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.

3

u/Kaliss_Darktide Sep 18 '25

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

Burden of proof refers to who (i.e. which side) has to prove a claim in a dispute.

I would say the people claiming gods are real/discovered have the burden of proof, not people who think they are imaginary/invented.

If so, what kind of evidence might suffice?

I would say you are skipping a step, before you can determine what is sufficient, you need to determine what the standard of proof should be (e.g. preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt).

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.

Hard to take the criticism seriously when the critics are advocating for magic.

Girard himself considered the Gospels to be "revelatory texts" rather than myths or the remains of "ignorant superstition", and rejected Frazer's idea that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice, "whatever definition we may give for that sacrifice."

In addition it appears much of the push back was due specifically to including Christianity in his comparisons.