# Refining the Atheist Argument **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966 "2010-01-14T18:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/41 "2010-01-15T01:24:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Which morals and ethics? “Don’t kill people because God/mommy says not to” or “Don’t kill people because murder within a society has negative effects on numerous levels, including a decrease in personal popularity, it incites retaliation which is personally dangerous, it decreases the feeling of safety and security of the people in the area, it attracts negative police attention, and it deprives society of the productivity of the individual, to name a few. These effects may be mitigated if the person killed is agreed to have been themselves acting in a threatening manner, and/or the person in question is deemed to be a member of an outsider class such as a person living in another country that the people in your class and/or society are unfamiliar with. Various other factors may also apply…”? Any morals or ethics. ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/42 "2010-01-15T01:35:28Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Morals and ethics are social constructions. So they’re certainly falsifiable within the framework of consensus that causes them to exist in the first place. > > Consider the statement: “Murder is wrong.” Outside of a particular social context the statement is meaningless. No truth value can be assigned to it. But within a specific context we can absolutely validate or falsify it. > tr > In a similar manner the statement “That dollar is counterfeit” is meaningless outside a particular social context. There is no culture-independent standard for determining whether a bill is genuine or counterfeit. In fact, even the terms “genuine” and “counterfeit” (like “right” and “wrong”) are meaningless without a social context. However, within a particular context we can absolutely say whether or not a particular bill is counterfeit. I agree with your statements. However I don’t think the claim is that theism is false only within certain social constructs. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/43 "2010-01-15T01:45:47Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > I agree with your statements. However I don’t think the claim is that theism is false only within certain social constructs. Most brands of theism make claims about the nature of material reality, not merely social reality. If theism were merely “the human abstraction of morals and ethics” as you claim, then most atheists would have no problem with it. (And indeed, I quite happily attend services at my reform temple because the emphasis is on ethics and deeds rather than belief. The focus of the temple is on living a positive life, not on advancing a particular ontology.) But most religions aren’t like that. They don’t just say “here’s how you should live”, but “here’s how the universe works”. And those claims are certainly target for falsification, particularly when they impinge on any moral or ethical messages (“God wants me to kill you!”) ---
**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 15, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/44 "2010-01-15T01:53:01Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Pretty big ‘if’ there… Damn right. That’s probably why every book on relativity and quantum theory I’ve ever seen emphasizes how many decimal places the theories have been verified to. It just shows how scientists have more imagination than any prophet. ---
**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 15, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/45 "2010-01-15T01:57:04Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > If you’re claiming that morals and ethics are falsifiable you’d be going aganist the generally accepted philosophical tenents. > > I don’t believe they are. I don’t see how any of my examples involve verifying or falsifying morals or ethics. There is an implicit assumption that trustworthiness has been defined, and the question is whether the girlfriend or colleague have met that definition. They hypothesis about whether a girlfriend is true can be tested even if you think it is okay to mess around outside the relationship. I agree that since moral and ethics are opinions in a sense, not statements about the truth of anything, they can’t be falsified. ---
**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 15, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/46 "2010-01-15T02:01:07Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > Unless there isn’t a way to test them, like with morality and ethics. I’ve said this before in other threads, but I think of religion itself is the human abstraction of morals and ethics based on human experience. There are many branches of philosophy studying ethics. Religion is different in that it claims to be able to define absolute morals and ethics derived from a supposed deity who handed them down to us. No deity, no special claim. We can argue about the ethics of this and that, but religion tells us that our arms too short to box with God, so we had better do what he says. If religion didn’t act this way, they would be the Ten Suggestions, not the Ten Commandments after all. ---
**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 15, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/47 "2010-01-15T02:04:28Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > I agree with your statements. However I don’t think the claim is that theism is false only within certain social constructs. True. Theism is false in all social constructs. Which doesn’t mean that theistic morals are always wrong (which is a word that isn’t well defined in this discussion.) Stopped clocks, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/48 "2010-01-15T02:12:49Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Most brands of theism make claims about the nature of material reality, not merely social reality. > > If theism were merely “the human abstraction of morals and ethics” as you claim, then most atheists would have no problem with it. Just because it’s an abstraction doesn’t mean it’s not real though. See math. