# Atheist Bus Driver Trys to Convert Students **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864 "2018-04-21T15:52:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/221 "2018-04-25T17:18:42Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > I don’t claim that God exists. I claim that we can’t know one way one another. And to say otherwise is bullshit. To say I don’t need to show you’re wrong you need to show you’re right is a cowardly evasion. > > You can’t prove the non-existence, they can’t prove the existence. You say the onus is on them they say it is on you. Know why? Because both of you are standing on brittle ice. > > Doesn’t science teach that until a question is definitively settled (demonstrably evidence based) the question must remain open? There isn’t a question here until you provide a definition of what “God” is. Until then the entire argument is just specious blather. There are about as many different definitions as there are believers and non-believers. Some concepts of God, like the ones young-earth fundies believe, are _prima facie_ ridiculous and easily disproven. Others can be so open-ended and non-specific that they’re essentially trivially true. Give us a definition and then we can explore the evidence, otherwise you’re just huffing and puffing over nothing at all. Most atheists tend to reject the basic premises of organized religion, therefore including traditional concepts of God, but might be willing to accept much more abstract definitions. You can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual. ---
**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:** [April 26, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/222 "2018-04-26T00:10:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Most atheists tend to reject the basic premises of organized religion, therefore including traditional concepts of God, but might be willing to accept much more abstract definitions. You can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual. Abstract or non-abstract, you have to produce some evidence. Some definitions of god are so abstract that they can’t be falsified, but that doesn’t mean there is any reason to accept them unless it makes someone feel good. Now people who believe in that sort of god tend not to want to force anyone to follow its unknown bidding, so there isn’t a lot of conflict. If everyone was an atheist, a deist or a pantheist religious debates would look more like debates on which flavor of ice cream is best. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/223 "2018-04-26T00:19:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Abstract or non-abstract, you have to produce some evidence. Some definitions of god are so abstract that they can’t be falsified, but that doesn’t mean there is any reason to accept them unless it makes someone feel good. > Now people who believe in that sort of god tend not to want to force anyone to follow its unknown bidding, so there isn’t a lot of conflict. If everyone was an atheist, a deist or a pantheist religious debates would look more like debates on which flavor of ice cream is best. [Sweet Jesus](http://www.sweetjesus4life.com) is the best ice cream, of course! ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/224 "2018-04-26T01:47:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Just great-Now I’m envisioning Nancy Sinatra singing “These twats were made for fucking…” Funny, I only see one. nsfw I mean it, nsfw Really, nsfw You forced my hand: [nancy sinatra nude - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=nancy+sinatra+nude&client=tablet-android-alco&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj87u-q59baAhWG6YMKHQxmBroQ_AUIESgB#imgrc=GlSndFWaA6TqHM:) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/225 "2018-04-26T03:43:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Abstract or non-abstract, you have to produce some evidence. We have plenty of evidence that there was a moment of creation. Not a moment _ **in** _ time or space as we would normally understand it, but it can be traced back to t=0. Its origin is outside the bounds of nature and therefore scientific understanding – i.e.- supernatural, not in the frivolous and false everyday sense, but in a true literal sense. The Oxford dictionary defines _supernatural_ as “attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature”. Vehement preaching atheists like Lawrence Krauss reject this rationale on the basis that the universe actually arose out of nothing, and he falsely tries to draw an analogy with the creation of virtual particle pairs by quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. But the argument fails because empty space is decidedly not “nothing” – it has plenty of physical properties. Reviewers of his book _A Universe from Nothing_ [have dismissed his arguments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing#Reception), stating that he misuses the word “nothing”, and that advances in modern physics and cosmology do not and cannot resolve these questions. They are, in a word, supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/226 "2018-04-26T04:39:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Abstract or non-abstract, you have to produce some evidence. Some definitions of god are so abstract that they can’t be falsified, but that doesn’t mean there is any reason to accept them unless it makes someone feel good. I was with you right up until you basically said that something making you feel good is a good reason to believe it, which is just… Look, it makes me feel good to believe that Donald Trump is not the president, but that belief ain’t gonna get me to the polls for the midterm. ---
**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:** [April 26, 2018, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/227 "2018-04-26T06:36:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I was with you right up until you basically said that something making you feel good is a good reason to believe it, which is just… Look, it makes me feel good to believe that Donald Trump is not the president, but that belief ain’t gonna get me to the polls for the midterm. Only if your feel good belief doesn’t hurt anyone else. It’s fine with me if someone feels the world has a purpose because some unknowable god started the universe. Not so good if they try to impose their desires on us in the name of that god. You not going to the polls will hurt. Now if some Trump lover doesn’t go to the polls because he feels good about Trump, fine with me. ---
**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:** [April 26, 2018, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/228 "2018-04-26T06:41:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We have plenty of evidence that there was a moment of creation. Not a moment _ **in** _ time or space as we would normally understand it, but it can be traced back to t=0. Its origin is outside the bounds of nature and therefore scientific understanding – i.e.