# Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288 "2013-02-04T04:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/481 "2013-02-18T22:56:44Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > … another possibility is that it always existed. That presents a few difficulties, but it is interesting to consider. If the universe always existed, that would allow the other side of eternity (the infinite past) for the creation of us. I mean, 4 billion years is a long time, an eternal past is even longer. Most problematic is entropy. Energy seems to flow downhill only (warm to cold), how an eternal universe could not be totally flat by now (after an infinite amount of time to lose its fizz) kind of strains the imagination. Unless it has something to do with dark energy or something. Everything we know of has a point before which it did not exist and a rather high probability of a point after which it will not exist. It is difficult to imagine a thing that never did not exist and always will. Of course, it seems just as likely that the universe is not a “thing”. Personally, I find the idea of creation no more logically plausible than the idea of eternal presence. Why should the universe ever have not existed? ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/482 "2013-02-18T23:21:01Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > I think it’s reasonable to contend, **doubleminus** , that if I claimed that my cat communicated with me psychically and told me how to be a good person and live a good life, then I’d be considered at least a bit kooky even though there is more evidence for my claim than most religious ones: if you want I can show you a picture of my cat. Of course you’d be considerred kooky, even though, come to think of it, I could not prove you wrong. You may be a prophet of your Cattiness - supposedly this rarely happens, if at all. Most people imagine their cats to tell them _different_ things. However, come on, you can do better than this strawcat argument. The vast majority of people that believe in some kind of God will not claim any “psychic” or other type of contact. And of course that those who claim God talked to them tend to have other claims as well - and therefore are hospitalized (at least in countries that have a functioning psychiatric system). I think, in truth, that you brought this argument so I could see your cat. I would love to. ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/483 "2013-02-18T23:26:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes, on anything touching their religion. They willfully deny reality, and harm both themselves and others in the process. Well, if they _willfully_ deny reality, it means that they just want to drive _others_ mad. You haven’t even started to persuade me that they are mad. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/484 "2013-02-18T23:59:01Z")
Functionally mad for the most part, but mad nevertheless. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/485 "2013-02-19T00:08:17Z")
I don’t think it’s fair to label someone mad for believing ridiculous shit if it was indoctrinated into their skulls when they were young, along with instructions to never ever doubt it. Now, if they come across it as an adult, and think “this whole thing about god sacrificing himself to himself to change rules he himself made - that has the ring of truth to it!”… That person should probably be denied access to any weapon more lethal than a crayon. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/486 "2013-02-19T00:55:15Z")
> [@doubleminus](#): > > Of course you’d be considerred kooky, even though, come to think of it, I could not prove you wrong. You may be a prophet of your Cattiness - supposedly this rarely happens, if at all. Most people imagine their cats to tell them _different_ things. > > However, come on, you can do better than this strawcat argument. **The vast majority of people that believe in some kind of God will not claim any “psychic” or other type of contact. And of course that those who claim God talked to them tend to have other claims as well - and therefore are hospitalized (at least in countries that have a functioning psychiatric system).** > > I think, in truth, that you brought this argument so I could see your cat. I would love to. \ a) I give you **lekatt** and **kanicbird** b) there are plenty of folks that go around “praying for answers” that claim to get them and that ‘god talks to them’ all the time c) even if (a) and (b) do not fit “the vast majority” - the religion/faith itself WAS FOUNDED by folks that claimed they did. It is the downfall of ALL ‘revealed’ religion - it requires a ‘kook’ to “hear it from god” and for idiots to believe them. So - if you would not believe - and would even institutionalize - folks claiming direct contact with GOD today - why in the frack do you give any credence to a book filled with writings by people that claimed they had that same contact 1800 years ago? That was then compiled centuries later - by more people that claimed divine direction and then re-compiled by yet more people claiming divine direction claiming the parties of the first divine direction got it wrong somehow? Its lunacy - all of it. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/487 "2013-02-19T01:13:55Z")
