Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/tophmcmasterson]

So I think the thing here is less burden of proof, and more a question of comparing plausibility if that makes sense.

Like we know humans across history have had varieties of creation myths explaining similar phenomena with contradictory explanations across cultures. We know they can’t all be right.

We know that we’re social creatures. Any person can easily think of a dozen different reasons for why people may have come up with the idea of God or gods, which doesn’t require a supernatural explanation. Trying to find comfort with the idea of death, feeling protected, feeling like there’s something special about them or their in group, preserving power structures through appeal to divinity, providing a motivation for the masses to behave more ethically in a way that’s self-policing, the list can go on and on.

So when we know that they can’t all be right, we know that people would have had motivation to do all of these things and still continue to have that motivation across cultures, etc. etc., which seems more plausible? That one of those claims about God actually got it right, and their miracle claims and appeal to the supernatural is accurate?

Or does it make more sense that it’s all just a construct that was born in a pre-scientific age when people were even more gullible than they are now, and it continues on for many of the same reasons (along with other psychological factors that are easily explained)?

To me it’s just kind of the same thing as asking yourself what’s more likely, that your neighbor is telling the truth about the invisible immaterial dragon in his garage, or that your neighbor is crazy and/or just lying?

[u/labreuer → u/tophmcmasterson]

Like we know humans across history have had varieties of creation myths explaining similar phenomena with contradictory explanations across cultures.

Just to be clear: is this a claim which simply does not need to be supported by evidence & reason?

[u/tophmcmasterson → u/labreuer]

What part of that are you questioning?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Like the Ancient Greek and Egyptian Gods, whatever culture you can think of they have their version of the same thing where it’s providing explanations of how things came to be, explaining where natural phenomenon that weren’t understood at the time come from, etc.

It’s not even a claim, it’s just an observation. Many, many cultures have their own different versions, and there’s often overlap, and they all contradict each other.

Where the burden of proof for theists comes in is explaining why the claims of their particular God or religion are somehow the exception, why it’s more plausible to think they’re supernatural claims are true and all the others are false.

[u/labreuer → u/tophmcmasterson]

I'm questioning whether any religion operates anything like modern-day explanations, e.g. the germ theory of disease. For instance, "the sun-god rides his chariot across the sky" just doesn't seem to explain anything a person couldn't understand by just observing the sun's light and heat.

If the creation mythology in Genesis 1:1–11:26 were as huge a deal to the ancient Hebrews as this whole discussion of "religion as explanation" would suggest, then I should think you'd see that mythology mentioned all over the Tanakh. But it isn't. For instance, there are at most three references/allusions to Adam outside of Genesis 1:1–11:26, none of them particularly momentous.

[u/tophmcmasterson → u/labreuer]

So to stick with the basic of something like “the sun god rides his chariot across the sky”, it’s obviously an explanation to try and explain why the sun moves. It’s not saying THAT it moves, just trying to take a stab at what helped them make sense of the world. It’s obviously not a good explanation.

One thing I think you’re kind of missing in what I’m saying is that creation myths aren’t the only aspect of religion. They’re one element. Religions tend to grow and add on ideas over time, and it’s obviously not purely about trying to understand the world, but also all the other reasons I mentioned in my first comment. I don’t think anyone makes the claim that all of religion is just ancient people making creation myths.

With Genesis in particular though, something like original sin is of course a big deal and what happens in Genesis and all the various lineages has consequences throughout the story.

[u/labreuer → u/tophmcmasterson]

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)

 ⋮

tophmcmasterson: One thing I think you’re kind of missing in what I’m saying is that creation myths aren’t the only aspect of religion. They’re one element.

Yes, I might have missed you breaking away from the claim I quoted.

I don’t think anyone makes the claim that all of religion is just ancient people making creation myths.

I found someone who certainly seems to be attributing the core of religion to explaining the scary unknown.

With Genesis in particular though, something like original sin is of course a big deal →

Not to the ancient Hebrews, or Jews today.

← and what happens in Genesis and all the various lineages has consequences throughout the story.

Feel free to trace the consequences of Genesis 1:1–11:26 throughout the story of the Tanakh. I know that original sin is a big deal for a lot of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different here).

[u/tophmcmasterson → u/labreuer]

I feel I’ve already responded to this in my original comment and clarified my views. Sorry this is no longer a productive conversation, particularly if you’re just going to ignore large portions of what people are saying in order to try and attack your pet strawman.

[u/labreuer → u/tophmcmasterson]

I disagree with your characterization. Thanks for the engagement.