# 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:** 14
**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:** [October 5, 2010, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/261 "2010-10-05T06:28:59Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Why do you assume that religous study is not capable of providing answers? > > You assume a lot of which you do not know. If you are indeed a scientist, you know that typically science begins with many hypotheses on an open question of set of data, and, by a process of experimentation and testing, refines them down to one that explains all the facts. (And which may change if more facts appear.) Religion started with many tribal gods, and still has many tribal gods. Not so many as before because we have bigger tribes, and because certain religions spread by the sword. Science doesn’t do this - except pseudo-science in Stalinist Russia. Please give us one answer which religion has provided us to a degree of agreement we see for relativity and quantum physics. I don’t assume this - religion has failed miserably at providing answers. Scientists who have faith in a hypothesis after it has been shown to be false are laughingstocks. Religious people who do this are saints. ---
**Author:** ![DEADTHINGZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@DEADTHINGZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DEADTHINGZ)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/262 "2010-10-05T09:56:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Would you feel comfortable in asserting that there are no smurfs? At least not until we can bio-genetically engineer them in a lab, at which point I assume we will truly understand the nature of God. ---
**Author:** ![DEADTHINGZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@DEADTHINGZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DEADTHINGZ)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/263 "2010-10-05T10:08:14Z")
“No, the universe needs to follow regular mathematical laws because otherwise it would dissolve into chaos and we wouldn’t be here to discuss the matter. Regardless of whether it came from nature, genies or a is a computer simulation. And as I said (and I note you left this out of the quote), the same would be true of some hypothetical god, so a god can’t qualify as the explanation for order because without pre-existing order it wouldn’t be able to exist.” Quantum mechanics and particle accelerators have since proven the universe does not REQUIRE Newtonian mathematical law to exist, and examining these proven facts will not cause it to implode or cease to exist. Unless of course, the world is simply a projection based on your individualized perception. I think therefore I am until I think I am not at which point I will not be? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/264 "2010-10-05T11:11:41Z")
> [@DEADTHINGZ](#): > > “No, the universe needs to follow regular mathematical laws because otherwise it would dissolve into chaos and we wouldn’t be here to discuss the matter. Regardless of whether it came from nature, genies or a is a computer simulation. And as I said (and I note you left this out of the quote), the same would be true of some hypothetical god, so a god can’t qualify as the explanation for order because without pre-existing order it wouldn’t be able to exist.” > > Quantum mechanics and particle accelerators have since proven the universe does not REQUIRE Newtonian mathematical law to exist, and examining these proven facts will not cause it to implode or cease to exist. I didn’t say a thing about “Newtonian”. Quantum mechanics is still a set of mathematically describable rules; an orderly, logically consistent system. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/265 "2010-10-05T11:15:47Z")
> [@DEADTHINGZ](#): > > Quantum mechanics and particle accelerators have since proven the universe does not REQUIRE Newtonian mathematical law to exist, and examining these proven facts will not cause it to implode or cease to exist. The Newtonian system has been shown to be false, but it’s still very accurate unless taken under extreme circumstances. Nevertheless, relativity and quantum mechanics are still based on mathematics and AFAIK have not demolished the assumption that the laws of the universe are the same everywhere. So I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. > [@](#): > > Unless of course, the world is simply a projection based on your individualized perception. I think therefore I am until I think I am not at which point I will not be? > :smack: Solipsism is useless. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/266 "2010-10-05T12:29:48Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Why do you assume that religous study is not capable of providing answers? > > You assume a lot of which you do not know. I think he just noted that he wasn’t aware of any good answers being provided by religion. You can fight his ignorance and prove that religious study is capable of providing answers by citing one good example. In the same way that all you need to prove any god’s existence is one good example of that existence. Absence of evidence for any god is conclusive evidence for that god being absent. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/267 "2010-10-05T13:38:42Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > **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. (Bolding mine) Purest nonsense! Lies! Misdirection! Jeanie folds her arms and blinks. We’d still be here if _Samantha Stephens_ brought us into existence by wiggling her nose. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/268 "2010-10-05T14:38:04Z")