To be fair, there are many, perhaps a majority of, religious people who are not mad in any discernable way, but who simply (and cynically, to the extent that they think this ethical issue over) want the privileges of belonging to a category of people who are respectable–i.e. Christians. These “religious” people scoff at most major tenets of “their” chosen religion, using birth control when their church outlaws it, or having abortions when their church calls it murder, or correctly labelling the text their sect bases its beliefs on as improbable nonsense invented by Bronze Age fiction-writers–I don’t think such people are mad, so I don’t excuse them as I do the true madmen, who after all, can’t help themselves. I think such people are more blameworthy for religion’s ills, because they know better and perpetuate the divisive and pernicious nonsense for their own perceived advantage. The worst of these are evil, and the best of them are small-minded feebs. It’s hard to imagine someone who describes hinself as “religious” who is not mad, evil or a feeb. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/488 "2013-02-19T01:31:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course you’d be considered kooky, even though, come to think of it, I could not prove you wrong. Social norms are determined by consensus – if I managed to get enough other people to believe me then it would be less kooky and more socially acceptable… it still wouldn’t provide any proof or make it more real, but it would be perceived as less odd. > [@doubleminus](#): > > Most people imagine their cats to tell them _different_ things. As I’d suggest do most people who claim to hear / speak with / communicate with the divine. It’s not like the prophets and believers over the years have presented a single unified voice. > [@](#): > > However, come on, you can do better than this strawcat argument. It wasn’t intended as total straw… which is why I chose “kooky” and that the message be the positive one; I’m not tying to demonize believers, just suggest that in other circumstances a similar claim would be viewed with significant (and justified) skepticism. > [@](#): > > The vast majority of people that believe in some kind of God will not claim any “psychic” or other type of contact. **simster** covers this pretty well. 🙂 > [@](#): > > And of course that those who claim God talked to them tend to have other claims as well - and therefore are hospitalized (at least in countries that have a functioning psychiatric system). Which oddly enough seems to lead to the argument that the people who claim to believe without any proof at all are more functionally sane than those with personal experience / personal proof. > [@](#): > > I think, in truth, that you brought this argument so I could see your cat. I would love to. She’s lovely… well, unless one is a rat. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/489 "2013-02-19T01:32:33Z")
If anyone has anything to say to our ‘friend’ **pchaos** , you better say it now. The latest developments in his pit thread indicate that our ‘friend’ may not be posting here, much longer. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/490 "2013-02-19T01:33:53Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > If anyone has anything to say to our ‘friend’ **pchaos** , you better say it now. The latest developments in his pit thread indicate that our ‘friend’ may not be posting here, much longer. Keep this kind of commentary in the Pit, please. ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/491 "2013-02-19T02:58:54Z")
**Pseudotriton** - you are right in the distinction between madness and evilness regarding religion and perhaps this was my (unstated) position. Religion, as a meme, can be adapted to the social environment more or less successfully, but one cannot deny its vitality and influence in human thinking and society, and also as a “comforter of last resort” for individuals. In fact, research shows that religious people are _healthier_, both mentally and physically than those who are not. Now, looking at supernatural belief through the glasses of “How can those guys believe in all this illogical crap” is just puerile. Belief is not about external reality, but internal symbolism and representation, however badly some religious groups describe it. It is also about social cohesiveness and conflicts. Religion is complex because humans are complex; whoever is interested in understanding humans, and human societies must also understand their symbols and beliefs a.k.a. religious systems. Now, I’m saying all this as an atheist. I have never in my life believed in supernatural powers or gods, and neither my parents, grandparents and most of my social group. I take it as a given, maybe similar to a sexual orientation. I would also happily answer **Apollion** too, but I have to hit the sack. It’s really late and I am in a different time zone. He still owes me a cat though. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/492 "2013-02-19T03:06:48Z")
> [@doubleminus](#): > > In fact, research shows that religious people are _healthier_, both mentally and physically than those who are not. Doubt this very much. Where are you getting it from? ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/493 "2013-02-19T03:10:41Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Doubt this very much. Where are you getting it from? Atheist research. Joking… Read 2 articles about this in the last few months. Have no idea how good the data. I’ll try to dig this out tomorrow. Gutte Nacht. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/494 "2013-02-19T10:44:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > **Jragon** covered most of what I was going to write here, but you should know (if you aren’t already) that an [antitheist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheist) is different from an [atheist.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist) > > An antitheist is opposed to belief in the existence of gods. > > An atheist merely lacks belief in the existence of gods. > > If you view religion as dangerous or believe that it’s wrong to practice it, you may be an antitheist. If you merely don’t, yourself, believe, without regard to the beliefs of others, you’re just an atheist. > > It is possible to be both. I wanted to thank you personally for referring me to Secular Humanism. It is very close to what I’m looking for. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/495 "2013-02-19T12:14:01Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > OP here again and I apologize for what I started although I have learned two new cool words… Misotheists and Dystheists. > > So I would like to ask the people on here who consider themselves REAL atheists as defined by someone who does not believe in “god” (or whatever you want to call it), do you believe that physical matter came out of NOTHING with ABSOLUTELY NO FIRST CAUSE? > > Please answer with a simple “yes” if you believe this happened. > > If you answer with more than “yes” I doubt if you are a real atheist. > > (Something tells me, I am going to regret this post) What created Existence? There had to be a place before any being(supreme or other wise) could exist, there fore existence had to precede any Being or God. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/496 "2013-02-19T12:24:03Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > So you have faith in a science that you don’t fully understand to arrive at the conclusion that there’s no God. Well…I prefer to have faith in God. Are you saying you fully understand GOd! Boy, that is just egotism! Your posts are not helping your cause.At least from my reading, and understanding of them.I have noted that since you came on the board you have changed your beliefs many times;there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but any one on the board or anywhere for that matter, can come up with a lot of said experiences if they chose to. There is no doubt that you feel you have had experiences, but it proves nothing. Because you say it, it isn’t proof. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/497 "2013-02-19T13:41:50Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I wanted to thank you personally for referring me to Secular Humanism. It is very close to what I’m looking for. You don’t read very closely,[do you?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15993262&postcount=370) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/498 "2013-02-19T21:24:35Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > What created Existence? There had to be a place before any being(supreme or other wise) could exist, there fore existence had to precede any Being or God. At the scale involved – cosmology and cosmogeny – this isn’t entirely certain. For one thing, God could be the universe. The cosmos could be his “body,” and thus his existence and the existence of “all that is” might be one and the same. Otherwise, the same argument could apply against natural explanations for the origin of the universe: some kind of “existence” must have been around, for the Big Bang to happen “in.” The trouble with things of this nature is that they don’t accord with our common sense, or even with our ideals of philosophical necessity. (I love reading philosophical rejections of the Trinity; if God were composed of separate parts, then he cannot be “all powerful” or “all knowing,” because this kind of universality cannot be divided. Either all of the power is only in one part – God the Father, perhaps – or it is split up among the persons, and thus no one of them is really all-anything. The trouble, of course, is that this is pure sophism, pure word-play. It isn’t based on anything solid.) ---
**Author:** ![doubleminus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5daacb/32.png) [@doubleminus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doubleminus)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/499 "2013-02-20T00:47:30Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Doubt this very much. Where are you getting it from? Ok, I didn’t find the original papers I’ve read, but I found many others, this seems to be a thriving area of research. I include links to some reputable journal papers: > **[Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality - Demography](https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2648114)** > > We use recently released, nationally representative data from the National Health Interview Survey—Multiple Cause of Death linked file to model the association of religious attendance and sociodemographic, health, and behavioral correlates with... [www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327965PLI1303\_04](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327965PLI1303_04) [ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.957](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.957) > **[APA PsycNet](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-03769-001)** [www.bmj.com/content/332/7539/445](http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7539/445) ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/500 "2013-02-20T06:41:53Z")
> [@doubleminus](#): > > Ok, I didn’t find the original papers I’ve read, but I found many others, this seems to be a thriving area of research. I include links to some reputable journal papers: > [Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality | Demography](http://link.springer.com/article/10.2307%2F2648114?LI=true) > [www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327965PLI1303\_04](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327965PLI1303_04) > [ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.957](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.957) > [APA PsycNet](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/hea/19/3/211/) > [www.bmj.com/content/332/7539/445](http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7539/445) These do not pertain to religious people per se, rather it is based on attendance. It does not indicate that _belief_ improves your health: believers who skip church are less healthy than believers who do, the factor is church more than belief itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=26)