Why Do People Get Defensive About God?

[9thFloor]

@tomndebb

Accompanied by actual information and a logical argument, it would not bother me in the least to simply have the issue laid out: “Here is paleontological or current biological evidence of a specific brain function that appears to control religious belief and it appears to be one that was much more prevalent in earlier times than today. Here is the evidence that its diminution corresponds with a reduction in religious belief among humans, today.”

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.)

Oh and since I didn’t open my discussion by claiming that religion is an infectious disease, I assume you’re not dismissing me as a crank.

In exchange, I won’t dismiss you as a crank for deliberately(?) misstating my opinion.

Speaking of which, you’ve also misstated the subject of this thread. It’s not about defensiveness on the part of both believers and non-believers. It’s about defensiveness on the part of believers. Just to clarify with actual information.

[9thFloor]

@cosmosdan

It would seem more respectful and more accurate to say

“I don’t believe your god exists”

What’s wrong with “There is no god.”? Serious question.

It seems self-evident that I’m the one speaking, so it’s my belief/opinion/assertion.

[Czarcasm]

@tomndebb

Accompanied by actual information and a logical argument, it would not bother me in the least to simply have the issue laid out: “Here is paleontological or current biological evidence of a specific brain function that appears to control religious belief and it appears to be one that was much more prevalent in earlier times than today. Here is the evidence that its diminution corresponds with a reduction in religious belief among humans, today.”

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.)

Does this apply equally to statements on the opposite side of the spectrum, from those who believe in gods? Specifically those who put forth that there is evidence that their god, and only their god, exists? Would this count as a crank attack on those that believe in other gods? Should we ask for solid evidence, or should we respect their unsubstantiated(by solid evidence at least) beliefs?

[Czarcasm]

@9thFloor

What’s wrong with “There is no god.”? Serious question.

It seems self-evident that I’m the one speaking, so it’s my belief/opinion/assertion.

“I do not believe your sasquatch exists.”
I do not believe your Santa exists."
I do not believe your astrology is valid."

I don’t know-sounds kind of weak and non-committal to me. If after all this time no solid verifiable evidence has come up concerning gods, I think I’ll just stick with “There are no gods.”, with the understanding that if evidence pops up I’m willing the reevaluate my position on the subject.

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

Well, it didn’t occur in the case referenced so please don’t use me as an example.

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 was stating an idea which I’m currently exploring that interests me. That’s not the same as a fundamentalist’s firmly held religious beliefs that require as part of that belief that they not be questioned and are held in the absence of evidence.

Nobody compared it to a fundamentalist’s beliefs except you.

As for me, I’ve stated I believe there is some supporting evidence for my hypothesis but I’m not stating it as an intransigent belief that I’m sure about; and dude’s information about how evolution works can certainly affect my thinking.

You believe there is evidence? Does that mean you’ve seen some, read some, felt some, what?

As for keeping one’s opinions to oneself unless one is asked, all I can is wow.

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.

But that was all besides the point anyway; I’d still like someone to tell me what would be a respectful way of expressing the opinion that religion could be a function of older, less evolved brains that we’re still grappling with today.

I don’t think offering an honest opinion {unfounded or not} is disrespectful when a discussion is invited.

It’s an idea. In a discussion about the subject of religion, what would be the respectful way of conveying that idea? (Assuming I’m permitted to speak.)

If you express it as an honest opinion rather than fact I see no reason to view it as disrespectful. The honest opinion that your unfounded belief is similar to religious beliefs is a similar example.

[Liberal]

@9thFloor

Oh yes, and I for one would not ‘lash out’ at an equivalent presentation that portrayed (or more accurately, posited) that my views are ‘mentally deficient’ – to accept your liberal paraphrasing. I’d be intrigued and want to hear more.

To me, that’s the fabric of a discussion. Defensiveness is just embarrassing.

So, to summarize: one shouldn’t express **those **kinds of opinions at all unless asked or else it’s disrespectful, and one shouldn’t express an opinion without “actual information” (I actually did present a logical argument, so I won’t include that; you can argue with it and even poke holes in it or debunk it successfully, but I nonetheless presented my reasoning which was sincere to the best of my ability) or else it’s an attack and therefore disrespectful.

Fascinating, really.

I don’t know how old you are or how much life experience you have, but if it makes sense to you then consider a scenario in which you’re visiting friends of yours who have just had a baby. You look at her and, Kramer style, blurt out your disgust. “Holy cow, that’s an ugly baby! I must say this to you because it is information, and I hope you won’t embarrass yourselves or me by defending the hideous little nymph.” Please tell me that won’t ever happen.

