Bad Faith Atheists

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Are there bad faith atheists? Do you know any? What would be their motivation?

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular? For example, atheists that say, "trust the science" while well knowing it's all behind a curtain, atheists who fall into self-help scams that are copy-paste versions of Christianity, and atheists who trust organisations without those organisations having legitimately earned that trust.

If so, what's their motivation? Do they just want to sound cool? Do they just want to shirk the obligation of the tithe or going to church, when many religious people don't even do that anymore? Frankly I think I have observed these bad faith atheists but I can't imagine what their underlying motivation could be. It seems to me that they just picked up atheism because it sounded cool or because they didn't want to feel responsible for Crusades or witch burnings. (But, if they are responsible for those things, I don't think discarding Christianity changes that.)

[historia]

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular?

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I have noticed some (online) atheists falling hook, line, and sinker for inaccurate historical information, just so long as that misinformation makes Christianity look bad.

You see this especially around the holidays, when atheists share memes online about how Christmas, Halloween, and Easter have supposedly pagan origins. Or that the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection is lifted wholesale from the story of Horus or whatever. I've even debated atheists on this very site who claim Christianity was invented in the 4th Century by Constantine. I mean, this can get pretty nuts.

If so, what's their motivation?

I think a lot this stems from simple ignorance and confirmation bias. Lots of people fall for conspiracy theories for that same reason.

But there is also a tendency toward scientism among some atheists, which can, I think, lead to a lack of rigor when it comes to areas of knowledge outside of the natural sciences, such as historical research. So perhaps atheists are more prone to this type of misinformation vs. science denial.

[oldbadger]

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I have noticed some (online) atheists falling hook, line, and sinker for inaccurate historical information, just so long as that misinformation makes Christianity look bad.

In this example above you show how some atheists might grasp to misinformation to attack Christianity.

And that's a good example of how so many different kinds of people people will cherry pick from misinformation to further their ideas, purposes, politics and righteousness.

Some Christians do it as well, for example an extreme right wing capitalist Christians could quite from Jesus to support their ideas, such as the wealthy many leaving wealth with his servants and rewarding those who made the most money in return. Or the warrior who might quote Jesus instructing his followers to arm themselves. Etc etc

[TRANSPONDER]

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular?

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I have noticed some (online) atheists falling hook, line, and sinker for inaccurate historical information, just so long as that misinformation makes Christianity look bad.

You see this especially around the holidays, when atheists share memes online about how Christmas, Halloween, and Easter have supposedly pagan origins. Or that the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection is lifted wholesale from the story of Horus or whatever. I've even debated atheists on this very site who claim Christianity was invented in the 4th Century by Constantine. I mean, this can get pretty nuts.

If so, what's their motivation?

I think a lot this stems from simple ignorance and confirmation bias. Lots of people fall for conspiracy theories for that same reason.

But there is also a tendency toward scientism among some atheists, which can, I think, lead to a lack of rigor when it comes to areas of knowledge outside of the natural sciences, such as historical research. So perhaps atheists are more prone to this type of misinformation vs. science denial.

Yes. That is a danger, not a great one in some ways as the rigor is applied to the data to start with and is more likely to be reliable, even when people read it and believe it. No such rigor is applies d to faithbased thinking. And even the attempts to make an argument are very biased.

Scientism is not really a Thing. It can be a danger with pr eople believing whatever they read. Thus Abiogenesis is often taken to be a Fact, when science knows is is still an unproven hypothesis. But the basis is that logic and evidence supports abiogenesis, not theist creation.

[TRANSPONDER]

Are there any atheists that say they don't like this whole faith business, and reject religion on that basis, but then happily bite the hook for anything else that requires faith, just so long as it's secular?

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I have noticed some (online) atheists falling hook, line, and sinker for inaccurate historical information, just so long as that misinformation makes Christianity look bad.

You see this especially around the holidays, when atheists share memes online about how Christmas, Halloween, and Easter have supposedly pagan origins. Or that the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection is lifted wholesale from the story of Horus or whatever. I've even debated atheists on this very site who claim Christianity was invented in the 4th Century by Constantine. I mean, this can get pretty nuts.

If so, what's their motivation?

I think a lot this stems from simple ignorance and confirmation bias. Lots of people fall for conspiracy theories for that same reason.

