Why Do People Get Defensive About God?

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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?

As for “Oh, it’s too bad you’re going to hell for eternity”, how about this: “Jesus loves you!” after having already exchanged pleasantries of Merry Christmas? She didn’t say “praise jesus” as a simple expression of joy. Again, let’s stick to what was actually said please.

In my view, when she said “Merry Xmas” that’s where a testy atheist could have gotten upset. I think it would be well, testy, to get upset at that and I’m glad to hear that he didn’t and instead replied with “Merry Xmas” back to the lady.

All is well.

Then she adds “Jesus loves you!” afterwards. Thoughts?

162

[/quote]
And then they’d smack you in the face with a dirty diaper and scream “THERE’S your evidence, idiot !” Czarcasm was making the obvious point that there is no evidence for the “baby” of religion. No dirty diapers, no baby pictures, no afterbirth, and the scent dogs can’t find anything either. But the “parents” claim that the baby is right there in the crib, but the doubters just aren’t enlightened enough to see it.

163

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.

No. I did no such thing. For at least the 2nd or 3rd time, you’re putting words into my mouth. I didn’t ask for an example of a way to respectfully address a particular situation that posits a scientific discovery of any kind. Nor did I state that religious believers are less developed.

What I expressed was an opinion. I didn’t say a single thing about a scientific discovery of any kind. You introduced that. I posited something based on the idea of evolution in general. You attempted to debunk it with your explanations of human brain size, etc. That’s cool, I was liking that discussion.

So, again, I ask: how can that opinion be expressed respectfully? I don’t want to express it with evidence of scientific discoveries. I never claimed there were any.

Unfortunately, you’ve continuously gotten sidetracked by the validity of the actual opinion as if that has anything to do with it and unfortunately I’ll indulge that here with a further clarification: my opinion is that we all have ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ parts of our brains. That’s everyone, religious and otherwise. Following me so far? Nobody’s brain is less developed than anyone else’s. Now, just as I feel reptilian urges for behavior that I don’t actually want to indulge or take as my only options (fight or flight, for example) I feel that religious belief may be wired into my brain somewhere like that where those impulses to those beliefs are possibly not of the higher order of my brain but of an older order. To that extent, I would have moments of thinking that maybe there is a god or some higher power or reality (which I do) and I’d be grappling with that the way I grapple with other parts of my brain that push forward notions that perhaps I (along with all of mankind) are in the midst of evolving past. I don’t have evidence of that, it’s just a thought. What I’m not saying is that I am personally more evolved. What I am saying is that perhaps all of us have more and less evolved parts to ourselves and that’s what we find ourselves in the throes of. Again, an opinion. A thought.

Now, there’s no way I can think of to express that thought – and honest opinion that is not held as an unfounded ‘religious’ belief because it’s just a thought and not something I hold to be true – without being insulting. The idea is inherently insulting to the notion of what religion is. Freud, for example, had ideas on what religion is and wrote about it and they weren’t flattering. If the idea itself is inherently unflattering then how am I supposed to express the idea?

164

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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.
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? :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know what you’re referring to by that last statement. I’ll simply assume you won’t man up to the fact that you misrepresented what I said by alluding to me stating that religion is due to an infectious disease. I said no such thing.

165

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
What should you do if you look in the crib, and there is no baby?
[/QUOTE]

Oooooh how I laughed!!! ROFL :smiley:

166

[QUOTE=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.)
[/QUOTE]

Right, and I expressed an opinion and you challenged it. So what’s the problem?

167

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And then they’d smack you in the face with a dirty diaper and scream “THERE’S your evidence, idiot !” Czarcasm was making the obvious point that there is no evidence for the “baby” of religion. No dirty diapers, no baby pictures, no afterbirth, and the scent dogs can’t find anything either. But the “parents” claim that the baby is right there in the crib, but the doubters just aren’t enlightened enough to see it.
[/QUOTE]

Ooooooo! You said the doubters aren’t “enlightened” enough to see it! I’m telling tomndebb! You’ve insulted them! Don’t you know that all human brains and all people and all thoughts are equally enlightened? Otherwise, you’re insulting someone. All thoughts throughout all time are of equal quality and validity! Amen!

168

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!

169

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Ooooooo! You said the doubters aren’t “enlightened” enough to see it! I’m telling tomndebb! You’ve insulted them! Don’t you know that all human brains and all people and all thoughts are equally enlightened? Otherwise, you’re insulting someone. All thoughts throughout all time are of equal quality and validity! Amen!
[/QUOTE]

And here come those exclamation points I wrote about…

170

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Eminently fair. Thank you. This is some of the evidence that I have accepted.

