# Atheists. Sceptics of all illogical 'arts'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200 "2004-09-13T01:52:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/61 "2004-09-14T12:42:24Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Preposterous. It’s not really an insult unless it’s considered so _by those to whom it is directed_. An atheist might take offense at being called a liberal, and _vice versa_, but I don’t think that’s what you meant. As an atheist, I do not consider the term “atheist” to be insulting. I see what you’re saying…maybe “disparaging” is a more accurate term. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/62 "2004-09-14T12:47:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Then you don’t understand Occam’s Razor. If you say “god did it,” not only does that have to be the simplest explanation, but you have to be able to explain what god is, where god came from, and how god did [thing in question], and all that has to be simpler than the alternatives. I agree. The whole Occam’s Razor thing is the lamest arguement for the existence of got that I’ve ever heard. Anywhere. In that context, you must substitute “lazy” for “simple.” ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/63 "2004-09-14T12:58:38Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Agnostic doesn’t mean “I’m not sure”; it means that the existence of god is unknowable. What makes the existence of God any more unknowable than anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/64 "2004-09-14T13:11:23Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > What makes the existence of God any more unknowable than anything else? As I understand it, by virtue of what god is, i.e., an all-knowing, mystical creator of all things, who’s always been there, but never seen by anyone, etc., etc., and the fact that he oversees an afterlife place, and the fact that there are so many different interpretations of what he is supposed to be, and the fact that you can’t meet him until you’re dead, and that there is no agreement that he even exists…makes it unknowable. He’s not supposed to be “like anything else”. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/65 "2004-09-14T14:06:02Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > As I understand it, by virtue of what god is, i.e., an all-knowing, mystical creator of all things, who’s always been there, but never seen by anyone, etc., etc., and the fact that he oversees an afterlife place, and the fact that there are so many different interpretations of what he is supposed to be, and the fact that you can’t meet him until you’re dead, and that there is no agreement that he even exists…makes it unknowable. He’s not supposed to be “like anything else”. Then anybody could make up any number of things not “like anything else”, and everyone would have to say that the existence of those things is unknowable, not that they don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/66 "2004-09-14T14:22:22Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Then anybody could make up any number of things not “like anything else”, and everyone would have to say that the existence of those things is unknowable, not that they don’t exist. I think the point is that there is a lot of stuff that IS knowable. But a concept as incomprehensible as a super-being, that consciously creates things and controls destinies (or for that matter, one that doesn’t give a damn what we do, but created us anyway), or that created something so long ago that we don’t even know when it happened, is not. Even the people who claim to “know” can’t answer the questions. Hence, the faith thing. If the nature of god is what modern man says it is, we can’t know. And if it isn’t … we still can’t know because we don’t know what it is we don’t know. Or something like that. The easy answer is to say that he doesn’t exist. But I don’t know that. I haven’t seen any proof that he does, and I’m not banking that there is a god, but I’m the last person to think I have the answers on something so friggin’ huge that the entire planet has been pondering it for millions of years. Maybe there is…maybe there isn’t. I doubt god would be a christian, though. I don’t think a true god would be religious in the man-made sense. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/67 "2004-09-14T14:56:14Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > It is whether atheism, as opposed to theism, is arrived at logically. I think that it isn’t. It seems to me that the idea is gotten because the atheist finds theism absurd or insufficiently supported and a leap is made from that to a rejection of it. > > And I haven’t used the absence of evidence to prove anthing’s existence. I don’t see a lot of difference. The fact that no Loch Ness Monster has been found doesn’t prove, all by itself, that there isn’t one although it certainly casts doubt. So do you believe in fire-breathing dragons? After all, there’s as much evidence for them as there is for any God. Or would you agree it is logical not to think dragons exist? How about fairies? Pink Unicorns? Father Xmas on his flying sleigh with reindeer? At what point do you think that having zero evidence of something’s existence does more than ‘cast doubt’ on it? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/68 "2004-09-14T15:16:35Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Look, I’m not arguing that God exists. I am just saying that the position of the atheist is no more based on logic than is that of the theist. > > And explain to me what gravity is, where is comes from and how it does what it does whether that is exerting a force or bending a coordinate system. Also explain how positive electrical charges repel and a positive and a negative attract. I can’t see the logic in your position! We **know** that gravity exists. We **know** what effects it has. We \*\*all agree \*\* on what the position of the bodies in the Solar System will be (see your diary for eclipse details). Our lives run considerably better if we always take gravity into account. All this is logical. I am not a physicist, so won’t attempt an explanation of how it works. But I know gravity exists. That is a supremely logical position. Meanwhile, over to ‘God’: - there are no detectable effects of God - there are innumerable sects, religions and beliefs (Judaism contradicts Christianity; Protestants disagree with Catholics; nobody worships Ra, the Sun God, any more - though they did build some cracking monuments to Him) - there is no discernable difference whether you believe or not Why is it therefore logical to believe in any God? Do you worship Ra? Do you admire his chariot pulling the Sun every morning? **Why not?** ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/69 "2004-09-14T20:03:46Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I do not consider physicalism a tautology. Many (perhaps most) people consider thoughts, maths, dreams, concepts, emotions, morality, logic, beliefs, and qualia to be fundamentally different to atoms, energy and spacetime. I merely consider the universe to be such that you’ll have a hard time convincing me that they are. But isn’t what you’re _really_ saying is that dreams, emotions, morality, etc. (not sure if math belongs in that list) are insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of God? What I’m hearing is not that God couldn’t _theoretically_ exist, but rather that none of the evidence that exists at this time is sufficient to demonstrate it. The difference I see between the “denies God” and “lacks belief in God” definitions is that in the latter, one does not _start_ with the supposition that God cannot exist, but rather _concludes_ that, given the supposed properties ascribed to God, and the way we have observed the universe to behave, that it’s extremely unlikely. It seems to me that you are doing the latter. Can you really not imagine ANY set of events that at least _theoretically_ would cause you to consider the possibility that God exists? > [@](#): > > I’d have trouble conceiving of how an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent intelligence could be _physically **there** _, personally. As for other defintions of God, you can _call_ the universe “God” if you like, but I’d rather consider it to be semantic legerdemain. I have trouble conceiving of how something can be a particle and a wave at the same time, or how a particle can be in 2 places simultaneously, but I am forced to consider the possibility, since there appears to be evidence to suggest it. Given the plethora of things that seemed impossible yesterday that are now known to be quite possible today, I feel that the only reasonable position to take is “never say never”. It doesn’t mean I’m not sure, it’s just a logical distinction between the _starting point_ being “No God” vs. the _conclusion_ being “No God”. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/70 "2004-09-14T22:20:44Z")
> [@glee](#): > > I can’t see the logic in your position! > > We **know** that gravity exists. We **know** what effects it has. We \*\*all agree \*\* on what the position of the bodies in the Solar System will be (see your diary for eclipse details). > Our lives run considerably better if we always take gravity into account. > All this is logical. > I am not a physicist, so won’t attempt an explanation of how it works. > But I know gravity exists. That is a supremely logical position. You apparently missed the fact that my asking for an explanation of the origin and just exactly how gravity works was in responce to a demand by **Podkayne** that the explanation “God did it” be followed up by a detailed account of where God originated and how He did what was claimed. If that can be required then I can surely require the same thing when it is said that gravity exerts a force. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, over to ‘God’: > > - there are no detectable effects of God > - there are innumerable sects, religions and beliefs (Judaism contradicts Christianity; Protestants disagree with Catholics; nobody worships Ra, the Sun God, any more - though they did build some cracking monuments to Him) > - there is no discernable difference whether you believe or not > > Why is it therefore logical to believe in any God? > Do you worship Ra? Do you admire his chariot pulling the Sun every morning? **Why not?