Why Do People Get Defensive About God?

Great Debates
61

When looked at closely with logic and reason, religion falls apart. It puts strain on the human brain to attempt to believe something that does not make sense. You become defensive because of this internal conflict you must feel between logic and fantasy.

That, and has already been mentioned, you don’t want your invested time/energy to go for nothing. For example, I wrote a 25 page final exam that took me 2 weeks to complete. I’ll take to the grave with me that it is the best damn paper ever written by anybody ever, even though I got a ‘B’ on it.

62

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Probably a lot of atheists think that. I think that.

So far in this thread, your attitude toward atheists is that they are smug, that they ignore evidence, that they are dismissive of theism and contemptuous of theists. In painting with such a broad brush, you are guilty of the very sins of which you accuse the atheist.
[/QUOTE]

Ironically, your post followed immediately on one that characterises believers as being on the same intellectual plane as small children who still believe in Santa. Seems kinda hard to assert that that brush is one single bristle too broad.

63

[QUOTE=Liberal]
See the response from Fear Itself. The condescension is a mile thick. I’d rather he’d hate me than take the view he takes.
[/QUOTE]
So atheists should not hate believers, nor should they be condescending. I can only conclude that the only position you would allow atheists to express would be to deny reason and admit that there is a possibility that your god exists, *sans * evidence.

64

To those of you who have provided answers to the question originally asked in the OP: Thank you. You’ve offered very intelligent insights and I appreciate hearing them, no matter what belief affiliation (or lack thereof) you may have. I will be sure to examine them in further detail later.

To those of you who’ve launched into personal attacks, accusations of each other’s intolerance, and defense mechanisms: Thank you. You provide excellent illustrations of the phenomenon I was asking about in the first place. :stuck_out_tongue:

65

[QUOTE=Liberal]
As a more pertinent example, perhaps, suggest that an atheist might be “missing” something important, like some piece of the evidence or something. There will be bristling aplenty.
[/QUOTE]
As an even more pertinent example, suggest that the theist quit bringing up theoretical evidence for theoretical atheists, and actually provide real evidence for the very real atheists that have asked for it again and again.
Not “The evidence is all around you-you just refuse to see it!”
Not “Why should I give you evidence-you’d just say it didn’t count!”
Not “I feel it in my heart, and that is evidence enough!”

66

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Ironically, your post followed immediately on one that characterises believers as being on the same intellectual plane as small children who still believe in Santa. Seems kinda hard to assert that that brush is one single bristle too broad.
[/QUOTE]

So you think all atheists on this board are as described by Lib? If so, you’re wrong. If not, you’ll agree that the broad brush is inappropriate.

67

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
So atheists should not hate believers, nor should they be condescending. I can only conclude that the only position you would allow atheists to express would be to deny reason and admit that there is a possibility that your god exists, *sans * evidence.
[/QUOTE]
The only position I would request from atheists is simple respect. You might believe that Elton John sucks and yet, remarkably, I can still respect you as a person.

68

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
As an even more pertinent example, suggest that the theist quit bringing up theoretical evidence for theoretical atheists, and actually provide real evidence for the very real atheists that have asked for it again and again.
Not “The evidence is all around you-you just refuse to see it!”
Not “Why should I give you evidence-you’d just say it didn’t count!”
Not “I feel it in my heart, and that is evidence enough!”
[/QUOTE]
You are free to demand whatever evidence you wish, no matter how irrelevant it may be. But you are not free by any reasonable convention to decide for me what evidence I must accept or decline. I’m not asking you to believe in God. I’m asking you to be civil. Why is that a problem?

69

[QUOTE=Liberal]
The only position I would request from atheists is simple respect. You might believe that Elton John sucks and yet, remarkably, I can still respect you as a person.
[/QUOTE]
But as has been said many times before, the only difference that atheists see between your incredible beliefs and claims and those of so many others is the number of people that ascribe to those beliefs and the amount of time they’ve done so. If you change the word “God” to “Santa”, “I.P.U”, or “Mordren, Spirit of the Most High Temple Of Atlantis” and demand this level of respect, what do you think the response of others would be? Hell, if someone else made this claim sincerely, what do you think your response would be, honestly?

70

[QUOTE=Liberal]
The only position I would request from atheists is simple respect. You might believe that Elton John sucks and yet, remarkably, I can still respect you as a person.
[/QUOTE]

Awww, you’re no fun.

:wink:

The problem, Lib, is that some peoples’ beliefs are not even worthy of respect. Scientology? Fred Phelps? The Moonies? Please.

71

[QUOTE=Liberal]
You are free to demand whatever evidence you wish, no matter how irrelevant it may be. But you are not free by any reasonable convention to decide for me what evidence I must accept or decline. I’m not asking you to believe in God. I’m asking you to be civil. Why is that a problem?
[/QUOTE]
Because you claim that there is evidence. I am making NO claims as to what evidence you must accept or decline-I am asking what that evidence is so that I might decide whether or not to accept it.
Why do you deny me this?

72

[QUOTE=Liberal]
You are free to demand whatever evidence you wish, no matter how irrelevant it may be.
[/QUOTE]
The “demand”, as you state it, is totally useless if you refuse to present the evidence, as you damn well know. It’s like have the “right” to breathe when there is no oxygen.

