# Can America trust atheists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906 "2006-03-26T01:07:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/241 "2006-03-28T17:29:21Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] No. It makes logical sense to say that all things are subject to causality, except that which is extra-natural. That would make god eternal. And that is certainly no more outlandish than claiming the matter and ebergy, in some form have been around for eternity, with no beginning. [:quote] It is way more outlandish. We have clear evidences that matter and energy exist. We’ve zero evidence that any sort of “supreme being” exist. If we _assume_ that something has to be eternal and uncaused, it’s way more likely to be something we know exists than something you just made up and that we can’t find anywhere. Once again, the fact that you/we don’t know the answer to a question doesn’t mean that some random, arbitrary explanation that happens to strike your fancy is in any way valid, should be taken seriously or require a rebuttal. Especially not when there isn’t even any evidence that the question itself (what is the original cause?) is a valid one. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/242 "2006-03-28T17:30:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > To All It May Concern, > > PLease, please, please, please, please, please, please, PLEASE stop arguing FOR Atheism by arguing AGAINST religious beliefs and a particular version of God. It is intellectually dishonest. What’s dishonest about it? “God” is your hyposthesis. It is your burden to show anyone else why they should believe it. Your objection is ridiculous. It’s no different than telling people they shouldn’t argue for the non-existence of werewolves by arguing against the plausibility of werewolves. The Initial Question is purely philosphical: How did all this, including us, get here. Answers fall into three _philosophical_ camps; Theist: there is a supreme being who started it all off Atheist: there is not a supreme being who started it all off Agnostic: I do not and cannot know if a supreme being started it all off [/quote] No, these are not the only answers. There are an infinite number of other answers as well. For instance, maybe the universe was made by goblins. In fact, we can easily replace the word “supreme being” with “goblins” in every one of your examples. Goblinist: There are goblins who started it all. Agoblinist: There are no goblins who started it all. Agnostic. I do not and cannot know if goblins started it all. There is just as much evidence for that solution as for a “supreme being.” The problem for both is that there isn’t the slightest reason to hypothesize either. You are multiplying _entia_ beyond their necessity. The way to answer questions is to actually start without assumptions, study the evidence and see what you can determine from actual facts. Imagining magical wizards is fun and all but completely useless as a method of acquiring information. Unless and until you can explain why your “supreme being” deserves to be taken any more seriously than goblins then you have no reason to expect other people to offer it any default credibility just because you believe it. > [@](#): > > Three philosophical positions. Adherents to the first two believe thay have an answer to the question. Those who do not fall into the third category. Yes, there are sub-categories to all three. Number two is not an answer to the question. Number one is a completely random hypothesis supported by nothing. > [@](#): > > To demonstrate that the first is not a religious position, consider that a person can adhere to it, yet believe that his god (small "g’, as in supreme being) his no interest in the lives of men, that man is not made in his image, that paying homage to Him is unneccesary or ridiculous, that we are not the point of His creation. He may simply have satisfied his curiosity with an an answer and never give it a moment’s thought for the rest of his life. This person is simply forming an opinion on “what started it all?” It is a philosophical position. Was there a Prime Mover, a First Cause? Since any theistic belief at all is unnecessary and unsupported by evidence then it is all faith-based and therefore religious. > [@](#): > > When we are discussing Atheism, its opposing choice in the decision tree is Theism. Insisting that Atheism be argued for by contrastiing it with a particular strain of Theism is faulty and unfair. If you are going to argue for Atheism you must be willing to defend it against Theism in it’s purest form, not one of it’s subsets. I’ve never seen anybody do this. Cite? > [@](#): > > Some of you realize this and continue to do it. Who does this? Examples? ---
**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:** [March 28, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/243 "2006-03-28T17:34:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This person is simply forming an opinion on “what started it all?” It is a philosophical position. Was there a Prime Mover, a First Cause? A god does not qualify as such; what caused it ? > [@magellan01](#): > > If you are going to argue for Atheism you must be willing to defend it against Theism in it’s purest form, not one of it’s subsets. There _is_ no such thing, or if there is it’s so rare as to be not worth the effort to argue against. Besides, it is the logical burden of believers to prove themselves, or at least provide the slightest bit of