Personal epiphany

The change in my worldview was instantaneous and complete. One moment I was a hard atheist; the next, I was a believer. And my belief system at that moment was substantially the same as it is now. This is actually the only kind of evidence that I would be personally willing to accept. Like **SentientMeat ** once said, paraphrasing, if God is going to convince me that He exists, then He will have to change my mind for me from the inside out. I’ve related this epiphany numerous times.
Independent confirmation

After my conversion, I took it upon myself to further examine the teachings of Jesus, only to find that they confirmed what I now believed, not just about God’s existence, but about the nature of God on a personal level. I discovered that my own beliefs differed drastically from those of many other Christians. I’ve acknowledged my renegade status and unusual beliefs frequently.
Examination by deduction

My new faith had to stand up to rigorous self-examination and analysis. That is, it could not contradict reality as I saw it. After establishing certain premises based on what I had learned from Jesus, I drew all the implications from them that I possibly could and found that they did indeed have explanatory power that convinced me completely. I have developed whole threads about this, including Using an incomplete Bible to formulate a consistent Gospel of Love and Love.
Philosophical reasonableness

I took it upon myself to examine the works of philosophers on both sides of the issue. I found the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical arguments from theistic philosophers (like Plantinga) superior in almost every way to those of atheistic philosophers (like Suber). I certainly acknowledge that my new bias might have weighed in on this judgment, just as you’ve acknowledge that yours will weigh in as you examine this post. I’ve shared the findings of these philosophers all over the board for many years.
Emergence of new information

It has been said that, because the general entails the specific, deduction is incapable of yielding new knowledge. Many philosophers have argued that induction is required for epistemological synthesis. My discovery of the aesthetical nature of Jesus’ teachings fit this mold. The premise that goodness is an aesthetic was a new discovery. (I’ve not seen anything written on it before.) I’ve shared this model extensively, including excruciating detail in the Define God thread, especially up to and including this post.
Everyone’s favorite

I find the argument from existential necessity to be compelling, especially as presented by Hartshorne, Plantinga, and Tisthammer. Even Suber acknowledges its validity. The definitions and premises satisfy me. And surely no one will claim that I have not shared this particular argument, which I find to be conclusive analytical proof. I have in fact shared it so much that there are people who make a running joke of my participation in theology threads that at any moment I might pull out the MOP.
Subjective intellectual comfort

I am intellectually comfortable with my understanding of God and the nature of reality, from the dual nature of man to the illusionality of the universe. No one can be expected to believe what he simply doesn’t buy; therefore, I cannot help but believe what I do. To believe otherwise would be tantamount to being someone else. This is a sentiment I have expressed many times.
Compatibility with observations

I find nothing whatsoever contradictory about my faith in God and my understanding of science. The two, in fact, do not intersect. Demands for scientific evidence of God are equivalent to demands for Biblical evidence of gravity. God is, by definition, supernatural; and science, by definition, examines nature. Only a person completely ignorant about both faith and science would demand scientific evidence for God. I’ve stated this in one way or another probably dozens of times all over the board.
The examples of others

With my understanding, I am able to discern the difference between a **Tris ** or **Poly ** and a Fred Phelps, just as I am able to discern the difference between a **Gaudere ** or **SentientMeat ** and a Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I have seen changes in the lives of others who have undergone similar (though certainly not identical) experiences to my own. Siege and other board members do a far better job than I do of living the life of a Christian. They serve as inspiration to me, and I have acknowledged them repeatedly.
Daily experience

Not a day goes by that I do not re-examine my faith because it is what Jesus calls upon us to do. We are to test Him, and I do. He is my advocate and counselor. He gives my restless mind peace. His love overwhelms me. I know for a certainty as much as I know anything that our essential lives are eternal. When the day comes that I call out to Him and He does not answer, I will no longer believe. But so far so good. This is a personal testimony that I also have shared on more than one occasion.
And so it will come as no surprise to me that this evidence does not convince you. And there will be the inevitable full block quote from someone who fancies himself to be clever with the quip that I have nothing. But I have discharged my responsibility to you by providing pretty much a list of evidence that I find acceptable, all of which can be found elsewhere at various places and times on this board. When taken altogether, I cannot imagine how you would expect me to believe any differently than I do. Thanks for listening.

171

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

It depends on what your purpose is in making the statement. If your burning need to be assertive is stronger than your desire to be considerate of the feelings others associate with those beliefs then knock yourself out. I’m guessing the reaction won’t be all that satisfying. Maybe you you and Der Trihs can form a “Tell it like it is” club.

172

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And then they’d smack you in the face with a dirty diaper and scream “THERE’S your evidence, idiot !”
[/QUOTE]
And what is to prevent you from sniffing it fondly and declaring that it smells like roses to you?