But there is also a tendency toward scientism among some atheists, which can, I think, lead to a lack of rigor when it comes to areas of knowledge outside of the natural sciences, such as historical research. So perhaps atheists are more prone to this type of misinformation vs. science denial.

I mentioned above, the rigor is applied by 'science' in the broad sense in the beginning. Bear in mind that the harshest critics of science theories are other scientists. In some ways the same with Religious Dogma. On my Other board, Christian posters had to be threatened with excommunication if they accused another of not being a Real Christian.

But it's the basics. The validity of the Bible. and that's why we have discussion. The common belief (or Big Lie) is exemplified by the nativities, and hardly anyone knows how badly they contradict, and though some apologists may have heard of the 2nd census apologetic, few seem to know it, and I don't think even the exports have twigged the 2nd stint of Vartus that definitively clobbers the 2nd census argument.

I suppose what it is, the bods in the streets vote, even if they don't know the issues; it is down to the experts to argue out what they should believe.

And that comes down to what do we trust? The conspiracy theories or the science that debunks them?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I have noticed some (online) atheists falling hook, line, and sinker for inaccurate historical information, just so long as that misinformation makes Christianity look bad.

In this example above you show how some atheists might grasp to misinformation to attack Christianity.

And that's a good example of how so many different kinds of people people will cherry pick from misinformation to further their ideas, purposes, politics and righteousness.

Some Christians do it as well, for example an extreme right wing capitalist Christians could quite from Jesus to support their ideas, such as the wealthy many leaving wealth with his servants and rewarding those who made the most money in return. Or the warrior who might quote Jesus instructing his followers to arm themselves. Etc etc

Yes. And here am I with my personal conspiracy theory, which a few have groped towards, but none have jumped in feet first.

But that doesn't matter - I know it is a pet theory and it must be debated and validated (people need to know it first. But there are more validated and accepted apologetics that are known, though it seems to me fighting with the handcuffs on when people will still insist on regarding the Jesus saids as being the actual words of Jesus.

I think we know where the debate is, the skeptics are asking some tough questions, and the Bible apologists are in the defensive, This may be Denial, and relying on weight of support to suppress question and doubt, or there is the Natural explanation apologetic (the Star was a Nova) which t rather debunks the god - claim just to make the bible work and there is the busiest debate which is excusing the problems. Which is why I think the Biggies matter as you cannot explain them away very easily. They can be denied, like who nobody but luke has an ascension, but personal denial was never the point, it was which side made the best case, and that's why the public, looking in, and getting the message to those outside is what really matters, not the denial of this or that Theist.

[oldbadger]

Yes. And here am I with my personal conspiracy theory, which a few have groped towards, but none have jumped in feet first.

But that doesn't matter - I know it is a pet theory and it must be debated and validated (people need to know it first. But there are more validated and accepted apologetics that are known, though it seems to me fighting with the handcuffs on when people will still insist on regarding the Jesus saids as being the actual words of Jesus.

I think we know where the debate is, the skeptics are asking some tough questions, and the Bible apologists are in the defensive, This may be Denial, and relying on weight of support to suppress question and doubt, or there is the Natural explanation apologetic (the Star was a Nova) which t rather debunks the god - claim just to make the bible work and there is the busiest debate which is excusing the problems. Which is why I think the Biggies matter as you cannot explain them away very easily. They can be denied, like who nobody but luke has an ascension, but personal denial was never the point, it was which side made the best case, and that's why the public, looking in, and getting the message to those outside is what really matters, not the denial of this or that Theist.

All very interesting.

Well the gospels can suit any Christian's wishes. Ruthless capitalists can quote Jesus in justification without trouble.

But then so can the peace lovers, or the warriors.......even aggressive demonstrators have a Jesus to hold up.

So if all of those accounts were about one man then he may have been schizophrenic, maybe. But I think not. I think there were two different men in that story just as there were two at the very end.

Unlike you I don't judge all of the gospels to be fiction, although the Christian edits and add ons most definitely were.

The trick is in the extraction of the rubbish from the historical.

[historia]

Some Christians do it as well

I'll do you one better here. Some of the historical misinformation that atheists repeat was itself created by Christians. Pretty much all of the misinformation one finds circulating in online atheist communities regarding Christmas and Easter, for example, and almost any inaccurate information you read about Christianity in the Middle Ages was originated by fundamentalist Protestants as bad anti-Catholic polemics.

