Comments

7 responses to “Thought For The Day: “There are No Atheists in Foxholes” – An Analysis”

1. 2010/05/23

   Brian Utterback

   4 does not follow from 3. You have not established that having a soul is necessary to believe in God. In fact it is known that believing in having a soul is definitely not a prerequisite, although if having a soul is a universal human attribute, that may not be relevant. However, more directly, atheists have been observed in the type of foxhole originally meant, and even during life threatening situations, have affirmed their non-belief. Some have even been observed to be annoyed when at that time, their non-belief has been questioned. One might wonder at the strength of the conviction to be annoyed at such a time when they have other things to think about, but of course we might also wonder at the level of triteness exhibited by the ones that said “I bet you believe in God now, don’cha?” at just such a time.

   Reply
2. 2010/05/23

   alecm

   @blu: So, foxes *do* believe in God? 🙂

   Reply
3. 2010/05/23

   Clive

   You assume that it is not possible to believe in any sort of god without believing that there are no atheists in foxholes – indeed, without believing it literally rather than figuratively.

   I do know a few theists, and none of them have ever mentioned believing that. (-8

   More fundamentally, I’d assert it’s impossible to believe anything unless it’s also possible to believe the opposite.

   Reply
   1. 2010/05/23

      alecm

      @clive:

      1) fair point, well made, perhaps it’s worth your asking your friends to check?
      2) “it’s impossible to believe anything unless it’s also possible to believe the opposite” – do you also believe the reverse of that statement?

      Reply
4. 2010/05/24

   Brian Utterback

   I don’t know if foxes believe in God. But you said that it is impossible for them to do so because they have no souls. If they cannot believe in God for other reasons (not intelligent enough, no species specific evangelists, etc.) then you result may be valid, but the reasoning is still faulty.

   I think the point that Clive is making is not that any one individual must believe in something and its opposite, but that someone might believe in the opposite, i.e. if belief in the opposite is not possible, then the word “belief” is not appropriate. Perhaps “know” would then be operative.

   Reply
5. 2010/05/24

   alecm

   Brian, dude…

   1) it’s meant to be funny

   2) read http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

   Consider foxes in the light of: ‘Babies are born indifferent to the idea of gods – indeed – they cannot conceive it, and accordingly are atheists: they do not believe in gods because they can not.’ — but *ONLY* after you’re gone to read the whole page…

   Reply
6. 2010/06/03

   Dave Walker

   I keep making this point, but continue to not be taken seriously – the question being asked, is not really the *pair* of questions, which should be asked. To wit:

   1. What is a God?

   2. …and how many are there?

   Ask these questions of a baby, and your answer will either be “Waaah!” or the expulsion of some form of effluent.

   Similarly, with a fox; except for the fact that it might bite you, as a further opportunity for expression.

   Reply