I didn’t say they were.
Are you excluding yourself from those very smart people? 
I agree but are you saying that intelligent theists don’t weigh the evidence?
Most obviously most of the “Christ Myth” arguments and the supposed parallels with Mithras/Krishna/Osiris etc. which largely relied on inaccurate 19th Century anthropological findings. Only very recently with Richard Carrier has there been any sort of respectable argument in that direction.
I’m a full-blown hard-core atheist…and I love discussing theology in that way, as an abstract study of a field that is fairly well-defined and incredibly rich in detail.
It’s a little like doing non-Euclidean geometry or other abstract topology. It doesn’t matter if it’s contra-factual; you can make arguments back and forth, working from various basic texts as your source material, and you can do remarkably fun things with it.
The Bible, to me, is no more real than Niven’s Known Space…but I’m willing to discuss and debate the implications of each. (And sometimes both!)
I’m agnostic, so I don’t count. But I don’t find the arguments on either side compelling. I don’t know and I have no way of knowing, so why would I have an opinion on it?
I can also think of definitions of God fhan seem irrefutable- things like “stuff exists”. If you want to call that God, then sure God exists. Unless I have some reasonable definition of what the heck it is we are debating exists, I have no way to say what I believe.
What evidence are they weighing? 
I am excluding myself from very intelligent people who say incredibly stupid things, yes. Obviously if I thought something were incredibly stupid I wouldn’t be saying it.
People are very good at rationalizing positions they arrived at through non-rational means. I haven’t had many in-depth discussions with religious people, so I can’t be sure, but it seems to me that this is what’s going on with religious people who think about the evidence for and against religion.
But the problem with evidence and religion is that by definition there can’t be any; if it’s possible to experimentally determine whether something exists, then we’re doing science, not religion.
So either the god of the bible exists, but goes out his way to make us think that he doesn’t, a god exists but hasn’t touched the universe after it was created, or no god exists. (Replace the bible with a different book for the same results.) Anything else is incompatible with the facts we know about the world.
Of course there are many people who have trouble grasping concepts such as coincidence and randomness, and will take non-events as evidence for supernatural action.
What arguments do you have in mind on the atheist side? I’m only familiar with refutations of various theistic arguments, and the general principle of not assuming the existence of anything.
That’s not to say that nobody has ever advocated atheist using flawed logic. But I’m not aware of any well-known, fallacious arguments.
It’s not about “knowing” necessarily.
I don’t know for sure that vampires don’t exist, yet I frequently leave my house without cloves of garlic with me. Why? Because it makes sense to assume the non-existence of anything until I have good reason to suppose it exists. And this is especially so for extraordinary claims.
What would be the alternative? How many of the infinite set of entities that could exist do I need to concern myself with?
I strongly disagree with the idea that some atheists have that religion is a inherently bad, religious people are stupid and deluded, and that the world is better off without religion. I think religion is often useful, I think belief is an important part of how we make sense of the world, and I see no reason to believe the non-religious are less likely to do bad things on a personal or societal scale.
I think your vampire metaphor is kind of the point. When is the last time you got in to a heated discussion on vampires? Who cares?
The whole topic is basically meaningless, and not really worth my time.
Even if that’s true, does it matter? Are we supposed to believe in god because believe in god is useful, regardless of whether god exists? I don’t think that works.
Depends on the kind of religion. The people who only go to church on christmas eve and tick the box “christian” but otherwise subscribe to science etc are unlikely to do bad things because of religion. However, the people who believe what happens here on earth is of no importance because they’ll live on in the afterlife can be quite dangerous: they may support policies that are detrimental for future generations or even kill people.
There have long been arguments that non-religious people wouldn’t be held back by punishment in the afterlife and thus behave immorally. There’s no evidence that this is the case, and many bad things are more common in places where the population tends to be more religious, even counterintuitive things like teen pregnancy and divorce.
Since there is no evidence to weigh, I think it’s more a case of not wanting to go through the effort of overcoming years of previous deep indoctrination in the religion one was raised in, coupled with a desire to just get along with others.
Yes, people— theists and atheists— are very good at rationalizing various positions.
