# Best Responses to New Atheists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682 "2010-10-01T02:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/221 "2010-10-04T21:59:22Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > Many Muslims believe that apostates from Islam should be killed, and many Muslim states provide such a punishment in their laws. Can you imagine the outcry if atheists threatened any amount of force or violence against an atheist who decides he now believes in God? > > Mohammed received the mandate to fight until the entire world had submitted to Islam and worship was for Allah alone. Can you imagine the outcry if an atheist association declared they had a similar mandate? I think we have already established that none of this counts. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/222 "2010-10-04T23:13:29Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > You can prove I exist the same way you prove anything else exists: by identifying the experimental feedback that you would expect if I do exist, and find out if that feedback occurs. In this case, you post something on the internet that I would find offensively ignorant, and the feedback is someone using my username responding to your post. > > All philosophy is good for is constructing stupid, incorrect excuses for why that evidence doesn’t count. **Diogenes** , and presumably you, would dismiss every endeavor of the human mind besides science as worthless, and _I’m_ ignorant? > [@](#): > > Philosophy does have a place in answering such a question. Religion does not. All religion amounts to is claiming X is moral or immoral because a fictional character (“God”) says so. You just contradicted your previous sentence. > [@](#): > > The default position is to assume the evidence available to you is equally valid elsewhere, until you find evidence to the contrary. It’s up to you to prove that the universe doesn’t follow the same laws everywhere as it does here. Why? Occam’s Razor isn’t a law of logic; it’s an unproven assumption you (and I) make to keep our head from exploding with frustration. And _why_ does it follow laws? > [@Der Trihs](#): > > \> 1) Prove you exist. Define “exist.” > > All I need to do is walk up to someone and poke them to “prove they exist”, as far as anything outside mathematics gets proven. You and [Samuel Johnson](http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html), huh? Existence isn’t always intuitively obvious. When theists have said here that they believe in God because they have perceived Him, at least a few atheists have come back with, “You imagined it.” “It was disordered brain chemicals,” which both can’t be refuted, and can be used to disprove anything. > [@](#): > > Science has quite a bit to say about psychology and the origin of morality actually. Explaining the origin of a belief isn’t the same as proving it. Usually people explain the origin of a belief in an attempt to dismiss it: “You deny God because you want to be free of pesky morality.” “Well, you _believe_ in God because your afraid to admit there’s no Sky-Daddy who’ll catch you if you fall.” > [@](#): > > As for why murder is wrong; it’s because we don’t want to be murdered. So we should adopt a [superrational game strategy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dillema#Douglas_Hofstadter.27s_Superrationality), and be good. That explains why we should be nice to useful, powerful people who live nearby. It doesn’t explain why I should worry about the third-world guy whose ancestral farm sits over the petroleum reserves I need to power my precious wide-screen TV with robotic snack tray. What’s he going to do to me? Obviously, he’s an Untermensch. Maybe game theory can be expanded to cover all of morality, someday. But at this point, I can’t say it’s scientifically proven that good always wins in the end, and evil is self defeating. I think this kind of reasoning is on the border of math and philosophy, anyway. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by coffeecat View Post > 3) Explain why the universe should be governed by regular, mathematical laws. > Because we wouldn’t be here to comment on the matter if it wasn’t. We’d still be here if Jeanie brought us all into being by wiggling her nose, and we might even have structurally-sound back suspension, a beak instead of decaying teeth, and male genitals placed sensibly in a steel vault rather than a funny-looking sack. If I spend time crafting responses to later posts, I’ll starve and my house will overflow with garbage. The best response to New Atheists? If “new=proselytizing and dogmatic,” I’ve never met such a thing IRL, just on the net, and once on the radio. The best response to atheists I’ve met has been to offer them something to drink, talk about their kids, or their dog, or stamp collecting, or any of the many things in the world besides religion. At the moment, I think the best response to a dogmatic Atheist/Christian/Zoroastrian/Greenpeace member, is to volunteer on a neurology ward full of conduction aphasia patients till you can talk forever about nothing, and as soon as your Guardian of Absolute Truth offers to share, to insist that he is doomed to eternal horror unless he breathes deep of the Sacred Yoni of Shamat and drinks the Semen of Peth. Offer to help. Start to become skyclad. But I may calm down later. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/223 "2010-10-04T23:17:33Z")
Ever notice how religious debates almost always come down to this sort of philosophy 101 masturbation with silly YOU CAN’T KNOW ANYTHING NOW CAN YOU!!! arguments? It should be a law or something. SenorBeef’s law. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/224 "2010-10-04T23:27:12Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@sisu](#): > > > > Not all can be explained by science. > > It’s not like science explains some things, and religion explains some other things. > > It’s like science explains some things, and religion makes up random crap about other things. > > Making up random crap is not “explaining”. Explain Why we are here? Science cannot explain this and IMHO probably never will. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/225 "2010-10-04T23:28:25Z")
