# Explain this Atheist logic to me. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589 "2009-08-25T02:42:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/61 "2009-08-25T07:24:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If he wants something from me, he has to make it clear what and why. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s an airtight argument. Did you read my post? I gave you an example of something it may want that explicitly is based on you not knowing what it wants. That is an example that doesn’t require it to make anything clear. And you still think your argument is airtight? > [@](#): > > I can’t know what he wants if he doesn’t tell me. Why do you assume he wants you to know what he wants? You realize you are assuming that, right? > [@](#): > > Then he’s a douchebag, and therefore can’t exist. You are not very logical. 1. Douchebags do exist 2. A God that is a douchebag has as much chance of existing as one that is not (as far as any of us know). > [@](#): > > I’ll never understand why religious people think that believing something without evidence is some kind of moral virtue. Why would a God who is good turn salvation into a guessing game? As I often like to say, requiring that people guess without evidence which one of an infinite number of possible metaphysical beliefs – all with exactly the same amount of evidence – is the correct one is like saying that the only way to get to heaven (and in some belief systems, the only way to prevent God from torturing you forever) is to guess which number he’s thinking of between zero and infinity, and you get no clues. Demanding faith without evidence is preposterous if you give it any thought at all. > > I don’t care about his goal. The point is that I can’t do what he wants if he > doesn’t TELL me what he wants. If he doesn’t want to tell you because his goal explicitly hinges on you not knowing, then I would think you would care about his goal. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/62 "2009-08-25T07:47:09Z")
> [@TNWPsycho](#): > > I give equal consideration to the debate on whether there is a God or not, so help me better explain this logic i heard an atheist say the other day. > > “If there was a God, He would leave more of an impression, something to make Himself known.” > > I have heard this on several occassions from a few sources, what exactly does it mean? What are they looking for? A logo? They want proof of God. So, they can then choose to have faith. Yeah, makes no sense. It’s one of the most ridiculous arguments there is. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/63 "2009-08-25T07:55:55Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > The fact that you aren’t murdering small children is more important than whether you’re not murdering them because it’s the right thing to do, or if it’s because the police would catch you and throw you in a small box until you die. I disagree. A world in which everyone voluntarily does the good for its own sake is better than a world in which everyone voluntarily does the good because they are afraid they will be punished otherwise. This may be a basic difference of values between you and me, though, because I can’t think up an argument to support the claim I just made other than “Isn’t it obvious?” Trying a bit harder, I can point out that in practical terms someone who has done the good for its own sake is more likely to keep doing good than is someone who has done the good out of fear of punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/64 "2009-08-25T08:18:16Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I disagree. A world in which everyone voluntarily does the good for its own sake is better than a world in which everyone voluntarily does the good because they are afraid they will be punished otherwise. Sure, it would be better, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually going to happen. We already _know_ what happens without an interventionist deity around to smite any evildoers, because that’s the world we’re living in right now. And in case you haven’t noticed, it’s not all sunshine and lollypops. You are presenting this as a choice between A and B, when in reality it’s between A and C. It doesn’t _matter_ how nice it would be if you could pick B, because you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/65 "2009-08-25T08:26:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > They want proof of God. So, they can then choose to have faith. > > Yeah, makes no sense. It’s one of the most ridiculous arguments there is. Who said anything about faith? We’re asking for evidence because that’s the only thing that would set God apart from Harry Potter. There are words for people who take unsupported, extraordinary claims at face value, and most of them are insults. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/66 "2009-08-25T08:44:21Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Sure, it would be better, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually going to happen. We already _know_ what happens without an interventionist deity around to smite any evildoers, because that’s the world we’re living in right now. And in case you haven’t noticed, it’s not all sunshine and lollypops. > > You are presenting this as a choice between A and B, when in reality it’s between A and C. It doesn’t _matter_ how nice it would be if you could pick B, because you can’t. It is probably because I am up at 5AM dreading the prospect of _having_ to be up at 7AM, when normally I should have had at least seven hours of sleep by now. But I can’t understand how anything in this post is responsive to anything I said. Here’s a start. Where did I “present” anything as a “choice” between anything, much less A and B? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/67 "2009-08-25T09:00:14Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > It is probably because I am up at 5AM dreading the prospect of _having_ to be up at 7AM, when normally I should have had at least seven hours of sleep by now. But I can’t understand how anything in this post is responsive to anything I said. > > Here’s a start. Where did I “present” anything as a “choice” between anything, much less A and B? You have suggested that this as a choice God makes, by hiding: > [@Frylock](#): > > So in order to have real goodness appear more often in human affairs, God hides, so that people will be good for its own sake rather than to avoid punishment or to get a reward or to be on the winning side or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/68 "2009-08-25T09:03:19Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Why? Because you say so? Not a very strong argument. > > What if what it wants from you is to believe in it without any proof? Without knowing gods goals it’s pretty hard to conclude much of anything. So, what was the point of The Bible or any other ‘holy records’, if god’s point wasn’t to make his presence known? As I’ve said for a while, if believing in a god was anything but a man-made thing, it would be as natural as breathing in air. And I’ve still not heard an adequate reason why religion arose when it did and not say, 10,000 years earlier. When did homo sapien first become susceptible to ‘god’s messages’, and why then? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/69 "2009-08-25T09:14:54Z")