- supernatural, not in the frivolous and false everyday sense, but in a true literal sense. The Oxford dictionary defines _supernatural_ as “attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature”. So lightning was supernatural up until the time we understood it? What is inside an event horizon is supernatural? Is the universe 17 billion ly from us supernatural since we cannot determine what is happening in it? There can be, and are, many hypotheses about the formation of the universe, all perfectly natural. That we can’t resolve them does not make god the answer. ---
**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:** [April 26, 2018, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/229 "2018-04-26T06:42:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > [Sweet Jesus](http://www.sweetjesus4life.com) is the best ice cream, of course! Doesn’t look kosher to me. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/230 "2018-04-26T07:14:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Only if your feel good belief doesn’t hurt anyone else. It’s fine with me if someone feels the world has a purpose because some unknowable god started the universe. Not so good if they try to impose their desires on us in the name of that god. > You not going to the polls will hurt. Now if some Trump lover doesn’t go to the polls because he feels good about Trump, fine with me. [If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy](https://www.readthesequences.com/DarkSideEpistemology). Or you could just lie about evolutionary theory, which is the path taken by most creationists. Instead of lying about the connected nodes in the network, they lie about the general laws governing the links. And then to cover that up, they lie about the rules of science—like what it means to call something a “theory,” or what it means for a scientist to say that they are not absolutely certain. So they pass from lying about specific facts, to lying about general laws, to lying about the rules of reasoning. To lie about whether humans evolved, you must lie about evolution; and then you have to lie about the rules of science that constrain our understanding of evolution. But how else? Just as a human would be out of place in a community of actually intelligently designed life forms, and you have to lie about the rules of evolution to make it appear otherwise; so too, beliefs about creationism are themselves out of place in science—you wouldn’t find them in a well-ordered mind any more than you’d find palm trees growing on a glacier. And so you have to disrupt the barriers that would forbid them. The problem is that you’re intentionally disrupting your own epistemology. You are letting incredibly bad rules for how to determine what is or is not true into your head. And how do I establish whether my belief hurts anyone else? Via the same rules I am intentionally corrupting! So if I decide I want to apply this same rule (which I have already found to be just fine in determining whether or not there’s a god) to determining what does or does not hurt people… Well, I’m just fucked. Or rather, other people are; I’ll be just fine because it’s much more fun to just not believe what I’m saying hurts anyone. (Honestly that entire sequence explains why this is a really bad idea far better than I could; just read the link and you’ll see what I mean.) A single Lie That Must Be Protected can block someone’s progress into advanced rationality. No, it’s not harmless fun. Good epistemology is important. This is not good epistemology. It should be pushed back on at every turn. I guarantee you that YECs don’t believe that their bullshit hurts anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/231 "2018-04-26T08:52:28Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We have plenty of evidence that there was a moment of creation. Not a moment _ **in** _ time or space as we would normally understand it, but it can be traced back to t=0. Its origin is outside the bounds of nature and therefore scientific understanding – i.e.- supernatural, not in the frivolous and false everyday sense, but in a true literal sense. The Oxford dictionary defines _supernatural_ as “attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature”. And so what follows from that? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/232 "2018-04-26T13:33:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So lightning was supernatural up until the time we understood it? No, lightning was thought to be supernatural and attributed to gods before we had science. Science is bounded by real absolutes – on one hand, it elevates us to a realm of evidence-based systematic discovery, on the other, it can’t deal with anything outside the natural world. > [@Voyager](#): > > What is inside an event horizon is supernatural? Is the universe 17 billion ly from us supernatural since we cannot determine what is happening in it? There’s no intrinsic reason that we couldn’t develop mathematical models and testable hypotheses to describe the physics of everything inside, including resolving the apparent paradox of a singularity with a complete physical description, given a better experimental understanding of the quantum physics involved. “The laws of physics break down at the singularity” is not much more useful than “here be dragons”, and that’s surely just a limit of our present scientific understanding. Ditto for models of the distant fringes of the universe. But what we absolutely cannot do, except with untestable fanciful speculation that is more philosophy than