** Glee, you have singlehandedly destroyed my belief in an England filled with even tempered and urbane inhabitants. But back to the subject. So far the only example of logic has been that if there is insufficient evidence it is “logical” to question God’s existence. However whether or not evidence is sufficient is largely emotional. Those who believe in God look at the same evidence in nature and are convinced by it of the exact opposite conclusion from that of the atheist, by any definition. I would like to add that > [@blowero](#): > > > [@David Simmons](#): > > > > I guess it boils down to definitions. Atheist - one who denies the existence of God. I think that such a denial can’t come from logic. > > That’s really a poor definition for the word. I understand that you have found a dictionary that uses such a definition, … Actually the definition I used was from both the OED and the Merriam-Webster _International._ I believe that is the most casual dismissal of two respected references that I’ve seen to date. And of course it has been said here over and over that the word atheist has meanings ranging all the way from a Christian who has an occasional doubt to the hard core who says absolutely no God or even such a possibility and therefore using a definition is no good. And yet when it is suggested that the word “agnostic” might describe many of them better a strictly unchangeable definition of _that_ word was given back by **Kalhoun.** Yes, atheist does have a lot of different meanings and that’s a bad thing. With too many meanings words lose their meaning and have to be surrounded by all sorts of “context” to convery the exact shade of meaning intended. If the word needs to be explained by a half page of “context” then why not throw away the word and just use the “context,” sort of like stone soup? I would like to add that I consider it patronizing to tell me that dictionary definitions don’t end all discussion but are only the dictionary editors’ take on the common usage. No one has yet given and example and started from a premise and arrived at atheism. However, most of you have agreed among youselves that you are supremely logical while those others are ruled by fantasy, folklore, and emotion. As I have said over and over, I think the probability is nearly zero of a diety as described by the Bible but that is not based on any formal logic any more than is the belief of the most fundamental Biblical literalist. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/71 "2004-09-14T22:27:51Z")
> [@lel](#): > > I would suggest that you poll atheists about such things, as beliefs of atheists do tend to be varied, aside from their lack of belief in a deity. > > Certainly there are many atheists who do not engage in buddhist practices nor mental alteration, myself included. If someone finds such things beneficial I find it all the better for them, but I personally do not derive benefit from such. They may not share Buddhist’s beliefs, but they may Buddhist practices: meditation, diet, comtemplation of koan, etc. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/72 "2004-09-14T22:28:11Z")
> [@lel](#): > > I would suggest that you poll atheists about such things, as beliefs of atheists do tend to be varied, aside from their lack of belief in a deity. > > Certainly there are many atheists who do not engage in buddhist practices nor mental alteration, myself included. If someone finds such things beneficial I find it all the better for them, but I personally do not derive benefit from such. They may not share Buddhist’s beliefs, but they may share Buddhist practices: meditation, diet, comtemplation of koan, etc. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/73 "2004-09-15T08:11:30Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Actually the definition I used was from both the OED and the Merriam-Webster _International._ I believe that is the most casual dismissal of two respected references that I’ve seen to date. I must say that’s a rather obtuse response. I made it quite clear that while I conceded that such a definition _does_ appear in a dictionary, that I nevertheless believe it to be a poor one. The Oxford Dictionary is _also_ a respected reference, yet it has a different definition. And GorillaMan already pointed out that the Cambridge Dictionary does as well. So your _argument from authority_ doesn’t really hold much traction. If “respected” sources can disagree, then it’s quite obvious that being a respected source cannot be the only consideration. You seem to want to play some bizarre game of “I’ve got more dictionaries with my definition than you do with yours”, which is a fruitless pursuit. And I assure you that my dislike of your preferred definition is anything but casual. > [@](#): > > And of course it has been said here over and over that the word atheist has meanings ranging all the way from a Christian who has an occasional doubt to the hard core who says absolutely no God or even such a possibility and therefore using a definition is no good. 😕 Um, YOU are the one who first hit us with the definition game. > [@](#): > > And yet when it is suggested that the word “agnostic” might describe many of them better a strictly unchangeable definition of _that_ word was given back by **Kalhoun.