# How to Talk To Atheists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 30, 2008, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255 "2008-12-30T19:34:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/162 "2009-01-07T13:54:50Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > haha. I agree There are a lot of believers who haven’t thought these things through. They annoy me because they aren’t aren’t a very good example. > > But I appreciate someone willing to understand the thought process of someone with a different opinion. Don’t see much of that either, even amongst people who came to their beliefs through a logical process. I don’t know how often I’ve seen, “I came to this conclusion. You’re an idiot for believing something else.” That’s forgetting that \*\*everyone \*\*starts from unproven assumptions. If I start from a different assumption, I’m likely to come to different conclusions. I think each person has their own complex filtering system made up of their emotions, intellect , conscious thought and their subconscious as well. These are affected and formed by their upbringing and their personal experience and choices. It’s not surprising that people come to a wide variety of conclusions. It’s also a matter of timing. Each person uses their own filtering system and volition to decide when to embrace something and when to let something go. Knowing our own filtering system is imperfect might help us have patience and try to understand others. It’s great to discuss and share ideas and sometimes confrontation is necessary. The hard part is getting our egos and emotional attachments out of the way so genuine progress and learning is more important than an imagined personal victory. We can all be grateful the SDMB is here to help us in that end. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/163 "2009-01-07T14:02:39Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m reading them as questions rather than put downs or arguments. I’ll agree that they were in no way arguments. But I think you may be being too generous. If they were questions, what was their purpose? They had no bearing on whether I was right or not. But they seemed to me to imply he didn’t believe that that I was right, but wasn’t coming out to say how he understood it. Instead he was questioning my background rather than my argument. Here’s someone else who thought he was actually saying I wasn’t correct. [QUOTE=Marley23] Czarcasm correctly stated that you don’t seem to know what’s actually going on in the quantum mechanics example you described. [/QUOTE] I didn’t see Czarcasm state anything of the kind. He asked what my credentials were. But I too, took the impression that he was \*critical \*of my argument. (To be distinguished from \*criticizing \*my argument. Which he didn’t do.) Czarcasm didn’t do what Marley23 did; which was provide an example I could respond to about my argument. Marley23 correctly stated that quantum mechanics says that observation changes outcome. But, by saying what he thought my argument was about I was able to respond that that wasn’t the aspect of quantum mechanics I was discussing. (incidentally, I may have been a bit snarky myself when I said that was the \*first \*thing you learn about quantum mechanics. It’s true, and it’s also about the only thing most people know about it, but, Marley didn’t deserve that tone, since he actually responded to my argument in a way that I could answer.) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/164 "2009-01-07T14:05:59Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > I didn’t see Czarcasm state anything of the kind. He asked what my credentials were. For the sake of everybody’s sanity, can we not turn this into an argument about arguments? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/165 "2009-01-07T14:22:00Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > I can suggest something that might be a relevant example… > imaginary numbers, things created for mathematics as involving the square root of -1. Where do they exist? Don’t know if they do or not, but if you take their existence as an assumption… you come up with a branch of mathematics that have very relevent applications in electrical engineering. Yes, imaginary numbers are a useful intermediate tool to get predictable results. We can observe their consistent behaviour and take this as evidence of existence, even if we can’t observe them directly. Where the consistent observable behaviour in what you’re describing? ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/166 "2009-01-08T04:09:14Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > If you were bleeding on the street and I said, “I’ll go get a doctor for you,” wouldn’t I be asking someone else to help you? Would you say “thanks for nothing?” > > Asking someone else to help you isn’t doing nothing. It may not actually help anything, but it isn’t doing nothing. And this response comes across to me as an arrogant “I don’t believe that will help, and neither should you.” Actually, it comes across worse than that. “I don’t believe that will help, and neither should you,” actually seems to me now as a much nicer, kinder, more honest, (honest to what you actually mean,) response. > > And according to quantum mechanics, belief can change the outcome of events that by all appearances, should have already been determined. So, prayer may actually help, even if God doesn’t exist. What Einstein called “Spooky action at a distance,” could account for many occurances of “God works in mysterious ways.” Then again, maybe God set it up that way. Going to get a human who’s an expert on how to physically help another human bleeding on the street is help. Praying is saying words to the air, even if you are truly hoping someone does help my bleeding. It’s like praying when you see an engaged fire truck or ambulance. Silly. The real help is on the way already. By the way, if it wasn’t you, and someone else prayed to Wotan for my bleeding, is that equal help ? ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/167 "2009-01-08T04:30:03Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > I read this thread out of interest and have no desire for a debate. But this question bears comment, if only because it’s a common misconception. Atheists come is several flavors, but the dominant usage is that we don’t believe in God, not that we believe in no God. The difference resides in whether we claim to be able to prove the substance of the matter. Not able to prove, though, shouldn’t be equated with real doubt. Wait a sec… I believe in no god whatsoever. Each is fiction. What flavor am I??? ---
**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:** [January 8, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/168 "2009-01-08T04:34:21Z")
> [@Locrian](#): > > Wait a sec… I believe in no god whatsoever. Each is fiction. > > What flavor am I??? I think you misunderstand. What **PBear** was saying is that atheism is an absence of belief, not necessarily a positive belief that gods don’t exist, just an absence of belief that they do. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/169 "2009-01-08T04:44:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think you misunderstand. What **PBear** was saying is that atheism is an absence of belief, not necessarily a positive belief that gods don’t exist, just an absence of belief that they do. Oh, okay, understood. I certainly don’t have any proof… ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/170 "2009-01-08T09:19:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Then let’s have a cite and you can show me where their hopes influenced the number generator. There have already been studies showing prayer does not improve healing. This is a [link](http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/02/princeton_parapsychology_lab_t.php) to what I suspect **ch4rl3s** is thinking about. However, I’ll most definitely leave it to him to defend the validity of those experiments. ---
**Author:** ![raindrop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/74df32/32.png) [@raindrop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindrop)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/171 "2009-01-08T13:31:26Z")
I’m honestly surprised at all the atheist “flavors.” I really had no idea there were so many. Some positions really do seem more agnostic than atheistic. And some seem to be saying that there is absolutely no God, not even stated as a “belief” in no God, but stated as an absolute fact. I also find **PBear’s** “we don’t believe in God” to be distinctly different from **Diogenes’s** “atheism is an absence of belief.” And I suppose that asking all the atheists how they define atheism could be a thread unto itself, with all the usual arguing. And to complicate matters even more I just discovered the term “[agnostic atheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).” > [@](#): > > An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/172 "2009-01-08T14:18:01Z")
> [@raindrop](#): > > I’m honestly surprised at all the atheist “flavors.” I really had no idea there were so many. > . . . > And I suppose that asking all the atheists how they define atheism could be a thread unto itself, with all the usual arguing. Humans have an infinite capacity for lumping and splitting and viewing the world with slightly different filters or bringing slightly different perspectives to their understanding and there is no reason why atheists should be any more monolithic in their worldviews than theists are in theirs. You could wander over to the IMHO frum and have a look. I cannot say that there has definitely been such a poll, but I would be a bit surprised if this has not yet already happened. (You will also find similar “surveys” of atheist identification and self-identification in GD, but they tend to be mixed into threads with a fair amount of bickering with some theists over what they believe.) ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/173 "2009-01-08T16:02:54Z")
It seems to me that if there can be no true “atheist”, as some have argued (because nobody really \*knows \*that god doesn’t exist), then there can also be no true “theist”. After all, while a theist may \*think \*that god exists, he can never be absolutely certain. Faith does not trump reason. If there are no true atheists, then we’re all agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/174 "2009-01-08T16:23:00Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Faith does not trump reason. This is false. “Ist” means “believer;” we’re talking about beliefs here. Not knowledge and reason, which can be a completely separate. It may be possible to give up religious beliefs due to reason, but I doubt people can arrive at them through reason. That’s the main reason Pascal’s Wager is a failure. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/175 "2009-01-08T16:30:11Z")
