Why Do Atheists Criticize People's Beliefs?

[Valyza1]

Oh, that's not for me to decide, for you...but...in my opinion?

An earnest believer can do things from a position of good intentions that are, objectively, horrifying.  

. So can a non-believer.

I think that A is just a good man doing what he was told was right, by some nutter. C doesn't have that. He can;t say that god wanted hoim to do that, or that society told him to do that, or..really, anything, he's just a fucking terrible person.

They both want what's best for their families and they both think that killing their families is what's best for them. A thinks his family is going to meet Jesus in Heaven, C thinks he's sparing his family the pain of living in this terrible world. It isn't necessarily the case that without religion, A is a better person than C. Christopher Hitchens offered this same situation in a different form, and it seems to presume that religious behavior is not a product of a person's character and is entirely due to the religion. That if only the religion didn't exist, this need on the person's part would not be filled by some other equally powerful belief system. There's actually no reason to presume this. And there's no way to test it, either, because we only live in one reality, and can't observe two alternate ones.

[The Grand Nudger]

. So can a non-believer.  

Can he, I don't think so...I think that the person you're calling a "non-believer" has to believe in something...pretty damned hard...to burn his house down mit children.  That or...you know, just terrible and crazy.

They both want what's best for their families and they both think that killing their families is what's best for them.  A thinks his family is going to meet Jesus in Heaven, C thinks he's sparing his family the pain of living in this terrible world.  It isn't necessarily the case that without religion, A is a better person than C.  Christopher Hitchens offered this same situation in a different form, and it seems to presume that religious behavior is not a product of a person's character and is entirely due to the religion.  That if only the religion didn't exist, this need on the person's part would not be filled by some other equally powerful belief system.  There's actually no reason to presume this.  And there's no way to test it, either, because we only live in one reality, and can't observe two alternate ones.

That's an interesting revision of the thought experiment you proposed, but it doesn't help.  In the case of the non-believer who truly -believes- (lol?) he's doing his family a service...he has no god crutch to fall back on and still -be- a decent person in light of what he did.  The religous man, A, does.

I'll be honest with you...I think that you stepped in the shit with this one. / shrugs

[Valyza1]

. So can a non-believer.  

Can he, I don't think so...I think that the person you're calling a "non-believer" has to believe in something...pretty damned hard...to burn his house down mit children.  That or...you know, just terrible and crazy.

He believes pretty hard that the world is a terrible place for them and not worth keeping them alive for. How crazy that is is irrelevant. It's what he believes. I meant non-believer in the sense that he doesn't have any particular religious beliefs, but he still has beliefs. Everyone does. There's no reason to think he's any crazier than person A. Person A would still need to be the same level of crazy as Person C to actually do that. Belief is just an excuse if it's bad, and just a compass if it's good.

They both want what's best for their families and they both think that killing their families is what's best for them.  A thinks his family is going to meet Jesus in Heaven, C thinks he's sparing his family the pain of living in this terrible world.  It isn't necessarily the case that without religion, A is a better person than C.  Christopher Hitchens offered this same situation in a different form, and it seems to presume that religious behavior is not a product of a person's character and is entirely due to the religion.  That if only the religion didn't exist, this need on the person's part would not be filled by some other equally powerful belief system.  There's actually no reason to presume this.  And there's no way to test it, either, because we only live in one reality, and can't observe two alternate ones.

That's an interesting revision of the thought experiment you proposed, but it doesn't help.  In the case of the non-believer who truly -believes- (lol?) he's doing his family a service...he has no god crutch to fall back on and still -be- a decent person in light of what he did.  The religous man, A, does.

That's basically where we disagree. You seem to be implying that someone like A wouldn't be someone like C without his religious beliefs. I'm saying that's a baseless implication.

[The Grand Nudger]

He believes pretty hard that the world is a terrible place for them and not worth keeping them alive for.  How crazy that is is irrelevant.  It's what he believes.  I meant non-believer in the sense that he doesn't have any particular religious beliefs, but he still has beliefs. Everyone does.  There's no reason to think he's any crazier than person A.  Person A would still need to be the same level of crazy as Person C to actually do that.  Belief is just an excuse if it's bad, and just a compass if it's good.

.....no?  In your thought experement...he thought it was terrible place for him and then executed them on account of that?  If he deeply believes it's a terrible place, for them, then...again, he deeply believes...what sense does it make to call him a non-believer in that case?  

That's basically where we disagree.  You seem to be implying that someone like A wouldn't be someone like C without his religious beliefs.  I'm saying that's a baseless implication.  

Well, we don't actually disagree, you change the subject when you trip on your own dick.  / shrugs

Still haven't deigned to tell me, what you think, in your own scenario...not that I don't already have a pretty good idea of how you hope to moot the issue.

[Valyza1]

.....no?  In your thought experement...he thought it was terrible place for him and then executed them on account of that?  

Are you intentionally twisting my words around or are you honestly just getting a different meaning from what I said? I literally said "C hates the world and doesn't want his family to have to live in it anymore". That clearly implies that not only does he think it's a terrible place for him, but for them as well.

If he deeply believes it's a terrible place, for them, then...again, he deeply believes...what sense does it make to call him a non-believer in that case?  

I meant non-believer in the sense that he doesn't have any particular religious beliefs, but he still has beliefs. Everyone does.

That's basically where we disagree.  You seem to be implying that someone like A wouldn't be someone like C without his religious beliefs.  I'm saying that's a baseless implication.  

Well, we don't actually disagree, you change the subject when you trip on your own dick.  / shrugs

How have I changed the subject??

Still haven't deigned to tell me, what you think, in your own scenario...not that I don't already have a pretty good idea of how you hope to moot the issue.