science, regress back to beyond t=0. That’s different. That’s outside the universe. It’s not physics any more. > [@Voyager](#): > > There can be, and are, many hypotheses about the formation of the universe, all perfectly natural. That we can’t resolve them does not make god the answer. Sounds like Lawrence Krauss. I disagree, and like Krauss’ misuse of the concept of “nothing”, I think calling these hypotheses “natural” is a bit of semantic sleight-of-hand. There is nothing “natural” about them because they do not and cannot employ the laws of nature to explain how the laws of nature came into being. I quote from my previous link, citing one of the many critics of his book: “… the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, ‘Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called ‘the laws of physics,’ and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don’t see how they could’.” It’s kind of a physical incompleteness theorem. Nothing in the universe can account for how the universe came into existence, only how it evolved from t=0 when it began. The laws of nature can’t account for how the laws of nature came to be. > [@Batano](#): > > And so what follows from that? A rational concept of what God might be that doesn’t defy science and reason. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/233 "2018-04-26T13:56:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > A rational concept of what God might be that doesn’t defy science and reason. But why “God” specifically? It seems as though you are starting with the assumption there is a God and then looking for something to hang your hat in. Why not a committee of platypuses, or a a brazzledrop machine, or the plot of a movie? Or maybe the universe is the waste product of some other event. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/234 "2018-04-26T14:21:32Z")
Do you mind terribly if I refer to you as \*\*Batguano \*\*from now on? I mean, that’s a lot of shit in one post there. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/235 "2018-04-26T16:57:26Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Do you mind terribly if I refer to you as \*\*Batguano \*\*from now on? I mean, that’s a lot of shit in one post there. Knock yourself out. Figuratively and literally. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/236 "2018-04-26T18:56:59Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > But why “God” specifically? It seems as though you are starting with the assumption there is a God and then looking for something to hang your hat in. Why not a committee of platypuses, or a a brazzledrop machine, or the plot of a movie? Or maybe the universe is the waste product of some other event. Are you kidding? Astronomers and cosmologists and others who study the cosmos have often declared themselves absolutely awed, in a spiritual sense, by the unfathomable majesty of what they’re studying. There is no more profound question than the origin and nature of the cosmos. Your objection is moot because I’m not starting with any assumptions about the existence of God, I’m just providing a definition for one. You don’t have to like it. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2018, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/237 "2018-04-27T05:16:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Are you kidding? Astronomers and cosmologists and others who study the cosmos have often declared themselves absolutely awed, in a spiritual sense, by the unfathomable majesty of what they’re studying. There is no more profound question than the origin and nature of the cosmos. Your objection is moot because I’m not starting with any assumptions about the existence of God, I’m just providing a definition for one. You don’t have to like it. Yes it is a profound question. Why trivialize it by using the proper noun God which is so overloaded with meaning? Imagine that someone says they don’t believe in Thor, and you say he does exist because you have assigned Thor the definition “the process by which thunder is created”. Does that mean the a-Thorist was incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2018, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/238 "2018-04-27T06:38:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Are you kidding? Astronomers and cosmologists and others who study the cosmos have often declared themselves absolutely awed, in a spiritual sense, by the unfathomable majesty of what they’re studying. There is no more profound question than the origin and nature of the cosmos. Your objection is moot because I’m not starting with any assumptions about the existence of God, I’m just providing a definition for one. You don’t have to like it. I don’t, because it’s a terrible definition. “God” as a concept means a great many things to a great many people. Most typically, it refers to some form of anthropomorphozed supernatural entity which is capable of interacting with reality - flippantly, a “sky wizard”. By merely using the word god, you are attaching a ton of unnecessary implied baggage. It’s like if I needed a name for a low-level janitorial position in my company and went with “CEO” - it’s a bad and confusing term to use, because it already means something entirely different! ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2018, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/239 "2018-04-27T07:07:18Z")
And to add to the above, it really doesn’t help that a lot of people play an intentional game of “bait and switch” with definitions like those. “God is love!” “Well, okay, clearly love exists, so fine, I’ll grant that god exists.” “Excellent, now when should I schedule your circumcision, and how will you be repenting for your sins?” Or, more aptly given your example: “I define god as the cause of the universe.” “Okay, that is a definition.” “Also he really hates it when you fuck other men.” “Wait, what the fuck?!” ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2018, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864/240 "2018-04-27T08:16:14Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > “Also he really hates it when you fuck other men.” Well, he is a jealous god. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-bus-driver-trys-to-convert-students/812864.md?page=13)