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > (And indeed, I quite happily attend services at my reform temple because the emphasis is on ethics and deeds rather than belief. The focus of the temple is on living a positive life, not on advancing a particular ontology.) > > But most religions aren’t like that. They don’t just say “here’s how you should live”, but “here’s how the universe works”. And those claims are certainly target for falsification, particularly when they impinge on any moral or ethical messages (“God wants me to kill you!”) Some are some are not. Mine is not, but I don’t really want to get into my personal faith here. Just the scientific method in relation to atheism. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/49 "2010-01-15T02:57:43Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > Well, I have been known to discuss stuff like this, but can’t even follow what you are in fact trying to discuss. When I read words I have yet to see in this lifetime “solipsism” all I can say is “Huh”. Yes I went to college, by the way. This is a forum for discussion. It is expected that any participant will make the effort to have sufficient knowledge to participate. If one does not possess sufficient knowledge or understanding, then it is expected that one will stay on the sidelines and learn or ask informed questions to learn. If the topic is superstring theory, one is expected to have a basic understanding of the appropriate terms applied in physics. If the topic is economic theory, then it is expected that one will be familiar with the writings of Smith, Galbraith, Keynes, Friedman, and even Marx. Certainly not every thread in Great Debates is carried out at the graduate level of discourse, (and many are not carried out above the level of third graders), HOWEVER, it is presumptuous and rude to enter a thread only to whine that one does not understand the basic terms employed in the discussion. ---
**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:** [January 15, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/50 "2010-01-15T03:35:48Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > Unless there isn’t a way to test them, like with morality and ethics. I’ve said this before in other threads, but I think of religion itself is the human abstraction of morals and ethics based on human experience. No; religion is a denial of ethics. It tells you to do things because God/the Prophet/whatever says so. And if tomorrow they say to do the opposite, you do that instead. Mindless obedience isn’t ethics. It also tell you to ignore real people and real consequences, in favor of worrying about imaginary things like souls and the afterlife. You can’t behave morally very well if you aren’t treating people and the real world as what matters. Praying for people in Haiti is no more helpful to them than watching the news and laughing at them. And then there’s all the “moral” behavior like oppressing gays because God hates them, or spreading lies about condoms in hopes of tricking people into not using them; and therefore risking their real lives to protect their imaginary souls. Religion is nothing more than a collection of lies and delusions that happen to appeal to people. There’s nothing profound about it. And certainly nothing moral. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/51 "2010-01-15T04:37:40Z")
> [@stuthehistoryguy](#): > > Mate, he’s not going to know that one. It’s a perfectly cromulent word. Well, somebody had to say it. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/52 "2010-01-15T06:08:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Pish and tosh. If you read Dear Abby and that ilk, you will know that there are many people who would have better lives if they used the scientific method in relationships. Your girlfriend loves you is the hypothesis. If she does love you, she will say it, she will want to be around you, and she will treat you reasonably well. If she seldom comes home until 5 am, we might falsify the hypothesis that she loves you, right? The scientific method does not require lab coats or publishing in peer reviewed journals, by the way. It may not require lab coats or publication, but what you described is NOT the scientific method. Not by any stretch of the imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Dioptre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/278dde/32.png) [@Dioptre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dioptre)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/53 "2010-01-15T09:16:00Z")
1. People have many different beliefs, even when they share a religion. These beliefs encompass history of the natural world, human history, supernatural (non-measurable) reality, material reality, and ways of making decisions. 2. People acquire their beliefs in different ways. Most of these ways are indirect – ie, they are told by someone else, who in turn acquired the belief somehow. There will always be some uncertainty in indirect learning. Other people may misreport the source of their own beliefs. 3. Sources of belief may include: a. Personal observation of the material world b. Revelation or inspiration c. Logical extrapolation and combination of existing belief d. Systematic observation (typically the scientific method) e. Indirect learning from others or from texts 4. Of these methods of acquiring belief, only systematic observation has been effective in generating new beliefs that can reliably be used to predict the state of the material world. It is not perfect in this, nor is it monotonically improving, but it is sufficient (for example) for most engineering required by our current civilisation. 5. Indirect learning is quite reliable for acquiring beliefs that are reliable when learnt from others who make credible claims that the knowledge is originally sourced from the scientific method. Again, it is not perfect. 