> [@shy\_guy](#): > > > [@coffeecat](#): > > > > **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. > > (Bolding mine) > > Purest nonsense! Lies! Misdirection! > > Jeanie folds her arms and blinks. We’d still be here if _Samantha Stephens_ brought us into existence by wiggling her nose. Sigh… You religuos people, can’t you agree on _anything_? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/269 "2010-10-05T14:41:16Z")
Hey, I would worship Jeanie and Samantha even if they weren’t magical. ---
**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 5, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/270 "2010-10-05T16:39:06Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > > [@sisu](#): > > > > > > 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… > > 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. (Restored the quote of mine inside the quote of his, to clarify the chain of conversation. I’m not sure if that’s kosher or not.) So. You ask me “why are we here”, but then immediately refuse to turn around and define the very terms that make up the question you wished to ask? Doesn’t this strike you as a _tad_ intellectually dishonest? I mean, you asked a question that was **literally** meaningless! > [@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 religous study is not capable of providing answers? > > You assume a lot of which you do not know. The evidence does not support the belief that there is a “why”, so I assume there isn’t, but I don’t actually completely rule it out. However, I _do_ rule out any possible explanation that flies in the fact of the evidence. So, we are not created as the beloved children of an all-powerful god that cares for our well-being, because if we were the world would not be as it is. And in fact, having been apparently left to evolve, with no hint of direction, no evidence of humanity evincing consistent _behaviors_ through history, no evidence that the world was created for us late arrivals - I’m hard pressed to even _imagine_ any rational purpose for humanity’s creation that fits the actual sequence of events that has happened. Quite simply if humanity had any purpose, humanity and its history would be radically different - they’d consistently be _serving_ some purpose. But as best we can tell, we’re not. As for science explaining everything - in broad terms, science is nothing more than organized rational thought, with a few specific techniques added on to reduce the introduction of error through human psychological foibles. And if you take away rational thought, what’s left? Uncritically believing anything you hear? Guessing randomly? Listening to the voices in your head? Even if somebody stumbled on a true explanation through these means, they couldn’t actually know if they were right. Broadly, science and critical thinking is simply the only way to attain actual certainty of correctness. And religious “study” is bullshit. It’s fairy tales. It’s fanfiction. Of course it can’t provide answers about actual reality, any more than the Lord of the Rings can provide those answers. If a god actually existed, a scientific study of it could be made to get _actual_ answers. That sort of thing has been tried many times. But despite centuries of looking, no gods have ever turned up. ---
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/271 "2010-10-05T17:05:36Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > Same deal as the smoking. Believe what the hell you want. Don’t try to make it the law of the land, don’t try to pass any laws or resolutions or initiatives that interfere with someone else who doesn’t believe what you believe and it’s all good. You can believe whatever the hell you want. DO NOT try to make it the law, DO NOT try to make others believe it. No one gives a damn what you believe, unless and until it is pushed in their face. Then it’s a problem. Got it? > > > > I live in California. We had a Proposition and it was battled over tooth and nail with the religious “thing” - God and morality and stuff. Religious preference or prejudice made law. STOP DOING THAT SHIT. > > Yeah I agree with you 100%. > > I will never say that someone is stupid and ignorant if they believe a certain way. I may say they are wrong based on the evidence or opinion of someone who I believe has studied the evidence, that is why I would never say that there is 100% a God. We just don’t really know and that is the truth. I have been guilty of telling someone they are stupid. There are times I do regret being that harsh, there are times when it was the only answer left, to deal with some who was deliberately willfully ignorant (frustration). But in the end, it doesn’t matter to me if you follow Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammed, or any of the other saints, prophets, or wise men, or no one at all. As long as you accord the SAME to other people. I’ve said it before… There are freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and freedom from someone else’s religion. Each is a personal choice and needs to stay that way. Some things are “truth” and can be scientifically proven and/or demonstrated. Those are facts and no hand waving can negate them. Some are scientific theory or hypothesis. Basically, “this explanation will work for us until a better one comes along”. And then some things are “matters of faith” - the individual should know the difference. Finally, there is nothing at all wrong with answering a question with an honest “I don’t know”. ---