[oldbadger]

I'll do you one better here. Some of the historical misinformation that atheists repeat was itself created by Christians. Pretty much all of the misinformation one finds circulating in online atheist communities regarding Christmas and Easter, for example, and almost any inaccurate information you read about Christianity in the Middle Ages was originated by fundamentalist Protestants as bad anti-Catholic polemics.

It's a people problem all round.

The spinning of misleading information can surface anywhere and everywhere.

Even companies do it in order to sell stuff, hence our trade descriptions act (UK).

And Christianity is steeped in it in so many ways. Even the later gospels were spinning the dogma, so it was happening quite early. Telling fibs was one thing, enforcing them with church violence was certainly 'terror'...

[Purple Knight]

I think a lot this stems from simple ignorance and confirmation bias. Lots of people fall for conspiracy theories for that same reason.

But there is also a tendency toward scientism among some atheists, which can, I think, lead to a lack of rigor when it comes to areas of knowledge outside of the natural sciences, such as historical research. So perhaps atheists are more prone to this type of misinformation vs. science denial.

So there's not a motivation, is what you think? In other words, it's a psychological vulnerability everyone by nature has. Nobody is sitting there, even subconsciously, going, "Oh, if I say this and that, I will gain this benefit."?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. And here am I with my personal conspiracy theory, which a few have groped towards, but none have jumped in feet first.

But that doesn't matter - I know it is a pet theory and it must be debated and validated (people need to know it first. But there are more validated and accepted apologetics that are known, though it seems to me fighting with the handcuffs on when people will still insist on regarding the Jesus saids as being the actual words of Jesus.

I think we know where the debate is, the skeptics are asking some tough questions, and the Bible apologists are in the defensive, This may be Denial, and relying on weight of support to suppress question and doubt, or there is the Natural explanation apologetic (the Star was a Nova) which t rather debunks the god - claim just to make the bible work and there is the busiest debate which is excusing the problems. Which is why I think the Biggies matter as you cannot explain them away very easily. They can be denied, like who nobody but luke has an ascension, but personal denial was never the point, it was which side made the best case, and that's why the public, looking in, and getting the message to those outside is what really matters, not the denial of this or that Theist.

All very interesting.

Well the gospels can suit any Christian's wishes. Ruthless capitalists can quote Jesus in justification without trouble.

But then so can the peace lovers, or the warriors.......even aggressive demonstrators have a Jesus to hold up.

So if all of those accounts were about one man then he may have been schizophrenic, maybe. But I think not. I think there were two different men in that story just as there were two at the very end.

Unlike you I don't judge all of the gospels to be fiction, although the Christian edits and add ons most definitely were.

The trick is in the extraction of the rubbish from the historical.

That's always been the trick. To sort out the propaganda, myth and invention from reliable history. I just reckon that the redaction criticism method of tossing out major contradictions is a good way of getting down to anything reliable. And what is reliable looks like a real Jesus not at all like the Christian one.

Some Christians do it as well

I'll do you one better here. Some of the historical misinformation that atheists repeat was itself created by Christians. Pretty much all of the misinformation one finds circulating in online atheist communities regarding Christmas and Easter, for example, and almost any inaccurate information you read about Christianity in the Middle Ages was originated by fundamentalist Protestants as bad anti-Catholic polemics.

Oh yes. That'll happen. Like the claim that all the elements of the Jesus story are found in earlier myths. It is always good to have a discussion about various claims. The famous story about Napoleon and the orrery "I see you haven't put God in there" "I had no need to, sire", is overdone, though with a basic of fact.

This is, rather, atheists repeating a Christian untruth is just an error, Christians repeating Christian untruths is a lie.

I think a lot this stems from simple ignorance and confirmation bias. Lots of people fall for conspiracy theories for that same reason.

But there is also a tendency toward scientism among some atheists, which can, I think, lead to a lack of rigor when it comes to areas of knowledge outside of the natural sciences, such as historical research. So perhaps atheists are more prone to this type of misinformation vs. science denial.

So there's not a motivation, is what you think? In other words, it's a psychological vulnerability everyone by nature has. Nobody is sitting there, even subconsciously, going, "Oh, if I say this and that, I will gain this benefit."?

It's like this; reality is so no matter what humans prefer or what is to their benefit; human constructs like arts, sports and literature are entirely down to human benefit and a consensus that it is beneficial. The question, or debate is, is morality reality (objective) or a human construct (relative).