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

While cosmosdan has stated that the best way to be respectful is to keep my opinions to myself unless asked if those opinions see a given belief system as being somehow flawed or immature, etc.

I respect honesty even in people just expressing an opinion. I also respect consideration and tact as a form of compassion and sensitivity to others.

If a believer said casually “Oh, it’s too bad you’re going to hell for eternity” that might be their honest opinion but I couldn’t see it as respectful because it lacks tact and consideration.

You also left out the portion of my post which said “unless people are trying to push their beliefs on you” This can be subtle or overt. If someone said “praise Jesus” once as a simple sincere expression of joy I wouldn’t feel compelled to comment. If they said it often enough that I got the impression they were testifying I would feel free to offer them my opinions.

[tomndebb]

@9thFloor

So you’re saying that an opinion cannot be expressed respectfully unless it is accompanied by evidence and a logical argument that supports its validity. Any opinions expressed without evidence and a logical argument cause dismissal as a crank.

No. You asked for an example of a way to respectfully address a particular situation–one positing a scientific discovery that would demonstrate that religious believers were less developed–and I provided it.

This board has a very large number of atheists who have expressed the idea that they simply see no reason to believe in the divine or supernatural and I have never considered any of their remarks offensive. I have never been offended by a comment that a poster finds the idea of a god silly. I am not even offended by references to the IPU, FSM, Magical Sky Pixies, or Bronze Age Weather Gods provided they are offered as simply the perspective of the poster and not as a claim for scientific fact. Opinions do not bother me as long as they are not offered as claims of fact, couched in inflammatory language, that have no substance.

@9thfloor

Oh and since I didn’t open my discussion by claiming that religion is an infectious disease, I assume you’re not dismissing me as a crank.

In exchange, I won’t dismiss you as a crank for deliberately(?) misstating my opinion.

It is interesting that I merely offered a real life counter-example to a respectful assertion of “fact” and you immediately misread that as an attack on your posts. Perhaps your beliefs or lack are too close to your self-identity?

[tagos]

@Liberal

The fact is that I cannot give you a statement that is not an example. When I say ubiquity, I mean it. My experience has attached an aesthetic significance to every single thing I have observed, and every person who has ever communicated with me (including you) has left me with an aesthetic dilemma that I must resolve. Inasmuch as I posit God as the objective free moral agent, goodness as edification, and love as the transitivity agency of goodness, there has never existed a spacetime event that has not had the potential for moral significance. A little old lady standing on a street corner is in physical essence nothing more than electromagnetic waves suspended in a gravity field. And yet I am called upon — indeed compelled — to make moral decisions with respect to her once I, as a free moral agent, have identified her. Will I help her cross the street? Will I mug or rape her? Will I speak a kind word? Will I insult her? Will I turn my head and ignore her? If all these are aesthetically equal, then there is no God. But if one is more loving than another, then God is a necessary agent. This is not because of epistemic emptiness, but metaphysical emptiness. In other words, there is no gap in knowledge that must be filled by God; rather, there is a gap in existence that must be filled by God. There is no theoretical model of the universe that includes morality waves or aesthetics particles, not because we haven’t learned them yet, but because they don’t exist. Goodness is supernatural, and I see it everywhere always.

So to summarize. You got nuthin’.

[Czarcasm]

@Liberal

I don’t know how old you are or how much life experience you have, but if it makes sense to you then consider a scenario in which you’re visiting friends of yours who have just had a baby. You look at her and, Kramer style, blurt out your disgust. “Holy cow, that’s an ugly baby! I must say this to you because it is information, and I hope you won’t embarrass yourselves or me by defending the hideous little nymph.” Please tell me that won’t ever happen.

What should you do if you look in the crib, and there is no baby?

[Czarcasm]

@tagos

So to summarize. You got nuthin’.

Exactly. If anything and everything counts as evidence, then your evidence is useless.

[tomndebb]

@Czarcasm

Does this apply equally to statements on the opposite side of the spectrum, from those who believe in gods? Specifically those who put forth that there is evidence that their god, and only their god, exists? Would this count as a crank attack on those that believe in other gods? Should we ask for solid evidence, or should we respect their unsubstantiated(by solid evidence at least) beliefs?

If you encounter a poster who has asserted a scientific claim that (a) god is real. I would certainly expect you to challenge them for their evidence. I have done so, myself, on several occasions.

