread specifically to ask the "other side" to provide example of something their side does wrong.
Click to expand...

Let's say there's a common bad belief that Amanda Knox is innocent because Italians are hopelessly incompetent.

I didn't make this one up; I have heard it. As I think Amanda Knox is almost certainly innocent, I would still say this is a bad belief. At least the inference is incorrect. Italians may be hopelessly incompetent AND Knox is innocent/guilty. The one would not demonstrate the other in and of itself.

I really see no reason why poor reasoning cannot be exposed just because the poor reasoning occurs on "my side" of an argument. In fact, I think it is necessary to weed out bad beliefs wherever they are.

As a further example, I have heard people who argue in favour of evolution against Creationists while putting forward extremely ignorant versions of evolution. They might argue that monkeys are evolving into humans, but at a slow rate - misunderstanding that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. Or they might put forward some muddled Lamarckian mechanism for how evolution occurs instead of by natural selection. Daniel Dennett has written a whole book taking to task non-Creationists who he thinks did not properly understand Darwinism.

I don't see anything remotely wrong with that at all. In fact, I see far more wrong in a tribal refusal to examine "my side".
 
angrysoba said:
There's no shame in not being able to think of one, but that doesn't mean you have to wreck discussion; maybe someone else can think of one.

For example, I posted an argument above that is fairly commonly used by atheists, and used exclusively by atheists?

My question would be to you, is it a good one or a bad one?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to wreck your discussion, I'm trying to point out that it is nonsensical. I am sorry if that might bother you but it's true.

As for your specific argument where you quoted Stephen Weinberg that's another question. Do I agree with it? Yes and No. It's a generalization, but I understand and somewhat share the sentiment. Christopher Hitchens use to say it. It's in his book 'God is not Great, how religion poisons everything'. Voltaire said 'if you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities'.

Here is the problem if you really believed that an all powerful creator of the universe told you to rape and murder wouldn't you have to do it? Now go back and read the Old Testament.
Go through the great atrocities and conflicts and religion seems tied in a way to almost all of them. Religions don't make peace, they divide us. They make war. Both the Nazis and the Confederate Army wore slogans on their uniforms ( I think their belt buckles) that God was on their side. There is no question the Nazis final solution was justified by Catholicism. The middle east problem in Israel are easily solvable if not for the parties of God. I could go on an on about this. So while Weinberg's quote is not universally true, there is a great amount of truth in it.
 
angrysoba said:
I think there may be bad arguments for atheism, as well as very good ones, if that is what I Am the Scum is talking about.
Click to expand...
Personally, I have never liked "There is no god," and prefer Sagan's approach, to the effect that all of the creator gods so far described are far too small to explain what we know to be true. Combine that with the fact that any perceived evidence for a god is a matter of interpretation, and I think you are closer to the truth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
Beady said:
Personally, I have never liked "There is no god," and prefer Sagan's approach, to the effect that all of the creator gods so far described are far too small to explain what we know to be true. Combine that with the fact that any perceived evidence for a god is a matter of interpretation, and I think you are closer to the truth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't say there is no God. I do say I have yet to see credible evidence of one.
 
acbytesla said:
So what? What's the point in trying to correlate the simple rejection of a single claim to anything? It seems totally superfluous. What do you think this information will tell you? I really don't see how it might be used without it turning into a useless stereotype.
Click to expand...
I think you're being a little discourteous to the Scum. It's a somewhat interesting question: do atheists tend to certain fallacies?

Not everyone will be interested in this question, but some might find it worth discussing. There is room on the forum for it.

As far as I'm concerned, one fallacy common among atheists, but not exclusive to them, is the fallacy that "negatives" cannot be proved and hence ought to be assumed to be true. This is a particular form of appeal to ignorance, justifiable given certain assumptions and a learning theoretic account, but indefensible in the general way it is offered.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, apart from all the atheists who read the thread, didn't see it as an attack, and didn't bother to respond because they didn't have anything to say. To take a self-selecting sample as evidence of a common property is a good example of confirmation bias.

Dave
Click to expand...
That's fair.
 
JoeBentley said:
I just think some of us sort of reflexively see a request for us to, essentially, seek out and locate the "worst" of "us" to parade them around to be used as bad examples as a little too "Do me a favor and mix up the poison for your well" sorta thing.

It's a demand for token figureheads of a "bad example" of "your side" that no one's ever denied and that almost always carry ulterior motives. I'm just inherently skeptical of demands for big showy concessions to the (metaphorical) Argumentative Gods of All Arguments Must Be Fair and Balanced and All Extreme Points of View Are Equally Bad.

I've just never been in a discussion where "Now admit someone for your side can be bad too!" was coming at me from an open and honest place.
Click to expand...
Goodness. I really admit that those on my side are guilty of bad reasoning when I see it. I thought of the Scum's request as a purely neutral exercise, just looking at whether some forms of fallacy are associated with atheism.

I see no subterfuge.
 
phiwum said:
I think you're being a little discourteous to the Scum. It's a somewhat interesting question: do atheists tend to certain fallacies?

Not everyone will be interested in this question, but some might find it worth discussing. There is room on the forum for it.

As far as I'm concerned, one fallacy common among atheists, but not exclusive to them, is the fallacy that "negatives" cannot be proved and hence ought to be assumed to be true. This is a particular form of appeal to ignorance, justifiable given certain assumptions and a learning theoretic account, but indefensible in the general way it is offered.
Click to expand...

With all due respect I disagree in regards to his topic. ( Not Scum, there is a difference) The problem is that Scum and you seem to want to create generalities that are meaningless.

While not all null hypotheses can not be proven, most cannot. That said, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. I cannot prove there is no God any more then anyone can prove there is one. But I have no responsibility to prove that as I am not making a positive claim.

I don't ask people to live their life by the rules of a being that no one can prove even exists. I don't pass the collection plate or ask that you to tithe part of your salary to promote it. The time to believe is when there is evidence for something, not before.
 
Last edited:
Beady said:
Huh? For the life of me, I cannot parse this sentence.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're right, it is confusing. Let me try again. While not all null hypotheses can not be proven, most cannot. Is that better?
 
Last edited:
Beady said:
Uh, no. I count three negatives, four if you count "null." Let's see:

"While some null hypotheses can be proven, most cannot."

Is that what you meant to say?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That will work. Believe me I read it over and over again to myself while writing it. I thought it was accurate, but not clear. Your way is better. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom