# 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:** 18
**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, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/341 "2010-10-06T13:53:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Elegant” is an aesthetic and doesn’t mean anything scientifically. So what if “elegance” doesn’t have a strict scientific definition? Neither does the word “species”. And yet I can tell the difference between elegant and inelegant about as easily as I can tell difference between a dog and a fish. ---
**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, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/342 "2010-10-06T13:55:50Z")
If we assume the universe is designed, shouldn’t literally _everything_ look elegant and functional, rather than just a few things here and there? Even if the designer was lazy and/or incompetent he wouldn’t go out of his way to create wasteful, ugly or needlessly painful things just for the hell of 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, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/343 "2010-10-06T13:56:58Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > If we assume the universe is designed, shouldn’t literally _everything_ look elegant and functional, rather than just a few things here and there? Even if the designer was lazy and/or incompetent he wouldn’t go out of his way to create wasteful, ugly or needlessly painful things just for the hell of it. Or say, create the human eye, which is clearly less elegant than the octupus eye. ---
**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, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/344 "2010-10-06T13:57:12Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Please give an example of something that we **know** is not designed, that is both highly elegant and highly functional. > > Oh come on. By your standards, we know nothing is not designed. You said life doesn’t count because even though there is a completely well understood natural mechanism for life to evolve, and it requires no design or supernatural elements whatsoever, you say you can’t prove god didn’t secretly design it that way without evidence even though involving god is completely unnecesary. > > So you just said that nothing can be proven not to have been designed, and now you’re demanding to know what we think isn’t designed. > > This is just juevenile. Or it’s perfectly logical. We don’t know if it’s possible for non-living matter to spontaneously form itself in to life. **We do not know**. Hence, to say “we know organisms weren’t designed” is demonstrably baseless. ---
**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, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/345 "2010-10-06T13:59:34Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Or it’s perfectly logical. > > We don’t know if it’s possible for non-living matter to spontaneously form itself in to life. **We do not know**. > > Hence, to say “we know organisms weren’t designed” is demonstrably baseless. If you accept that reasoning, it goes back all the way to the design of the universe itself, which makes it circular. ---
**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, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/346 "2010-10-06T13:59:36Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > By your criteria, what do we know not to be designed? Taking some random machine parts and a pile of glue, throw them all in to a container and shake it up. The resulting product, we know, was not designed. ---
**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 6, 2010, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/347 "2010-10-06T14:00:55Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > Octopus eye. > > Bzzz. Try again! We don’t know if the DNA replication process is designed, nor do we know if life can even arise spontaneously from non-living matter to get the thing in motion. Both are pre-requisites to get to octopus eye. Actually we know both of those things are perfectly possible (not that abiogenesis is life arising “spontaneously” from non-life. That is a strawman characterization. The process was highly incremental and slow) and exponentially more probable than magic. In order for a magical hypothesis to be taken seriously, you actually have to show a need for it. There is nothing in DNA that shows design, and everything about its development consistent with expected steps of normal chemical processes. “You can’t prove it’s NOT magic” is not a persuasive argument for magic and just makes any rational discussion impossible. ---
**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, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/348 "2010-10-06T14:02:14Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Or it’s perfectly logical. > > We don’t know if it’s possible for non-living matter to spontaneously form itself in to life. **We do not know**. > > Hence, to say “we know organisms weren’t designed” is demonstrably baseless. It’s completely ridiculous to declare that everything could be designed with infinite magic and infinite subtlety, we can’t know anything isn’t designed. And then you tell us to tell you things that are elegant and functional tha we know not to be designed. You just declared it impossible to know that things aren’t designed. We know organisms weren’t designed in as far as we know anything. Yes, you can’t absolutely prove anything outside of math and people like you just love to remind everyone of that so you never have to consider anything logical or factual or evidence-based. But we have a complete understanding of how life evolved, how DNA works, how life adapts to its environment - we have completely natural and plausible explanations that are proven over and over again which do not require the extra addition of a designer. Classic occam’s razor - why involve what isn’t necesary in an explanation? Having no evidence for a designer, and a completely understood natural path to our conclusions is as good as you can practically get as far as proving something isn’t designed. Continuing this line of argument is no more valid than those who say “you can’t prove a negative, therefore pink unicorns exist!” ---
**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, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/349 "2010-10-06T14:04:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Bzzz. Try again! We don’t know if the DNA replication process is designed, nor do we know if life can even arise spontaneously from non-living matter to get the thing in motion. Both are pre-requisites to get to octopus eye. > > Actually we know both of those things are perfectly possible Haha, we “know” this do we? Why do people keep trying to replicate the process then? Don’t we already **know** how it happened? ---
**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, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/350 "2010-10-06T14:04:29Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > > By your criteria, what do we know not to be designed? > > Taking some random machine parts and a pile of glue, throw them all in to a container and shake it up. > > The resulting product, we know, was not designed. Since machine parts are clearly designed, you have to discard this example according to your reasoning in the previous