# 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:** 20
**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 6, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/381 "2010-10-06T21:16:32Z")
**KellyCriterion** , are you making the first causes argument, or the watchmaker argument? Because the ‘outside of time sentient creator’ argument fails on the basis that sentience requires changes in mental state, and change requires time, so any external creator is just another actor in their own timeline which itself must have a beginning. You can keep adding turtles but eventually you have to assume that the base universe/timeline sprang exists _ex nihilo_ - _without_ a sentient creator. And that being possible that means that our universe might have done it, with no God at all. If you’re making the watchmaker argument, that argument presumes that every complex/elegant/whatever thing requires an even _more_ complex/elegant/whatever designer. Which raises the question “who make the watchmaker?” And who made the watchmakermaker? And who made the watchmakermakermaker? This is another of those impossible infinite regresses, proving that at _some_ level it must be possible for complexity to derive from simplicity - which negates the need for a watchmaker in the first place. The shared property of both these two arguments is, both **have** to answer “who made God?” And if nobody was needed to make God, then God was not necessary to make us. (Particularly since there’s gobs of evidence that real-world complexity was emergent and not created.) ---
**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 6, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/382 "2010-10-06T21:28:14Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I wouldn’t say that one requires a “neurological disorder” to be religious or have a religious experience. It’s obviously extremely common, and since we define our disorders and diseases based on the abnormal most people probably wouldn’t describe it that way. I’ve heard it described that way plenty of times, but regardless, the thing is that I’ve never seen any evidence for the claim that people who think they are having a religious experience are actually having a “psychotic episode”, as one of your pals put it. He says it’s true “by definition”, which it [certainly](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497327/religious-experience) [isn’t](http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Psychotic+episodes). So what’s the evidence? The most common actual evidence that I’m told about involves the so-called “God Helmet” that supposedly induced religious feelings artificially, but [it didn’t](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15849873). The bottom line is that I trust human accounts of experience until I am given a reason not to. It makes more sense to me that elephants would exist than that many people would hallucinate elephants. It makes more sense to me that there’s actually meaning in _King Lear_ than that a bunch of people are imagining it to be there. So why would I take a different approach when people tell be they’ve encountered the divine? I keep hearing that the New Atheists only want to apply the same approach to religion that we apply to everything else, but in reality they want to apply an approach that’s completely different. Saying that something doesn’t exist because every who’s experienced it is in the grip of some neurological phenomenon that can’t even be precisely defined is not how we approach other things, so why approach religion that way? > [@](#): > > But let me try this from another angle. There are people who have religious experience that greatly differ from yours. They worship gods who are completely different from your god, and often in direct contradiction. And yet they believe with just as much faith as you do. They feel like they see the work of god(s) just as much as you do, that they’ve been touched by the hand(s) of gods, etc. > > Now, how do you reconcile this? Do you think that both your gods exist, therefore there’s evidence for both of you to see your own god? Do you think that their religious experience is just a result of the psychology of believing such a powerful thing, whereas yours is inspired by the real divine? This line of argument I’ve tackled at length in other threads, and suffice to say I’ve never encountered in the accounts of personal believers from other religions anything that would demand that I choose between total rejection of their accounts and of my own religion. Rudolph Otto’s book [The Idea of the Holy](http://books.google.com/books?id=70DNx6VNS74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Idea+of+the+Holy&hl=en&ei=TeesTM6HOsGblgeKg8XxBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) covers the topic quite well. ---
**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 6, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/383 "2010-10-06T21:32:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The bottom line is that I trust human accounts of experience until I am given a reason not to. It makes more sense to me that elephants would exist than that many people would hallucinate elephants. It makes more sense to me that there’s actually meaning in _King Lear_ than that a bunch of people are imagining it to be there. So why would I take a different approach when people tell be they’ve encountered the divine? I keep hearing that the New Atheists only want to apply the same approach to religion that we apply to everything else, but in reality they want to apply an approach that’s completely different. Saying that something doesn’t exist because every who’s experienced it is in the grip of some neurological phenomenon that can’t even be precisely defined is not how we approach other things, so why approach religion that way? Tell you what, I’ll apply the same approach that I use for Frodo. A _stunning_ number of people seem to think that Frodo was short, had fuzzy feet, and was obsessed with jewelry - heck, there’s a _lot_ more consistency in accounts of him then accounts of God. But of course, there _is_ a book that relates much of the shared information about him, and a large fanbase that exchanges theories about him, propogating and sustaining memes. But there’s no such thing as either the bible or Christianity so obviously with God that’s completely different, right? ---
**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 6, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/384 "2010-10-06T21:39:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The bottom line is that I trust human accounts of experience until I am given a reason not to. So do I. Where religion is concerned, reasons to doubt people’s accounts of their experiences are ample. These experiences violate known laws of physics, are wildly inconsistent with one another, depend on the existence of outrageously implausible magical beings to be true, and are suspiciously conveniently non-verifiable. To go along with **begbert2** ’s example, I would find claims of someone’s religious experience of Frodo _more_ compelling, since at least there’s some consistency there and Frodo is less-implausible than a god. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/385 "2010-10-06T21:42:14Z")
If you think you’re talking to magic spirts or sky gods, you are having a psychotic episode _by definition_ because you are experiencing a distortion of or disconnection of reality. You are hallucinating. You are seeing shit that isn’t there. We also know that these states can be proved by direct stimulation of the brain as well as by drugs. I’d love to see an example of one of these “documented miraculous healings,” by the way, and I mean a specific case with specific evidence, not a bunch of links to some crackpot, non-peer-reviewed books from the woo section of Barnes and Noble. ---
**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, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/386 "2010-10-06T21:45:57Z")
It’s common for people in India to have visionary experiences of Hindu gods. Are they really seeing Hindu gods or are they hallucinating? If they are really seeing Hindu gods (with an emphasis that they are _multiple_), how does that square with Christian visionary experiences. Gabriel told Mohammed that Allah was the one and only god, yet Ramakrishna talked to many gods. Whose visions were true and whose were false? ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/387 "2010-10-06T22:41:50Z")
> [@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. Yeah I think that sometimes people want to quantify something that we cannot even be sure exists. Religion is when man tries to codeify a set of beliefs to ensure control of the population. Something that is by definition timeless and immaterial cannot be measured but only experienced. Bah whatever, you either get it or you don’t. ---
**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 6, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/388 "2010-10-06T22:51:29Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Yeah I think that sometimes people want to quantify something that we cannot even be sure exists. Religion is when man tries to codeify a set of beliefs to ensure control of the population. > > Something that is by definition timeless and immaterial cannot be measured but only experienced. > > Bah whatever, you either get it or you don’t. Something that is by definition timeless and immaterial by definition can’t think or act and by definition can’t be detected or experienced by material mortals. (You claim to have an immaterial soul? You can’t experience that either.) ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/389 "2010-10-06T23:09:33Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Yeah I think that sometimes people want to quantify something that we cannot even be sure exists. Well, yeah. It’s not me though. I’d like to know that it exists at all first. > [@](#): > > Religion is when man tries to codeify a set of beliefs to ensure control of the population. I can go with that. > [@](#): > > Something that is by definition timeless and immaterial cannot be measured but only experienced. If we can really experience it, we can measure something about it. Whatever the properties of your (supernatural or not) influence, if it has an effect on _us_, that means we can measure at least the effects. > [@](#): > > Bah whatever, you either get it or you don’t. Indeed. ---
**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 7, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/390 "2010-10-07T00:18:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Is there anybody who’s actually done a thorough investigation of the topic and found that all claimed miraculous healings are actually cases that could be mistaken for natural recovery? [God hates amputees.](http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/) God never heals afflictions where the results would be obvious and undeniable. Amputees don’t regrow limbs. People with horrible scarring never get their looks back. Missing eyes never magically reappear in empty sockets. One is left with the conclusion that either God chooses to deny His merciful healing to people with certain afflictions regardless of how pious or deserving they are (which is kind of a dick move) or that all apparent instances of faith healing are frauds or wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/391 "2010-10-07T00:49:24Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > > Is there anybody who’s actually done a thorough investigation of the topic and found that all claimed miraculous healings are actually cases that could be mistaken for natural recovery? > > [God hates amputees.](http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/) > > God never heals afflictions where the results would be obvious and undeniable. Amputees don’t regrow limbs. People with horrible scarring never get their looks back. Missing eyes never magically reappear in empty sockets. > > One is left with the conclusion that either God chooses to deny His merciful healing to people with certain afflictions regardless of how pious or deserving they are (which is kind of a dick move) or that all apparent instances of faith healing are frauds or wishful thinking. The Razor approach (the simplest and most obvious answer… ) would say “all apparent instances of faith healing are frauds or wishful thinking”. And when there is easy money to be fleeced off the gullible at any “faith healing revival meeting” (regardless of where or when, past or present), I’d say fraud is the simplest answer. Toss in the idea that people will “see” what they wanted to see or were conditioned to expect, and there you are. Fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/392 "2010-10-07T00:51:14Z")
Given that modern medicine and genetics are sciences in their infancies, so to speak, I could buy that certain as-yet poorly understood biological immune-system mechanisms kick in and cause spontaneous remissions of cancers, or that some temporary afflictions get _mistaken_ for cancers through misdiagnosis. A human’s amputated arm growing back would be a real puzzler, though. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/393 "2010-10-07T12:57:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@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. It can’t. It might explain why we have certain feelings about murder, but that has no bearing on whether murder is actually wrong or not. > > Of course science can prove that murder is wrong - assuming you actually got around to defining “wrong”. (And assuming that by that definition murder actually _was_ wrong.) > > I mean, pick one. What is “wrong”? How can you tell? What defines wrong? Once the word has a meaning, we can scientifically and analytically establish the degree to which ‘murder’ meets this definition. And _until_ you define the word…you’re not really saying anything at all. Murder like many words we humans use are from an evolution of thought. Seeing other people be murdered and what it caused to others, and society, people might have then decided what was right or wrong. Just as some people believe it is wrong to have sex out of marriage or any other thing humans consider sinful or wrong. It sems that people came to the understanding that some things were bad for the society they lived in and decided some things were wrong, and some things were good. Then they decided (because some person said a supreme being reveled it to them) they chose to believe that person about a lot of things. It seems to be more of a social thing than anything else, like going to the bathroom in private or wearing clothes. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/394 "2010-10-07T23:15:40Z")
> [@](#): > > The Razor approach (the simplest and most obvious answer… ) would say “all apparent instances of faith healing are frauds or wishful thinking”. And when there is easy money to be fleeced off the gullible at any “faith healing revival meeting” (regardless of where or when, past or present), I’d say fraud is the simplest answer. Toss in the idea that people will “see” what they wanted to see or were conditioned to expect, and there you are. Fraud. You would be surprised how easy it is for faith healers to put one over on us WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING FRAUDULENT! For example, here is a trick often used by these people, especially if they are operating out of large auditoria and are on TV. Many of the people coming into these prayer meetings are older people or people with limited mobility who can still walk, maybe with a cane. Employees of the charlatan preacher watch for these people as they come in, and graciously offer them the free use of a wheelchair, the services of an attendant to push the chair, and a seat in the front row. They do not say a word about healing. Once they are sitting in the front row, in wheelchairs that the preacher can identify, everything is ready to fool the audience. Preacher: What is your name dear? Olivia: Olivia P. And do you love Jesus. Do you have faith in Jesus? Olivia: Oh, yes! P. Then I want you to close your eyes and say: “Jesus, I believe in you”. Now I want you to get up out of that wheelchair and walk with me on your own two feet and praise God. RIGHT NOW, Olivia! Naturally, Olivia gets up and starts to walk (heck, it IS his wheelchair, and Olivia CAN walk a certain distance). The audience breaks into wild applause. The preacher shouts praises to God as Olivia beams. Now, here is a question for anyone learned in the law: Has the preacher told a lie or has he done anything fraudulent? I doubt it. He has not even said a word about healing. In fact, Olivia would be astounded to learn that thousands of people think she was healed. There are all kinds of tricks like this used by faith healers. Often they are based on the fact that 90% of legally blind people have some eyesight, or that total deafness is rarer than we think. One wonders how often Jesus and these disciples used these tricks to “heal”. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/395 "2010-10-07T23:44:22Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > Now, here is a question for anyone learned in the law: Has the preacher told a lie or has he done anything fraudulent? I doubt it. He has not even said a word about healing. In fact, Olivia would be astounded to learn that thousands of people think she was healed. Yep you can get done under Australian fair trade laws just as much for what you don’t say as you do say. You have to use the “reasonable man” test, would a reasonable person think that he is saying she is healed through JC? The answer of course to this IMO would be, Yes. On the question of Jesus and his cures I think we need to step outside the cartoon interpretation of the bible and look at the story for what it is. Curing the blind is a metaphor that any fool can understand. Just listen to the words of the song, I was born blind but now I can see. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/396 "2010-10-07T23:55:46Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > If we can really experience it, we can measure something about it. Whatever the properties of your (supernatural or not) influence, if it has an effect on _us_, that means we can measure at least the effects. No I don’t see why we have to be able to measure it, maybe just maybe there are things beyond our mortal coil. It is arrogant in the extreme to say that only the physical is real, can we scientifically measure music to determine if it will inspire? No, if we did we would have computers writing all music and not just disposable pop songs. Yes, we can measure the effects but why does beethoven move me but I can’t stand pachobel? Why do people “not get” Opera, RAP, Metal etc? Can we explain sychronicity? We can try and often we get close but in the end we tend to move into philisophical discussions rather than scientific. Why does a beautiful sunrise fill me with joy but my brother thinks it is a waste of time? There are many more questions than answers at this stage of human/universe evolution and I will never presume that because it is incapable of being measured today that there is 100% not something beyond us. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/397 "2010-10-08T00:05:20Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > On the question of Jesus and his cures I think we need to step outside the cartoon interpretation of the bible and look at the story for what it is. Curing the blind is a metaphor that any fool can understand. Just listen to the words of the song, I was born blind but now I can see. Gee, for the past 2000 years just about 100% of Christians would have told you that it was REAL blindness being healed, not metaphorical. Now suddenly it is a metaphor? Say, maybe the crucifixion was a metaphor? Maybe the resurrection was a metaphor, in the sense that Jesus came back to life in the spread of his teachings, etc? Maybe it does not really mean physical resurrection? Or Maybe Jesus himself is a metaphor. Some Hebrew mystics ran together some Egyptian myths about the death of resurrection of Orsiris and a few saying by a couple of radical rabbis that the Romans had killed, and invented the metaphorical Jesus. METAPHOR? Are you sure you want to start on that slippery slope, my friend? ---
**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 8, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/398 "2010-10-08T00:11:22Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > No I don’t see why we have to be able to measure it, maybe just maybe there are things beyond our mortal coil. If so, then we will never know it or be affected by it, therefore there’s no real point in talking about it because there’s nothing to talk about. And at any rate you contradict that theory with the rest of your post when you start talking about things that are “in our mortal coil”. > [@sisu](#): > > It is arrogant in the extreme to say that only the physical is real, can we scientifically measure music to determine if it will inspire? No, if we did we would have computers writing all music and not just disposable pop songs. Yes, we can measure the effects but why does beethoven move me but I can’t stand pachobel? Why do people “not get” Opera, RAP, Metal etc? Ah, the God of the Gaps again. No, just because we can’t write programs that write good music yet doesn’t mean there’s any reason to think something mystical is involved. We also can’t yet build a machine that manufactures chicken eggs or that can run as well as a gazelle; that just means our machines are lacking not that magic is involved. > [@sisu](#): > > Can we explain sychronicity? Easily. In a world full of randomness sometimes things just happen. > [@sisu](#): > > Why does a beautiful sunrise fill me with joy but my brother thinks it is a waste of time? Because you aren’t identical copies. Really, those are all terrible attempts to pretend that there’s something “beyond the material”, whatever that would actually mean. ---
**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 8, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/399 "2010-10-08T00:26:05Z")
> [@](#): > > It is arrogant in the extreme to say that only the physical is real… Religious people make claims about their god’s interaction with the physical world all the time. Most commonly that he created it, and frequently that he continues to exert some measure of influence on what goes on here, whether he makes thunder with his hammer, makes the sun rise with his chariot, or occasionally heals the sick. If any of this actually happens, then we should be able to measure it. If we detect no sign of it, then there isn’t any reason whatsoever to think that any of it happens. The fact that old books say so isn’t very compelling. ---
**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 8, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/400 "2010-10-08T00:50:02Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > If we can really experience it, we can measure something about it. Whatever the properties of your (supernatural or not) influence, if it has an effect on _us_, that means we can measure at least the effects. > > No I don’t see why we have to be able to measure it, maybe just maybe there are things beyond our mortal coil. _If it has an effect_, yes we can measure the effect. If it doesn’t, who cares? > [@](#): > > It is arrogant in the extreme to say that only the physical is real I didn’t say that… Not least because I’m not certain what you mean by “physical”. Gravity for instance can be interpreted as non-physical for some definitions of physical, yet I do think gravity is a real phenomenon. > [@](#): > > can we scientifically measure music to determine if it will inspire? To a very limited extend, yes we can. I did multiple courses on that sort of thing 15 years ago. > [@](#): > > No, if we did we would have computers writing all music and not just disposable pop songs. If you’re under the impression that computers can’t write fairly pleasant music right now, you’re wrong. And classical music is probably easier to compose with software than pop. > [@](#): > > Yes, we can measure the effects but why does beethoven move me but I can’t stand pachobel? Why do people “not get” Opera, RAP, Metal etc? \*\* I never said anything about “why”. Are you proposing that god has anything to do with it? If not, why are you bringing it up? > [@](#): > > Can we explain sychronicity? Things happen more or less at the same time all the time. > [@](#): > > We can try and often we get close but in the end we tend to move into philisophical discussions rather than scientific. You are, yes. > [@](#): > > Why does a beautiful sunrise fill me with joy but my brother thinks it is a waste of time? See \*\* above. > [@](#): > > There are many more questions than answers at this stage of human/universe evolution and I will never presume that because it is incapable of being measured today that there is 100% not something beyond us. If that’s your reason for making up a god, you might want to rethink your position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=21)