** I have no problem with definitions; I just prefer _useful_ ones over confusing ones. The word “agnostic” is a poor substitute for “atheist”, since “agnostic” already _has_ it’s own meaning. That would be like saying, “From now on, I’ll call a chair a ‘door’”. Problem is, there’s _already_ a thing called a “door”. “Agnostic” doesn’t describe what I am, either in the strict sense or the common sense. I do not believe that God is intrinsically unknowable, nor am I undecided. > [@](#): > > Yes, atheist does have a lot of different meanings and that’s a bad thing. As far as I’m concerned, it only has ONE meaning: “One who does not believe in god(s).” It’s clear, unambiguous, and concise. To the extent that you are trying to ascribe other meanings to it, you’re just confusing the issue. > [@](#): > > With too many meanings words lose their meaning and have to be surrounded by all sorts of “context” to convery the exact shade of meaning intended. If the word needs to be explained by a half page of “context” then why not throw away the word and just use the “context,” sort of like stone soup? Why not just use the definition I have suggested, and avoid the whole problem? > [@](#): > > I would like to add that I consider it patronizing to tell me that dictionary definitions don’t end all discussion but are only the dictionary editors’ take on the common usage. Well, I consider _you_ patronizing, so I guess we’re even. > [@](#): > > No one has yet given and example and started from a premise and arrived at atheism. However, most of you have agreed among youselves that you are supremely logical while those others are ruled by fantasy, folklore, and emotion. Oh, really. _Most_ of us agreed on that, huh?:rolleyes: Do you mind? I’m allergic to straw. > [@](#): > > As I have said over and over, I think the probability is nearly zero of a diety as described by the Bible but that is not based on any formal logic any more than is the belief of the most fundamental Biblical literalist. Well you’re right about that. I don’t believe God can be disproved by formal logic, at least not as long as the definition of “God” is allowed to remain nebulous. Occam’s Razor is a _heuristic_, not a logical proof. It is however, eminently reasonable and practical. Rather than believe _every_ one of the infinite number of conceivable ideas (Santa Claus, IPU, Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, etc.), I choose to withhold judgment pending any reasonable evidence showing up. Not a logical proof, just the only rational, non-chaotic way to exist. And I’m not saying that theists are irrational or chaotic; just that they either aren’t applying the Razor in this one particular instance, OR they simply disagree with me as to what the evidence shows. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/74 "2004-09-15T08:24:46Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Now, with “modern physics”, you hear stuff like “The universe always existed”, That’s not so at all. The idea that the universe has always existed went out of fashion decades ago. According to the most recent data, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. > [@](#): > > “The Big Bang came out of nothing”, I don’t fully understand how it all works - well, nobody does, but they’re working on it - but the material that was Banged had to come from somewhere and I think an explanation is forthcoming, even if I’m not a physicist. If I remember right, matter pretty much can come out of nowhere if the right conditions are met, usually in incredibly small amounts. > [@](#): > > “You can’t ask questions like ‘what caused the Big Bang’, because they have no meaning”, and it bothers me. That’s wrong. The question “what existed before the Big Bang?” is the meaningless one. That’s because there is no ‘before the Big Bang.’ Space and time are the same thing, so there was no time before the Big Bang because the universe didn’t exist. There is no ‘negative time.’ ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/75 "2004-09-15T09:01:47Z")
**blow** : > [@](#): > > But isn’t what you’re really saying is that dreams, emotions, morality, etc. (not sure if math belongs in that list) are insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of God? I’m really _really_ saying that I find the physical explanation more convincing than the non-physical or divine one, especially since this avoid an Ockam-slashing. [/quote] What I’m hearing is not that God couldn’t theoretically exist, but rather that none of the evidence that exists at this time is sufficient to demonstrate it. The difference I see between the “denies God” and “lacks belief in God” definitions is that in the latter, one does not start with the supposition that God cannot exist, but rather concludes that, given the supposed properties ascribed to God, and the way we have observed the universe to behave, that it’s extremely unlikely. It seems to me that you are doing the latter. [/quote] That, to me, sounds like ascribing “default” status to physicalism or atheism. There is no _a priori_ worldview, IMO. We wake up on this wonderful prison and pick an explanation for it, that’s all. All of the attempts I have ever seen to paint a particular philosophy as ‘standard’ quickly drown in a metaphysical quagmire, IMO. > [@](#): > > Can you really not imagine ANY set of events that at least theoretically would cause you to consider the possibility that God exists? I have alread said that I consider the _possibility_. I can simply not conceive of events which would move my belief-o-meter needle into the _affirmative_. > [@](#): > > I have trouble conceiving of how something can be a particle and a wave at the same time, or how a particle can be in 2 places simultaneously, but I am forced to consider the possibility, since there appears to be evidence to suggest it. Given the plethora of things that seemed impossible yesterday that are