Oh, and just so you know where I am coming from, I believe that tomato ketchup is made from the blood of young virgins, Jacob’s Cream Crackers are the embodiment of evil without the addition of cheese, and that the focusing of orgasmic energy helps me call forth powerful spirits, but I don’t go around bragging about my faith, or trying to convert anyone. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/70 "2009-08-25T09:31:58Z")
[Quote=TNWPsycho] I give equal consideration to the debate on whether there is a God or not, so help me better explain this logic i heard an atheist say the other day. “If there was a God, He would leave more of an impression, something to make Himself known.” I have heard this on several occassions from a few sources, what exactly does it mean? What are they looking for? A logo? [/quote] > [@magellan](#): > > They want proof of God. So, they can then choose to have faith. > > Yeah, makes no sense. It’s one of the most ridiculous arguments there is. Well, it all depends on what you make of [Ockham’s Razor](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424706/Ockhams-razor). I’m an atheist because I look at the universe around me and consider supernatural explanations to be _unnecessary_ given the impressive calibre of natural explanations after millennia of scientific progress. If gods did exist, I find it curious that they would leave the universe looking so eminently and completely _natural_ to a 21st Century scientist. Some reason, any reason, to _depart_ from this position is surely not too much to ask? Indeed, some “supernatural-_looking_” phenomenon would not itself constitute “proof”. It would, in fact, kick off a [whole new _science_](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=461559)! There is still plenty of [evidence for gods](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=526260). I just happen to think that it is outweighed by the evidence against them. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/71 "2009-08-25T09:50:29Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > You have suggested that this as a choice God makes, by hiding: In the very line you quoted, I present at least four alternatives, and imply the existence of quite a few more. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/72 "2009-08-25T10:03:19Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > In the very line you quoted, I present at least four alternatives, and imply the existence of quite a few more. Are you being deliberately obtuse? It doesn’t matter if you presented four alternatives or four thousand, the one you claim God actually _selected_ is not valid. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/73 "2009-08-25T11:00:19Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? No, I’m not. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter if you presented four alternatives or four thousand, the one you claim God actually _selected_ is not valid. But your argument that it wasn’t valid had something to do with something about a “choice between A and B” which you were implying was some kind of false dichotomy, or something. But I never talked about such a choice. Your focus on the word “selected” in the abovequoted passage doesn’t explain your position any more clearly. Here, forget what I said before. Start with this: If someone is going to do good, it is best if they are doing good for the sake of doing good, and not for some other reason. Fear of punishment, anticipation of reward, desire to win, and other such motivations make it difficult for a person to do good for its own sake. If God’s existence were obvious, such motivations would be very strong in those to whom his existence is obvious. So it is best if God’s existence is not obvious. God does what’s best. So God makes his existence non-obvious. Remember, like I said, if there is a God, I have no idea why his existence is non-obvious. Pixies, probably. But I think the story I just told makes sense, and is a lot more humanistically compelling than the stories most people tell about this issue. But where is it that you think the story I just told goes wrong, and how? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/74 "2009-08-25T11:30:42Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I disagree. A world in which everyone voluntarily does the good for its own sake is better than a world in which everyone voluntarily does the good because they are afraid they will be punished otherwise. > > This may be a basic difference of values between you and me, though, because I can’t think up an argument to support the claim I just made other than “Isn’t it obvious?” > > Trying a bit harder, I can point out that in practical terms someone who has done the good for its own sake is more likely to keep doing good than is someone who has done the good out of fear of punishment. Why is that a value? Do you feel good when you “do good”, or guilty when you don’t? Then you aren’t doing good for its own sake, and I suggest to you that doing good for “its own sake” is pleasant fiction. People do good without direct external reward or punishment all the time, but they are nevertheless motivated by the culture and context that they were raised in to establish what it is they should feel good or bad about doing. So, there would be no discernable difference between a society running around doing good to please a manifest and present god or to please the parents, teachers, coaches, priests and peers who established your criteria for guilt or pleasure (except that pleasing a manifest god would likely be more reliable and more universally effective, since there are individual differences in attention, anxiety, impulsivity and other factors involved in cognition and behavior). ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/75 "2009-08-25T12:17:39Z")
