# Attention: Atheists. You do not "Know the Truth". **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 22, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708 "2009-10-22T03:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/181 "2009-10-23T14:07:51Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Sorry, I was replying only to words 8 and 9, but was too lazy to trim down the quote box. It was hard to know what you meant with just two words completely out of context. If you’re not going to conduct yourself with intellectual honesty, then there’s no point for us to continue. I like snark, but you’ve jumped to being a jerk just for the sake of being a jerk at this point. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/182 "2009-10-23T14:16:15Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I don’t know why you insist on point 3. As others have pointed out there is no proof, thus no reason to think that such a thing ever existed. I hate to keep using science as an analogy, as it leads to the confusion of trying to apply the scientific method where it doesn’t work, but plenty of things exist which have not been proven. Plenty of things exist that haven’t even been conceived of. Was Democritus an irrational fruitcake for his atomic theory? There was no evidence. It wasn’t falsifiable by the methods of the time, and there was no reason, then, to think that it necessarily ever would be. It was a creative, intuitive leap. Doesn’t make it irrational. Doesn’t make the people who believed he was wrong irrational, either. It was a useless, intellectual idea that was interesting to explore. Meaningless. What I object to isn’t people who say “God doesn’t exist.” It’s people who say “I am absolutely certain there is no God and anyone who believes in one is an idiot.” It’s not the position that’s the problem, it’s the certitude. ---
**Author:** ![rivulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rivulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rivulus)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/183 "2009-10-23T14:18:25Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > I don’t think this is necessarily true; humans are pattern-matching. We want the world to make sense. However, the world doesn’t make easy sense. Sometimes it doesn’t make easy sense in a way that science can explain, which is most of the time, but sometimes it doesn’t make easy sense in a non-scientifically-testable way. The problem with some religious beliefs is that it makes life _more_ confusing, rather than less. Back to the question: “Why do bad things happen to good people?” If you posit a god that is compassionate, or even gives a shit, then you create an extra layer of confusion. Why doesn’t a compassionate god spare the good person? That can lead to a lot of inner conflict and agony during hard times. Who the hell needs that extra burden? On the other hand, if you don’t posit a god at all, and just come to grips with the fact that a lot of things in life are random or uncontrollable by humankind, then it becomes perfectly clear that things will happen (that we conceptualize as “bad”) to people (who we conceptualize as “good”). Bad stuff hurts, and you have to deal with it, but at least the atheist doesn’t _also_ have to wrestle with the extra layer of cognitive dissonance surrounding an almighty, compassionate god vs. bad things happening to good people. ---
**Author:** ![SecondJudith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@SecondJudith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecondJudith)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/184 "2009-10-23T14:24:46Z")
> [@rivulus](#): > > The problem with some religious beliefs is that it makes life _more_ confusing, rather than less. > > Back to the question: “Why do bad things happen to good people?” If you posit a god that is compassionate, or even gives a shit, then you create an extra layer of confusion. I agree, which is why I’m not talking about the merits of specific religious creeds (for those religions that have a creed). I will say that your last paragraph describes the outlook of nearly every practicing religious person I know. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/185 "2009-10-23T14:30:39Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Was Democritus an irrational fruitcake for his atomic theory? There was no evidence. Did the atoms in his theory expect us to worship them and follow the rules they set forth? Unlikely. > [@](#): > > What I object to isn’t people who say “God doesn’t exist.” It’s people who say “I am absolutely certain there is no God and anyone who believes in one is an idiot.” It’s not the position that’s the problem, it’s the certitude. I can’t prove that there isn’t a god. I can’t prove that there aren’t pixies. But the people who believe in pixies aren’t saying I’m going to hell because I don’t believe in them. They aren’t trying to get pixie prayers into our schools (not that I’m aware of, in any case). If you want to say that the debate is moot because we can’t prove it either way then okay. But there is more to this than just a debate. People base their lives on something unprovable. More importantly they affect the lives of others, in many cases negatively, because they believe in things that there is no proof of. So, it comes down to this. If you want to have a discussion about the existence of god and leave it at that then no one gets hurt. But if you want us to do something because of a particular belief, then it is imperative that you prove that what you are basing your beliefs upon is real. I think this is what a lot of atheists get their underwear in a knot over. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/186 "2009-10-23T14:32:47Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > I will say that your last paragraph describes the outlook of nearly every practicing religious person I know. Well, there are folks who believe (or claim to believe) that “everything happens for a reason.” But as far as I know, no major religion (with the possible exception of Calvinism) teaches that God micromanages everything and controls every last detail of what happens in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/187 "2009-10-23T14:36:54Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I don’t know how to be any clearer than the post with the numbered list. There are three positions. Two of them involve having come to actual conclusions about the existence of god, and one of them doesn’t. > > “A god exists.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. > > “No gods exist.