# 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:** 34
**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:** [May 19, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/661 "2013-05-19T17:23:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That comparison doesn’t work at all. The brain is _highly organized_ for the purpose of information processing. Not a collection of disorganized…stuff like the universe. Nor is the brain so large that lightspeed limits make it impossible to function as a unit, also unlike the universe. Well, TBCF, if you were standing on the up quark that is part of the neutron in the oxygen atom that is part of the protein molecule that makes up the K/Na pump on the side of a neuron that is part of somebody’s brain, the greater structure of the brain would probably not be evident to you, especially considering the relative distances involved. There is an enormous amount of empty space in your head (as with all matter). ---
**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:** [May 19, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/662 "2013-05-19T21:33:08Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Well, TBCF, if you were standing on the up quark that is part of the neutron in the oxygen atom that is part of the protein molecule that makes up the K/Na pump on the side of a neuron that is part of somebody’s brain, the greater structure of the brain would probably not be evident to you, especially considering the relative distances involved. There is an enormous amount of empty space in your head (as with all matter). Good analogy - for the time before we invented radio astronomy. Now we can see the structure of the universe. Back when we couldn’t no one could have been expected to make good guesses as to what was going on. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/663 "2013-05-19T21:42:35Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Well, TBCF, if you were standing on the up quark that is part of the neutron in the oxygen atom that is part of the protein molecule that makes up the K/Na pump on the side of a neuron that is part of somebody’s brain, the greater structure of the brain would probably not be evident to you, especially considering the relative distances involved. There is an enormous amount of empty space in your head (as with all matter). What **Voyager** said. As well, like I said upthread the light speed limit to transmitting information means that a universe sized brain is simply impossible, period. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/664 "2013-05-19T22:51:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Good analogy - for the time before we invented radio astronomy. Now we can see the structure of the universe. Back when we couldn’t no one could have been expected to make good guesses as to what was going on. We can see the structure and attribute it to physical processes, but can we certainly discern that there is no more to it? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > What **Voyager** said. As well, like I said upthread the light speed limit to transmitting information means that a universe sized brain is simply impossible, period. Well, impossible is kind of a stretch. I mean, the cosmic brain could be functioning in a time frame that we cannot grasp, with information flow making what we know as “glacial” frenetic. Of course, in such a case, why would we care, as we could not possibly have any way to communicate with it and it would care about us no more than we about it. The real flaw with the concept of the universal intelligence is justification: we have developed intelligence because of survival needs, but why then would there be a universal mind? What would it have to think about? This is the question that theistic types fail to even imagine, much less address or answer: why would god exist in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/665 "2013-05-19T23:09:35Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Well, impossible is kind of a stretch. I mean, the cosmic brain could be functioning in a time frame that we cannot grasp, with information flow making what we know as “glacial” frenetic. No, you don’t understand. I mean that it’s physically impossible for information to make it across the universe at all, not just that it’s slow. The expansion of the universe means that light can’t catch up with the matter being carried along in the expansion once you go far enough. ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/666 "2013-05-22T07:17:15Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You’re spouting gibberish. Pretending nonsense is profound doesn’t make it an intelligent argument. go back and read the thread. and read the section of the book referenced. that was my understanding of complicated eastern thought. If you can do better, do so. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/667 "2013-05-22T08:09:03Z")
> [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > go back and read the thread. and read the section of the book referenced. > that was my understanding of complicated eastern thought. > If you can do better, do so. :dubious: I don’t need to follow your suggested reading list to know that you’re reciting nonsense as if it were profound. ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/668 "2013-05-23T14:37:55Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t need to follow your suggested reading list to know that you’re reciting nonsense as if it were profound. that may indeed be the definition of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/669 "2013-05-23T14:43:10Z")
> [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > that may indeed be the definition of ignorance. Reciting nonsense as if it were profound may be an _example_ of ignorance, but I wouldn’t call it a definition. ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/670 "2013-06-08T20:40:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Reciting nonsense as if it were profound may be an _example_ of ignorance, but I wouldn’t call it a definition. Fostering Ignorance, again READ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/671 "2013-06-08T21:51:09Z")
> [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > Fostering Ignorance, again READ I daresay if you want to encourage someone to read your source material, you might want to summarize it in a less gibberishy way. ---
