Why Do People Get Defensive About God?

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Right, and I expressed an opinion and you challenged it. So what’s the problem?
[/QUOTE]
What opinion of yours have I challenged?

I don’t think you are even reading what I have posted.

First exchange:
You challenged my interpretation of the comment by Der Trihs and I explained my rationale for my interpretation. (No challenge to your beliefs other than a difference of opinion regarding another poster’s intent.)

Second exchange:
You asked

which I interpreted to be a question regarding how to respectfully express doubt about religion based on a perception of scientific information. I provided a way that I believed one could express “the opinion that religion could be a function of older, less evolved brains that we’re still grappling with today.” Again, no challenge to your belief.
I then provided a separate counter-example to being polite regarding expressing opions purportedly rooted in scientific evidence by paraphrasing an earlier rude post in this very thread. The post was not yours and I did not attribute it to you, but you have decided to take umbrage by falsely claiming that I was misattributing a statement to you when I clearly was not. (I admit to having used the generic second person in my satement, but it should have been pretty obvious from context that I was not accusing the poster 9thFloor of having said any particular thing since it was a conjectural reference.)
You responded with a mildly snippy claim that if I insisted on evidence for an opinion (an opinion you invented, since I made no such claim), then you would expect everyone’s opinions to be held to the same standard.

Third exchange (rather convoluted since you keep using odd methods of quotation and also repeating the same quote multiple times to provide additional replies):
First, I submitted to you that my post was a direct response to your question that I have quoted again in this post. Nothing more. I then went on to note that expressions of opinion (not cloaked in claims of scientific evidence) can be as simple as a direct claim that you find the idea of a god to be silly. At this point, you have changed the direction of our exchange from the direct question you asked and I answered to some broader issue, so I went ahead and noted both that I did not find direct claims of unbelief to be insulting, even when employing several of the more sarcastic icons used to attack believers, as long as the central point was a straight declaration of unbelief. I also acknowledged that other believers would quite possibly take offense, anyway (although I can hardly be expected to control the emotions of other people).

You replied by repeating your false claim that I attributed the “infectious” comment to you and to get your back up over several other statements I have not made while repeating your odd claim that I have challenged you. I was only participating in this thread to address the actual OP and I am not going to get drawn into one more fight over the existence of the divine and I am certainly not going to keep sparring with someone who misstates my views to the point of claiming I have said things that are clearly not in the record.

Go back and read our exact exchange.

182

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Thanks. All one can ask is to be given a hearing and acknowledgment. I respect your decision to reject my evidence.
[/QUOTE]
I looked over what you have submitted, and I have trouble finding any “evidence” that can possibly be examined by anyone other than yourself. I am afraid that I will have to stay with my original premise that you have not given us evidence to examine-there was no evidence to reject.

183

[QUOTE=Liberal]
This is some of the evidence that I have accepted.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry Lib, none of your submittal meets your own definition of evidence, as none of them are “things”
[QUOTE=American Heritage]
a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
[/QUOTE]

184

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I’m sorry Lib, none of your submittal meets your own definition of evidence, as none of them are “things”
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don’t think **Lib ** did himself any favors with his definition of evidence. At the very least, ‘evidence’ should also include events, not just things. This would encompass experiences, etc. Now whether what he has listed represents good evidence is another question. But I have promised myself not to comment on that until tomorrow.

185

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
It sure seems like that’s what happened to me. It also seems like that’s exactly what JM** was saying about your post and why he used it as an example. **

I understand that it seemed that way to you and that’s why JM used it as an example. To the extent that you and JM felt that way, you were mistaken and I explained that in the subsequent post. The fact that JM used it as an example is not proof of his being right about his take on what was going on, is it? So, again, I was expressing an opinion and not stating a deeply held conviction akin to that of a religious person that holds theirs as unfounded beliefs. I know it’s nice to make those the same because it works for your perpetual argument but it doesn’t apply.

You may, of course, feel free to think I’m a liar when I say that what I was expressing was my opinion and not an unfounded belief. There’s not much more I can say or do to clarify, as I already did, that I was expressing a thought.
[/QUOTE]

I acknowledge that a firm conviction that something unsupported is true is different than theory which the holder realizes may or may not be true. Will you acknowledge that many people hold their religious beliefs with the awareness that they may not be true?