If a poster expresses a philosophical claim that that poster has a logical reason for their belief, that too can be challenged, although trying to demand scientific evidence for a philosophical position would appear to be a waste of everyone’s time and energy. (In your current exchange, I would have to say that I have seen numerous efforts by Liberal to set forth his position, but I suspect that he and his opponents are simply unable to arrive at terms sufficiently mutual in understanding to permit a genuine exchange of ideas. He has set forth his ideas on more than one occasion, including in threads he has begun, (Define God) and threads he has joined (God? (Got proof? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more) [ed. title] , Triskadecamus got me to thinking about faith) and I am afraid I have no clean resolution for the impasse of your asking for his views in the curtrent thread vs his weariness at having presented his views only to have them dismissed by posters in earlier efforts, many of whom simply did not understand the context of his remarks.)

[Czarcasm]

@tomndebb

If you encounter a poster who has asserted a scientific claim that (a) god is real. I would certainly expect you to challenge them for their evidence. I have done so, myself, on several occasions.

If a poster expresses a philosophical claim that that poster has a logical reason for their belief, that too can be challenged, although trying to demand scientific evidence for a philosophical position would appear to be a waste of everyone’s time and energy. (In your current exchange, I would have to say that I have seen numerous efforts by Liberal to set forth his position, but I suspect that he and his opponents are simply unable to arrive at terms sufficiently mutual in understanding to permit a genuine exchange of ideas. He has set forth his ideas on more than one occasion, including in threads he has begun, (Define God) and threads he has joined (God? (Got proof? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more) [ed. title] , Triskadecamus got me to thinking about faith) and I am afraid I have no clean resolution for the impasse of your asking for his views in the curtrent thread vs his weariness at having presented his views only to have them dismissed by posters in earlier efforts, many of whom simply did not understand the context of his remarks.)

I know his position and understand his ideas, but what I am asking for is the evidence for such. Now, if he returned with a statement along the lines of,“I have no physical evidence, but this is my sincerely held belief.” I would respect that, but that isn’t what he is claiming. Not only is he claiming that there is evidence of his position, but that anything and everything he has experienced is evidence of his position.
Thus, evidence is admitted for examination.
Thus, I examine said evidence, and find it wanting.

[Liberal]

@Czarcasm

What should you do if you look in the crib, and there is no baby?

Maybe scream at them to show you evidence that there ever was a child. Follow them from room to room, demanding that they dig up for you everything they’ve ever said in the past about the child. Exchange witty repartes with third parties who are having as much fun as you. Refuse to answer their direct yes or no questions as they attempt to reason with you. Rephrase what they tell you into unrecognizable revisions. Be as contentious as possible. Have your mind made up beforehand. Just be yourself.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@tomndebb

If you encounter a poster who has asserted a scientific claim that (a) god is real. I would certainly expect you to challenge them for their evidence. I have done so, myself, on several occasions.

If a poster expresses a philosophical claim that that poster has a logical reason for their belief, that too can be challenged, although trying to demand scientific evidence for a philosophical position would appear to be a waste of everyone’s time and energy. (In your current exchange, I would have to say that I have seen numerous efforts by Liberal to set forth his position, but I suspect that he and his opponents are simply unable to arrive at terms sufficiently mutual in understanding to permit a genuine exchange of ideas. He has set forth his ideas on more than one occasion, including in threads he has begun, (Define God) and threads he has joined (God? (Got proof? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more) [ed. title] , Triskadecamus got me to thinking about faith) and I am afraid I have no clean resolution for the impasse of your asking for his views in the curtrent thread vs his weariness at having presented his views only to have them dismissed by posters in earlier efforts, many of whom simply did not understand the context of his remarks.)

Jesus, tom, you can’t really expect us to wade through all of that shit looking for the occasional kernel of corn. I went through all six pages of the “Once more into the breach” thread and the only ‘argument’ **Lib ** provides there is that based on his personal experience, “God is a necessary being” is axiomatic (that was post 170). A lot of work for damn little payola. A lot of us here have asked **Liberal ** for the evidence, and not only will he not give it, he won’t even link to posts where he has given it. That to me shows a lack of respect for ones debate partners. I know he’s pissed at Czarcasm, but what have the rest of us done?

[Liberal]

@Sophistry and Illusion

I know he’s pissed at Czarcasm, but what have the rest of us done?