**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:** [June 9, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/672 "2013-06-09T15:29:17Z")
[QUOTE=Moon Meyers] Fostering Ignorance, again READ [/quote] Okay… let’s give it the old college try… > [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > 1. An example from the book, take a plant, we can superficially say the primary cause of the plant is a seed but if we look closer, there are multiple causes (seed, soil, sun, nutrients, etc.) If we take the seed, the same reasoning holds. In context, we have to examine the causes and conditions of each phenomenon and then reexamine each element, which leads to the understanding: the existence of all phenomena is dependent on multiple causes and conditions. A fine example of modern science - explaining how and why the universe works the way it does. So far so good. > [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > 1. If we examine a chair in the same way, we find that it is comprised of many components and attributes but there is no essence of chair, no chairness. We conventionally call it a chair based on its form and function, i.e. its relationship to everything else. An example of man being able to manipulate raw material for specific purpose. I see no intent of the chair maker to imbue the object with the quality of “chairness”, only with intended utility. Please explain why we should seriously consider the quality of “chairness” in this context. > [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > 1. There is another aspect to this. If we use a different object, and ask, what is an Orange? Again, we can break it into components of (taste, color, size, shape, etc.); what is taste? (Bitter, sweet, sour…) What is Bitter? What is Blue? The point being we can get to a place because of our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) that relies on the direct experience of that object, my asking, give an answer that has no reference point. (Not a red herring, but a Blue fin tuna). Wat?? 😕 I undestand all the individual words but nothing about the way they are arranged makes any kind of sense to me. Does it make sense to you? Please explain. > [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > How is this pertinent to the thread? I contend based on a direct (unconditional;)) experience, and our innate need to explain it, we create via poetic expression and personification, the ultimate explanation, God; > it is not, we exist because God exist, but God exist because we exist. In other words…\… We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here…\ That’s a nonsensical lyric sung by a bunch of bored 12 year olds trapped on a long bus excursion. So it’s true; Everything I ever needed to know I learned in elementary school. Describing something as “complicated eastern philosophy” does not imbue the idea with enlightenment or inherent wisdom. Gibberish by any other name is still gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/673 "2013-06-11T00:14:08Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > I cannot get rid of the belief that something caused all of this, even though it doesn’t care about its creation and allows everything to happen randomly. God does care about what happens and a series of events that has a recorded beginning, predicted middle, and predetermined end is hardly random. As for atheists, I feel a little bad for them. It’s A LOT harder to prove that something doesn’t exist than it is to prove that something does. Making it exponentially more frustrating for them is the fact that “believers” are expected to believe with OR without proof. Ouch. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/674 "2013-06-11T05:40:10Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > It’s A LOT harder to prove that something doesn’t exist than it is to prove that something does. Luckily then, I don’t have to prove anything. It’s the believer that has to convince _me_ that what he believes is actually true. It’s a bit like this; RadioActiveRich: “Hi, I believe there to be leprechauns under my hat. Do you?” Latro: “Hahaha…no.” And now it’s somehow up to me to prove there aren’t any leprechauns under your hat? I don’t think so. You show me the leprechauns, then I’ll believe you. > [@](#): > > Making it exponentially more frustrating for them is the fact that “believers” are expected to believe with OR without proof. I would imagine it to be more frustrating for the religious. It is they that are expected to believe, without a shred of proof. Furthermore they have no leprechauns to show to the unbeliever, I imagine that must be quite frustrating. > [@](#): > > As for atheists, I feel a little bad for them. So, based on your own arguments I would sooner feel sorry for the believers ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/675 "2013-06-11T16:15:24Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I do know there is a higher intelligence or consciousness than I am. I know that by experience. How is it that the higher consciousness is not you? ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/676 "2013-06-11T16:24:43Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Gibberish. > > We can talk about God because we all have _a_ concept of God. Without any concept of God ( I suppose that is what you mean by ‘reference point’) we would indeed not be able to talk about it. And your point would be…? that is my point ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/677 "2013-06-11T16:28:25Z")
That something exists in a conceptual state does not imply it must also exist in a real state. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/678 "2013-06-11T16:48:17Z")
> [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > that is my point OK, you do realise that ‘your point’ has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of God? ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/679 "2013-06-11T16:53:25Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Okay… let’s give it the old college try… > > Please explain why we should seriously consider the quality of “chairness” in this context. Only that there may not be a quality of “chairness” ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/680 "2013-06-11T17:02:15Z")
> [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > Only that there may not be a quality of “chairness” sorry, only that there may not be “chairness” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=35)