> [@TNWPsycho](#): > > I give equal consideration to the debate on whether there is a God or not, so help me better explain this logic i heard an atheist say the other day. > > “If there was a God, He would leave more of an impression, something to make Himself known.” > > I have heard this on several occassions from a few sources, what exactly does it mean? What are they looking for? A logo? Are you sure you are a disinterested seeker of wisdom? Since your writing style is strongly reminiscent of a disingenuous Christian trying unsuccessfully to sow some disinformation. But I’ll take your questions at face value. It means: if gods existed in any meaningful sense then the universe would not look exactly as if there were no gods. Or, …you can restate it a hundred different ways. Take your pick. A browse through the archives of this very forum will provide hundreds of examples. I suspect that many believers are deliberately trying not to understand. They are looking for: nothing. Atheists don’t go searching for the gods, since they don’t believe they exist. The search for proof (or any evidence) for the gods is conducted by believers. A logo: no. A logo proves the existence of a graphic designer. It is evidence for the existence of a corporation or similar body. The believers are searching for miracles. It’s taking longer than they expected. If you are going to judge the evidence for the gods based on logical analysis, then it is surprising that you have started by challenging the atheist position. Most logicians (cite unavailable) consider that the believers generally employ shakier logic than the atheists. For instance, my pastor told me an anecdote which might be presented as if athiests think god must have a logo: therefore, Jesus is Lord. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/76 "2009-08-25T12:28:10Z")
> [@TNWPsycho](#): > > I give equal consideration to the debate on whether there is a God or not, so help me better explain this logic i heard an atheist say the other day. > > “If there was a God, He would leave more of an impression, something to make Himself known.” > > I have heard this on several occassions from a few sources, what exactly does it mean? What are they looking for? A logo? They are looking for evidence or a reasonable argument in favor of God’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/77 "2009-08-25T12:36:15Z")
> [@TNWPsycho](#): > > Sorry, i don’t think i made that very clear. > > What i mean is, being able to experience in and of itself is a wonderful gift, regardless of where we end up when we die. Heaven or hell. That’s probably due to your upbringing and the circumstance of your birth. Surely the child who starves to death prior to the age of five doesn’t feel that life was a wonderful gift. > [@TNWPsycho](#): > > In a twisted sort of view of life, God allowing us to choose eternal damnation or bliss is Him being omnibenevolent. It’s not really a choice. To have a choice one would have to know the options. Further, it’s never omnibenevolent to allow people to be tortured forever. I can’t see how on earth or anywhere else that such deliberate inaction can be looked at as good. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/78 "2009-08-25T12:38:37Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Why? Because you say so? Not a very strong argument. > > What if what it wants from you is to believe in it without any proof? Without knowing gods goals it’s pretty hard to conclude much of anything. Um, actually yes, because DtC says so - since he specified that if God wants something from _ **him** _. If he wants DtC to believe without proof, then he should have made DtC into a person like some other theists; ie, people who accept claims without proof. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/79 "2009-08-25T13:55:11Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > An agnostic believes that there is probably some sort of binding _something_ in the universe, be it a deity or an all pervasive spirit, etc. He simply doesn’t believe or trust that the explanations of any known religion is the correct one. Essentially he’s a religious person without a religion. I think what you’ve described is not an agnostic, but a person who calls himself “spiritual but not religious.” We already had a thread on that. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > What if what it wants from you is to believe in it without any proof? Without knowing gods goals it’s pretty hard to conclude much of anything. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Why do you assume he wants you to know what he wants? You realize you are assuming that, right? I think you’re missing the point. Sure you can say “what if this” or “what if the other thing,” but the point is that there are infinitely many possibilities, and zero evidence for any of them. How can someone pick one and run with it as if it’s the Truth? I could just as easily think up a god who thinks critical thinking is the highest Good, and refuses to make himself known to see whether we use these great brains that he created for us. People who believe stuff without evidence (all religious people) get sent straight to hell, while we skeptics are rewarded. In fact, this God is _way_ more plausible than the “faith alone” version of Christianity. And I still haven’t heard anyone address why _faith_ could possibly be viewed as a good thing by any god. It’s so obviously a bad thing, what’s your justification for thinking that God wants us to have it? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589/80 "2009-08-25T14:07:02Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m struggling with this answer. You say it as if a God would actually _want_ us to have faith for some reason (faith as in “belief without benefit of evidence”). But belief without evidence is so plainly a _bad_ thing, what could possibly be the motivation for God to want us to have it? Does God actually _want_ us to have poor critical thinking skills? That’s the only thing I can make of your statement, and I’m trying to stay out of GD territory, so, uh, can you explain that any better for me? Well, outside the religious realm, “faith” is used only to mean “trust placed in another trustworthy person”, as in “Grunion’s young for this mission, but he’ll do fine. I have faith in him.” That’s the context for “faith” – trust and confidence in anothewr person’s faithfulness to oneself. Or put a capital P on Person. Faith is not supposed to be, placing one’s credence in a collection of unsubstantiated allegations. It’s putting one’s trust in another person known to yourself to be trustworthy. The secondary meanings of “group of believers” and “what it is that they believe” are just that: secondary. Much as if you said, “I trust Gary,” and in response to my question, “What’s Gary like?” you describe him to me, physical characteristics and personality. The definition: “faith 3. a level of assurance held by the credulous in outrageous propositions unsubstantiated by facts” is really a misuse of the term – even though it does describe quite nicely the attitude of some who, having been convinced of God’s reality and hence the supposed total reliability of the Bible, take the attitude that what is now self-evident to them should be to everyone else too. But mockery in either direction is a zero-sum game. The point is that nobody in actuality holds that definition I wrote to begin this paragraph; it’s a tool used by the opponents of the folks who are wont to pontificate on what everybody ought to see as obvious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-this-atheist-logic-to-me/507589.md?page=5)