# Atheism does not work... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2006, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571 "2006-12-02T04:31:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/141 "2006-12-06T21:17:49Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] So this “unmoved mover” is capable of forming intentions, but has no awareness? How does that work? Our understanding of the universe is neither consistent nor inconsistent with God, since God is considered to exist outside of the laws we understand to operate in the universe. Since we currently have no way to ascertain what physical laws operate outside the “firewall”, if such a realm even exists, to speak of whether a given thing would be “consistent” is utter speculation. If you believe in a God that transcends our understanding of the physical world, why would you care about evidence and logic anyway? [/quote] Depends on what God you’re talking about. A generic God who created the Big Bang - sure. Our understanding of the universe is inconsistent with the God who created the universe according to the creation myths of several religions. > [@](#): > > I agree with the previous post: strong atheism is _already_ untenable. Adding God makes it neither more nor less so. If by strong atheist, you mean someone who claims to **know** that god does not exist, sure. If you use the proper meaning, someone who \*\*believes \*\* God does not exist, then I disagree. It is a perfectly tenable position given that we have no evidence of any god, and none that he has interacted with humans, just a lack of evidence that a generic god does not exist - which is actually predicted by strong atheism. Even a strong atheist will acknowledge that an existent god could create a universe that makes it look like he doesn’t exist, after all. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/142 "2006-12-06T21:28:22Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] … Even a strong atheist will acknowledge that an existent god could create a universe that makes it look like he doesn’t exist, after all. [/QUOTE] I’m not so sure about this. What would you call a person that denies even that possibility? ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/143 "2006-12-06T21:37:08Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Depends on what God you’re talking about. A generic God who created the Big Bang - sure. Our understanding of the universe is inconsistent with the God who created the universe according to the creation myths of several religions. [/quote] It’s easy to disprove _specific_ gods, but you can’t disprove that which is undefined. I can’t _prove_ that there isn’t an intelligent entity that exists outside of our universe. But I don’t _need_ to. I simply don’t give undefined gods any more consideration than I give any _other_ undefined thing. > [@](#): > > If by strong atheist, you mean someone who claims to **know** that god does not exist, sure. If you use the proper meaning, someone who \*\*believes \*\* God does not exist, then I disagree. It is a perfectly tenable position given that we have no evidence of any god, and none that he has interacted with humans, just a lack of evidence that a generic god does not exist - which is actually predicted by strong atheism. Even a strong atheist will acknowledge that an existent god could create a universe that makes it look like he doesn’t exist, after all. This is just semantics. Semantics doesn’t interest me much. I don’t call that strong atheism; you do. Tomato, tomahto. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/144 "2006-12-06T23:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] I’m not so sure about this. What would you call a person that denies even that possibility? [/QUOTE] Well, most strong atheists, perhaps. The reason I object to the knowledge based definition of strong atheism is that in my three decades of discussing this on various boards and news groups, I’ve run into fewer than half a dozen people who claim they know God does not exist - but hundreds that believe it. I’ve most often seen it as a strawman used by theists to demonstrate that the atheist position is foolish - typically with the “Prove that God does not exist” challenge. I was suckered into this definition for years, until someone pointed out the belief/knowledge dichotomy to me, after which I saw how foolish I had been. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/145 "2006-12-07T01:20:00Z")
gonzomax nails something I wanted to say (but didn’t since I had posted so many times in a row already) The OP is displaying a very bizarre misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism doesn’t need to “work.” It isn’t an ideology: it’s the lack of a particular ideology. Atheism doesn’t claim, in and of itself, to explain anything at all. It just is unconvinced of the religious explanation. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/146 "2006-12-07T02:13:15Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Or do you feel that the syllogism that concludes in the unmoved movers is a non sequitur, even without any other physical explanation? [/QUOTE] I believe I demonstrated that the premise was faulty, yes. If you disagree, show me where I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/147 "2006-12-07T03:17:43Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Or do you feel that the syllogism that concludes in the unmoved movers is a non sequitur, even without any other physical explanation? This is the part of your input that seems strange to me, and others. You appear to think that if there must be some known explanation for the universe and if there isn’t any other then it’s Aquina’s by default. Not so. For century upon century there was no explanation for the movement of the planets, as seen from the earth. Then along came Copernicus who described the motions using a simple model and Newton who showed the model was predicted by use of a simple formula. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/148 "2006-12-07T04:38:22Z")
