# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/161 "2010-10-04T04:34:49Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@sisu](#): > > > > mate you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe. > > > > Oh and shut up and leave me alone you are worse than reformed smokers. > > If you think that there’s no reason to believe true things and disbelieve false things, then you’re wrong. > > By the way, I’ve never been religious. WTF, I can believe whatever I want to. I see no reason to stop believing in what i do, I can seperate science and philisophy. Not all can be explained by science. ---
**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 4, 2010, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/162 "2010-10-04T04:51:48Z")
Name one thing that can be explained by any other method. ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/163 "2010-10-04T05:29:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Name one thing that can be explained by any other method. [Little long, but I love Dara O’Briain’s commentary on science and evidence, which somewhat ties into **sisu** ’s comment.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo) Up through about the first 3 minutes. ---
**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 4, 2010, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/164 "2010-10-04T07:27:25Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Not all can be explained by science. It’s not like science explains some things, and religion explains some other things. It’s like science explains some things, and religion makes up random crap about other things. Making up random crap is not “explaining”. ---
**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 4, 2010, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/165 "2010-10-04T07:33:49Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@sisu](#): > > > > Not all can be explained by science. > > It’s not like science explains some things, and religion explains some other things. > > It’s like science explains some things, and religion makes up random crap about other things. > > Making up random crap is not “explaining”. Sure it is, it’s just a lousy explanation. And these people don’t think it was made up, They think it was revealed by God. They believe this is true even for scientific knowledge they accept – God allowed it to be revealed to the scientist. A lot of scientists used to believe this too, and some probably still do. ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyOgre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@FuzzyOgre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyOgre)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/166 "2010-10-04T09:51:22Z")
Its not the atheism that is new. Whats new is that religious hardliners can no longer lock people up, run them out of town(for the most part) or worse: such things as burning them at the stake. And we atheists know that. You cannot shut us up with your old trump card of punitive actions. We neither fear your divinities retribution nor your social engineering. Thats just like people to pretend their weakness doesnt exist by inventing pejoratives for their foes. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/167 "2010-10-04T11:46:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Name one thing that can be explained by any other method. 1. Prove you exist. Define “exist.” 2. Resolved: Murder is wrong. Define “wrong.” 3. Explain why the universe should be governed by regular, mathematical laws. I’ll grant you, philosophy and religion don’t explain these things with scientific rigor, but science doesn’t touch them. To paraphrase my old moral philosophy teacher, if you try to analyze them, you’ll use philosophy and religion, know it or not; and if you don’t know it, you’ll do it anyway, but you’ll probably do it badly. Q. What was Hemingway getting at in _A Farewell to Arms_? A. He was trying to say Catherine dies. I read the book 20 times and she dies at the end each time.That’s 100% correlation coefficient, with a Χ[sup]2[/sup] of . . . ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/168 "2010-10-04T12:20:50Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > I’ll grant you, philosophy and religion don’t explain these things with scientific rigor, but science doesn’t touch them. To paraphrase my old moral philosophy teacher, if you try to analyze them, you’ll use philosophy and religion, know it or not; and if you don’t know it, you’ll do it anyway, but you’ll probably do it badly. Completely wrong. > [@](#): > > 1. Prove you exist. Define “exist.” You can prove I exist the same way you prove anything else exists: by identifying the experimental feedback that you would expect if I do exist, and find out if that feedback occurs. In this case, you post something on the internet that I would find offensively ignorant, and the feedback is someone using my username responding to your post. All philosophy is good for is constructing stupid, incorrect excuses for why that evidence doesn’t count. > [@](#): > > 1. Resolved: Murder is wrong. Define “wrong.” Philosophy does have a place in answering such a question. Religion does not. All religion amounts to is claiming X is moral or immoral because a fictional character (“God”) says so. > [@](#): > > 1. Explain why the universe should be governed by regular, mathematical laws. You’ve got it ass-backwards. The default position is to assume the evidence available to you is equally valid elsewhere, until you find evidence to the contrary. It’s up to you to prove that the universe _doesn’t_ follow the same laws everywhere as it does here. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/169 "2010-10-04T13:19:24Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Philosophy does have a place in answering such a question. Religion does not. All religion amounts to is claiming X is moral or immoral because a fictional character (“God”) says so. Cite that religious moral principles don’t go beyond [divine command theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)? > [@](#): > > You’ve got it ass-backwards. The default position is to assume the evidence available to you is equally valid elsewhere, until you find evidence to the contrary. It’s up to you to prove that the universe _doesn’t_ follow the same laws everywhere as it does here. Isn’t it a philosophical question, rather than a scientific question, what the “default position” is, and what’s up to whom to prove? ---
**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 4, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/170 "2010-10-04T13:44:07Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > If you think that there’s no reason to believe true things and disbelieve false things, then you’re wrong. > > > > By the way, I’ve never been religious. > > WTF, I can believe whatever I want to. I never said otherwise, but just because you _can_, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. > [@](#): > > I see no reason to stop believing in what i do, I can seperate science and philisophy. And if it’s false, you just don’t care? Or is that an objection only to non-religious ideas? > [@](#): > > Not all can be explained by science. So what? Unless you’ve got some other way to explain stuff. ---
**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 4, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/171 "2010-10-04T13:44:12Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Name one thing that can be explained by any other method. > > 1. Prove you exist. Define “exist.” All I need to do is walk up to someone and poke them to “prove they exist”, as far as anything outside mathematics gets proven. > [@coffeecat](#): > > 1. Resolved: Murder is wrong. Define “wrong.” Science has quite a bit to say about psychology and the origin of morality actually. As for why murder is wrong; it’s because we don’t want to be murdered. > [@coffeecat](#): > > 1. Explain why the universe should be governed by regular, mathematical laws. Because we wouldn’t be here to comment on the matter if it wasn’t. > [@coffeecat](#): > > I’ll grant you, philosophy and religion don’t explain these things with scientific rigor, but science doesn’t touch them. Philosophy doesn’t explain anything, at best it just defines terms and procedures; often it is just hot air. Religion of course is even worse since it actively defies facts and logic. And no, making things up doesn’t count as explaining them. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/172 "2010-10-04T13:51:02Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > [@Grumman](#): > > > > Philosophy does have a place in answering such a question. Religion does not. All religion amounts to is claiming X is moral or immoral because a fictional character (“God”) says so. > > Cite that religious moral principles don’t go beyond [divine command theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)? How, precisely, am I supposed to provide a cite for something not existing? Should I go through every moral principle held by every religion and demonstrate that they are either arbitrarily defined by a god, or derived from secular philosophy? > [@](#): > > Isn’t it a philosophical question, rather than a scientific question, what the “default position” is, and what’s up to whom to prove? No, it’s the basis of the scientific method. The scientific method requires that the experiment be _repeatable_ in all its fundamental properties. There would be no such thing as a repeatable experiment if the default position was that things are different until proven otherwise. ---
**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 4, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/173 "2010-10-04T13:57:39Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Name one thing that can be explained by any other method. > > 1. Prove you exist. Define “exist.” What are you askng me to _explain_ here? > [@](#): > > 1. Resolved: Murder is wrong. Define “wrong.” What are you asking me to _explain_ here? There is a great deal of scintifically derived information on the cultural and evolutionary reasons for humans having a taboo on murder. The reasons are not magical or inexplicable. > [@](#): > > 1. Explain why the universe should be governed by regular, mathematical laws. What do you mean by “_should_ be governed?” It just is. We know tis from scientific method. I don’t think you understand what I was saying. Science is a method for discovering information. Name any other another method for discovering information besides the scientific method. > [@](#): > > I’ll grant you, philosophy and religion don’t explain these things with scientific rigor, but science doesn’t touch them. I don’t understand what you think needs to be _explained_ about them. Give me any alternative at all to scientific method for discovering information about the universe. Religion sure as hell doesn’t give you any information. ---
**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 4, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/174 "2010-10-04T15:17:38Z")
> [@FuzzyOgre](#): > > Its not the atheism that is new. Whats new is that religious hardliners can no longer lock people up, run them out of town(for the most part) or worse: such things as burning them at the stake. How exactly is that “new”? Are you implying that religious hardliners could “lock people up, run them out of town, or burn them at the stake” ten years ago? Or a hundred or two hundred? If so, you’re flat wrong. (In England & USA, just so you don’t resort to the desperate tactic of pointing to places like Afghanistan.) So again, please explain what you meant by this statement. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/175 "2010-10-04T15:23:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > How exactly is that “new”? Are you implying that religious hardliners could “lock people up, run them out of town, or burn them at the stake” ten years ago? Or a hundred or two hundred? If so, you’re flat wrong. (In England & USA, just so you don’t resort to the desperate tactic of pointing to places like Afghanistan.) So again, please explain what you meant by this statement. Interestingly enough, the laws against blasphemy were only repealed in the UK in, IIRC, 2008. ---
**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 4, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/176 "2010-10-04T15:27:32Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Interestingly enough, the laws against blasphemy were only repealed in the UK in, IIRC, 2008. And in my liberal drugged up country of the Netherlands, where same sex marriage is legal, and people generally don’t care about religion, there is still a blasphemy law on the books, and in fact some of the Christian politicians have suggested strengthening them and increasing their enforcement (nobody’s been convicted since the 70s, and I’m not aware of any prosecution since that time either). ---
**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 4, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/177 "2010-10-04T15:28:30Z")
[Ireland passed a blasphemy law THIS YEAR](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law), which provides a penalty of up to twenty five thousand pounds. ---
**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 4, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/178 "2010-10-04T15:32:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The last man to be sent to prison for blasphemy [in England] was John William Gott. In 1922 he was sentenced to nine months hard labour for comparing Jesus with a circus clown. In Scotland, there has not been a public prosecution since 1843"3. The 1843 prosecution was when bookseller Thomas Paterson was sentenced at Edinburgh High Court to 15 months in prison for selling blasphemous books [Cite](http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/blasphemy.html) ---
**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 4, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/179 "2010-10-04T15:45:57Z")
[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses;12981357But that’s hardly a “positive argument”.[/quote] Yes, it is a positive argument. Positive means “explicity stated or explained”, according to my dictionary. Dawkins explicity states that he has a reason why I should believe that God almost certainly does not exist. Think back to the Bush administration. Do you recall how, when Shrub or Cheney said things like “we are witnessing the last throes of the insurgency”, the 'Pubs on television had ways to explain that it was true we were witnessing the last throes of the insurgency, but this wasn’t supposed to _mean_ that the insurgency would end soon? And likewise, half the other things that they said, they insisted were true but tried to avoid facing the contrary facts by changing definitions and twisting logic. To those outside the Dawkins camp, the ceaseless attempts to defend the man by insisting that he didn’t mean the straightforward interpretation of the words on the page look equally ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682/180 "2010-10-04T15:46:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What are you asking me to _explain_ here? There is a great deal of scintifically derived information on the cultural and evolutionary reasons for humans having a taboo on murder. All that demonstrates is that there are sociological advantages to not murdering anyone. That doesn’t answer the question of whether murder is right or wrong. “But murder is bad for society!” one might say. Perhaps that’s true, but it doesn’t answer the question of right or wrong. After all, why should you place the welfare of society above your own personal desires? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-responses-to-new-atheists/555682.md?page=10)