now known to be quite possible today, I feel that the only reasonable position to take is “never say never”. Agreed, of course - see my twice repeated quote to **Polerius** admitting the possibility that God _does_ exist physically. It is simply extremely small in my mind, especially since most definitions of God are that His nature is _not_ physical. [/quote] It doesn’t mean I’m not sure, it’s just a logical distinction between the starting point being “No God” vs. the conclusion being “No God”. [/quote] Like I said, I’m wary of these “starting points” since it appears that _any_ evidence can be used in support of _any_ starting point, there being no evidence which _distinguishes_ true “starting points” from false. We wake on our prison and must give each explanation our full consideration. I am satisfied with mine - what more can one be? **Marley** > [@](#): > > The idea that the universe has always existed went out of fashion decades ago. According to the most recent data, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. And that 13.7 billion years might well _be_ “[always](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203743)”. I’d say it was now back _in_ fashion, actually. What _is_ out of fashion is the idea that the universe _did not exist_ at some point and that there was a “something from nothing” event. > [@](#): > > Space and time are the same thing, so there was no time before the Big Bang because the universe didn’t exist. So it makes sense to say that the universe exists over all time, _ie._ it has _always_ existed. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/76 "2004-09-15T09:09:40Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And that 13.7 billion years might well _be_ “[always](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203743)”. > > I’d say it was now back _in_ fashion, actually. What _is_ out of fashion is the idea that the universe _did not exist_ at some point and that there was a “something from nothing” event. > So it makes sense to say that the universe exists over all time, _ie._ it has _always_ existed. Yes, you’re right. And I almost put in a sentence or two to that effect, and I can see how maybe **Polerius** was confused by that. I took him to mean (like you did) that the universe existed a billion years ago, 100 billion years ago, 100 trillion years ago, etc., but there was nothing in it until later. In other words, a Steady State universe with a Big Bang inside it. It’s sort of the same as “What did the Big Bang happen in?” or “What was there before the Big Bang?” You can’t just answer the question, you have to explain some things. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/77 "2004-09-15T14:05:51Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > You apparently missed the fact that my asking for an explanation of the origin and just exactly how gravity works was in responce to a demand by Podkayne that the explanation “God did it” be followed up by a detailed account of where God originated and how He did what was claimed. If that can be required then I can surely require the same thing when it is said that gravity exerts a force. Yes, I didn’t realise you were responding to Podkayne. But can’t you see the difference between gravity and God? We have extensive evidence of gravity and make successful predictions based on our understanding of it. It’s a force which always acts in the same predictable way. By contrast, there is no evidence of any God. > [@glee](#): > > Meanwhile, over to ‘God’: > > - there are no detectable effects of God > - there are innumerable sects, religions and beliefs (Judaism contradicts Christianity; Protestants disagree with Catholics; nobody worships Ra, the Sun God, any more - though they did build some cracking monuments to Him) > - there is no discernable difference whether you believe or not > > Why is it therefore logical to believe in any God? > Do you worship Ra? Do you admire his chariot pulling the Sun every morning? Why not? > [@David Simmons](#): > > Glee, you have singlehandedly destroyed my belief in an England filled with even tempered and urbane inhabitants. Oh, we have people as rude as you! We also have creationists, the BNP and violent criminals. \*\*Of course \*\* I am not comparing you to any of those categories, merely instantly proving that one of your beliefs is false. Why on earth does the above post offend you so much? My questions were perfectly serious. What is there that you **don’t** believe in? What is the logic that you use to believe in something? And I am staggered by the use of your phrase ‘it is said that gravity exerts a force’. Do you not fully accept gravitational effects? ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200/78 "2004-09-18T15:47:42Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > (Incidentally, **Lobsang** , have you ever drunk in The Heron? It was featured on ‘Britain’s Hardest Pubs’ last night.) Ha, I was going to reply saying I don’t quite live in Britain. But last night I saw the show. (For those out of the loop. the Heron is in the Isle of Man) I would probably get beat up, not being Manx. 😃 Strange how they hate non-manx, but they like the English footy team Liverpool FC. Did you see the toddler finishing someone’s pint? (Or maybe it was her own :eek: ) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sceptics-of-all-illogical-arts/264200.md?page=3)