[QUOTE=sturmhauke] I believe I demonstrated that the premise was faulty, yes. If you disagree, show me where I was wrong. [/QUOTE] He can’t. Again I go back to then premise that you are unable to argue _logically_ vs faith. All bets are off unless you can get your adversary into a definition of “god” as they understand it. Problem is, man-made gods are fairly easy to dismiss by there very illogical contradictions. Faith however, is hardly open to debate by its very definition. Rather boring if someome were to ask me. Zeus, Huitzilopochtli et al, have pretty much the same mythical standard today as Jesus-son-of-God (Christianity) have the mainstream currently. Give them a century or less, and I’m guesstimating the other relics. Which, btw, Christians have no problem being atheistic about. ## Guees I just happen to believe in one less god than they do. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/149 "2006-12-07T07:39:37Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] The reason I object to the knowledge based definition of strong atheism is that in my three decades of discussing this on various boards and news groups, I’ve run into fewer than half a dozen people who claim they know God does not exist - but hundreds that believe it. [/quote] Are you sure about that? I rarely hear an atheist say, “I believe God does not exist”. In every case I can remember, it has been worded as “I don’t believe in God”, or “I don’t believe God exists”. I _have_ heard it stated flat-out, as in “There is no God”, or “Gods do not exist.” I consider that strong atheism. > [@](#): > > I’ve most often seen it as a strawman used by theists to demonstrate that the atheist position is foolish - typically with the “Prove that God does not exist” challenge. I was suckered into this definition for years, until someone pointed out the belief/knowledge dichotomy to me, after which I saw how foolish I had been. But that trap is just as easily avoided by changing to a passive wording. Having the dichotomy be between active and passive makes much more sense than having it be between knowledge and belief. I would think that most atheists would also be rationalists, and for a rationalist, knowledge and belief ought to go hand in hand. Why would I believe that which I had no knowledge about? For me, knowledge and belief are identical. If I say, “I do not believe in God”, rather than “I believe God does not exist”, I remove the burden of proof from my position without compromising the position. I don’t think I’ve ever heard this knowledge/belief dichotomy used as the definition of strong/weak atheism before. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/150 "2006-12-07T08:58:09Z")
The first cause argument is one of a class of arguments that essentially either contradicts its central premise (that everything must have a cause) or weakens it to the point of uselesness (all such and suches must have a cause). The latter is a little more complicated, but still fatally flawed. The basic problem is that because we don’t know enough about what sort of thing “the universe” is, the only way to categorically require it to have a cause is to make it a universal requirement for all things. But once you’ve done that, you’re back to contradicting your first premise again when you propose god. So, checkmate. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/151 "2006-12-07T17:38:06Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Are you sure about that? I rarely hear an atheist say, “I believe God does not exist”. In every case I can remember, it has been worded as “I don’t believe in God”, or “I don’t believe God exists”. I _have_ heard it stated flat-out, as in “There is no God”, or “Gods do not exist.” I consider that strong atheism. [/quote] These were in serious discussions, the kind you find here. I’ll accept that many people will toss off “God does not exist” in conversation, but would refine this position to belief if the discussion goes deeper. It all depends on the context also. I’m pretty confident that the God of the inerrant Bible does not exist - but that is only one of many gods. > [@](#): > > But that trap is just as easily avoided by changing to a passive wording. Having the dichotomy be between active and passive makes much more sense than having it be between knowledge and belief. I would think that most atheists would also be rationalists, and for a rationalist, knowledge and belief ought to go hand in hand. Why would I believe that which I had no knowledge about? For me, knowledge and belief are identical. If I say, “I do not believe in God”, rather than “I believe God does not exist”, I remove the burden of proof from my position without compromising the position. > > I don’t think I’ve ever heard this knowledge/belief dichotomy used as the definition of strong/weak atheism before. No, I’m not distinguishing knowledge and belief - the distinction you made, between lack of belief and belief in no god, is the same I use in distinguishing strong and weak atheism. I’m not aware of a specific term for supposed knowledge that no gods exist - this category is a subset of strong atheism (which is a subset of weak atheism). Since agnosticism is about knowledge, maybe someone who know Latin can come up with something? Antignosticism? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/152 "2006-12-08T00:58:57Z")
OP? oh OP? Are you ever going to respond? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/153 "2006-12-08T01:25:25Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] Good point. **A** & **B** seem to be in conflict. Time simply begins with the initial movement. The unmoved mover is in time for as long as any motion occurs. Couldn’t future movements change or destroy the original mover? The unmoved mover is (was) eternal only in the sense that time did not exist. Now that it does, why would it have any eternal qualities that other movers don’t have? [/quote] Yes, that’s a good point. I’ll concede that, I think. Religious bias, I guess. > [@](#): > > **C** , **F** , & **H** : How do you deduce that an unmoved mover has intention or intelligence? Why couldn’t the initial movement be simply random? Perhaps there was only one movement it could have possibly made. What triggered it? The passage of time? Another physical influence? By definition, those could not have. What’s left? > [@](#): > > **L** & **N** : In order for an unmoved mover to be capable of good or evil, wouldn’t those concepts have to exist prior to the initial movement? Do you view good and evil as something other than relative human constructs? Well, that’s a different question, and I didn’t think that was what you were trying to get at. All I meant was that an intentional act could be good, evil or neutral, if such things exist. > [@](#): > > Certainly strong atheism has a severe logical failing. But I don’t think that position can be made stronger or weaker by adding or subtracting a turtle or two. What do you see as the logical failing then? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/154 "2006-12-08T01:28:48Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] How does an atom decay without a triggering event? But that’s not motion. [/quote] Again, I’m betraying my ignorance of physics here, but is that accurate? Atoms decay just with the passage of time, and not because of any physical influence? > [@](#): > > As for the origin of motion, it comes from natural laws. By the uncertainty principle, we cannot exactly know the position and velocity of anything - but more so the smaller the particle. If the universe were created, say, with motionless particles, this would violate the law, so any creation event must have created particles in motion. Aristotle assumed that the rest state was natural - in fact motion is natural, and total rest is impossible. I don’t think that’s the notion of “movement” he was trying to discuss. I think he referred to the inexorable regression of cause and effect one could trace back through time. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/155 "2006-12-08T01:31:03Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] So this “unmoved mover” is capable of forming intentions, but has no awareness? How does that work? [/quote] Sorry, I didn’t say this entity had no awareness. > [@](#): > > Our understanding of the universe is neither consistent nor inconsistent with God, since God is considered to exist outside of the laws we understand to operate in the universe. Since we currently have no way to ascertain what physical laws operate outside the “firewall”, if such a realm even exists, to speak of whether a given thing would be “consistent” is utter speculation. If you believe in a God that transcends our understanding of the physical world, why would you care about evidence and logic anyway? It certainly doesn’t keep me awake at night. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/156 "2006-12-08T01:36:25Z")
[QUOTE=sturmhauke] I believe I demonstrated that the premise was faulty, yes. If you disagree, show me where I was wrong. [/QUOTE] Not sure I understand your counter proof, other than I see you state you don’t see A’s point. Can you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/157 "2006-12-08T01:40:20Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] This is the part of your input that seems strange to me, and others. You appear to think that if there must be some known explanation for the universe and if there isn’t any other then it’s Aquina’s by default. [/quote] I don’t think that’s what I said. I offered as possibilities that there’s an infinite regress, an unmoved mover, or a flaw in the proof. Seems pretty tautological to me. Did I leave an alternative out? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/158 "2006-12-08T02:37:41Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I don’t think that’s what I said. I offered as possibilities that there’s an infinite regress, an unmoved mover, or a flaw in the proof. Seems pretty tautological to me. Did I leave an alternative out? [/QUOTE] I was referring to the next to last sentence in[this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8022597&postcount=113) > [@Stratocaster](#): > > Let me word it differently, as a question: Do you (anyone) take it on faith that we will ultimately find a physical explanation that will negate the logical conclusion of an unmoved mover? Or do you feel that the syllogism that concludes in the unmoved movers is a non sequitur, even without any other physical explanation? Or something else? I read this as saying that if no other explanation is found you think we have to go with Aquinas. If that’s not your meaning, then what was it? The “Or something else?” would, of course, be that we’ll never find a physical explanation _and_ Aquinas supposed proof is wrong. It seems to me to have been amply demonstrated that Aquinas proof is faulty and that there’s no need to have faith in anything. The history is that with continued study and investigation, scientists have managed to arrive at explanations that can be verified as explaining the event in question and are fruitful of other areas to investigate. That might not be true in the case of the beginning of the universe because if there was a cause it is outside our universe and inaccessible to us. ---
**Author:** ![Vesicatory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/74df32/32.png) [@Vesicatory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vesicatory)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/159 "2006-12-08T06:27:51Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I E dyslexia is a condition, not a crime. (Boy, there’s one in every crowd. Except on the Board, where there’s about eight thousand.) [/QUOTE] Why automatically assume it’s dyslexia? There’s no evidence one way or the other. Maybe it’s dyslexia, maybe it’s poor spelling and grammar skills, maybe it’s bad typing skills, maybe it’s typing too fast in the heat of the moment, maybe it’s a sticky or otherwise recalcitrant keyboard. Is it de rigeur “on the Board” to go right for the PC and pomo explanation about everything, first time and every time? ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/160 "2006-12-08T07:45:36Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Not sure I understand your counter proof, other than I see you state you don’t see A’s point. Can you elaborate? [/QUOTE] Let me try to make it more concise. I am attacking the B premise, that nothing may move itself. Aristotle’s argument seems to rely heavily on these statements: > [@](#): > > …motion is eternal. (1)Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing… In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, (2)no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence. I argue that statement 1 requires proof, yet none is given. Statement 2 would seem to be contradicted by our current understanding of the universe; namely, that time began with the Big Bang and may end with the heat death of the universe. Aquinas’ argument, on the other hand, doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. If you can make sense of it, I’d be greatly interested to know. Here it is in two different translations: > [@](#): > > For it is not possible for the same thing to be at once actual and potential inasmuch as it is the same, but only inasmuch as it is diverse, for what is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, but is at the same time potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that, in one and the same way, something could be moving and moved, or that something move itself. Therefore every thing that moves, must be moved from another. > > … > > Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved is moved by another. In other words, the assertion that nothing may move itself has no basis, rendering the conclusion that there must be a first mover invalid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=9)