No Atheists in Foxholes Argument

Miscellaneous General
1

No Atheists in Foxholes Argument

There is still plenty of laughing stock for the “no atheists in foxholes” argument masqueraded by our religious half-wits, though I’m ambitious enough to believe such ridiculousness is on the decline. The fact that any individual who finds intellectual buttress from such convoluted thinking is mind numbing.

What Does it Mean?

Normally, when the religious make use of the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” they are attempting to demonstrate the fickleness of such a position as denying the existence of a god. In essence, they are attempting to show that atheist’s don’t truly believe in that which they propose, they are merely playing intellectual. After all, anyone can deny god when conditions are optimal right?

What Does It Prove?

Acknowledging the theists position that some atheists become faint at heart under certain extreme conditions as being stuck in a foxhole while at war, what exactly does this prove? Certainly it doesn’t give strength or credence to either of the opposing positions. Nor does it further the arena of debate. Actually, as we will see below, it’s a rational response to an irrational state of mind. Though in no way does this author believe in a god, he very much looks forward to begging for the existence of one if ever under found in an irrational state of mind–as would my religious counterparts when faced with such conditions. The problem is of course that their belief is an all powerful and encompassing solution to whatever state of affairs they find themselves in and thus why the foxhole argument seems so devastating.

Sidestepping the issue of begging a god to perform a moral duty when he supposed to be a moral god, such minds as the believer are lucky enough to always have a potential panacea in their back pocket. These god-believing individuals would be hard pressed to find themselves in a position they can’t, potentially, beg themselves out of. Yet, given the right conditions, they too would profess any amount of belief to any amount of absurdities as the mind is capable of. Such devotion to beliefs is itself slaved to primal instincts. It’s easy to take a bullet for your loved ones under optimal conditions but strip these individuals of such optimal rationality and watch their animalistic decisions surface. Place a family of four, a pet, and a religious book, in a raft at sea for some substantial amount of time and watch such animalism take over. God will play no role in the decision making process after an allotted amount of time. Worse yet, let a warning sign on the side of their boat read, “if ever you find yourself stranded, profess to be a nonbeliever and you will speedily be rescued”. Such a warning sign may be declared absurd initially, but let irrationality take course and watch this boat of former bible thumpers profess their non-belief in unison.

Again, What Does This Mean?

Surely it doesn’t indicate that the family was, in fact, a pack of atheists, or even that their faith was weak. It surely does’t it give credence to either position in the god-debate. It simply proves nothing except that irrational states of mind lead to irrational behavior. Under otherwise normal conditions the family would still believe

So Where Does This Leave Us?

Though nonbelievers may subscribe to the notion that uttering prayers to an invisible god is always irrational, it is not irrational relative to the typical behavior of these individuals. For example, I often burst out in laughter when watching shows like Ghost Hunters. To myself, grown men standing in the dark calling out to walls is quite absurd behavior, yet, this is from my frame of reference, not theirs. To them they are engaging in normal behavior.

The difference is of course that the nonbeliever see no argumentative use in referencing that “there are no theists in rafts with warning labels that tell them denouncing god will save you” whereas, theists still believe that the “no atheists in foxholes” argument is the final backbreaker.

2

The post is not an attack on religion per se as much as an attack on this argument.

The language is somewhat condescending, but wouldn’t think that it would be out of place

3

It’s an assertion, poor rethorical tactics but no argument, and any smart religious person should know this. However, those, who are using it, are driven not by logic and evidence and do not care about these things at all. Otherwise, they would show us studies, at least, some statistics, how many people pray in fox holes, how many just lay here and wait for the best.

4

I don’t think I’ve ever heard this used as an argument. I always thought it was a unattributed quote.

5

I’ve always understood this phrase as a way of saying how shitty war is. Like, being a foxhole is so bad that even an atheist will want to believe in a god to have a bit more of hope.

6

Indeed, as MaikU wrote, how can saying “There are no atheists in foxholes!” be any kind of argument at all? It’s simply something that sounds true to people who are already theists. Thus it serves to reaffirm their pre-existing beliefs – which is likely the whole point.

Oftentimes participants in a public debate won’t say things to each other so much as they’ll say things to the audience. The no-atheists-in-foxholes non-argument seems to be one of those things.

7

This is an argument? I’m pretty sure it’s just a quote about how shitty war is.

8

I became an atheist IN a foxhole (metaphorical). So much for that argument.

9

If anything the argument serves only to prove Molineux’s point, that religion is driven by our inner insecurities and nothing else.

10

It may not be an actual arguement, but many theists do trot it out as a one-liner that’s supposed to shut down atheists, show them as naive, or whatever. Obviously it’s very weak and fails upon any real scrutiny, but that doesn’t stop people from using it.

It’s like that email story/joke that goes something like this: A well known athiest is giving a speech at a local university. He steps up to the podium and proclaims “I’m going give God a very easy way to prove his existance. All he has to do is remove me from this stage, and I will renounce atheism immediately! Surely this should be a trifling thing for an omnipotent deity to do to simply prove that he exists!” Then, depending on how the story goes and which relgious mascot is being supported, a US Marine/Navy Seal/Firefighter/Hero-of-the-week walks up to the stage and shoves him off, thus proving that God exists.

To the religious, this seems clever. But anyone else all you see is a zealot assaulting a public speaker.

11

To the religious, this seems clever. But anyone else all you see is a zealot assaulting a public speaker.

I am not religious, and yet I completely disagree.

What anyone rational would see is the fallacy of the atheist’s own argument, illustrated beautifully.

Demanding that a god do something specific doesn’t prove there’s no god. It’s a nonsense argument.

Such ridiculous, petty banter helps the theist cause, by being its own ridiculous straw man.

12

Religion is too much of a package of culture, philosophy and ontological beliefs to say it’s driven by fear and nothing else. That’s just ridiculous. There’s a lot of things people see in religion, and a lot of reasons people practice it. That’s why some people may see some inconsistencies, and yet still follow it. When I did follow a religion, that was one of the reasons I followed it.

13

“Demanding that a god do something specific doesn’t prove there’s no god. It’s a nonsense argument.”

A demand and argument are two separate things. And whatever can be interpreted so easily is not ‘nonsense’, whatever else it is. This argument is merely not convincing to you. You are appealing to an ‘objective’ thing, when you mean yourself. And the argument could do anything pragmatically: convince all people or convince no one. But that is only a matter of chance, rather than truth.

I think the demand is never on God. But on the definition; and on the definition to Be something specific. A definition can’t do anything specific. It’s not an object. And this demand is only stage one: then it, God itself not the definition, can go onto secondary things like doing God-stuff.

That is if there is a demand at all; though, there is no obligation to do anything, except what is conditional. So this instance is hardly any demand at all.

We already know that God does – in the absence of being – something for the one who wants it to do something. Helping them in the foxhole. But this is in the absence, always, of being something.

On top of this, theism and religion are two separate things. Many religions are not theistic. And the claims of theism are different, but maybe related, to a religion. A religion itself is not what is being argued in metaphysics unto itself, but what may or may not follow from a theistic argument. One can make no bottom up argument for a religion, whatever the claims to there being a bottom up argument for God. If such people demand that this be a precondition for even ‘believing’ in God… or anything.