evidence to prove that they are not simply insane or fools or stupid. > [@magellan01](#): > > It is quite possible to that Theism is correct and every religion that has ever entered the mind of man is 100% incorrect. As I’ve said elsewhere, that’s just an argument for atheism; if every religion is 100% incorrect, then by definition there are no gods. > [@magellan01](#): > > So, please, argue Atheism by contrasting it with the purest version of what is it at odds with. Why would I bother arguing against something virtually no one cares about, or will bother defending ? Besides, it’s still the job of the believers to prove themselves, not me to prove them wrong. > [@magellan01](#): > > A religious one, not a philosophical one. Any conversation mentioning a god is religious. > [@magellan01](#): > > No. It makes logical sense to say that all things are subject to causality, except that which is extra-natural. But they aren’t, as I and others have pointed out. > [@magellan01](#): > > That would make god eternal. And that is certainly no more outlandish than claiming the matter and ebergy, in some form have been around for eternity, with no beginning. Incorrect. We at least know that they exist. We don’t even know if a god is _possible_. > [@magellan01](#): > > I am willing to. Present the explanation. From what I’ve read, QM attempts to explain the random appearance of matter in a particular place/time, not it’s creation. Same thing. > [@magellan01](#): > > But please, present a the QM theory that accounts for the beginning of everything. \< quick google \> Here’s a mention. > [@](#): > > One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause’ behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/244 "2006-03-28T17:40:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. It makes logical sense to say that all things are subject to causality, except that which is extra-natural. That would make god eternal. And that is certainly no more outlandish than claiming the matter and ebergy, in some form have been around for eternity, with no beginning. It’s far more outlandish because it hyothesizes something eben MORE complex to to explain a universe which you claim is too complex not to have been created by magic. It’s also _superfluous_. If the multiverse (not the universe, there’s a difference) is eternal, then there is no need for a First Mover. > [@](#): > > I am willing to. Present the explanation. From what I’ve read, QM attempts to explain the random appearance of matter in a particular place/time, not it’s creation. Your understanding is wrong. “Creation” is the wrong word but virtual particles can and do appear from the quantum vacuum all the time. Particles that never existed before literally pop into being from nothing. But please, present a the QM theory that accounts for the beginning of everything. [/QUOTE] There was no “beginning” in QM theories. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/245 "2006-03-28T18:02:59Z")
[/hyjack] > [@tomndebb](#): > > **JustAnotherGeek** ’s [rebuttal to my speculation](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7236185&postcount=111) may have some validity, but I suspect that there are not that many people who really look at his first point. The gulf exists, but similar gulfs exist with people wholly misunderstanding Jews or Catholics or Muslims or members of the CoJCotLDS. You would be amazed at what people, in ignorance, believe about those groups–and I am not sure that to the typical unthinking person, the difference between God/no god is much larger than that between my God/your god. OK, granted, the people in this thread are better informed than the majority of Americans, but I still say this whole 2+ pages of hyjacking are pretty good evidence for my “Philosophical Grand Canyon.” You are, of course, correct that anyone who holds an ignorant view of any philosophical/religious group will have such a gap. My argument is that the philosophical gap between a theist and an atheist will be larger (perhaps not by all that much) than the gap between a theist and a naturalist. (Of course, this doesn’t explain the animosity of very closely aligned religions. I got nothin’ for ya there.) we now return you to your regularly scheduled [hyjack] ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/246 "2006-03-28T18:06:55Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Please, then, teel us which not flawed argument we should use… I think that the best arguement is: Man has always tried to explain events around him. But with very little knowledge about how the world worked he assigned explanations that enabled him to stop inquiry: Thunder God, Rain God, Sun God, etc. As man learned more every single one of these explanations were both unnecessary and at odds with close scrutiny. There is every reason to believe that further learning will answer every question we now have. The problem of First Cause is not a problem because there is not First Cause in a Universe that always existed. > [@clairobscur](#): > > If god is just energy, then we could call the univese “god”. If god is only the original cause, then we could call the big bang “god”. If god is something yet to be discovered, then we could have called “god” things like gravitation before it was discovered. I don’t think so. God would require a will, otherwise First Cause is still an issue. And god is not an event, but the thing that caused the event. > [@clairobscur](#): > > There’s no reason to assume that whatever we’ll