All I’ve asked for is that, if I bother to list what I consider to be evidence, the response will be gracious acknowledgment that evidence has been given. That’s all. I said I didn’t care if it was accepted or rejected, only acknowledged. Is that really so hard to grasp?

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Liberal

All I’ve asked for is that, if I bother to list what I consider to be evidence, the response will be gracious acknowledgment that evidence has been given. That’s all. I said I didn’t care if it was accepted or rejected, only acknowledged. Is that really so hard to grasp?

But I already said I would do that. Or I’m pretty sure I did. Or if I didn’t, I’m saying it now. Now, I can’t promise I’ll be convinced (and in fact, I’m pretty sure I won’t be–but you expected that), but I will acknowledge that you have presented me with evidence, I have examined it, and (the probable outcome will be) that having considered this evidence, I will continue to reject the existence of God. And I promise not to be a dick about it.
ETA–But I can’t promise I will reply soon, because my wife wants me to come home and help clean the house in anticipation of the arrival of in-laws.

[prleone]

@Der Trihs

On the religious side, IMHO it’s because religion is a disease, an infectious mental disorder that subverts people into being vehicles for itself. The believers obsessively defend their belief in God because serving as a host for that belief is what they exist for; they are an extension of the religion that has infected them.

As for the non-believer side, you get that way after a lifetime of having religion pushed at you everywhere you go.

KUDOS! Whenever I duscuss Atheism online, the responses I receive
are in ALL CAPS with (!!!) at the end of each line.

Once at an old job, we had a very nice man in the receiving department.
I asked if he’d like a hot dog at a birthday buffet. He said, it’s Lent,
and I don’t eat meat on Fridays. Jokingly, I replied, “14 years of Catholic School made me Atheist.” It was at that point that this nice man
turned reffer than a beet and shouted, “That insults me!”

What if I were Jewish? Budhist? Mormon? And didn’t celebrate Lent,
but believed in a God? He said, “That would be better.”

The more devout, the bigger the attitude.
I think it’s only because they’re defending a Santa Claus.
No real proof, but if they ever found out that they were wrong,
and could’ve led their life differently, it would make me feel
chaotic and angry too.

To quote Homer Simpson: “Marge, if we picked the wrong religion,
what if every week God justs gets madder and madder and madder…”

[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.
**Nobody compared it to a fundamentalist’s beliefs except you. **

You did.

** You believe there is evidence? Does that mean you’ve seen some, read some, felt some, what?
**

Does it matter? I was asking how it is that one goes about expressing a thought without being disrespectful. Both of you have gotten off on the tangent of proving/disproving my opinion. Yes, I believe there is evidence in that I’ve read that we evolved from animals.
**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. **

What the hell are you talking about? We’re on a board in a thread discussing religion. You think that’s akin to walking up to someone on the street and telling them their baby is ugly? These strawmen are amazing. You guys just make things up that weren’t done or said and then attack them. Why do you do that?

As for unsolicited opinions that can be ‘seen as unflattering’ here’s one for you: “I will pray for your lost soul! Jesus loves you, hang in there!!”

**I don’t think offering an honest opinion {unfounded or not} is disrespectful when a discussion is invited. **

I’m glad to ‘hear’ you say that. I consider this board and the thread to be an implicit invitation to discussion and that was an offering of my honest opinion.

**

If you express it as an honest opinion rather than fact I see no reason to view it as disrespectful. The honest opinion that your unfounded belief is similar to religious beliefs is a similar example.**

Yes, and I challenge it in this manner: it’s only similar if both my opinion and religious beliefs are both held by their respective owners as just that: opinions.

If you think most religious people hold their religious convictions as ‘opinions’ akin to me throwing out a thought I’ve currently been exploring then I think you flatter the religious community as being as open-minded and thoughtful as you.

I disagree that that is generally the case. Just my opinion.

[9thFloor]

@Czarcasm

“I do not believe your sasquatch exists.”
I do not believe your Santa exists."
I do not believe your astrology is valid."

I don’t know-sounds kind of weak and non-committal to me. If after all this time no solid verifiable evidence has come up concerning gods, I think I’ll just stick with “There are no gods.”, with the understanding that if evidence pops up I’m willing the reevaluate my position on the subject.

You know, you really nailed it with that Czarcasm. I couldn’t figure out why the proposed manner of expressing that thought (“I don’t believe your god exists…”) sounded so co-opting and crazy-making. Your examples clarify the imputed level of validity given to the belief by making such a denial in that manner which is why I think the religious like it stated that way. Thanks!