I believe the comparison being made was that your theory about what might be true was based on zero evidence the same as the religious beliefs you criticize. I’ve seen that kind of thing before offered by other atheists and always find it interesting and at this point amusing as well.

I fail to see how your theory of what might be true based on no evidence is different in any meaningful way to religious beliefs with no evidence held out of tradition or supported by other believers rather than evidence.

The point for me that keeps being demonstrated is that people , believers and non believers, base a portion of their belief system on emotional preferences rather than objective evidence. If we , believers and non believers, recognize that fact, then we have a better chance of communicating in some productive way.

Did I? Where exactly?

Yes it matters. In the traditions of this forum it matters , and if you are going to demand some standard of evidence from those you disagree with , it matters.

**Next time you honestly think someone’s baby is ugly please offer your unsolicited opinion and see how people react. I’m speaking specifically of opinions which can be easily seen as unflattering and likely to wound someone. **

It appears there is a misunderstanding. Reading the OP I took it to mean “in casual conversations about beliefs” Rereading it I see that may not have been the intended meaning. It doesn’t seem to be talking about on an internet discussion board called great debates , so I had no way of knowing you were limiting it to that. No strawman there.

so ftr, if you knowingly enter a discussion board about religious beliefs I think that sets very different standards of what is respectful. Believers should be prepared to hear all sorts of honest opinions that might be considered rude if offered unsolicited in casual conversation.

So do I. I don’t think this board was the subject of the OP.

I’ll admit that I don’t know if that is generally true or not. I’m not sure how many degrees of belief we’re talking about or how to draw lines between them.
I don’t agree with those who hold their religious beliefs as absolute truth. I think you might be surprised about how many believers hold their beliefs as true, but when questioned would admit they might be wrong. IMO it’s an attitude of, strong belief that works for the individual or group. They may intellectually recognize that they really don’t know in the strict sense , but as long as it works and serves a purpose for them they will embrace it.

I think a pertinent question is now that your theory has been challenged as having no evidence, will you investigate and if unsupported by the evidence, abandon it?

186

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Fair enough. I’d suggest you make that clearer in the future because someone trying to ‘push their beliefs’ on me is not the only appropriate time and place to express my opinions and I don’t have to wait for that as a prompt.

For example, I can also express my opinions in a thread about religion. And that’s what I was doing. So if you weren’t referring to my expressions of my opinion in this thread (which is where I stated my opinion about evolution and religion) then what were you referring to? Where else did I express that opinion?
[/QUOTE]

Of course you can express an opinion in a discussion thread. I thought that was obvious and didn’t need clarification. I didn’t think that’s what the OP was about.

I can’t share any because I have no clue what you’re talking about

187

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Oops, I owe **cosmosdan **an apology; upthread where I’m referring to the “Merry Xmas!” example, etc. and what was actually said (“Jesus loves you!”) that wasn’t even from this thread! LOL See, I’m spending way too much time on here; the post I was referring to, for the hell of it, is here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9277503&postcount=36

So my apology for saying “let’s stick to what was said” – you weren’t even referring to what I was talking about!
[/QUOTE]

Ahhhhhhhhh apology accepted.

188

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I’m sorry Lib, none of your submittal meets your own definition of evidence, as none of them are “things”
[Quote= American Heritage]
a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
[/quote]

[/QUOTE]
I really, really, hope you were being facetious, here.

From your own link:

189

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I really, really, hope you were being facetious, here.

[/QUOTE]
The notion that evidence can be as subjective as a personal epiphany is ludicrous on the face of it. If the nature of the “things” comprising evidence is expanded to any of the 16 definitions on that page, it is meaningless and there is no evidence for anything. Lib doesn’t want to debate the existence of god, and thinks he has found a loophole to run away without putting up a fight. For once he should be forced to nail his goalposts down.

190

Damn it, Liberal. Four pages and I’m still waiting to find out whether you raped the little old lady.

191

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
What opinion of yours have I challenged?

I don’t think you are even reading what I have posted.