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. > > “There’s no way to analyze the existence of a generic, invisible, omnipotent supreme being, and it’s irrelevant to try.” - No conclusion. Best position. The problem is that you’re taking that last position – which, I agree, is the most reasonable one to hold – to imply that things could go either way. That’s simply not a stance from which you can argue in any meaningful way, since then, everything could go either way, and it is impossible to call any position more reasonable than any other position. You may want to submit to an epistemology in which Holocaust denial is just as good a position as the historical facts are, or in which evolution stands on par with last Thursdayism as an explanation for the complexity of nature; to me, this is nothing but intellectual defeatism, and hence, since the only way (that I know of, at any rate) to guarantee reasonableness (not correctness, mind!) is to minimize your explanatory entities, disbelief – lack of belief – in anything not in evidence, anything not necessarily required to explain the observational facts, is the default position to take. > [@](#): > > These latter points aren’t really of interest to me, nor are they on point to this discussion, I think. Though that’s Oakminster’s call. As for the ‘generic god’, I don’t think that’s a very meaningful concept to talk about – how would you define such a thing? The moment you give it properties is the moment it ceases to be generic, and talking about property-less entities is meaningless. Moreover, you can’t even believe in a generic god – think about two tribes, A and B. If the generic god is defined such as to be a platonic ideal of godhood itself – perhaps the elephant those blind men were feeling up --, let tribe A believe in this generic god. But then, tribe B, which has been at war with tribe A since time immemorial (last Thursday), explicitly declare their god to be not the god that tribe A worships – surely, as valid a belief as any. But then, how could tribe A’s god be the generic god, if there exists a god that’s just as worshipable, yet completely different from it? If there existed such a generic ideal, then all specific gods ought to have some relation to this ideal – just like all specific chairs have some relation to the platonic ideal of a chair. But, contrary to chairs, gods don’t lend themselves to idealization – once you try to draw up a generic one, you immediately get the recipe by which to create something that is just as godly, yet bears no relation to the generic god, who, then, obviously isn’t generic. ---
**Author:** ![Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/46a35a/32.png) [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walker_in_Eternity)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/188 "2009-10-23T14:57:36Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > N > > Neither is the atheist. There’s no evidence to examine. Also not true. There may not be any way of catagorically disproving the existence of gods, but there is plenty of evidence showing that there is no need for any god to be involved in the creation of the universe and its evolution. This combined with Occam’s Razor can be used to demonstrate that: If god is not necessary for the universe to exist, then that is one entity too many and therefore we can assume the non existence of that entity until proven otherwise. Furthermore, lack of belief in god(s) is falsifiable, if they exist they could, in theory, appear to the whole human race and let us know. The fact that they don’t and haven’t, combined with the fact that god is not necessary for the creation of the universe is evidence enough for me. I can’t be 100% sure I’m right, but I’ll stick at 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% certainty of the non existence of any deity. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/189 "2009-10-23T15:22:24Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Sorry, what straw man are you trying to address here? Did anyone say “If anyone has any irrational beliefs, then they must be dangerously irrational in all ways!”? Or what? Clue me in to the argument you’re responding to. The same argument I started the thread with–ie, Atheists do not “Know the Truth”. Atheists have reached one conclusion. Theists have reached another. Either position could be correct. Atheists are not superior to theists by virtue of their non-belief. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/190 "2009-10-23T15:26:34Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Atheists are not superior to theists by virtue of their non-belief. As has already been pointed out, the reverse is true. It’s because they are superior that they are atheists. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/191 "2009-10-23T15:27:52Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The same argument I started the thread with–ie, Atheists do not “Know the Truth”. Atheists have reached one conclusion. Theists have reached another. Either position could be correct. Atheists are not superior to theists by virtue of their non-belief. No. Yet more false equivalency. There being no evidence on which to base a theistic belief. It’s just that - a belief - most likely inherited unquestioned at an early age. It is exactly the same as claiming equivalency for non-belief and belief in fairies. The process of reaching conclusions require evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/192 "2009-10-23T15:40:10Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > How fortunate we’re not talking about any of those. You said that “[if] a supreme being exists, it’s beyond the capabilities of the scientific method.” I pointed out that no, there is an infinite number of possible supreme beings that would be provable–so isn’t it convenient that none of the ones people currently believe in are that type, or that all of the ones that people say are provable don’t hold up when tested… > [@SecondJudith](#): > > More broadly, I think customs like sitting shiva, holding a wake and/or having funerals are a helpful way to grieve in a healing way (feeling better in time) instead of a harmful way (falling into depression). These traditions may have originated in religions, but they do not require religions, nor is religious belief required to gain comfort from them. Last week, I attended around eight hours of services for my great-aunt, from a wake to a memorial service to a funeral Mass. Gathering with other people to share stories of her life and how she touched us was incredibly moving and helpful for processing the grief, and it was in no way dimished by my being an atheist. > [@Mindfield](#): > > Religion is a coping mechanism. This is exactly the kind of thing that Marx was talking about when he called religion the opiate of the masses. Many people think he meant dangerous, destructive, addictive… but IMO, his point was that religion dulls the pain of life. So, it’s a good thing in the sense that it makes people’s lives tolerable, but that also makes it dangerous, because it’s treating a symptom instead of curing it–with religion, people don’t need to fix the social problems that are causing them anguish in life, because God will make everything right after they die. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/193 "2009-10-23T15:55:27Z")
OK, let’s come at this from another direction. Assume, for the purpose of argument, that I’m a reasonable man. I see the natural world all around me. I know, from practical experience, that I can combine things found in the natural world through various means to create things that are not found in the natural world, such as a loaf of bread. It occurs to me that a similar process, carried out on a cosmic scale, may have resulted in what I perceive to be the natural world. I do not know if, in fact, this is true. By the same token, I do not know that it is false. Given those two options, I pick one to believe. Doesn’t matter which I pick. The other option remains possible. Me picking one or the other does not make me superior intellectually, morally, or any other way to those that pick the opposite option. Some will agree with my choice, some will disagree. Rational minds can reach different conclusions from the same observations. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/194 "2009-10-23T15:56:20Z")
**CandidGamera** I am truly puzzled about your position. What is this “god” that you think may exist? What are it’s properties? Are just saying that something exists that we know nothing about, that we may not be able to know anything about, that does not interact with our universe, and that is not detectable in any way? Is this what you want to spend your time thinking and arguing about? Your argument seems to be that it is OK to believe that a specific god does not exist, but that it is arrogant to not believe in a god that can not be characterized in any way. In a sense, you have offered nothing to believe or disbelieve. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/195 "2009-10-23T16:01:49Z")
> [@rivulus](#): > > The problem with some religious beliefs is that it makes life _more_ confusing, rather than less. > > Back to the question: “Why do bad things happen to good people?” If you posit a god that is compassionate, or even gives a shit, then you create an extra layer of confusion. Why doesn’t a compassionate god spare the good person? That can lead to a lot of inner conflict and agony during hard times. Who the hell needs that extra burden? > > On the other hand, if you don’t posit a god at all, and just come to grips with the fact that a lot of things in life are random or uncontrollable by humankind, then it becomes perfectly clear that things will happen (that we conceptualize as “bad”) to people (who we conceptualize as “good”). Bad stuff hurts, and you have to deal with it, but at least the atheist doesn’t _also_ have to wrestle with the extra layer of cognitive dissonance surrounding an almighty, compassionate god vs. bad things happening to good people. That was exactly my thought process when I stopped believing in god. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/196 "2009-10-23T16:22:01Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Your position only makes a skerrick of sense if you shift the goalposts so that we are not engaging in a practical debate but rather indulging in a sophomoric gabfest about theoretical irrelevancies. I generally avoid these kinds of threads, but I found this comment interesting. I surely agree the existence or non-existence of a god is a “theoretical irrelevancy” to many, many atheists. But, to me, it isn’t. To me, believing in a god isn’t an irrelevancy, it’s an important part of my, and a great many others’, life. But I fully accept I cannot prove the existence of a god. The problem I have with the very few atheists I have problems with, is not their lack of belief, it’s their being a dick about it. It’s the apparent need, in those few, to denigrate theists. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/197 "2009-10-23T16:24:26Z")
The need is justified. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/198 "2009-10-23T16:26:53Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The same argument I started the thread with–ie, Atheists do not “Know the Truth”. Atheists have reached one conclusion. Theists have reached another. Either position could be correct. Atheists are not superior to theists by virtue of their non-belief. But this argument can be applied to ANY belief, no matter how ridiculous. Say I meet someone who believes that elves live on the moon. It’s impossible for me to prove absolutely that he is wrong, because there is always some sort of speculative ad hoc explanation that be thrown out to explain the lack of evidence of their existence: “How do they survive without oxygen?” Maybe elves don’t need to breathe! “Why didn’t Neil Armstrong see them?” Maybe elves hide around humans! “Why can’t we see them through telescopes?” Maybe they’re very small and gray so they’re hard to spot! And on and on. So, by your standards, making a statement like “There are no elves on the moon” is foolish and arrogant. Since we can’t say with _absolute certainty_ there are no elves on the moon, the elf and no-elf positions are both equally valid and neither is superior to the other. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/199 "2009-10-23T16:30:47Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > But I fully accept I cannot prove the existence of a god. The problem I have with the very few atheists I have problems with, is not their lack of belief, it’s their being a dick about it. It’s the apparent need, in those few, to denigrate theists. I think you’ll find the vast majority of those atheist dicks become so only because theists like to create and promote legislation that is useless or even actively harmful based on their beliefs. In a vacuum, I have no problem at all with everyone believing Jesus Christ is the son of God or that Ahriman is out to get us, or whatever, but belief cannot be considered in a vacuum, only in its effect. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/200 "2009-10-23T16:32:37Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > So, by your standards, making a statement like “There are no elves on the moon” is foolish and arrogant. Since we can’t say with _absolute certainty_ there are no elves on the moon, the elf and no-elf positions are both equally valid and neither is superior to the other. No, it isn’t. We have actually been to the moon. Several times. We found no elves there. Didn’t find anything else alive there either. Didn’t find an environment conducive to life as we know it. Therefore, we are justified in concluding that there are no elves on the moon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708.md?page=11)