# 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:** 16
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/301 "2010-10-05T23:53:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > ]You’re still quite wrong it you think that any significant percentage of believers are deliberately making up “little fibs” in order to better sell their beliefs to the unbelievers. Why should they? The truth (as they know it) was convincing enough to convince _them_; why should it need to be gussied up for anyone else? > > Because the evil scientists/liberals/communists have falsified evidence proving them wrong. Or the Devil has. They know better than to trust the evidence of their eyes over what the True Faith says, but the weak minded might not. > > And I think it is fairly common. > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > And I haven’t the faintest idea what point you were trying to make with the tyrant/torture thing. > > That there’s no lie more blatant than one that you yourself threatened or torture someone into telling, yet people go ahead and force such lies and appear to consider them evidence of the correctness of their beliefs. There ARE people who find outright lies, lies they can’t help but know are lies supportive of their beliefs. Whereas this stuff, I still don’t buy as being at all common. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/302 "2010-10-05T23:59:28Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Whereas this stuff, I still don’t buy as being at all common. Really? Despite living in a society dominated by a religion that has always cheerfully used threats to attempt to coerce people into lying about how they supported the True Faith? Or consider how many people were perfectly willing to accept that confessions of terrorist affiliations extracted by torture should be considered as true. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/303 "2010-10-06T00:27:12Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@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. OK. Let’s call it “fact” instead. Previous experience, observation or measurement tells me that something has always happened before and will always happen in the future. That’s fact. It can be proven and demonstrated. It’s a fact that if I miss the nail and bash my thumb with the hammer, it will hurt. It’s a fact that has been proven too many times in the past. I can predict it will hurt just as bad next time. Science 😃 ---
**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 6, 2010, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/304 "2010-10-06T08:13:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. Let’s say this: I have not found any evidence that comes even close to satisfying me. I’ve also found that the single bit of evidence that believers tend to take the most seriously is their personal “revelations” or emotions, which are always subjective and non-instructive (i.e. don’t seem to lead to any new knowledge that could be tested) so they should, at most, work only for the person experiencing them. Pretty much all the rest of the evidence is superstition & “urban legends” that happen to, sort of, match the believers “main” religious themes (although they’re usually just “evidence” for ‘some supernatural something somewhere’). If I could I would kick the people who made **“What the #@&\*(# do we know?!”** until they told me they were sorry for spreading a whole boat load of ridiculous lies and misinformation that I’ve heard people use as “evidence” for pretty much any belief on the planet. > [@](#): > > or instance, if I mention religious and spiritual experiences, I get told that it’s all explained away by obscure neurological disorders. Well, it _could_ be God. But I addressed that above. > [@](#): > > I mention the fine-tuning of the universe, I get told about multiple universes. Fact is, we just don’t know how the fine-tuning works, or if there even is one. What we do know is that a multiverse theory would probably address a lot of the problem, and is consistent with what we do know about the universe. But as **begbert2** mentioned, even without a multiverse, it could _still_ be blind chance. > [@](#): > > I mention miraculous healings, I get told something about the placebo effect, regardless of how well the medical facts are documented. etc… I’m going to take out this old chestnut: why don’t people get “miraculously healed” from something that is literally uncureable? Like loss of a leg? Why are all the cases I hear of either internal problems with little outward evidence or simply diseases that could easily have healed on their own, or even better: miraculously involved a lot of miraculous medical attention? > [@](#): > > 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. Difference is: I don’t need any. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/305 "2010-10-06T11:15:46Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] 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. [/QUOTE] Go through your books and present the single best piece of evidence you’ve got. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/306 "2010-10-06T11:25:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [QUOTE=ITR champion] > 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. Go through your books and present the single best piece of evidence you’ve got. [/QUOTE] My shot, from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12657043&postcount=310): > [@](#): > > I don’t believe the sum of finite things (such as seconds) can equal infinite. Maybe it’s possible, but it seems far too illogical for me to accept. > > If my assumption is true, then we could “rewind” the universe back to it’s immediate starting point, of which nothing exists prior. > > I don’t believe that nothing can cause universes to come in to existence, hence, I believe something caused it. > > Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a timeless, immaterial entity. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/307 "2010-10-06T11:32:11Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > Go through your books and present the single best piece of evidence you’ve got. > > My shot, from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12657043&postcount=310): > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t believe the sum of finite things (such as seconds) can equal infinite. Maybe it’s possible, but it seems far too illogical for me to accept. > > > > If my assumption is true, then we could “rewind” the universe back to it’s immediate starting point, of which nothing exists prior. > > > > I don’t believe that nothing can cause universes to come in to existence, hence, I believe something caused it. > > > > Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a timeless, immaterial entity. That’s not evidence-that’s a belief system. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/308 "2010-10-06T11:35:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > My shot, from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12657043&postcount=310): > > That’s not evidence-that’s a belief system. Although I stated my claim from the other thread as a belief, each claim I made is backed with reason and evidence. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/309 "2010-10-06T11:41:16Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > That’s not evidence-that’s a belief system. > > Although I stated my claim from the other thread as a belief, each claim I made is backed with reason and evidence. What’s the best piece of evidence _you’ve_ got, then? ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/310 "2010-10-06T11:49:47Z")
I refuse to believe the sky is blue. If my assumption is correct then it must be a different color than blue, and if it is a different color than blue than it can’t also be blue at the same time. Ergo the sky isn’t blue. QED. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/311 "2010-10-06T11:54:08Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I don’t believe that nothing can cause universes to come in to existence, hence, I believe something caused it. > > Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a timeless, immaterial entity. So your religious beliefs consist of thinking that there was some prime mover entity that started the universe, the nature of whom we know nothing about. No holy book or claims of miracles or having him intervene in our history, right? After all, this vague notion of “something started the universe” would be pretty hard to translate into an organized religion with history and dogma. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/312 "2010-10-06T11:59:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Although I stated my claim from the other thread as a belief, each claim I made is backed with reason and evidence. > > What’s the best piece of evidence _you’ve_ got, then? I’ve explained it. Are you asking what is the evidence that you can’t have an infinite amount of finite things? (Abstract concepts, like numbers, not included). ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/313 "2010-10-06T12:00:18Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > I don’t believe that nothing can cause universes to come in to existence, hence, I believe something caused it. > > > > Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a timeless, immaterial entity. > > So your religious beliefs consist of thinking that there was some prime mover entity that started the universe, the nature of whom we know nothing about. No holy book or claims of miracles or having him intervene in our history, right? After all, this vague notion of “something started the universe” would be pretty hard to translate into an organized religion with history and dogma. I’m basically a **deist** , I don’t purport belief in any religion. ---
**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 6, 2010, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/314 "2010-10-06T12:04:27Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > I don’t believe that nothing can cause universes to come in to existence, hence, I believe something caused it. > > > > Now, if this “something” is a material entity, then it’s bound by time. I reject that time stretches back “forever” for reasons already stated, hence, I conclude the entity that designed/created the universe is a timeless, immaterial entity. > > So your religious beliefs consist of thinking that there was some prime mover entity that started the universe, the nature of whom we know nothing about. No holy book or claims of miracles or having him intervene in our history, right? After all, this vague notion of “something started the universe” would be pretty hard to translate into an organized religion with history and dogma. And a prime mover / uncaused cause / “creator” doesn’t have to be an entity (and I’m doubtful that an entity can exist outside of time at all), doesn’t have to have intelligence and doesn’t need to to have intent. All that this argument attempts to prove is that there “was” _something_ outside of time. It doesn’t even attempt to prove the thing that started the universe is “still there”, if you even can say that of something that’s out of time. For instance, if we’re going to assume stuff, the big bang/universe could just be the “inside” of a black hole in another universe. That would satisfy all the parameters but would hardly qualify as a god. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/315 "2010-10-06T12:11:28Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > And a prime mover / uncaused cause / “creator” doesn’t have to be an entity I think “entity” is a pretty reasonable term to ascribe to something that isn’t a nothing, and isn’t a universe. > [@](#): > > doesn’t have to have intelligence and doesn’t need to to have intent. Also doesn’t need not have it. The question being posited in this thread is show some evidence, not conclusive proofs. > [@](#): > > For instance, if we’re going to assume stuff, the big bang/universe could just be the “inside” of a black hole in another universe. That would satisfy all the parameters but would hardly qualify as a god. No it wouldn’t, it just means this other universe was actually the “first” universe, that universe would still be bound by time, hence, need a beginning. ---
**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 6, 2010, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/316 "2010-10-06T12:24:23Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > And a prime mover / uncaused cause / “creator” doesn’t have to be an entity > > I think “entity” is a pretty reasonable term to ascribe to something that isn’t a nothing, and isn’t a universe. Fair enough. > [@](#): > > Also doesn’t need not have it. The question being posited in this thread is show some evidence, not conclusive proofs. But if it doesn’t _need_ intent, or intelligence, why would you assume it has? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > For instance, if we’re going to assume stuff, the big bang/universe could just be the “inside” of a black hole in another universe. That would satisfy all the parameters but would hardly qualify as a god. > > No it wouldn’t, it just means this other universe was actually the “first” universe, that universe would still be bound by time, hence, need a beginning. It’s not necessarily bound by _our_ time, though. Hell, time in that other universe might be circular. It’s no more crazy than positing something that exists without any time at all. At least we know that black holes and spacetime exist here. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/317 "2010-10-06T12:33:33Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > But if it doesn’t _need_ intent, or intelligence, why would you assume it has? Well, if you look at what was “caused” to come in to existence, namely a whole bunch of components with a a high degree of elegance and functionality, the inference is, I believe, design. We don’t ever see high amounts of elegance and functionality on things we know aren’t designed. > [@](#): > > No it wouldn’t, it just means this other universe was actually the “first” universe, that universe would still be bound by time, hence, need a beginning. > [@](#): > > It’s not necessarily bound by _our_ time, though. Hell, time in that other universe might be circular. It’s no more crazy than positing something that exists without any time at all. At least we know that black holes and spacetime exist here. If the hypothetical other universe is undergoing change, it’s experiencing time. Or.. please show evidence that the other universe you are positing existed. There isn’t any? Then no reason to believe in it. ---
**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 6, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/318 "2010-10-06T12:52:45Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > But if it doesn’t _need_ intent, or intelligence, why would you assume it has? > > Well, if you look at what was “caused” to come in to existence, namely a whole bunch of components with a a high degree of elegance and functionality, the inference is, I believe, design. We don’t ever see high amounts of elegance and functionality on things we know aren’t designed. Well… I don’t agree 🙂 But that’s a different point. > [@](#): > > Or.. please show evidence that the other universe you are positing existed. There isn’t any? Then no reason to believe in it. All I’m trying to point out is that there’s no particular reason to infer that “out of (or, before) time” means anything more than “out of OUR time”, since for all we know, our universe’s time is part of our universe, and also that intent is a separate assumption that can’t be made purely on a “first cause” argument. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/319 "2010-10-06T12:57:27Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > But if it doesn’t _need_ intent, or intelligence, why would you assume it has? > > Well, if you look at what was “caused” to come in to existence, namely a whole bunch of components with a a high degree of elegance and functionality, the inference is, I believe, design. We don’t ever see high amounts of elegance and functionality on things we know aren’t designed. Except for eveything in the universe you mean? Obviously if you start from the premise that everything elegant is designed, there won’t be anything left that is elegant and not-designed. That’s not a proof, it’s a failure of logic. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/320 "2010-10-06T13:01:49Z")
**KellyCriterion** , if I follow your reasoning, it goes like this: The number of things is bounded by the universe (and is not infinite). Therefore, there is a god. I don’t follow that. Are there underpants gnomes involved somewhere in this chain of constructs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=17)