First exchange:
You challenged my interpretation of the comment by Der Trihs and I explained my rationale for my interpretation. (No challenge to your beliefs other than a difference of opinion regarding another poster’s intent.)

Second exchange:
You asked which I interpreted to be a question regarding how to respectfully express doubt about religion based on a perception of scientific information. I provided a way that I believed one could express “the opinion that religion could be a function of older, less evolved brains that we’re still grappling with today.” Again, no challenge to your belief.
I then provided a separate counter-example to being polite regarding expressing opions purportedly rooted in scientific evidence by paraphrasing an earlier rude post in this very thread. The post was not yours and I did not attribute it to you, but you have decided to take umbrage by falsely claiming that I was misattributing a statement to you when I clearly was not. (I admit to having used the generic second person in my satement, but it should have been pretty obvious from context that I was not accusing the poster 9thFloor of having said any particular thing since it was a conjectural reference.)
You responded with a mildly snippy claim that if I insisted on evidence for an opinion (an opinion you invented, since I made no such claim), then you would expect everyone’s opinions to be held to the same standard.

Third exchange (rather convoluted since you keep using odd methods of quotation and also repeating the same quote multiple times to provide additional replies):
First, I submitted to you that my post was a direct response to your question that I have quoted again in this post. Nothing more. I then went on to note that expressions of opinion (not cloaked in claims of scientific evidence) can be as simple as a direct claim that you find the idea of a god to be silly. At this point, you have changed the direction of our exchange from the direct question you asked and I answered to some broader issue, so I went ahead and noted both that I did not find direct claims of unbelief to be insulting, even when employing several of the more sarcastic icons used to attack believers, as long as the central point was a straight declaration of unbelief. I also acknowledged that other believers would quite possibly take offense, anyway (although I can hardly be expected to control the emotions of other people).

You replied by repeating your false claim that I attributed the “infectious” comment to you and to get your back up over several other statements I have not made while repeating your odd claim that I have challenged you. I was only participating in this thread to address the actual OP and I am not going to get drawn into one more fight over the existence of the divine and I am certainly not going to keep sparring with someone who misstates my views to the point of claiming I have said things that are clearly not in the record.

Go back and read our exact exchange.
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t strike me as a conjectural reference when you reply to my post, quote me, make no reference to the other poster, and then use the word YOU in your reply to ME: *"If **you **open your discussion with a claim that religion is an infectious disease–one for which **you **cannot provide a scintilla of evidence of the actual biological agent that would convey the disease–I will dismiss **you **as a crank, although I would still be polite to **you **until **you **invaded my personal space with **your *baseless attacks. (Sadly, many believers would still lash out at either presentation, just as many non-believers would lash out at any equivalent presentations that portrayed their views as mentally deficient, but that is the subject of this thread.)"

Why the hell would I care about the infectious disease way of opening a discussion? Lecture the poster about that if you’re so inclined, I didn’t say any such thing. You claim you weren’t attributing it to me. There’s no way to prove that based on how you posted. So I’ll just take your word for it.

And still, nobody has told me how to respectfully convey my opinion. **cosmosdan **has stated that he sees nothing wrong with stating it as an honest opinion. Cool. As for the offense **Liberal **seemed to take (perhaps he didn’t take any offense either for all I know) – or for that matter that anyone would take to such an opinion – your reply was to provide evidence for the opinion in stating it in order to be respectful.

I don’t want to provide evidence for the opinion. I simply want to state it. Respectfully. How does one do that without offending delicate sensibilities?

192

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I acknowledge that a firm conviction that something unsupported is true is different than theory which the holder realizes may or may not be true. Will you acknowledge that many people hold their religious beliefs with the awareness that they may not be true?

I believe the comparison being made was that your theory about what might be true was based on zero evidence the same as the religious beliefs you criticize. I’ve seen that kind of thing before offered by other atheists and always find it interesting and at this point amusing as well.

I fail to see how your theory of what might be true based on no evidence is different in any meaningful way to religious beliefs with no evidence held out of tradition or supported by other believers rather than evidence.

The point for me that keeps being demonstrated is that people , believers and non believers, base a portion of their belief system on emotional preferences rather than objective evidence. If we , believers and non believers, recognize that fact, then we have a better chance of communicating in some productive way.