discover in the future will be in any way similar to what people usually call god, or the IPU. but if you strech the definition of “god” to include pretty much anything that explains something about the universe, then this debate is pointless, because it has nothing to do with debates happening in real life between atheists and believers. I think that’s part of the reason why no headway will be made. The arguement is dishonest. If you have a problem with my religion, argue that. If you have a problem with a philosophical position that lead me to my rleigion, argue that. > [@clairobscur](#): > > It was a completely arbitrary explanation. There’s zero reason, once again, to assume that the existence of the universe requires a cause and no evidence whatsoever that if it does this cause would have anything to do with what people generally envision when they refer to a god/gods. I agree on the last part. Not on the first. We live in a world where everything we are aware of has a cause. To include matter and energy in that pool is completely logicval. It may be incorrect, but is a logical assumption. > [@clairobscur](#): > > What you’re refering to to is a “god of the gaps”. Volataire used to state that the fact pears don’t grow on apple-trees was a valid argument in favor of the existence of a creator. I yet don’t understand something, so i’m going to make up an explanation, I’m going to call it “god” and I’m going to give this “god” various totally arbitrary attributes because it looks better that way. No. Maybe god of the Gap, singular. First Cause isthe only think that cannot be explained away. God couls have snapped his fingers eons ago and everything could have operated in accordance with the laws of the univers and evolution since then. > [@clairobscur](#): > > “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer, you know. There’s no need to make up one, and I’ve no reason to take you seriously if you do. I couldn’t agree more. But, I would add, if you do have an opinion, please leave room for the possibility that you may be wrong. That is why Agniostics have an easier times than Atheists, particularly the strong version. > [@clairobscur](#): > > …if you stretch the definition of god so much that the word becomes meaningless and can be used for any kind of explanation yet to be discovered, or anything we can’t comprehend. It’s only meaningless if you need a tool with which to bludgeon your opponents. And the definition of god isn’t being stretched, it’s being left in its pure form. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Well, everything, except in quantum physics. I’d love to hear the theory… > [@clairobscur](#): > > The fact that we’re not wired to grasp the concept of an uncaused effect doesn’t mean that such a thing isn’t possible. Yes. Excellent point. But we can only work with the tools we have. But we should always keep this in mind. > [@clairobscur](#): > > “I dont understand this big bang stuff so it must be god” is exactly as valid a statement as “I don’t understand this thunder stuff so it must be god”. No it is not. First Cause is a problem of logic at least as much it is a problem of knowledge. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And finally, more importantly, god doesn’t answer the question of the ultimate cause. What is the cause of God? Why is there a god rather than nothing? I fail to see how “god” could be an intellectually satisfactory ultimate answer. It is the thing that is extra-natural. The thing that wouldn’t be bound by the laws of the natural world. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Generally speaking if believers actually supported the kind of undefined concept of god you’re discussing, if religious beliefs could be summed up by “I believe there’s actually an ultimate cause of undefined nature” there wouldn’t be many arguments between “religious” people and atheists. I actually suspect that many, if not most, atheists would have to be requalified as “believers” using such a definition. But you know as well as I do that it’s not at all this kind of “religious belief” atheists are faced with. So, what about coming back to earth and actually discussing the actual issues? I am discussing the actual issue, in the cleanest way possible. Flowing robes and miracles and resurections are fodder for another debate which is interesting in it’s own right. But where does Atheism necessarily break from Theism? If you beleive their is common ground there, I find that encouraging as far as more civil dialogue and mutual acceptance goes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/247 "2006-03-28T18:12:53Z")
[QUOTE=clairobscur] It is way more outlandish. We have clear evidences that matter and energy exist. We’ve zero evidence that any sort of “supreme being” exist. If we _assume_ that something has to be eternal and uncaused, it’s way more likely to be something we know exists than something you just made up and that we can’t find anywhere.[?QUOTE] I disagree. Given our experiance, I find it way more strange that one or two things of the natural world would not be subject to the laws that govern all the others. I find it more logical to attribute the attribute of having no cause to a extra-natural thing. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/248 "2006-03-28T18:21:07Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Yeah, actually it does matter whether or not I think God is a literally (or even metaphorically) a bearded man in the sky. There’s a significant difference between “It is plausible that _X_ exists” and “It is plausible that a cartoony, symbolic, pictorial representation of _X_ literally exists.” If I thought Republicans and Democrats were literally elephants and donkeys wearing stars-n-stripes top hats, I wouldn’t believe in them either. What a neat way to deflect any questions as to how you **do** conceive this particuar god. How should someone who simply doesn’t believe in whatever image of Javeh is currently favored by believers frame the argument that Javeh is equivalent to any other mental construct? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/249 "2006-03-28T18:37:28Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > How should someone who simply doesn’t believe in whatever image of Javeh is currently favored by believers frame the argument that Javeh is equivalent to any other mental construct? But that’s precisely the problem. One needn’t assign any attributes to god, other than he is god, i.e., Prime Mover. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/250 "2006-03-28T18:57:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But that’s precisely the problem. One needn’t assign any attributes to god, other than he is god, i.e., Prime Mover. But even that limited definition is still a definition. And some people do not believe that it exists (and is therefore a mental construct). [good ole boy accent]What we have here, is a failure of the “PGC” type.[/g o b a] 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/251 "2006-03-28T21:28:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have no more respect for a rude, proselytizing atheist than I do for a rude, proselytizing Fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. Hear, hear! It appears to me after slogging through this thread that the theists _believe on faith_ that a god exists, where atheists _believe on faith_ that no god exists. I see no more validity in viewpoint than the other, as each side is taking a position without adequate evidence to support it. Only the agnostics admit that they don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/252 "2006-03-28T21:29:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > To All It May Concern, > > PLease, please, please, please, please, please, please, PLEASE stop arguing FOR Atheism by arguing AGAINST religious beliefs and a particular version of God. It is intellectually dishonest. The Initial Question is purely philosphical: How did all this, including us, get here. Answers fall into three _philosophical_ camps; > > Theist: there is a supreme being who started it all off > Atheist: there is not a supreme being who started it all off > Agnostic: I do not and cannot know if a supreme being started it all off I don’t agree. Thing is, nobody–not even you–really decides things this way. We grow up as kids, people we trust teach us answers about life, the universe and everything, and we either accept or reject those answers. The trouble is that you’ve defined “God” as “Uncaused First Cause”. You and about 25 other people in the world. The other 6 billion define “God” in other ways. People don’t believe in God for the reasons you imagined…sitting down in a philosophy seminar, deciding that there must have been an uncaused first cause, and then trying to determine if there are any other attributes they could attribute to that uncaused first cause. It never every happens that way. Never. Hinduism, Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Theosophism, none of them started that way. Thing is, you’ve got a very narrow definition of God there. Most people aren’t atheists because they are convinced that there wasn’t an uncaused first cause, but rather because every purported “God” they’ve ever heard of doesn’t make sense. You are SURE that there was an uncaused first cause, right? But why? Because everything has a cause except the first cause? So what? Why label the reason for the existance of the universe “God”? You’re just going to confuse people, even people who have a sophisticated view of God, who don’t believe in Odin or Zeus or Yahweh. If your position is that God is an uncaused first cause, and we can say nothing else whatsoever about God, then 97% of theists and atheists and agnostics would call you an atheist. In fact, I’ll do it. You’re an atheist, because an uncaused first cause isn’t “God”, any more than a tail is a leg. You call yourself a theist, just because there must have been some cause that started the universe? Pah. You’re an atheist, get used to the idea. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/253 "2006-03-28T21:47:25Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Hear, hear! > > It appears to me after slogging through this thread that the theists _believe on faith_ that a god exists, where atheists _believe on faith_ that no god exists. I see no more validity in viewpoint than the other, as each side is taking a position without adequate evidence to support it. Only the agnostics admit that they don’t know. This is false in two ways. First because atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a positive belief that gods can’t exist and second because lack of belief is a logical default, not a faith position. There is no more faith involved with failing to be convinced of the existence of sky gods than with failing to be convinced of the existence of vampires. The positions are not equally valid. Theism involves a positive assertion, atheism does not. Like I keep saying, no one can show any reason that the existence of gods should be taken any more seriously than the existence of goblins and there is nothing unfair, arrogant, irrational or “faith-based” about failing to be convinced of the existence of either. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/254 "2006-03-28T22:06:47Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > It appears to me after slogging through this thread that the theists _believe on faith_ that a god exists, where atheists _believe on faith_ that no god exists. Even though it’s been explained over and over and over that this isn’t the case? I guess it’s somewhat enlightening, in a roundabout way, that so much of this stuff has been discussed elsewhere, repeatedly, often in identical ways. I know I have no editorial control here, obviously, but a lot of that stuff is tangential. So let me pose this question, even though it’s almost a Cafe Society thing: let’s say we do get some, if not admirable, at least ‘regular’ atheist characters on TV. What would they have to do in order for the public to find them palatable? Does the proposed atheist Kramer just need to rant from time to time, in an amusing and obviously comical manner, about God not existing? There may be something to learn from the increasingly positive climate for gays on television, although there’s a much more visible stereotype of what gay guys are like. (I’m not sure what tele-lesbians are supposed to be like. They appear to be hot women who have no characteristics other than liking other hot women.) ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/255 "2006-03-28T22:38:50Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] > [@clairobscur](#): > > It is way more outlandish. We have clear evidences that matter and energy exist. We’ve zero evidence that any sort of “supreme being” exist. If we _assume_ that something has to be eternal and uncaused, it’s way more likely to be something we know exists than something you just made up and that we can’t find anywhere.[?QUOTE] > > I disagree. Given our experiance, I find it way more strange that one or two things of the natural world would not be subject to the laws that govern all the others. I find it more logical to attribute the attribute of having no cause to a extra-natural thing. Our experience show us that there are exceptions to rules so noone should find it strange that one or two things in the natural world behaves in a different manner. There is no need to push the quality of causelessness to the supernatural. Also, as someone already pointed out, cosmic particles appear to be uncaused. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/256 "2006-03-28T22:40:21Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > So let me pose this question, even though it’s almost a Cafe Society thing: let’s say we do get some, if not admirable, at least ‘regular’ atheist characters on TV. What would they have to do in order for the public to find them palatable? Does the proposed atheist Kramer just need to rant from time to time, in an amusing and obviously comical manner, about God not existing? There may be something to learn from the increasingly positive climate for gays on television, although there’s a much more visible stereotype of what gay guys are like. (I’m not sure what tele-lesbians are supposed to be like. They appear to be hot women who have no characteristics other than liking other hot women.) I would like to see a show (maybe something similar in format to the X-Files) about a caharacter or characters who investigate alleged paranormal phenomena and debunk them, explaining in deatil how things are faked and providing ample Sagan-esque commentaries on critical thinking and empirical method. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/257 "2006-03-28T22:53:08Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I would like to see a show (maybe something similar in format to the X-Files) about a caharacter or characters who investigate alleged paranormal phenomena and debunk them, explaining in deatil how things are faked and providing ample Sagan-esque commentaries on critical thinking and empirical method. Why try to make such an issue out of being (dun dun duuuun) _an atheist_? All we need are regular characters in regular shows being good parents, friends, citizens who happen to be atheists. And when the subject comes up, not shying away from stating their beliefs and not jumping up and down and saying that theists are stupid-heads who live in a world of make-believe. All we are trying to do is get “America [to] trust atheists,” not get all Americans to _be_ atheists. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/258 "2006-03-28T23:10:47Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Thing is, nobody–not even you–really decides things this way. We grow up as kids, people we trust teach us answers about life, the universe and everything, and we either accept or reject those answers. The trouble is that you’ve defined “God” as “Uncaused First Cause”. You and about 25 other people in the world. The other 6 billion define “God” in other ways. People don’t believe in God for the reasons you imagined…sitting down in a philosophy seminar, deciding that there must have been an uncaused first cause, and then trying to determine if there are any other attributes they could attribute to that uncaused first cause. It never every happens that way. Never. Hinduism, Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Theosophism, none