posts. Either you accept that evolution can create elegant structures on its own _once life got started in whatever way you like_, or you will not be able to find, let alone make, anything that isn’t designed. ---
**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 6, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/351 "2010-10-06T14:08:40Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > “Elegant” is an aesthetic and doesn’t mean anything scientifically. > > So what if “elegance” doesn’t have a strict scientific definition So it can’t be discussed objectively. Nothing can be agreed upon about it, and it can’t be discussed. > [@](#): > > Neither does the word “species”. Yes it does. > [@](#): > > And yet I can tell the difference between elegant and inelegant about as easily as I can tell difference between a dog and a fish. Cite? ---
**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, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/352 "2010-10-06T14:09:49Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > Or it’s perfectly logical. > > > > We don’t know if it’s possible for non-living matter to spontaneously form itself in to life. **We do not know**. > > > > Hence, to say “we know organisms weren’t designed” is demonstrably baseless. > > It’s completely ridiculous to declare that everything could be designed with infinite magic and infinite subtlety, we can’t know anything isn’t designed. And then you tell us to tell you things that are elegant and functional tha we know not to be designed. > > You just declared it impossible to know that things aren’t designed. I declared nothing of the sort. > [@](#): > > We know organisms weren’t designed in as far as we know anything. Completely false. There are things we have _far_ greater certainty of than the origin of organisms. > [@](#): > > Yes, you can’t absolutely prove anything outside of math and people like you just love to remind everyone of that so you never have to consider anything logical or factual or evidence-based. But we have a complete understanding of how life evolved, how DNA works, how life adapts to its environment (Actually, we **don’t** have a “complete understanding” of **any** of these things) but congratulations, you believe in evolution. So do I. > [@](#): > > Having no evidence for a designer And I say there _is_ evidence of a designer. ---
**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, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/353 "2010-10-06T14:11:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes it does. No it doesn’t! ---
**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, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/354 "2010-10-06T14:12:00Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > > You just declared it impossible to know that things aren’t designed. > > I declared nothing of the sort. Yes, you did. But I’ll make it up to you: provide me one single example of anything that, _according to your previous reasoning_, is _definitely_ not designed. As a reminder, your reasoning is: 1. Something that is made up of stuff that might be designed is not definitely undesigned. 2. The universe might be designed. ---
**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 6, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/355 "2010-10-06T14:12:31Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Actually we know both of those things are perfectly possible > > Haha, we “know” this do we? Yep. > [@](#): > > Why do people keep trying to replicate the process then? Don’t we already **know** how it happened? We actually have replicated quite a bit of it, and no we don’t know what happened. I didn’t say that. We know what’s POSSIBLE, and that’s all we need to know. Abiogensis is not something that can be fully replicated anyway because it took millions of years, but we have been able to very that the individual steps are possible without magic, which means that magic can be dismissed out of hand. ---
**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, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/356 "2010-10-06T14:14:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > > And yet I can tell the difference between elegant and inelegant about as easily as I can tell difference between a dog and a fish. > > Cite? Sure: > [@](#): > > And yet I can tell the difference between elegant and inelegant about as easily as I can tell difference between a dog and a fish. **- KellyCriterion. ([source](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12994858&postcount=341))** ---
**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 6, 2010, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/357 "2010-10-06T14:16:05Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Yes it does. > > No it doesn’t! [Yes it does](http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+species&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). This is not a helpful approach for you. ---
**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, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/358 "2010-10-06T14:17:13Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > > By your criteria, what do we know not to be designed? > > Taking some random machine parts and a pile of glue, throw them all in to a container and shake it up. > > The resulting product, we know, was not designed. If God is capable of such infinite subtlety and magic that he’s changing the nature of life in such a way that even though it’s completely explainable by natural processes, it’s not - it may be god’s design - then certainly god can be there right in that bucket, deciding how things get mixed up. ---
**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, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/359 "2010-10-06T14:19:08Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > If God is capable of such infinite subtlety and magic that he’s changing the nature of life in such a way that even though it’s completely explainable by natural processes, it’s not - it may be god’s design - then certainly god can be there right in that bucket, deciding how things get mixed up. Great. Now I want a God-in-a-bucket! 😃 ---
**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, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/360 "2010-10-06T14:19:22Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > > By your criteria, what do we know not to be designed? > > Taking some random machine parts and a pile of glue, throw them all in to a container and shake it up. > > The resulting product, we know, was not designed. Just imagine that you did so. Then you left the resulting product sitting there and someone else happens upon it. Seeing that it has a tab high on one end and a slot low on the other approximately 1.2 meters from one another, he realizes that it will work perfectly for the connecting piece he needs between his fetzer valve and his interocitor. Imagine that a third person sees how well the machine-parts-and-glue fit between the fetzer valve and interocitor, and concludes that it must have been designed, since it fits so very elegantly. What a maroon, right? So far, your evidence seems more like a couple of superficially complex concepts connected by no logical, structural or functional relationships. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=19)