173

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

I can see scenarios when that would be acceptable. I would object to believers asserting their beliefs as facts without a qualifier as well. Not in every situation but I think in a culture made up of diverse belief systems some measure of awareness is helpful. Not every social situation needs to be a debate so sometimes you respectfully let it go.

174

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It depends on what your purpose is in making the statement. If your burning need to be assertive is stronger than your desire to be considerate of the feelings others associate with those beliefs then knock yourself out. I’m guessing the reaction won’t be all that satisfying. Maybe you you and Der Trihs can form a “Tell it like it is” club.
[/QUOTE]

I see what you’re saying and there is definitely a time and place for deciding when and if one wants to be assertive. But what I see in that reply is a response to the believer’s presumably assertive statement (to which one is responding) against which if someone replies “I don’t believe in your god” it comes off as suborned to the believer’s ideology. I guess it would really depend on who said what that was being responded to.

I think if a believer says, “There is a god.”

Then it’s not any more assertive than that to say “There is no god.”

To say, in response to the above, “I don’t believe in your god.” is, IMO, a very weak statement that cedes the ground (in the debate or discussion) to them.

175

"The two, in fact, do not intersect. Demands for scientific evidence of God are equivalent to demands for Biblical evidence of gravity. God is, by definition, supernatural; and science, by definition, examines nature. Only a person completely ignorant about both faith and science would demand scientific evidence for God."

In my view, that’s the most salient part and it summarizes the differences well.

There is no scientific evidence for god according to **Liberal **and asking for it is absurd. [As an aside, the religion I grew up in presented ‘scientific evidence’ for god all the time. Conversely, one science teacher stated that all we needed to know about everything in life could be found upon close reading of the bible.]

As for much of the rest of it – aside from personal epiphanies which one can’t really say much about, being that I’m on the outside of the person, except perhaps to posit ideas about how the human brain might work – I’m glad to see that reasoning is itself counted as evidence.

That will help me elsewhere.

176

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
“The two, in fact, do not intersect. Demands for scientific evidence of God are equivalent to demands for Biblical evidence of gravity. God is, by definition, supernatural; and science, by definition, examines nature. Only a person completely ignorant about both faith and science would demand scientific evidence for God.”

In my view, that’s the most salient part and it summarizes the differences well.

There is no scientific evidence for god according to **Liberal **and asking for it is absurd. [As an aside, the religion I grew up in presented ‘scientific evidence’ for god all the time. Conversely, one science teacher stated that all we needed to know about everything in life could be found upon close reading of the bible.]

As for much of the rest of it – aside from personal epiphanies which one can’t really say much about, being that I’m on the outside of the person, except perhaps to posit ideas about how the human brain might work – I’m glad to see that reasoning is itself counted as evidence.

That will help me elsewhere.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. All one can ask is to be given a hearing and acknowledgment. I respect your decision to reject my evidence.

177

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Thanks. All one can ask is to be given a hearing and acknowledgment. I respect your decision to reject my evidence.
[/QUOTE]

You’re welcome. But frankly, it’s getting a little spooky that people keep responding to things I didn’t say. I actually wasn’t rejecting your evidence.

I simply pointed out that you stated there’s no scientific evidence, on which we agree.

I then pointed out that your own mental experiences are your own and I don’t accept or reject them, I simply don’t speak to them except in broad strokes about the way the human mind might work.

And finally, I stated that I found it interesting that reasoning itself is held up as evidence and if that’s the case then I expect I will be afforded the same thing – that my reasoning about something can be presented as evidence of its truth.

I reasoned that religion may be a function of some hangover effect of evolution.

178

[QUOTE=Liberal]
And what is to prevent you from sniffing it fondly and declaring that it smells like roses to you?
[/QUOTE]

Well, manure does help roses grow, so…
:stuck_out_tongue:

179

[QUOTE=Liberal]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Or call for help, because your friends are clearly delusional and need it.

180

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
You’re welcome. But frankly, it’s getting a little spooky that people keep responding to things I didn’t say. I actually wasn’t rejecting your evidence.

I simply pointed out that you stated there’s no scientific evidence, on which we agree.

I then pointed out that your own mental experiences are your own and I don’t accept or reject them, I simply don’t speak to them except in broad strokes about the way the human mind might work.

And finally, I stated that I found it interesting that reasoning itself is held up as evidence and if that’s the case then I expect I will be afforded the same thing – that my reasoning about something can be presented as evidence of its truth.

I reasoned that religion may be a function of some hangover effect of evolution.
[/QUOTE]
That’s pretty much my take on your response also. I ask for scientific evidence(or at least the type of evidence that would be admissible in other fields of study), and you respond that there isn’t any scientific evidence.
I asked, and you said there wasn’t any.
End of story.