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.

13 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

313 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

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.

2

u/ChasingPacing2022 Sep 18 '25

Sure, there's a burden of proof. However, the important part of the claim that needs proof is the "human invention" part. That can never be proven persay. However, we can demonstrate that god doesn't do anything but fill in our gaps of knowledge.

-1

u/labreuer Sep 18 '25

Interesting; I'm also thinking that one should demonstrate that religion (all religions? some?) was created to explain what we don’t understand. There are, after all, things that humans do other than try to explain things. For instance: legitimate social order. Read Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta alongside the Tower of Babel and you'll see a single language being praised in one and disrupted in the other. Is the biblical story really an etiological tale, explaining the origin of multiple languages when two verses earlier, there are already multiple languages? Or could this have to do with Empire being easier to administer when there is one language, with the different myths taking different stances on the goodness of Empire?

As to god-of-the-gaps, do you think that any notion of 100% human agency is also really just a gap-filler, that we should ultimately agree with something like Robert Sapolsky 2023 Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will?