Or are you suggesting that atheists aren’t people, or that they arrive at all their conclusions through purely rational means?
I suggest that you have a few in-depth discussions with religious people, especially those that you consider to be intelligent.
Also, I suggest that you investigate what’s going on with non-religious people who think about the evidence for and against religion.
What evidence?
I’m sure I would get into heated discussion about vampires if someone were trying to base governmental policy on the assumption that Dracula is true.
I am completely unimpressed by the “Religion exists in all cultures at all times.” argument.
People are incredibly superstitious. It comes from the innate desire to associate events, related or otherwise. “I saw a green bird this morning and hunting was good. Therefore green birds are a good omen.” A little bit more of that and you’re worshiping the Green Bird God.
It has been only very recently in human history that non-divine explanations for mundane events became commonplace. Before, it was “Wyleah’s tent got blown over by a dust devil because he angered the god Taz.” type stuff for everything.
Huh?
I’m tempted to say yes, because I don’t think very many people call themselves atheists without giving the matter serious thought. (Agnostics, on the other hand…)
But that presupposes there are good rational arguments in favor of theism. Maybe there are, but I really can’t think of any.
For what purpose?
Typically, it goes like this: some evidence for the existence of god is presented. The non-religious person shakes his/her head and wonders: “is this the best you can do?”
But trying to rationally argue for the existence of god is so religion v1.0. The whole point is believing it without airtight proof.
Since the “evidence” presented is usually pretty weak beer, the response is valid. I’ve actually had people throw Pascal’s Wager, the Ontological Argument, and C.S. Lewis’ trilemma (“Jesus must have been either Liar, Lunatic, or The Lord–there are no other coices”) with perfect seriousness.
Is this the best they can do?
I might have a little more respect for those who say, “I, myself, personally saw and spoke with Jesus.” Except that Jesus never actually says anything useful. If Jesus was willing to help out here some, he’d tell tomorrow’s headlines, warn of us a mine collapse, or in some way say something that can be verified. But personal relationships with Jesus are always filled with squishy dialogue like, “Remember to be strong in adversity, for I am with you always.” That isn’t evidence. That’s just Erich Segal.
Agreed. And that’s the point where I’m cool with it. Believe what you want.
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Thomas Jefferson
However, as jsgoddess noted, it becomes of very great importance when people attempt to base compulsory legislation on their religious beliefs. That violates the principle of freedom of religion.
There is one theistic argument I can think of that I find somewhat convincing, but I don’t see many theists trying to argue for it.
It looks somewhat like:
- Our minds are collections of chemicals and electrical interactions and whatnots but we have a strong, undeniable sense of “consciousness.”
- The galaxies / universe as a whole can also be seen as a collection of interactions, and it’s not inconceivable that such a collection also has a subjective experience of “consciousness.”
- A conscious entity operating at that scale seems like the word “god” might apply as well as anything.
First post from a loong-time lurker. Hi Dopers!
^ This.
^ And this.
A few years ago, when I was in some shitty times, I prayed a lot and have on occasion even cried myself to sleep -literally- thinking of the gods, hoping to earn their mercy. Actually it wasn’t so much that I particularly felt any divine presence or anything. I was just plain desperate for help or an answer to my prayers, neither of which came sadly. The whole experience has made me an atheist for all practical purposes. (I still follow some religious rituals, and visit temples from time to time.) I doubt that I can go back to an unquestioning faith ever again.
On a related note: In my favorite moments from the show House MD (Season 3, Episode 24, Human Error), when an atheist husband prays for his dying wife to get better, Dr. House asks if he has started to believe in God. The husband responds, “I don’t. I promised my wife I do everything I can to fix her, if I don’t pray, then I don’t do everything.” This “argument” for belief/praying is patronizing for sure, but I do find it interesting.
But praying is actually doing nothing, not something.
It’s like the skeptic who, nevertheless, had a horseshoe nailed up over his doorway, to bring good luck.
“But you don’t believe in that.”
“Yes, but I’m told it brings good luck, whether you believe in it or not.”
After all, what harm? (I guess it could fall from the wall and hit you on the head…)