Did I? Where exactly?
Yes it matters. In the traditions of this forum it matters , and if you are going to demand some standard of evidence from those you disagree with , it matters.

**Next time you honestly think someone’s baby is ugly please offer your unsolicited opinion and see how people react. I’m speaking specifically of opinions which can be easily seen as unflattering and likely to wound someone. **
It appears there is a misunderstanding. Reading the OP I took it to mean “in casual conversations about beliefs” Rereading it I see that may not have been the intended meaning. It doesn’t seem to be talking about on an internet discussion board called great debates , so I had no way of knowing you were limiting it to that. No strawman there.

so ftr, if you knowingly enter a discussion board about religious beliefs I think that sets very different standards of what is respectful. Believers should be prepared to hear all sorts of honest opinions that might be considered rude if offered unsolicited in casual conversation.

So do I. I don’t think this board was the subject of the OP.

I’ll admit that I don’t know if that is generally true or not. I’m not sure how many degrees of belief we’re talking about or how to draw lines between them.
I don’t agree with those who hold their religious beliefs as absolute truth. I think you might be surprised about how many believers hold their beliefs as true, but when questioned would admit they might be wrong. IMO it’s an attitude of, strong belief that works for the individual or group. They may intellectually recognize that they really don’t know in the strict sense , but as long as it works and serves a purpose for them they will embrace it.

I think a pertinent question is now that your theory has been challenged as having no evidence, will you investigate and if unsupported by the evidence, abandon it?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Further, I’d reiterate that it’s not the same because it is not based on zero evidence. It’s based on inconclusive evidence.

If, for example, you accept Liberal’s upthread inclusions of subjective experiences and deductive reasoning as ‘evidence’ then it’s breathtaking that by comparison my opinion is eagerly jumped on as having ‘zero’ evidence.

It seems to me, respectfully, that jumping on the notion of my opinion having ‘zero’ evidence behind it is in service of arriving at your favorite point of illustrating the equivalence of baseless beliefs by theists and atheists.

Furthermore, I do not agree that it’s relevant. One reason you gave for its relevance (aside from board tradition, which I disagree with as well because that’s not what the OP is about) is that I demand evidence from others. I’m not demanding any evidence from anyone about anything in this thread with regards to their beliefs. Since that’s not what we’re talking about here, it’s not relevant.

I mentioned it in passing as part of an answer given to the OP about how people come to be so defensive about god. I posted my answer and that’s that.

I will concede your oft-repeated point that people can and very often do believe things atheistically with an equivalently baseless ‘zero’ amount of proof as religious folks.

I simply don’t consider my opinion to be one of those instances. I guess you do.

It’s besides the point because your point is valid regardless of whether my particular opinion is in fact based on zero evidence or not in your opinion.

And, once again, I’d still like someone to suggest how to express it respectfully HERE ON THIS BOARD.

As for your clarifications about your misunderstanding of what I was referring to with regard to societal behavior, very well. I certainly wasn’t talking about that.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m regularly insulted by religious people and that’s just that. Every time I go to the post office, the clerks at the counter shove their religious fervor down my throat, tell me how I should feel, etc. appropo of nothing.

It’s whatever on that, I know how to act in public and they don’t.

Yes, now someone will say that atheists regularly shove their atheism down the throats of believers at post office counters. Okay, sure.

193

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
The notion that evidence can be as subjective as a personal epiphany is ludicrous on the face of it. If the nature of the “things” comprising evidence is expanded to any of the 16 definitions on that page, it is meaningless and there is no evidence for anything. Lib doesn’t want to debate the existence of god, and thinks he has found a loophole to run away without putting up a fight. For once he should be forced to nail his goalposts down.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. To me, what he provided isn’t what I’d classify as **evidence **because it’s not falsifiable. But it’s all beyond what the whole discussion is supposed to be about, so I won’t comment on it any further except to say that what I will give **Liberal **is that he painstakingly provided, if nothing else, the **reasons **for why he believes what he does. So, I can respect that he got to his beliefs that way.

No doubt, he won’t be asked about paleontology or told that his beliefs have ‘zero’ evidence behind them by believers, but whatever. He expressed his convictions and provided some reasoning for how and why he sees things the way he does.

