# 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:** 15
**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 29, 2006, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/281 "2006-03-29T03:14:15Z")
How can you distinguish your subjective experiences from hallucinations? How can you distinguish your experiences from someone who has a subjective experience of Kali or Apollo? Personal religious experiences may be subjectively convincing but they are objectively worthless. Incidentally, it may interest you to know that virtually all of the classic religious experiences can be induced artificially either with drugs or by directly stimulating certain parts of the brain. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/282 "2006-03-29T03:25:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Though I have little doubt that this will be followed by your usual snideness neatly wrapped in polite sincerity, I will assume you have not read the thread (where it has been implied many times and stated outright) and answer it. > > I believe in god. I believe that god willed us into existence. I am very certian of that. I cannot fathom any other scenario. There had to be a First Cause, en vouge or not. The claims that this problem can be explainied away by QM, Multiverses, etc. have been empty so far. I do not think that will change. Yet, since I am not god, and therefore, fallible, I leave room for the possibility that I may be wrong. > > Play with that as you will. I didn’t realise I was usually snide… while I’d be the first to admit I sometimes give in to that, I wouldn’t say it was a regular thing. I’ll assume you’re onto something and try and cut back, though. Your belief is interesting and pretty understandable. You’re right, you’re not an agnostic; I at least would define agnosticism as being unsure of whether or not there is a god, and you’re certain that “there is no god” is not the case. I think from the way you made your statement that you’re not a Theist either, because if you believe in a First Cause, that doesn’t necessarily have to be “a” god. By the way, as an agnostic myself I disagree that there has to be a First Cause - all evidence tells us that there is always something that caused something else, and that there are no “starting” causes (at least, none that we have seen). Why not simply an infinite string of causation, as opposed to a single starting point? ---
**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 29, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/283 "2006-03-29T03:29:26Z")
> [@](#): > > There had to be a First Cause, en vouge or not. No there didn’t, as has been repeatedly explained to you. Your entire justification for faith is based on a false assumption. ---
**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 29, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/284 "2006-03-29T03:41:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I can accept that it is invalid and meaningless to you and I have no problem with that. That’s why I believe we should try and respect a persons right to choose their own journey when it comes to beliefs. Through interaction we will influence each other but ultimately an individual bears the responsibility of choosing their own path and the consequences of those choices. That’s where laws come in. No one says that people can’t choose their own path. What the OP was about was that believers are unwilling to allow me to choose my own path without raising deep suspicions about my reliability as a citizen. As abd exanokem if I am honest about my path there is no way I could be elected to any public office. (You couldn’t run fast enough to give me a public office and I’m 83 with arthritic knees) However, a person shouldn’t have to lie in order to have a chance of being elected to one. ---
**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 29, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/285 "2006-03-29T03:43:55Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > No one says that people can’t choose their own path. What the OP was about was that believers are unwilling to allow me to choose my own path without raising deep suspicions about my reliability as a citizen. \*\* As abd exanokem\*\* if I am honest about my path there is no way I could be elected to any public office. (You couldn’t run fast enough to give me a public office and I’m 83 with arthritic knees) However, a person shouldn’t have to lie in order to have a chance of being elected to one. Forget the public office. I’ve already proved I can’t find the right home row keys on the keyboard. Make that “As an example”. ---
**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 29, 2006, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/286 "2006-03-29T05:34:14Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The problem I have with this is the existence of subjective evidence. Many people {like myself} have beliefs that are born not simply from making up arbitrary reasons but from personal experiences. These experiences cannot be shared in an objective way with skeptics and are subject to our own flawed interpretation yet I would not pronounce the evidence as invalid or meaningless because of it’s subjective nature. Subjective experiences are just that, subjective; they tell you nothing about the objective world. ---
**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 29, 2006, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/287 "2006-03-29T06:07:14Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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. You’re twisting my words. I said “don’t” exist, not “can’t” exist. And, by the way, isn’t someone who fails to believe in god but doesn’t have enough evidence to deny god’s existence an agnostic by definition? The “logical default” argument makes no sense. If I make a statement that there’s a bear in the woods, and you say there isn’t, the burden of proof lies equally upon both of us. Given the lack of hard data and the subjectivity involved in interpreting evidence, I fail to see how you can make a flat pronouncement on god either way. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > 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 ? You, too, are twisting the arguments. You’re equating a belief that something exists with a belief that something is going to happen. They’re not the same thing. Forget religion for a moment. Let’s say that one person tells me that someone climbed the mountain yesterday and caused a rockslide, and another tells me that nobody was on the mountain yesterday and the rockslide happened because of water runoff. Neither of those positions is a “default condition.” Do I give them equal weight? Probably not. Based on my personal experiences and observations, I’d say it’s more likely that nobody caused it. But I wouldn’t make a hard fast pronouncement. I’d be the “rockslide agnostic” unless one side or the other could prove their position. Taking it back to religion, you’ll never be able to prove the nonexistence of god(s). You can offer scientific explanations for phenomena that theists call “miracles,” but there’s simply no way to prove that things aren’t being guided by unseen hands. I fail to understand how you make that leap from “agnostic leaning toward disbelief” to “atheist” without just taking it on faith that there’s no god. > [@Lemur866](#): > > That’s all you got out of slogging through 6 pages? Unbelievable. You actually believe that’s all I got out of it? Unbelievable. :rolleyes: Try addressing the point instead of rolling your eyes at it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/288 "2006-03-29T06:17:28Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > And, by the way, isn’t someone who fails to believe in god but doesn’t have enough evidence to deny god’s existence an agnostic by definition? No, an agnostic is by definition someone who feels he doesn’t have enough evidence to come to a conclusion either way. > [@](#): > > Taking it back to religion, you’ll never be able to prove the nonexistence of god(s). Something I grant every time this topic comes up. > [@](#): > > I fail to understand how you make that leap from “agnostic leaning toward disbelief” to “atheist” without just taking it on faith that there’s no god. Because we feel that the existence of gods is something that needs to be proven. Call it an assumption if you like: without proof that gods exist, I operate under the assumption that they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/289 "2006-03-29T06:39:46Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > And, by the way, isn’t someone who fails to believe in god but doesn’t have enough evidence to deny god’s existence an agnostic by definition? An agnostic, [by definition](http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/A0145000.html), is someone “who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God”. Thus, the atheist, who merely lacks a belief in God (or even “disbelieves in” God) is more open-minded than the agnostic; the agnostic, it he’s _truly_ an agnostic, would still have to maintain that it’s impossible to know one way or the other even if a ray of light descended from Heaven, a great Voice spake unto him, everyone in the world heard the Voice in his or her native tongue, etc. I mean, gee, it _could_ be space aliens, or a “mass hallucination”. Whereas the atheist, even the “disbelieving” atheist, and especially the “I haven’t yet been shown convincing evidence” atheist, could change his mind. Of course that’s a silly and caricatured portrayal of what agnostics believe; many agnostics wouldn’t even use that particular definition of what it means to be an agnostic (the link even gives other definitions), and even the ones who do would probably object to my description of their position. However, these sorts of distortions seem all too common in discussions of atheism; people are perpetually telling us what it is we _really_ believe, no matter how many times we explain ourselves. This is a pretty good [Introduction to Atheism](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html). Here’s [one post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?postid=5057198) where I tried to convey some of the complexities of deciding whether a particular person is an “agnostic” or a “weak atheist” or a “strong atheist”. (It can vary a lot depending on which God you’re talking about.) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/290 "2006-03-29T08:24:03Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > the whole event chain that everything has a cause is contradicted by our current understanding of quantum physics. If this argument underpins your belief in God, I’m thinking you should reconsider. > [@Magellan](#): > > 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. [Bell’s experiments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments) demonstrate that either causality in a temporal sense or in a spatial sense (“locality”) can be violated. > [@Niels Bohr](#): > > We must renounce causality in order to understand quantum mechanics As for your “matter creation” (and I would, yet again, urge you to read those other threads again in order to understand that “creation” is a poor choice of term really), [Higgs field theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) describes how “matter” arises from field fluctuations – it’s hoped that this will be demonstrated beyond doubt next year at the Large Hadron Collider. Finally, what you appear to be arguing for as “God” in this case is a bare-bones **deism** , rather than the _personal_ God of **theism**. One can be **a** _theist_ but still _deist_ like, say, Einstein. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/291 "2006-03-29T08:25:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > (The question being - what does a strong atheist believe that a weak one does not) > That no gods exist, of course. That’s the definition. But that’s a silly definition, which I’m suggesting we do away with. When a weak **atheist** says “I do not believe that any gods exist”, how is that not logically equivalent to “I believe no gods exist”? ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/292 "2006-03-29T09:52:06Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > Wait. It’s 1, right? Actually I think it might be [1/ω](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_numbers). ---
**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 29, 2006, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/293 "2006-03-29T10:03:38Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > And, by the way, isn’t someone who fails to believe in god but doesn’t have enough evidence to deny god’s existence an agnostic by definition? Like I said, only if you apply special rules to religion. Normally, a lack of evidence that something is even possible is considered a justifiable reason to deny it’s existence. > [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Taking it back to religion, you’ll never be able to prove the nonexistence of god(s). You can offer scientific explanations for phenomena that theists call “miracles,” but there’s simply no way to prove that things aren’t being guided by unseen hands. I fail to understand how you make that leap from “agnostic leaning toward disbelief” to “atheist” without just taking it on faith that there’s no god. Because the only honest alternative is impossible, or at least insane. If I actually tried to think like you say, I’d have to consider all imaginable concepts, things, people, pasts and futures to be plausible. Religious people don’t follow the zero-skepticism you promote, or they wouldn’t be able to function. They just lower the standards of evidence for their religious beliefs, like I’ve been saying. The vast majority of possibilities and fantasies _need_ to be dismissed out of hand, so we have the time to actually live. Therefore until there is evidence that a belief as crazy as religion is true, it should be dismissed as silly. And once again, it’s _the believer’s_ obligation to prove he isn’t a liar, a fool or insane. It’s not my job to pander to religious gibbering. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/294 "2006-03-29T10:28:13Z")
**MEBuckner** , I’ll summarise your post thus:[ul][_]Young Earth Creationist God: You are a strong atheist[_]Personal First-Cause God: You are a _weak atheist_Hoaxmaster General God: You are a _strong agnostic_.[/ul]Surely all of these differ only be _degree_ (_ie._ different positions of a Belief-O-Meter needle), since there could possibly be new evidence which shifted any one of them to \>50% on your meter (_eg,_ a bearded miracle worker leads you through memories only you could know)? If you consider the existence of a Hoaxmaster General _less likely than not_, you are surely still an **atheist** with respect to that theistic entity? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/295 "2006-03-29T10:44:21Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > If you consider the existence of a Hoaxmaster General _less likely than not_, you are surely still an **atheist** with respect to that theistic entity? That seems fair enough. Really, I’ve never gone for the “agnostic” label; I just get tired of the “atheists are people who, by blind faith alone, are absolutely certain there is no God” straw man. There are some “gods” I’m very certain don’t exist; others, I’ve never been given any good reason to accept their existence. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/296 "2006-03-29T11:36:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How do you know? What makes you so sure you can rule out the IPU and Odin but not Yahweh or Christ? What’s the difference in evidence? > > My problem isn’t the questions, my problem is that we have never discovered a reason to hypothesize magic to answer them. I am an empiricist. I see no reason to speculate about supernatural explanations as long as those questions can be answered without them. I’m talking about what the word God invokes within most humans. Although the details of belief vary greatly it is connected to the questions I mentioned. Perhaps it is mere chance that IPU and pixies are not. It doesn’t matter it’s just a tag. I’m saying that tag is different in that respect than the others being used. It’s not an equitable comparison in that one area. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/297 "2006-03-29T11:49:09Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Subjective experiences are just that, subjective; they tell you nothing about the objective world. Perhaps, but subjective experiences are an essential part of life. I’m saying that subjective experiences are valid\* for the individual \* The experience may be misinterpreted a time and the path may wind in different directions but the subjective experience has a lot to do with judgements we make and the day to day choices that direct our lives. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/298 "2006-03-29T12:22:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How can you distinguish your subjective experiences from hallucinations? > > How can you distinguish your experiences from someone who has a subjective experience of Kali or Apollo? By living together and interacting. By sharing experiences and continuing to seek. By making a commitment to the truth and requiring personal honesty, so when the time comes to let go of beliefs that at one time seemed imperative, we are able to do so. > [@](#): > > Personal religious experiences may be subjectively convincing but they are objectively worthless. Perhaps, but life is made up of both the subjective and objective. When I’m judging how how I am moved by a certain song does the objective then become worthless? > [@](#): > > Incidentally, it may interest you to know that virtually all of the classic religious experiences can be induced artificially either with drugs or by directly stimulating certain parts of the brain. I have heard about it and it is interesting as well as inconclusive. Having done some chemical experiments in decades past I already knew that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/299 "2006-03-29T12:37:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But that’s a silly definition, which I’m suggesting we do away with. When a weak **atheist** says “I do not believe that any gods exist”, how is that not logically equivalent to “I believe no gods exist”? Good question. There does seem to be some difference. Atheists here on the SDMB argue that atheism is a lack of belief rather than belief. If someone actively campaigns and asserts that there is no god with vigor that feels like a belief rather than a lack of belief. Would it be similar to the difference between a deist and a fundamentalist? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/300 "2006-03-29T12:56:37Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Atheists here on the SDMB argue that atheism is a lack of belief rather than belief. If someone actively campaigns and asserts that there is no god with vigor that feels like a belief rather than a lack of belief. What’s all this “active campaigning” got to do with anything? If someone asks an atheist “do you believe in any gods?” and they answer “no” _ie.[/]i “no, I believe in no gods”, or "no, I []idon’t_ believe in any gods") is that _weak_, whereas someone who _volunteers_ the information is _strong_, or something? That, again, seems a poor criterion. > [@](#): > > Would it be similar to the difference between a deist and a fundamentalist? I’d say not, because they believe _different things_ (_eg._ whether or not Jesus is the Son of God). Atheists weak _and_ strong believe that gods aren’t real. Again, what’s the difference beyond the _strength_ of that belief (_ie._ roughly how unlikely they consider any god to be)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=16)