6. Revelation and inspiration (and learning from those who source their beliefs in this way) have historically been extremely unreliable in generating material beliefs. (ITR claims to have counter examples, and I’d like to hear them). 7. For non-material beliefs, the variety of different beliefs is proof that revelation is unreliable, unless a particular method of revelation can be distinguished from the others. Note that this must be the _method_ of revelation, not the revealed beliefs. If the beliefs cannot be confirmed by another way of knowing, then the method itself must have something to distinguish it. 8. Beliefs about a deity, unless they are materially testable or an inevitable conclusion from material tests, cannot be confirmed by another way of knowing. 9. No method of revelation has a method of knowing which can be both distinguished and shown to have increased reliability through this distinction. ---
**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 15, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/54 "2010-01-15T09:26:38Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > It may not require lab coats or publication, but what you described is NOT the scientific method. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Not formally, no. We’re not expecting people to do statistical tests on the intervals between kisses. But it is a layman’s application of what the scientific method is all about - making hypotheses, making observations, doing experiments, and supporting or not supporting the hypothesis. What do you think the scientific method involves? ---
**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:** [January 15, 2010, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/55 "2010-01-15T09:43:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What do you think the scientific method involves? Smashing the boyfriend and girlfriend together at extreme speeds to see if love particles can be detected in the collision debris? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/56 "2010-01-15T12:34:33Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > Just because it’s an abstraction doesn’t mean it’s not real though. Yes, it does. An abstraction is an idea about a thing, not the thing in itself. > [@](#): > > See math. I think you are confusing “useful” with “real”. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/57 "2010-01-15T12:54:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So, you might ask: ‘Jesus said some good things but why believe he was God?’ Well the first answer I can give is that \*\*I like \*\*having consistent beliefs, so when Jesus said that the was God and that he planned to rise from the dead, I believe it because \*\*I find it easier to believe \*\*all of what he said then to believe that he had extraordinary wisdom most of the time but a few brain farts that caused him to spout nonsense part of the time. So…your argument is based on what you like and what you find easier to believe? Are you in fact saying truth and the universe define themselves according to your desires? Or that what you desire \*must \*be true because if it weren’t true you wouldn’t desire it? > [@](#): > > But more to the point in this thread, I have faith in Jesus because I have found that faith is a successful method of knowing. That was the point that Paul was trying to make in the Epistle to the Hebrews with his long litany of people who “lived by faith” during Israel’s history. Yet, an equally modern version of the argument could be made with modern people. Look at Desmond Tutu, at Martin Luther King, at Mother Teresa, at Dietrich Bonhoeffer, at John Wesley, at George Fox. They all lived by faith too, and they created massive, positive changes in the world, which nearly everyone of any religious viewpoint now agrees that those changes were a good thing. So then, I conclude that living by faith is a quite reliable method of living. But that’s psychology, not epistemology or ontology. People believe in idea X and X is a powerful motivator of positive behavior. That doesn’t mean that X is objectively true. God could well be the biggest placebo in history. ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/58 "2010-01-15T13:05:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; religion is a denial of ethics. It tells you to do things because God/the Prophet/whatever says so. And if tomorrow they say to do the opposite, you do that instead. Mindless obedience isn’t ethics. > > It also tell you to ignore real people and real consequences, in favor of worrying about imaginary things like souls and the afterlife. You can’t behave morally very well if you aren’t treating people and the real world as what matters. Praying for people in Haiti is no more helpful to them than watching the news and laughing at them. And then there’s all the “moral” behavior like oppressing gays because God hates them, or spreading lies about condoms in hopes of tricking people into not using them; and therefore risking their real lives to protect their imaginary souls. > > Religion is nothing more than a collection of lies and delusions that happen to appeal to people. There’s nothing profound about it. And certainly nothing moral. Nonsense. Ethics encompasses both right and wrong. I would expect an atheistic perspective to conclude divine absolute morality to be fundamentally flawed. For it to be flawed however, concepts of right and wrong need to exist in the first place. Worrying about “imaginary things” is indeed worrying. ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/59 "2010-01-15T13:32:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Smashing the boyfriend and girlfriend together at extreme speeds to see if love particles can be detected in the collision debris? Worst euphemism for the sex act I’ve ever read. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/60 "2010-01-15T14:03:14Z")
But it would justify all those misspellings of “hadron”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966.md?page=4)