I guess I could say he’s insulted my agnosticism by claiming there’s a god just like a theist can be insulted by my claim that there is no god, but I don’t have a penchant for making everything a wash. Some sides are worse than others at certain particular traits. To each their own on which side they think does what.

I wouldn’t call that evidence and for **Liberal **or anyone else to really insist on calling it evidence, IMO, is just a whole other discussion that borders on silly.

None of which means that he might not be right in his conclusions even without what I’d call evidence. But whatever, once again. LOL

Thanks for explaining your views, Liberal.

194

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Well, I don’t think **Lib ** did himself any favors with his definition of evidence. At the very least, ‘evidence’ should also include events, not just things. This would encompass experiences, etc. Now whether what he has listed represents good evidence is another question. But I have promised myself not to comment on that until tomorrow.
[/QUOTE]
Since when is an event not a thing?

  1. something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, esp. one of some importance.
  2. the outcome, issue, or result of anything: The venture had no successful event.
  3. something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.
195

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I looked over what you have submitted, and I have trouble finding any “evidence” that can possibly be examined by anyone other than yourself. I am afraid that I will have to stay with my original premise that you have not given us evidence to examine-there was no evidence to reject.
[/QUOTE]
That is factually incorrect (you can examine all the deductions and inductions), ignorant (not all evidence is scientific in nature), and weasling almost to the extreme of psychosis (continuing to deny reality). But the good news is that I can now use your post as an excellent example of intellectual recklessness and disingenuousness.

196

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I agree. To me, what he provided isn’t what I’d classify as **evidence **because it’s not falsifiable.
[/QUOTE]
But you yourself have already agreed that scientific (i.e., falsifiable) evidence would be useless in examining the supernatural. Falsifiability is the philosophical principle that underlies the scientific method for examining nature. Incidentally, falsifiability is itself not falsifiable.

197

[QUOTE=tomndebb to FearItself]
I really, really, hope you were being facetious, here.
[/QUOTE]
If nothing else, this whole exercise has been useful in identifying those for whom atheism is nothing more than mindless dogma.

198

[QUOTE=Liberal]
But you yourself have already agreed that scientific (i.e., falsifiable) evidence would be useless in examining the supernatural. Falsifiability is the philosophical principle that underlies the scientific method for examining nature. Incidentally, falsifiability is itself not falsifiable.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is useless I agree. Yes, scientific evidence isn’t applicable to the supernatural. So, the end (as far as I’m concerned). I don’t where you got the “but” from in that sentence. It sounds to my ear almost like you’re saying that if falsifiable evidence is useless for the supernatural, then some other evidence has to be invented. Maybe there just isn’t any. What you call evidence I just call reasons.

I gave you props for explaining your reasons. If you insist on calling it evidence, ok.

As for your solipsistic comment about falsifiability, I’m not interested. No offense.

199

[QUOTE=Liberal]
If nothing else, this whole exercise has been useful in identifying those for whom atheism is nothing more than mindless dogma.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not an atheist by the way so I’ll assume you weren’t referring to me.

200

[QUOTE=Liberal]
If nothing else, this whole exercise has been useful in identifying those for whom atheism is nothing more than mindless dogma.
[/QUOTE]

Oh and by the way so long as we’re closing out this part of the conversation (or at least I am), would you mind telling me how I can express to you my view that religion might be an outmoded aspect of our minds akin to something like the reptilian part of our brains?

I’m not asking you if the thought is valid, provable, or even sensible in your view.

I’m asking you what would be the way to express that thought without offense to someone like yourself. Your reasons for believing in what you do didn’t offend me except perhaps intellectually if I were to take it seriously, but I’m not talking about that kind of offense.

Serious question: If my opinion is inherently offensive (which I could understand), then is there **any **way to express the thought (sans evidence) as an honest opinion in a discussion about religion on a board without offending you? I ask because you seemed offended and as this entire OP is about the defensiveness of people like yourself, I’m sincerely wondering how to hold my opinions and express them. Frankly, I’m more inclined at this point to just keep my opinions to myself even in a discussion on religion. And that’s a pretty sad state of affairs, I think.