# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/101 "2010-01-15T18:07:29Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > You know the latest in physics says there are other dimensions we cannot sense or see. Wot the hell, I’m bored. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/102 "2010-01-15T18:08:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Unless you’ve seriously considred building a shrine to Zeus in your home, your statement doesn’t have much weight to it. _That’s_ what we’re going to do with that corner in the guest room! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/103 "2010-01-15T18:10:07Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > You know the latest in physics says there are other dimensions we cannot sense or see, well what do you know, maybe that is where they are? Whether or not that theory is accurate, these dimensions are not interpreted as parallel universes or alternate realities. And I’m not going to spend my life opening up envelopes in case that’s what happens when you die. > [@](#): > > I can imagine you in 1800 saying, “color pictures and stories and sound, moving invisibly thru trees, walls and right into a box that lights up with no fire in it in my living room, what kind of silly nonsense is that? Science says no such thing could be, and that is that!” Science never said any such thing, though. Do you think modern science is making Biblical religion seem more plausible? I don’t. > [@](#): > > In other words maybe you ought explore all those dimensions and missing matter and such before having the opinions you do. This is what’s called the God of the Gaps, and it’s not going to impress anybody here. And you should not make assumptions about which options other people may have explored. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/104 "2010-01-15T18:13:26Z")
Direct message to the OP: _This_ is the problem with trying to develop and refine The Atheist Argument. ---
**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 15, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/105 "2010-01-15T18:15:35Z")
The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to dislike Augustine of Hippo. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/106 "2010-01-15T18:30:50Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > Why would there be a downside to picking one and seeing versus winning nothing by not trying at all? Even if you thought the voucher did not exist in the drawing, you can be wrong. Hey **Silverstreak** , my name is Monty Hall. You have chosen one envelope. I am pleased to tell you that the envelope over there marked “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is, _bzzzt_, not the path to paradise. Look - open it up - it contains nothing but pirates and pasta. Since we all know that, because I revealed a wrong answer, your chances of making the right choice are now slightly enhanced by switching envelope, by your argument, it makes sense for you to change envelope now. Which new religion are you going to adopt? ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/107 "2010-01-15T19:56:00Z")
Silverstreak Wonder, I think you haven’t yet grasped the problem with Pascal’s Wager (in the form here of the billion envelopes). There’s someone who says that one envelope leads to the prize, and all wrong envelopes, plus not picking one at all, all lead to torture (that’s your argument). so what is there to lose? But there’s someone else who says that picking the right one, or not picking at all, leads to the prize, but picking the wrong one leads to torture. That’s a horse of a different color, no? What’s the best choice in this scenario? Now, how do you know which set of rules is the right one? You can’t. The wager argument is invalid, and everyone who’s thought about it for ten minutes in the last 200 years realizes it’s invalid. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/108 "2010-01-15T19:58:56Z")
I cannot believe that somebody is seriously arguing Pascal’s Wager. I thought even college-educated people knew better than _that_. Let’s look at the wager, again. From the start. And for a change, we’ll actally **define our terms** : Envelope: a choice of what to believe, and accompanying lifestyle changes. In other words, opening an envelope is **not free**. And note that atheism is a life choice as well, and thus is also an envelope - albeit one with a low cost. Million dollars: Getting to go to the Christian heaven. Hmm, okay, so what if christianty’s wrong? What if atheism is right? It doesn’t work then. Guess we should just call this the “prize” instead - the rewards of making the choice. Obviously the size of the reward varies - if christianity is right, rocking! If the vikings were right, then the pacifistic christianity envelope holds a booby prize. So. There are a multitiude of envelopes out there, including at least a thousand different variants of Christianity alone. (Arguably, faithful and unfaifthful lifestyles are also separate envelopes, for each possible variant belief system). Each envelope has a cost, which we can see before opening it (if we bother to read the fine print on it), and each envelope has a prize inside it, the actual results of choosing that belief and lifestyle, which we _cannot_ see before reading the envelope. Pascal’s wager is the declaration that there are only two possible arrangements of prizes in the envelopes: Heaven/Hell or Empty/Empty, and a risk assessment based on that. But there is no substance behind this declaration, and it ignores the multitude of other religions out there, that declare their own rack of rewards and punishments awaiting various beliefs and lifestyles, not to mention the fact that _everyone_ could be wrong, and maybe there’s a God out there that will reward people who say the word “who” an even number of times over their life, and damn those who say it an odd number of times, or any of the other crazy gods you could imagine. So. If one isn’t ignoring reality, then what we’re really dealing with are a set of envelopes with _unknowable_ contents, which are all _equally_ unknowable. Which leaves us with only one rational choice: to choose the envelope based on the only information we actually have: the costs. And of those, atheism is among the lowest-costing, and faithful Christianity is either somewhat expensive or _really really really_ expensive, depending on which variant you’re talking about and what day of the week it is. Regardless, though, the solution to the wager is to forget the pie-in-the-sky promises, and live for the now. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/109 "2010-01-15T20:14:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Smashing the boyfriend and girlfriend together at extreme speeds to see if love particles can be detected in the collision debris? CERN porn? Excellent! ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/110 "2010-01-15T20:21:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Smashing the boyfriend and girlfriend together at extreme speeds to see if love particles can be detected in the collision debris? In the Large Hardon Collider? ---
**Author:** ![pan1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pan1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pan1)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/111 "2010-01-15T20:26:49Z")
It’s an unscientific argument to define something as “does not exist” without proof that it doesn’t. The only logical statement possible is “There is no proof that any god exists” to extend this to “Therefore he doesn’t” is a leap. Absolute belief in the existence or non-existence of god(s) is irrational. Before ears evolved, it would have been tough to proove the existence or non existence of sound. ---
**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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/112 "2010-01-15T20:37:00Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > It’s an unscientific argument to define something as “does not exist” without proof that it doesn’t. > > The only logical statement possible is “There is no proof that any god exists” to extend this to “Therefore he doesn’t” is a leap. > > Absolute belief in the existence or non-existence of god(s) is irrational. > > Before ears evolved, it would have been tough to proove the existence or non existence of sound. But hardly anyone claims to be able to prove that god does not exist. First, one must define what God is. Since there are so many incompatible definitions, it is hard to even get started. Even if we can prove that God instance A doesn’t exist, we can’t say much about God instance B. That is why atheism is not a statement about knowledge. We can expect that anyone claiming that a particular God does exist provides evidence for this claim. Since the evidence provided for various gods for the past 4 or 5 thousand years hasn’t panned out, and because predictions based on gods supposed words haven’t come true, we are justified in not believing any god claims until you provide us with some good evidence. Weak atheists say that they just don’t believe in any gods for this very reason. Strong atheists go a bit further, and say that because theists have totally failed to give convincing evidence, we are justified in believing that no gods exist. For all we know, the real god cares about some other planet, and we just exist in the dregs of a universe that has already served its purpose, of bringing all of an alien race to heaven. No less evidence for that hypothesis than for any other religious hypothesis. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/113 "2010-01-15T20:44:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So. If one isn’t ignoring reality, then what we’re really dealing with are a set of envelopes with _unknowable_ contents, which are all _equally_ unknowable. Which leaves us with only one rational choice: to choose the envelope based on the only information we actually have: the costs. And of those, atheism is among the lowest-costing, and faithful Christianity is either somewhat expensive or _really really really_ expensive, depending on which variant you’re talking about and what day of the week it is. Regardless, though, the solution to the wager is to forget the pie-in-the-sky promises, and live for the now. My issue with your analysis is the reward being only heaven or hell. I know you set the wager up that way, but the benefits of choice are more than that. The cost is really part of the reward. And it’s the part of the reward we can see ahead of time, and can see in others through their choices. Ultimately, I mean that people often have significantly rewarding experiences based on a life of faith, so the rewards aren’t necessarily unknowable. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/114 "2010-01-15T20:52:21Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > It’s an unscientific argument to define something as “does not exist” without proof that it doesn’t. Not true. That is just not how the scientific method works. What your argument is, I presume, getting at is that it is impossible to prove a negative (I will use the example of the existence of a unicorn)–you have to search everywhere in the universe to prove that unicorns don’t exist–but you only need to find one to prove that they do. The scientific method is not structured to be ignorant of this concept. Instead, evidence is needed to accept a hypothesis–so in the context of existence, the hypothesis that “unicorns exist” will be presumed false unless some evidence of the existence of unicorns can be found. > [@](#): > > The only logical statement possible is “There is no proof that any god exists” to extend this to “Therefore he doesn’t” is a leap. Note that this argument relies on an entirely undefined God. It is very different if you start with a God that is claimed to hvae characteristics that should be observable. Then, “there is no proof that any god exists” is evidence for the proposition that “therefore, a god with characteristics that would create such proof doesn’t exist.” > [@](#): > > Absolute belief in the existence or non-existence of god(s) is irrational. What about the invisible dragon in my garage, or the teapot in an elliptical orbit between earth and mars? Is it irrational to disbelieve that they exist? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/115 "2010-01-15T21:27:01Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > It’s an unscientific argument to define something as “does not exist” without proof that it doesn’t. > > The only logical statement possible is “There is no proof that any god exists” to extend this to “Therefore he doesn’t” is a leap. > > Absolute belief in the existence or non-existence of god(s) is irrational. But it’s not a leap to ‘therefore I will behave as if it doesn’t’. You don’t have to have absolute proof about something to draw a conclusion from evidence. Since we have no evidence whatsoever that god exists, in spite of centuries of looking and thousands of attempts, the logical conclusion is that god does not exist. I don’t have to assert or defend the statement ‘god doesn’t exist’, I just have to point to the very obvious lack of evidence, the same I would with the invisible pink unicorn. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/116 "2010-01-15T21:29:33Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > My issue with your analysis is the reward being only heaven or hell. I know you set the wager up that way, but the benefits of choice are more than that. > > The cost is really part of the reward. And it’s the part of the reward we can see ahead of time, and can see in others through their choices. > > Ultimately, I mean that people often have significantly rewarding experiences based on a life of faith, so the rewards aren’t necessarily unknowable. If you actually _read_ my analysis, you’ll know I quite explicitly didn’t limit myself to heaven or hell. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/117 "2010-01-15T21:35:44Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > It’s an unscientific argument to define something as “does not exist” without proof that it doesn’t. > > The only logical statement possible is “There is no proof that any god exists” to extend this to “Therefore he doesn’t” is a leap. > > Absolute belief in the existence or non-existence of god(s) is irrational. > > Before ears evolved, it would have been tough to proove the existence or non existence of sound. You forget that that there are various logical arguments that _do_ disprove the existence of god, for some definitions of god - the POE, for an example, and a recognition of nonmiraculous origins of things for another. These proofs don’t cover _all_ possible gods (perfectly noninterventionist ones get a pass, among others) but they are quite good at disproving the sort of gods that religions tend to be built around. Some gods are not disprovable. But most are as disprovable as dragons. ---
**Author:** ![pan1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pan1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pan1)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/118 "2010-01-15T21:36:55Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > What about the invisible dragon in my garage, or the teapot in an elliptical orbit between earth and mars? Is it irrational to disbelieve that they exist? If you make the disbelief Absolute - yes it’s irrational. If you allow for the incredibly minute possiblity that your disbelief could be wrong, then it’s okay. I don’t have much tolerance for people who absolutely denounce the existence of gods. I fully understand people who will say “I believe god doesn’t exist” because they are not saying “It’s a fact that god doesn’t exist.” They are saying they have no reason to believe he does. The difference is in recognizing it’s a belief as opposed to a fact. Non-existence can never really be a fact, unless limited somehow. I cannot say that the DoDo is extinct. I can say with reasonable certainty that it is, but I can only say with Absolute Certainty that it’s extinct everywhere that has been checked. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with irrationality. I’ll allow for your irrational disbelief if you allow for my irrational belief. I’ll even say that odds are in favor of the atheist’s belief being correct. But, tell me that Unicorns don’t exist and them’s fighting words, dagnabit. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/119 "2010-01-15T21:41:35Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with irrationality. I’ll allow for your irrational disbelief if you allow for my irrational belief. I’ll even say that odds are in favor of the atheist’s belief being correct. I’ll let you borrow a penny if I can borrow a hundred trillion dollars. We’re both borrowing, so it’s pretty much equivalent, right? ---
**Author:** ![pan1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pan1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pan1)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/120 "2010-01-15T21:41:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Some gods are not disprovable. But most are as disprovable as dragons. Logic always allows you to limit your definition. For instance I can point to the bearded dragon and the komodo dragon. Dragon’s exist. Huge beasts with 50’ wingspans that breathe fire and fly about eating sacrificial virgins cannot exist, here, on Earth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966.md?page=7)