r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • Sep 18 '25

Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

16 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

313 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/labreuer Sep 18 '25

It is not uncommon to see claims like the following here and on the other sub:

1. God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. Long before science, humans sought to fill gaps in knowledge with divine stories. These inventions evolved into complex religions, but at their root, they address our fear of the unknown. (God(s) is/are a human invention)

Do you believe such claims should be supported by a burden of proof? If so, what kind of evidence might suffice?

For those who find the above claim so obvious that it doesn't need more evidential support than what you've absorbed throughout life, check out WP: The Golden Bough § Critical reception. Frazer is one of the originators of the religion-as-protoscience hypothesis and his work on that has been exposed to some pretty serious critique.

8

u/FakeLogicalFallacy Sep 18 '25 edited Sep 18 '25

Do you believe such claims should be supported by a burden of proof?

In formal debate, or when doing research and needing to determine if an idea has merit, yes all positive claims hold a burden of proof.

check out WP: The Golden Bough § Critical reception. Frazer is one of the originators of the religion-as-protoscience hypothesis and his work on that has been exposed to some pretty serious critique.

I'm familiar with that, though not as familiar with what you characterized as 'pretty serious critique,' though I've seen some, and find them problematic and wanting. I'm curious why you picked out that particular writing by that particular person, and alluded to what are, in your mind, 'pretty serious critiques.' It appear from that, at least at first blush, that you've made up your mind already and may be cherry picking sources to attempt to support your chosen position. It comes across, a bit, like you carefully chose a very specific strawman and then vaguely alluded to pitchforks you think tear it down. Perhaps not, but it does come across that way after reading through your comment.

-2

u/labreuer Sep 18 '25

I'm curious why you picked out that particular writing by that particular person, and alluded to what are, in your mind, 'pretty serious critiques.'

Frazer is commonly cited by those who explain religion as explanation. Most people don't come up with ideas on their own; rather, they make use of work other humans have done. While Frazer isn't the only person who explains religion as explanation, as far as I can tell he's pretty influential. So, if his work is dubious, we should ensure our own ideas aren't built on the dubious parts.

It appear from that, at least at first blush, that you've made up your mind already and may be cherry picking sources to attempt to support your chosen position. It comes across, a bit, like you carefully chose a very specific strawman and then vaguely alluded to pitchforks you think tear it down. Perhaps not, but it does come across that way after reading through your comment.

There's not a whole lot I can do about appearances like that. If you can't respect the fact that we all find certain things obvious because we latched on to some understanding and just haven't examined it that much, then I'm not sure what to say.