of them started that way. I agree that most peole do not think about it. But we are on a debate board in a thread discussing atheism and theism. Excuse the firing synspses, and feel free to ignore them. And I think I might have a better handle on my thought processes than you, but thanks for filling me in all the same. And when I’m interested in an expert on the beginnings of ALL religions and events that NEVER occured at those beginnings, I’ll be sure to seek out your expertise. > [@Lemur866](#): > > Thing is, you’ve got a very narrow definition of God there. Did you notice that it was god with a small “g”? > [@Lemur866](#): > > Most people aren’t atheists because they are convinced that there wasn’t an uncaused first cause, but rather because every purported “God” they’ve ever heard of doesn’t make sense. That is an arguement against God, not god. > [@Lemur866](#): > > You are SURE that there was an uncaused first cause, right? I have come to that conclusion. I have said that I may very well be wrong. I am completely open to the possibility. > [@Lemur866](#): > > You’re just going to confuse people… Obviously. Sorry to have confused you. You may want to read things over, though. Just a suggestion. > [@Lemur866](#): > > …even people who have a sophisticated view of God, who don’t believe in Odin or Zeus or Yahweh. If your position is that God is an uncaused first cause, and we can say nothing else whatsoever about God, then 97% of theists and atheists and agnostics would call you an atheist. Then 97% would be wrong. > [@Lemur866](#): > > In fact, I’ll do it. Go right ahead. It’ll just be one more thing you are wrong about. But that list is kinda long already, so you might want to rethink that. Again, just a suggestion. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/259 "2006-03-28T23:12:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think so. God would require a will, otherwise First Cause is still an issue. And god is not an event, but the thing that caused the event. “First cause” _isn’t_ an issue, as I and others have pointed out; nor does “will” have anything to do with it. > [@magellan01](#): > > We live in a world where everything we are aware of has a cause. Once again, incorrect, and already discussed. > [@magellan01](#): > > No. Maybe god of the Gap, singular. First Cause isthe only think that cannot be explained away. There is no evidence that anything _needs_ to be “explained away”. > [@magellan01](#): > > I couldn’t agree more. But, I would add, if you do have an opinion, please leave room for the possibility that you may be wrong. That is why Agniostics have an easier times than Atheists, particularly the strong version. No, IMHO it’s because they are regarded as either ripe for conversion, or to weak willed to be dangerous to religion. > [@magellan01](#): > > It’s only meaningless if you need a tool with which to bludgeon your opponents. And the definition of god isn’t being stretched, it’s being left in its pure form. If it means whatever you want it to mean at the moment, that’s meaningless enough for me. Also, there is no _pure form_, except in your imagination. > [@magellan01](#): > > No it is not. First Cause is a problem of logic at least as much it is a problem of knowledge. You haven’t even proven that it _is_ a problem. > [@magellan01](#): > > It is the thing that is extra-natural. The thing that wouldn’t be bound by the laws of the natural world. In other words, something that does not and cannot exist, by any rules we understand. Claiming that God is impossible doesn’t make him more likely. > [@magellan01](#): > > But where does Atheism necessarily break from Theism? If you beleive their is common ground there, I find that encouraging as far as more civil dialogue and mutual acceptance goes. There is no common ground. Religion by nature is hostile to everything but itself. > [@magellan01](#): > > Given our experiance, I find it way more strange that one or two things of the natural world would not be subject to the laws that govern all the others. And where has anyone claimed that ? > [@magellan01](#): > > I find it more logical to attribute the attribute of having no cause to a extra-natural thing. In other words, to an impossibility. > [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > I see no more validity in viewpoint than the other, as each side is taking a position without adequate evidence to support it. Only because you give religion a special status. If I claimed that the Moon was going to turn into a giant wombat tomorrow ( something I consider more plausible than God ), and someone else dismissed that claim as nonsense, would you give both claims equal weight ? Of course not. The logical default is that something _does not exist_, that a claim is false, unless evidence is provided. > [@Marley23](#): > > So let me pose this question, even though it’s almost a Cafe Society thing: let’s say we do get some, if not admirable, at least ‘regular’ atheist characters on TV. What would they have to do in order for the public to find them palatable? I don’t believe it’s possible. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/260 "2006-03-28T23:14:44Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > Also, as someone already pointed out, cosmic particles appear to be uncaused. First, I would draw your attention to the word “appear”. Second, that has been claimed, not shown to be the case. You may point me to the post if I am wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=14)