Yes, because not everything has a philosophical reason. Shit happens. This is not only expected, but absolutely central to an existance where there’s no magic. That’s one of the big issues at stake here - some people cannot cognitively handle the idea that every action and everything that exists does not have some plan, some purpose. The way everyone says “everything happens for a reason” is a clear indicator of this mental weakness. The universe is chaotic, unfair, and has no intentional purpose. There’s no magic in the world. I know this sucks. I’m sorry. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/226 "2010-10-04T23:35:54Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > > It’s not like science explains some things, and religion explains some other things. > > > > It’s like science explains some things, and religion makes up random crap about other things. > > > > Making up random crap is not “explaining”. > > Explain Why we are here? > > Science cannot explain this and IMHO probably never will. We’re here because our parents did the nasty. Oh you meant a _different_ “why”? Like, “what is our purpose”? Perhaps you could define “purpose” for me first… ---
**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:** [October 5, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/227 "2010-10-05T00:00:27Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > > It’s not like science explains some things, and religion explains some other things. > > > > It’s like science explains some things, and religion makes up random crap about other things. > > > > Making up random crap is not “explaining”. > > Explain Why we are here? > > Science cannot explain this and IMHO probably never will. I am here because a train designed through science transported me to a bus stop, where a bus engineered via science took me to a home designed and built using science, where I turned on this computer yada yada yada. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/228 "2010-10-05T00:23:11Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > And if it’s false, you just don’t care? Or is that an objection only to non-religious ideas? If it is proven as false then I am happy to accept that. I am a scientist who uses ruthless logic but I am not blind to the inexplicable. I do not say “Because Science can’t prove it it must be crap”. Logic is a critical element in our society but you cannot use it to explain everything maybe some things are beyond our little brains. I would never be so arrogant to say that I know everything. > [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](#): > > I don’t get the OP. Is this a look for a rebuttal or something? If so there is none. Faith is, by definition, without proof. You can just say “I choose to have faith.” No you can’t. Faith is not a logic based condition, by saying you have faith you are like a kid saying he is sorry for pushing his sister. Only he knows if he is truly sorry. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/229 "2010-10-05T00:26:45Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > Why is it that Christians “witness” or “preach the word” or “share their faith”, but atheists who speak up are “pushing their views on other people”? Both are wrong IMO. Please advertise your beliefs someway but let me come to you to ask more and understand. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/230 "2010-10-05T00:30:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Oh you meant a _different_ “why”? Like, “what is our purpose”? Perhaps you could define “purpose” for me first… Nup cannot define purpose, would never try. And I don’t believe that some super man is responsible for it all as well. religion is flawed and always will be. Look to the mystics within religions, they are the ones that are closer to God, whatever that is. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/231 "2010-10-05T00:30:45Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > > It’s not like science explains some things, and religion explains some other things. > > > > It’s like science explains some things, and religion makes up random crap about other things. > > > > Making up random crap is not “explaining”. > > Explain Why we are here? > > Science cannot explain this and IMHO probably never will. Why are you assuming there has to be a “why?” We have no reason to believe that we are here for any reason at all. If there is a reason (and there almost certainly is not), then there’s no reason that science can’t discover it. One thing is for sure, religion can’t give us any information about it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/232 "2010-10-05T00:36:49Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > Oh you meant a _different_ “why”? Like, “what is our purpose”? Perhaps you could define “purpose” for me first… > > Nup cannot define purpose, would never try. And I don’t believe that some super man is responsible for it all as well. religion is flawed and always will be. Look to the mystics within religions, they are the ones that are closer to God, whatever that is. As someone who was once an intense student of mysticism and its various methodology (much of which I experimented with first hand), I came to the conclusion (supported by scientific evidence) that mystic states of mind are just altered brain chemistry which can be fun, which can give some insights into the nature of consciousness and thought patterns, and which can imbue the subject with a false sense of profundity but which do not actually convey any useful information about the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/233 "2010-10-05T00:42:28Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Ever notice how religious debates almost always come down to this sort of philosophy 101 masturbation with silly YOU CAN’T KNOW ANYTHING NOW CAN YOU!!! arguments? It should be a law or something. SenorBeef’s law. I think there should be a word for this too. It’s kind of a straw clutching attempt at epistemological equivocation, or a half-assed appeal to Cartesian doubt. It’s almost solopsistic in its philosophical emptiness and total lack of persuasion to anything. It’s like they know they can’t play on an even playing field, so they try to deny that the playing field exists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/234 "2010-10-05T00:48:18Z")
> [@Coffeecat](#): > > Diogenes, and presumably you, would dismiss every endeavor of the human mind besides science as worthless, and I’m ignorant? Who said “worthless?” I just said no other method but science is useful for _discovering information_. If you are aware of another method for _discovering information_, please tell me what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/235 "2010-10-05T01:09:36Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > **Diogenes** , and presumably you, would dismiss every endeavor of the human mind besides science as worthless, and _I’m_ ignorant? No, only the ones that amount to childish mental masturbation, like solipsism. > [@](#): > > You just contradicted your previous sentence. No I didn’t. Learn to read for context. The question of whether something exists is answerable by science, and science alone. Questions of value are a different matter. > [@](#): > > Why? Occam’s Razor isn’t a law of logic; it’s an unproven assumption you (and I) make to keep our head from exploding with frustration. And _why_ does it follow laws? It follows the laws of reality over there for the same reason it follows the laws of reality over here. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/236 "2010-10-05T01:35:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why are you assuming there has to be a “why?” We have no reason to believe that we are here for any reason at all. If there is a reason (and there almost certainly is not), then there’s no reason that science can’t discover it. One thing is for sure, religion can’t give us any information about it. Why are you assuming there is not? Why do you assume science can explain everything there is? Why do you assume that religous study is not capable of providing answers? You assume a lot of which you do not know. ---
**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:** [October 5, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/237 "2010-10-05T01:42:57Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Why are you assuming there has to be a “why?” We have no reason to believe that we are here for any reason at all. If there is a reason (and there almost certainly is not), then there’s no reason that science can’t discover it. One thing is for sure, religion can’t give us any information about it. > > Why are you assuming there is not? > Why do you assume science can explain everything there is? > Why do you assume that religious study is not capable of providing answers? > > You assume a lot of which you do not know. Let’s leave out the assumptions then-please tell us what factual answer religion can give us that science cannot(he asks yet again, not really expecting a direct response). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/238 "2010-10-05T01:48:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@JThunder](#): > > > > I don’t purport to prove that murder is wrong. And as far as this thread is concerned, I was merely addressing the claim that science can explain why murder is wrong. > > No such claim has been made, at least not by me. “Murder is wrong” is an assertion with no innate truth value one way or the other. It’s just a personal opinion. So you honestly don’t really believe that murder is wrong? That when people object to murder, they are merely expressing a personal opinion that is by no means binding on anyone else? Even if it’s the murder of atheists? Or homosexuals? Or people who dare to question Christianity? Choose your answer carefully, **Diogenes** , and remember that people will hold you to those words in future discussions. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/239 "2010-10-05T01:54:02Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > mate you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe. > > Oh and shut up and leave me alone you are worse than reformed smokers. I’m a former smoker, and I don’t care if you smoke or not. It’s none of my business. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/240 "2010-10-05T01:56:41Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Why are you assuming there has to be a “why?” We have no reason to believe that we are here for any reason at all. If there is a reason (and there almost certainly is not), then there’s no reason that science can’t discover it. One thing is for sure, religion can’t give us any information about it. > > Why are you assuming there is not? The default/null assumption is that with the lack of evidence, you don’t form beliefs about the intentions or purposes of things. > [@](#): > > Why do you assume science can explain everything there is? What can’t be explained by empiricism? When has there ever been evidence of magic in the world that defies observation and explanation? What could exist that science/empiricism couldn’t explain? > [@](#): > > Why do you assume that religous study is not capable of providing answers? Why would it? Religions do not seek objective truth. What are people engaged in religious study going to discover? > [@JThunder](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > No such claim has been made, at least not by me. “Murder is wrong” is an assertion with no innate truth value one way or the other. It’s just a personal opinion. > > So you honestly don’t really believe that murder is wrong? That when people object to murder, they are merely expressing a personal opinion that is by no means binding on anyone else? Wait, he says murder being wrong is a matter of belief/opinion, so you ask him “you don’t really believe that murder is wrong”? He just said it’s a belief, and one he probably shares. Your question makes no sense. He’s saying murder being wrong is not some law of the universe like gravity or how to figure out the area of a circle. It’s a social construct. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a useful one, or that we should allow diverging rules on who can murder based on opinions. > [@](#): > > Even if it’s the murder of atheists? Or homosexuals? Or people who dare to question Christianity? Wait, are you really expecting to catch him in some sort of “gotcha” moment here? Like, he’s gonna slip and say it’s okay to murder everyone except atheists? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=13)