There are technical definitions for these terms and then there’s popular usage. Technically speaking there are the following definitions: Atheism: Lack of theistic belief. Atheism is usually broken down into two types: Weak Atheism: Lack of theistic belief, but without a positive belief that Gods absolutely don’t or can’t exist. Strong Atheism: Positive belief that God absolutely does not exist. Agnosticism: belief that it’s impossible to know whether God exists. In popular usage, agnosticism tends to get used to denote weak atheism, even though there is a technical distinction (agnosticism is a position on what it’s possible to know, not actually a statement of theistc/non-theistic belief in itself). It is technically possible to be both an agnostic and a theist (“I can’t prove God exists, but I believe it anyway”) or an agnostic and an atheist (“I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, but I don’t believe it”). Popularly speaking, though, I think it tends to get broken down into three positions: “I believe God exists” (theist) “I believe no God exists.” (atheist) “I don’t know/can’t decide if God exists.” (agnostic) Because these terms are not necessarily used or understood the same way, it can lead to confusion and misunderstandings in these kinds of discussions. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/176 "2009-01-08T16:32:45Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > It seems to me that if there can be no true “atheist”, as some have argued (because nobody really \*knows \*that god doesn’t exist), then there can also be no true “theist”. After all, while a theist may \*think \*that god exists, he can never be absolutely certain. Faith does not trump reason. > > If there are no true atheists, then we’re all agnostic. To be really pedantic about it, agnosticism is the _belief_ that it’s impossible to know, not just a lack of knowledge _per se_. Technically speaking, if you _believe_ it’s possible to know, then you’re not an agnostic, even if you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/177 "2009-01-08T17:33:57Z")
[quote=“raindrop, post:171, topic:479255”] I And to complicate matters even more I just discovered the term “[agnostic atheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).”[ : An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist./QUOTE] In about 30 years of discussing this on line, (yes, before there was an Internet) I have seen only a handful of atheists who would not fall into this category, and most of them hadn’t thought the issue through. (One or two were meatballs.) To follow up on Dio’s post, atheism is a statement about belief while agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Thus they are orthogonal positions about God. In discussing agnosticism we also have to be clear about what our definition of knowledge is. (I took a Theory of Knowledge class in college so I’m more sensitive about this than is healthy.) I happen to think that is is possible to know that some God exists, but not that no god exists in general. A lot of atheists disagree. I do think it is possible to know that certain gods, with logically contradictory characteristics, do not exist. It is all made even more difficult by the thousands of definitions of what a god is out there. ---
**Author:** ![raindrop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/74df32/32.png) [@raindrop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindrop)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/178 "2009-01-08T18:27:36Z")
Ohhh, but there’s also another one to add to **Diogenes’s** list… [Apatheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathetic_agnosticism), (sometimes referred to as “apathetic agnoticism” or “pragmatic atheism”)… > [@](#): > > … acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the _manner_ of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life; nor to human affairs. and… > [@](#): > > … the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. For some reason this one really gave me a huge chuckle. It occurs to me that Christians (and atheists) can’t rightly argue with or convert anyone who doesn’t care one way other or another. 😃 > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > “I believe no God exists.” (atheist) Ah-ha!, there it is again!.. _ **“no God”** _… haha… toldya 😛 > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Because these terms are not necessarily used or understood the same way, it can lead to confusion and misunderstandings in these kinds of discussions. Geez, ya think? LOL ---
**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:** [January 8, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/179 "2009-01-08T18:39:26Z")
> [@raindrop](#): > > Ah-ha!, there it is again!.. _ **“no God”** _… > haha… toldya 😛 > Geez, ya think? LOL I phrased it that way intentionally to show how a lot of people use these terms in ways which don’t necessarily match their technical academic definitions. ---
**Author:** ![raindrop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/74df32/32.png) [@raindrop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindrop)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/180 "2009-01-08T18:46:11Z")
Sorry, I attributed **Voyager’s** quote to **Diogenes** :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255/181 "2009-01-08T18:50:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This is false. “Ist” means “believer;” we’re talking about beliefs here. Not knowledge and reason, which can be a completely separate. It may be possible to give up religious beliefs due to reason, but I doubt people can arrive at them through reason. That’s the main reason Pascal’s Wager is a failure. As a child, I believed that the moon was, in fact, made of green cheese. After all, that was what I was told. Pretty soon, however, I figured out that it couldn’t possibly be true. I also figured out that the whole Santa story didn’t make sense, and stopped believing that a fat guy in a red suit with a white beard flew around the world in one night to give kids toys. I don’t think that faith can arise through reason- but I do think that reason can displace faith. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-talk-to-atheists/479255.md?page=10)