Moot what issue? I think that A and C are acting badly and B and D are acting well and that their beliefs are not determining whether or not they act well or badly. That's the point of the scenario. What am I missing?

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you intentionally twisting my words around or are you honestly just getting a different meaning from what I said?  I literally said "C hates the world and doesn't want his family to have to live in it anymore".  That clearly implies that not only does he think it's a terrible place for him, but for them as well.

Good for him, but he's till a terrible person.  I know that you tried...real hard, to make this one stick, but.....?

Moot what issue?  I think that A and C are acting badly and B and D are acting well and that their beliefs are not determining whether or not they act well or badly.  That's the point of the scenario.  What am I missing?

That A is acting badly -because- he's a good person™ with beliefs.  How could a person be acting badly if they were acting out the will of their just god, anyway?

Again, you set this up...how long are you going to bullshit me or yourself?

[Valyza1]

Are you intentionally twisting my words around or are you honestly just getting a different meaning from what I said?  I literally said "C hates the world and doesn't want his family to have to live in it anymore".  That clearly implies that not only does he think it's a terrible place for him, but for them as well.

Good for him, but he's till a terrible person.  I know that you tried...real hard, to make this one stick, but.....?

Personally, I agree that he's a terrible person. I also think A is an equally terrible person. But your opinion and my opinion of what kind of a person either one is, is irrelevant. I'm starting to get the sense that no matter how much I try to clarify this, you're just going to keep accusing me of trying to "make something stick". Not even sure what you mean by that, but it's getting tiring and starting to seem pointless to continue.

Moot what issue?  I think that A and C are acting badly and B and D are acting well and that their beliefs are not determining whether or not they act well or badly.  That's the point of the scenario.  What am I missing?

That A is acting badly -because- he's a good person™ with beliefs.  How could a person be acting badly if they were acting out the will of their just god, anyway?

I assume both of us believe there are behaviors that are more or less objectively good and objectively bad. If that's the case, then whether or not a person is acting according to their beliefs has no bearing on whether or not what they are doing is good or bad. Do you agree?

[The Grand Nudger]

Personally, I agree that he's a terrible person.  I also think A is an equally terrible person.  But your opinion and my opinion of what kind of a person either one is, is irrelevant.  I'm starting to get the sense that no matter how much I try to clarify this, you're just going to keep accusing me of trying to "make something stick". Not even sure what you mean by that, but it's getting tiring and starting to seem pointless to continue.

It was your thought experiment.  Expressing frustration in the face of not getting your desired conclusion is pointless.

I assume both of us believe there are behaviors that are more or less objectively good and objectively bad.  If that's the case, then whether or not a person is acting according to their beliefs has no bearing on whether or not what they are doing is good or bad.  Do you agree?

No, I don't.  I think that people who act out their religious beliefs in terrible ways are good people who have been compelled to do a bad thing. The guy who slices up his daughters genitalia thinks he's helping her. In your thought experiment, that's how it played out. We had good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. Then, with beleif, a good man doing a bad thing. An anomalous point of data.

If the question is what was more heavily weighted, belief or personality...in your thought experiment.......belief, and obviously so. It was the only instance in which the outcome was not like the others.

[Angrboda]

I assume both of us believe there are behaviors that are more or less objectively good and objectively bad.  If that's the case, then whether or not a person is acting according to their beliefs has no bearing on whether or not what they are doing is good or bad.  Do you agree?

No, I don't.  I think that people who act out their religious beliefs in terrible ways are good people who have been compelled to do a bad thing.  The guy who slices up his daughters genitalia thinks he's helping her.  In your thought experiment, that's how it played out.  We had good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things.  Then, with beleif, a good man doing a bad thing.  An anomalous point of data.  

If the question is what was more heavily weighted, belief or personality...in your thought experiment.......belief, and obviously so.  It was the only instance in which the outcome was not like the others.

If belief can be blamed in person A's case, leaving him blameless, why can't the same be done for C? You're excusing A because you feel his beliefs compelled him. Is C not under the same onus? If we excuse people on account of them forming actions that are consonant with bad beliefs, then there is no one who will not be excused. You've just redrawn the lines so that the person isn't responsible for their beliefs in one case, but they are in another. That's inconsistent.

[Valyza1]

No, I don't.  I think that people who act out their religious beliefs in terrible ways are good people who have been compelled to do a bad thing.  The guy who slices up his daughters genitalia thinks he's helping her.  In your thought experiment, that's how it played out.  We had good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things.  Then, with beleif, a good man doing a bad thing.  An anomalous point of data.  

If the question is what was more heavily weighted, belief or personality...in your thought experiment.......belief, and obviously so.  It was the only instance in which the outcome was not like the others.

If belief can be blamed in person A's case, leaving him blameless, why can't the same be done for C? You're excusing A because you feel his beliefs compelled him. Is C not under the same onus? If we excuse people on account of them forming actions that are consonant with bad beliefs, then there is no one who will not be excused. You've just redrawn the lines so that the person isn't responsible for their beliefs in one case, but they are in another. That's inconsistent.

Agreed (somewhat). This is the fallacy of the whole "if not for religion, such and such a type of person would be great" argument. It assumes that beliefs are more cause than symptom. This is a baseless assumption. If that were true, wouldn't you think that everyone with the same belief would be acting in similar ways? That was the point of the hypothetical. A and B have the same belief, but A reacts one way and B reacts completely differently. Since both situations are plausible, the suggestion is plausible that belief is not the determining factor.


[edit]people like Sam Harris blame Faith for ignoble life sacrifices like suicide bombings, but never credit it for noble life sacrifices like in war or emergencies.