**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 5, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/272 "2010-10-05T17:32:16Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > I will never say that someone is stupid and ignorant if they believe a certain way. I may say they are wrong based on the evidence or opinion of someone who I believe has studied the evidence, that is why I would never say that there is 100% a God. We just don’t really know and that is the truth. Relatively intelligent people believe stupid things all the time, due to the magic of compartmentaliztion, so just because someone believes something completely moronic doesn’t mean they are a _complete_ moron. (I’ll still call them one, though, but then I’m just uninhibited that way.) On another subject, while we cannot be 100% sure there are no gods, we _can_ be 100% sure that the specific god _he’s_ imagining, and that _she’s_ imagining, that that that group over _there_ is imagining, doesn’t exist. That much we really _do_ know. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/273 "2010-10-05T18:12:32Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@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. So it’s wrong to say you have faith unless you can prove it? ---
**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 5, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/274 "2010-10-05T18:25:38Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Some things are “truth” and can be scientifically proven and/or demonstrated. I disagree. Science doesn’t give us “truth”. Science gives us models that make predictions. The degree to which those models correspond to reality is unknown. (And likely unknowable.) Religion, of course, doesn’t even give us models that make predictions. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/275 "2010-10-05T20:46:16Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Thinking that you need a defense for find tuning is erroneous in the first place. The best analogy I’ve heard regarding this is… imagine there was a bit of rain that left a puddle on the ground. And imagine the water in that puddle said “how amazing is that! The shape of this hole in the ground is the _exact_ shape I am!”. The water thinks the hole was finely-tuned to be the same shape as the water. Then again, [some folks disagree](http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/anthropic-cr.htm#evolution). That analogy is based on the assumption that whatever set of laws a universe comes up with, it’s somehow possible that some form of intelligent life would arise within it, hence there’s nothing special about the particular set of laws that we observe in our universe. Trouble is that we can logically infer that if certain laws, constants, or properties were different, no intelligent life (and usually not any life) would be possible. As [Stephen Barr](http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/04/fine-tuning-an-argument-and-a-universe/) said: “In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are; and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible.” One example is the energy density of the universe and the apparent existence of a cosmological constant force that pushes matter apart. These determine the rate at which the universe expanded all throughout its history. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would be too far apart to ever be pulled together by gravity. If it didn’t expand quickly enough, all matter would have been pulled together into a single clump. In either case there’d be no possiblity for life. Astronomical data suggest that galactic clusters moving away from each other at an expanding rate. For a cosmological constant that explains observed expansion: [if it is present, it must be about 10^122 times smaller than the natural value to agree with this temperature measurement. How could L be set to such a small value with such precision? This is known as the cosmological constant problem.](http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/cosmology/cosmologicalconstant.html). Similar things arise in the particular composition of our universe. For example, it’s reasonable to suppose that life forms can only arise where there are stable, large molecules. Only carbon forms a large variety of those types of molecules, so carbon is necessary for life. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle showed in a famous paper in 1953 that the formation of appreciable amounts of carbon in stars depends on an excited nuclear state of carbon which is turn depends on a precise balance of nuclear forces. Sascha Vongehr [says](http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_physics_fine_tuning_or_coincidence) there are “20 to 30” fine-tuned parameters necessary for life. Indeed even Dawkins acknowledges fine-tuning of multiple parameters on page 171: “The bottom line for each number is the same. The actual number sits in a Goldilocks band of values outside of which life would not have been possible.” ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/276 "2010-10-05T20:54:22Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > According to [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_van_H.), Manfred van H. (a.k.a. Mahavo) was sentenced to one year in prison for blasphemy (the specific enumerated crime was “defamation of religious convictions in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace”) in Germany in 2006. Well, I freely admit I did not know that, though the law, if Wikipedia is correct (a big if whenever Wikipedia is concerned) doesn’t criminalize blasphemy generally. Nevertheless, as I’ve already shown (in posts 46 and 60), there were a great many outspoken atheists in many countries for a long time before the arrival of the “new atheists”, and hence the claim that there’s something new about their aggressive promotion of atheism is false. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/277 "2010-10-05T21:12:11Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > And for this. This, wherein you ask for a quote to show that Dawkins supports evolutionary psychology, really baffles me. Of course he does. It’s his schtick. It’s what much of his career is all about and what many key parts of his book rest on. From page 205: “Natural selections build child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival.” That’s one of a great many examples that could be given for Dawkins and there are plentiful others for Dennett and the rest. > [@](#): > > With regard to that last bit, are you proposing that the “blank slate” hypothesis is correct? I’ve started enough threads on the topic in the past. You can read my viewpoints. Suffice to say, I’ve never seen convincing evidence that any part of human preferences, behaviors, or thoughts is hard-wired by genes that arose due to evoluionary pressure in caveman times. Sure, I acknowledge that there are intelligent people who support the idea. Ben Goldacre says that 5 to 10 percent of the research in evolutionary psychology may be valid. V. S. Ramachandran says: > [@](#): > > By which I mean evolutionary psychology, by which I mean > you take every conceivable trait, physical or mental propensity and say, why did > this evolve, it must have something to do with the way our ancestors were walking > around the savanna and all the selection pressures. Now, of course, it’s partly true, > that some of our mental traits are because of that. But some of it has this banal ring > to it. You say, you know, men like young women because they are more fertile. > Ok, maybe. But a, it involves the cultural dimensions of the mind and I think > what’s unique about the human brain especially is we are the cultured primate; > and I’m not saying this to be politically correct, I have absolutely no interest in > politics. But what I’m saying is what’s unique about the human brain is the fact > that we have systems of neurons including mirror neurons that enable us to > assimilate culture and knowledge through imitation, through emulation, through > learning, much more rapidly than any other brain of any other animal. This is what > makes us uniquely human. > Ok, so that’s one problem with evolutionary psychology. The other, more serious > problem, I think, is you can come up with any ad hoc theory you want and it > becomes very difficult to test. For example, I could say, people say, well because > we were on the savanna, we like this, we like young women, you know, men. And > there are dozens of examples, maybe you could think of some. But you could say, > well men or women like going to the Scripps aquarium. Why? Why do we like to > go to the aquarium? Well its because our Devonian ancestors were fish, up in the > Devonian seas, enjoy mating with other fish, obviously, and found them attractive. > And maybe there’s a residue of this in the brain and that’s why we enjoy going to > the aquarium. Now immediately that strikes you as ludicrous and absurd. Now > why is it any less ludicrous, why stop at the savanna, I mean you can go all the > way back? So, somehow it doesn’t ring true to me, I’m not saying that the whole > enterprise of evolutionary psychology is a waste of time, there are valuable insights coming from that, but you have to be careful. I try to be open minded, so I’m willing to consider that these guys may be correct when they say that a small portion of the claims from evolutionary psychology are true, but I’d first need to see experiments and answers to the most basic objections. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/278 "2010-10-05T21:18:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Then again, [some folks disagree](http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/anthropic-cr.htm#evolution). That analogy is based on the assumption that whatever set of laws a universe comes up with, it’s somehow possible that some form of intelligent life would arise within it, hence there’s nothing special about the particular set of laws that we observe in our universe. Trouble is that we can logically infer that if certain laws, constants, or properties were different, no intelligent life (and usually not any life) would be possible. As [Stephen Barr](http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/04/fine-tuning-an-argument-and-a-universe/) said: “In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are; and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible.” I’ll back up ITR here - the fine tuning argument is much more than Douglas Adams’ sentient puddle. There are several constants of physics that, if any one had been slightly different, it would result in a universe that could not possibly support any life. _Scientific American_ had a major article about the constants a few months ago, and they had figured out that there were possibilities of varying those constants together (instead of one-at-a-time) which could conceivably still support some kind of strange life, but the number of possible life-supporting arrangements is still unimaginably tiny compared to the number that would be possible if each of those variables is independent. The major ideas that I’m aware of for how to explain the apparent fine tuning: [ul] [li]There is some as-yet undiscovered physics that demands those constants be what they are.[/li][li]The constants are independent, and our universe is just a rarity, but there are a very large number of universes in existence, and those that can’t support life don’t have anyone asking these questions.[/li][li]It all could have been magicked into existence by some unknown party.[/li][/ul] ---
**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 5, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/279 "2010-10-05T21:34:02Z")
[ul] [li]If you roll a 1000001-sided dice once, the odds are a million to one that _any_ specific side will come up. Nonetheless, beating all the odds, one does. Supposing the number that comes up is “1”, or “123”, or “666”, does that mean it wasn’t rolled randomly?[/li][/ul] And I’m not convinced that forms of life completely unimagined by us couldn’t happen in some _very_ unusual environments. Of course _we_ might not call them “life”, but to some degree that’s merely semantics. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/280 "2010-10-05T21:43:25Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > As a group, you only know one thing about atheists. They don’t believe in god. Given that there’s no evidence to support any particular idea of god, this is the most logical and rational belief. Therefore, since that is their only universal defining characteristic as a group, they therefore believe fewer kooky things than the rest of the general population, who, by definition, have belief in some sort of theistic figure without evidence. Well this is the crux of the matter, I’d say. It all rests on the claim that there is no evidence for any theistic claim. I believe there’s plenty of evidence. I’ve got a shelf full of books providing the evidence at home and can find many more in a library and elsewhere. Whenever I say this, the majority of responses that I get from atheists will simply be insults aimed at me and/or the authors of the books in question. But for the minority of atheists who actually try to address the evidence, I find their answers more tenuous than almost anything else I hear. For instance, if I mention religious and spiritual experiences, I get told that it’s all explained away by obscure neurological disorders. Then when I look up the symptoms of those disorders I find they don’t match at all with they’re supposed to explain. I mention the fine-tuning of the universe, I get told about multiple universes. I mention miraculous healings, I get told something about the placebo effect, regardless of how well the medical facts are documented. etc… You say that you’ve looked at the evidence and found that it doesn’t hold together. Well, I say that I’ve looked at the evidence which atheists bring to counter my evidence and found that it doesn’t hold together. > [@](#): > > And the funny thing is - even if you were right and your logic wasn’t faulty in a million ways - the idea that believing in multiple universes is still less silly than a guy reading a golden book out of a hat or spaceborne DC10s flying evil souls into our volancos. I only point that out because it only adds one more delicious creamy layer to your wedding cake of wrongness. In regards to that last paragraph, I’m tempted to ask what the metric for silliness is. It seems to me, generally speaking, that silly religious claims are a lot less silly than silly atheist claims. If somebody tells me that a certain monk living thousands of years ago could levitate, all that I can say in response is that it violates physical laws as we currently understand them. By contrast, the Dawkins crowd is offering to me laws of physics, biology, and psychology which they claim are present and in force at all times and places, then I can check the world around me and see if the laws they’re offering fit with what I observe. It seems to me plausible that the laws of the universe that I’d read in a high-school book may not have been as absolute throughout all time and space as we generally think. Ancient accounts of levitation of whatnot, I wouldn’t classify them as likely, but neither would I absolutely rule them out. On the other hand, when I presented with a notion such that all children have brains which incline them to believe and obey whatever adults say, I can say with certainty that it’s not true. I see children everyday and I once was a child and the claim flatly violates what I see, remember, and know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=15)