Janaya

I am sure we have all heard or read that outrageous assertion. The rebuttals I've seen usually consist of current and past service members testifying that they personally are/were atheists in foxholes. I have also seen protests that this statement implies that atheists are cowards or that we have no intellectual integrity and would quickly embrace a god belief in the face of imminent danger and/or death. I think we should continue to challenge that statement in these ways but recently I have thought of a slightly different approach.

I would like to propose an additional response to that ridiculous statement. For the purposes of this argument I am going to use the broadest definition of atheist. Atheists are people that do not have a god belief. I think this definition would include all atheists, agnostics and other non-theists.

Let's assume for a moment that the statement is true and take it to its logical conclusion.

A. There are no atheists in foxholes.
B. All people in foxholes are theists.
C. Foxholes are used in wars.
D. Theists fight wars.
E. If all people were atheists then no wars would be fought.

If they insist that A is true then they have to also admit that E is true.
If they insist that E is false then they have to also admit that A is false.
Either way we win.

Every time I hear that statement now it sounds like they are bragging about starting and fighting wars. Pardon me while I go throw up.

So, whachallthink?

(BTW, I have no real experience with logical arguments so please poke holes in this.)

Mods, I wasn't sure where to put this. This thread reminded me of these thoughts that I had last year but if it would get a better response in another forum please move it.

Also I apologize in advance if someone else has come up with this argument as well. I do a lot of reading and I might have read it somewhere though I don't think so. I will be glad to use it as a properly attributed quote.

Toto

For now, we'll call this post a form of secular activism and see how far it gets here.

It's an interesting argument. Just thinking out loud, the problem is that it says nothing about the beliefs of the people who start wars - they could be atheists and rely on the theists to do the fighting. So you could argue that if one society is atheist and another is theist, the theist society will be able to prevail over the atheist society because its citizens will be willing to fight to the death (for their reward in heaven), while the atheists will rationally compromise and avoid war.

Hm. This might explain the evolutionary advantage of belief.

On the other hand, if Iraqis had just refused to fight in the last war and surrendered to the US Marines, they would be far ahead of the game right now.

Kintaro

Hmm, I've thought of "There are no atheists in foxholes, atheists fight and die for their causes."


I find the sentence (NAiF) a compliment, but when I think about it, it's like uneducated people (often from slums, and black, ALTHOUGH I INSIST NONE ARE CORRELATED) using "yo' mama" or "your mother" as an insult. The only thing it does is baffle me with nonsense. (I know baffling with bullshit is a life philosophy, but still...)

Shake

Makes good sense to me!

Janaya

Yes, I agree Toto, it does not address those that start wars but only specifically those that actively fight and die in wars. Hm. Very good point. The reasons and purposes for war should probably be debated in a new thread. Maybe many new threads. It is surely a broad and very debatable subject.

Yes, yes, very good point regarding evolutionary justifications. Hm. Damn, did I do that? Ok, so I am assuming that you can find nothing else wrong with my argument in response to that particular mindless assertion? I guess what I am asking is for a logical rebuttal or refutation of my argument. Though any dialogue would be welcome for discussion.

Thank you Shake. I have tried really hard to find fault with my logic for this argument and the only thing I have found are the issues that Toto has brought up. Perhaps we could further discuss. Yes?

Yes, Kintaro, it seems to have become a catch phrase. That is one reason I have tried to rebut it logically. Many veterans can easily refute the factuality(is that a word?) of this statement and many atheists can rebut it with the obvious inherent prejudices but I have yet to see anyone rebut it with logic. I am sure someone has come up with this besides me, and I will readily attribute it to them.

Does anyone else see any problems with this argument?
Does anyone else see how this (if it proves to be logical) can be used as a rebuttal?

Mageth

E. If all people were atheists then no wars would be fought.

Or, I believe just as logical of an argument is:

A. There are no atheists in foxholes.
B. Foxholes are used in war.
C. Therefore, if all people were atheists, then no foxholes would be used in war.

lpetrich

My favorite counterargument:

Where are those whose last words are:

See you in heaven

???

Nobody in the 9/11/2001 kamikaze hijackings said that to their families as their last words, as far as anyone knows.

In fact, those with the biggest faith in Heaven were the kamikaze hijackers themselves, whose briefing letter essentially said: "Remember, boys, if we succeed, we'll get harems of lovely ladies in the next world."

SLD

Well, I've never been in a foxhole, but I am a Naval Reserve Officer and I think there are many others on these boards that serve in various military capacities who are also free thinkers. I too am not trained in formal logic but I caution against such reasoning; it smacks of the idea that if only everybody thought like me we'd have no war - which would of course be true. If everybody thought like the pope we'd have no war. If everybody thought like Jerry Fallwell we'd have no war. And if everbody thought like Adolf Hitler we'd have no war, and that is why 30 million people died trying to stamp that very thought out (about 1/2 of whom were atheists). It is that type of thinking that leads to wars to begin with. I realize your argument is meant to be tongue in cheek, but I have seen it expressed so many times by so many others that I cannot but find it frightening and dangerous. Without religion, we would remove only one of the motivating factors in religion, but we would most certainly not end warfare. While I don't have faith in god, I do have faith in the ability of the human race to come up with a wide variety of excuses and motivations for killing others.

Respectfully,

S L DER, CDR, USNR

(and sorry about getting on my high horse too much there.)

Bumble Bee Tuna

Unfortunately, you can rebut this because the NAiF statement is meant to say Atheists fight, but when they get into a dangerous situation (a foxhole) and think they might die soon they become theists. It's really kinda funny though. I think a better response would be something like

"So you admit that theonly reason people believe in God is out of fear and intimidation?"

-B

DarkBronzePlant

Yes, the saying comes from the idea that all people, even freethinkers, who are faced with near-certain death, will suddenly believe in a god.

To which I reply that, on the contrary, there are few theists in foxholes. How many "theists" when faced with near-certain death get excited about the prospect of their own death, the soon-to-be-realized opportunity to ascend to heaven and meet their wonderful god in person? Versus how many of them go kicking and screaming in desperate fear until their last breath?