73

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Because you claim that there is evidence. I am making NO claims as to what evidence you must accept or decline-I am asking what that evidence is so that I might decide whether or not to accept it.
Why do you deny me this?
[/QUOTE]
You deny it to yourself. Read your own post.

Although what she believes is an intrinsic part of a person, I wouldn’t say that the whole person is defined by what she believes. I’m talking about respecting people.

74

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
The “demand”, as you state it, is totally useless if you refuse to present the evidence, as you damn well know. It’s like have the “right” to breathe when there is no oxygen.
[/QUOTE]
Swear before God and everybody here that if I list for you the evidence that I accept, you will acknowledge once and for all that you have been given evidence but that you are rejecting it, and I will comply. Otherwise, why should I waste time and effort that will result in yet another bullet shot from your gun of ridicule?

75

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Swear before God and everybody here that if I list for you the evidence that I accept, you will acknowledge once and for all that you have been given evidence but that you are rejecting it, and I will comply. Otherwise, why should I waste time and effort that will result in yet another bullet shot from your gun of ridicule?
[/QUOTE]

You demand respect for your beliefs, yet your first sentence asks me to make a false swearing before a god I do not believe in, and your last is a preemptive strike against something I supposedly will do? Well, try this on for size:
In the name of science, I will examine your claims of evidence individually, weigh them against what I know so far, and let them fall where they may between the categories of Totally Useless and Totally Convincing, while taking note of the fact that, as my knowledge base widens, their positions (for good or for bad) may change.

76

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m sorry but does this make sense to anyone? Besides DT I mean.
[/QUOTE]

I think it has to do with things like the poll quoted in this thread. Those are the kinds of things that make me not want to bother “playing nice,” or play at all, anyway.

77

[QUOTE=Liberal]
The only position I would request from atheists is simple respect.
[/QUOTE]
Can I respectfully tell you your god is non-existant? Or is that equivalent to a hateful attack on your mother?

78

[QUOTE=Liberal]
After only a couple of posts, you’ve managed to call me (and other believers) diseased, mentally ill, infectuous, subversive, obsessive, and now delusional. I’m just curious what you people expect in response to that sort of thing. Gratitude?
[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, Der Trihs is one person. Please don’t assume that he speaks for all, or even most, non-believers.

As for the OP, belief in a deity is not something that lends itself to reasoned debate. There are no facts to consider, no evidence to weigh. Your belief is a matter of faith, and the only way to defend it is, well, be defensive. Otherwise you have to just shrug it off and say nothing. But spiritual beliefs must serve some function in the human psyche, otherwise they wouldn’t be so pervasive.

79

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
You demand respect for your beliefs, yet your first sentence asks me to make a false swearing before a god I do not believe in, and your last is a preemptive strike against something I supposedly will do? Well, try this on for size:
In the name of science, I will examine your claims of evidence individually, weigh them against what I know so far, and let them fall where they may between the categories of Totally Useless and Totally Convincing, while taking note of the fact that, as my knowledge base widens, their positions (for good or for bad) may change.
[/QUOTE]
Stop bobbing and weaving. Will you or will you not acknowledge that you’ve been given evidence even if it is evidence you reject? Yes or no. (Or leave me alone.)

Thanks. I’m mindful of that. It’s pretty easy to tell the hardasses from the reasonable people. :slight_smile:

80

[QUOTE=amelioration]
Perhaps the thread title doesn’t accurately convey what I want to ask. Here’s a longer, hopefully more understandable version:

Why is it that, when people get into religious discussion (be it a calm and logical statement of beliefs or a fiery mud-slinging flame war), anything that makes assumptions about the existence/non-existence and nature of God is vigorously defended or rejected? Why do people feel the need to defend their position about the existence of God more strongly than they do about nearly any other controversial subject?

My personal example, to clarify: my SO are I were recently discussing this. We both are aware that our beliefs about “higher entities” could possibly be wrong and that we have no definitive proof on the subject; however, I lean towards spiritual agnosticism, while he is most solidly a weak atheist. For this conversation, I had invented a theory about the nature/structure of God that I thought was interesting, and shared it with him. Thus began a belief system debate of sorts; it ended with me being so frustrated that I began to cling to notions of a godlike existence for mostly emotional reasons, something I’m not proud of myself for doing. In made me question myself though. It made me wonder why I felt such a need to defend the notion of a higher power once my beliefs were contested, even though I was perfectly aware that I have no definitive proof on the subject.

I’m not looking for purely doctrinal or purely rational answers here. I would like a primarily psychological or sociological basis for this reaction. Why do people feel such a need to defend themselves and stick to their beliefs about God’s existence, even when they believe/know they have no “proof” about the subject?
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s because the less objective justification something seems to have (in the opinion of the person in question), the greater the defensiveness.

It’s like the arrogance of youth; the less you know, the more certain you act.

It’s some kind of overcompensation for the insecurity, I think; as if investing more emotional fuel into it on your side will somehow make up for the logical holes.

Personally, I’ve noticed that what often develops is a tendency to argue one’s point by claiming the other side didn’t prove their point and using that as an implicit proof of the validity of one’s own. Intransigence, obstinance, foolishness.

On a side note, I think it’s quite admirable of you to feel ashamed for latching on to a viewpoint during a discussion that wasn’t based on a reason you want to use as the premise for latching on. I think that shows more open-mindedness (which, of course, can itself be attacked as a ‘bad thing’ by those insistent on dogma LOL).

Great OP.