# 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:** 8
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/141 "2010-01-15T22:22:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Nonsense - there is the added “religion” that “it really seems like my senses are portraying a reasonably consistent reality”. And from that, all science springs. And that’s pretty much the (soft) atheist position, since that observed reality does squat to inspire belief in gods, now that we’re past the “why does lighting strike people?” stage. whew, for a second there, I thought i’d have to share the Crown of Enlightenment. ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/142 "2010-01-15T22:25:35Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > whew, for a second there, I thought i’d have to share the Crown of Enlightenment. So you _deny_ that it really seems like [your] senses are portraying a reasonably consistent reality? You should put down the bong, then. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/143 "2010-01-15T22:27:01Z")
People feel the need to define that which they cannot understand. It’s all good and fine as long as they use good logic to reach their definitions. It’s problematic when they make leaps, skipping over lacks of evidence one way or another, to make proclamations. It’s one thing to be an atheist and simply not believe. It’s quite another to be an atheist and believe that gods cannot exist. While we can easily argue to a point of agreement that any given god goes not exist by all accepted definitions of that god, we cannot disprove that which we cannot define clearly. Therefore: Something Exists. Is it sentient? Who knows. ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/144 "2010-01-15T22:28:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So you _deny_ that it really seems like [your] senses are portraying a reasonably consistent reality? Understanding human perception, its absurd to think we always percieve reality with 100% accuracy. i suppose “reasonably consistent” is almost acceptable ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/145 "2010-01-15T22:29:10Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > People feel the need to define that which they cannot understand. > > It’s all good and fine as long as they use good logic to reach their definitions. > It’s problematic when they make leaps, skipping over lacks of evidence one way or another, to make proclamations. > > It’s one thing to be an atheist and simply not believe. It’s quite another to be an atheist and believe that gods cannot exist. While we can easily argue to a point of agreement that any given god goes not exist by all accepted definitions of that god, we cannot disprove that which we cannot define clearly. > > Therefore: > > Something Exists. > > Is it sentient? Who knows. Forget 101-someone needs to take a _remedial_ logic course. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/146 "2010-01-15T22:30:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It is spelled “atheism”. If you are having trouble spelling it(which I highly doubt), just cut and paste the correct spelling from elsewhere in this thread. Way to go - bringing up spelling in a philosophical debate… ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/147 "2010-01-15T22:30:40Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Most organized religions are evil, including organized aetheim. Atheism isn’t a religion; it’s simply the disbelief in gods. And people who only have atheism in common don’t really organize well enough to be effectively evil. Nor, unlike the religious do they have the motivation. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/148 "2010-01-15T22:35:02Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > People feel the need to define that which they cannot understand. > > It’s all good and fine as long as they use good logic to reach their definitions. > It’s problematic when they make leaps, skipping over lacks of evidence one way or another, to make proclamations. > > It’s one thing to be an atheist and simply not believe. It’s quite another to be an atheist and believe that gods cannot exist. While we can easily argue to a point of agreement that any given god goes not exist by all accepted definitions of that god, we cannot disprove that which we cannot define clearly. > > Therefore: > > Something Exists. > > Is it sentient? Who knows. It’s pretty trivial to prove that it’s _self-aware_, at least… And seriously, if you’re George hunting the firebreathing Hard Atheists, you might be a long time hunting, because they’re rarer than you think. It’s easy to find people who don’t _believe_ in Og, the invisible pervert who does nothing but spend his time watching women in bathrooms but never intervenes or effects observable reality in any way, and you’ll find lots of people scoffing at the idea of believing in such a thing, but I think when push came to shove even **Der Trihs** would admit it’s _possible_ such a creature exists, while in the same breath deriding (justifiably) anyone who would have convinced themselves to believe in something for which there is not and can be no evidence. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/149 "2010-01-15T22:36:59Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Understanding human perception, its absurd to think we always percieve reality with 100% accuracy. i suppose “reasonably consistent” is almost acceptable I didn’t say that we have reason to believe that our _perceptions_ are consistent - I said with those perceptions we have reason to believe that _reality_ is reasonably consistent\*. There’s a difference. - which means things like “the existence of things persists” and “things aren’t completely random” ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/150 "2010-01-15T22:40:25Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s easy to find people who don’t _believe_ in Og, the invisible pervert who does nothing but spend his time watching women in bathrooms but never intervenes or effects observable reality in any way, and you’ll find lots of people scoffing at the idea of believing in such a thing, but I think when push came to shove even **Der Trihs** would admit it’s _possible_ such a creature exists, while in the same breath deriding (justifiably) anyone who would have convinced themselves to believe in something for which there is not and can be no evidence. True. But almost no one actually believes in a noninterventionist god the first place. About the only time you see this god-that-affects-nothing brought up is when people are trying to justify religion. Then outside that scenario, they go right back to the interventionist God. It’s the religious equivalent of the terrorist-with-a-nuke scenario you see torture advocates bring up; a scenario that largely only exists to defend a fundamentally indefensible position. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/151 "2010-01-15T22:45:04Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Something Exists. > > Is it sentient? Who knows. How should we look upon people who claim they _do_ know, and want their knowledge written into law and passed onto impressionable children? ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/152 "2010-01-15T22:45:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Forget 101-someone needs to take a _remedial_ logic course. Ok then prove my religion wrong I say: something exists that’s my religion if you cannot prove me wrong then you must forfeit you atheistic beliefs and covert to panism ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/153 "2010-01-15T22:46:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How should we look upon people who claim they _do_ know, and want their knowledge written into law and passed onto impressionable children? Teach your children as you wish but don’t force religion through law ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/154 "2010-01-15T22:47:37Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Ok then prove my religion wrong > > I say: something exists > > that’s my religion > > if you cannot prove me wrong then you must forfeit you atheistic beliefs and covert to panism Define the “something” you are referring to, so that I might properly dispute it. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/155 "2010-01-15T22:48:23Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Ok then prove my religion wrong > > I say: something exists > > that’s my religion How does this belief influence how you live your life? ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/156 "2010-01-15T22:48:27Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Ok then prove my religion wrong > > I say: something exists > > that’s my religion > > if you cannot prove me wrong then you must forfeit you atheistic beliefs and covert to panism Remedial logic: A does not prove not-B. Something existing is not inconsistent with (nearly) _any_ other belief system, so nobody has to abandon the rest of their beliefs just because one single of those beliefs can be proven to be true. ---
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/157 "2010-01-15T22:50:59Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > Teach your children as you wish but don’t force religion through law Thanks. Now get everyone trying to get creationism into science classes to agree, along with everyone trying to block gay marriage and gays serving in the military. I don’t care what beliefs anyone holds, I just want them to keep them private. ---
**Author:** ![otternell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecc23a/32.png) [@otternell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/otternell)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/158 "2010-01-15T22:54:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Thanks. Now get everyone trying to get creationism into science classes to agree, along with everyone trying to block gay marriage and gays serving in the military. I don’t care what beliefs anyone holds, I just want them to keep them private. Preach it Brother Bryan . . . oh, no wait - AMEN! oh, no wait . . . 😃 ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/159 "2010-01-15T23:01:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Define the “something” you are referring to, so that I might properly dispute it. Logically speaking, the “something” he’s proving must, pretty much by definition, be _himself_ - because the only place you’re going to cobble together a belief system that consists _only_ of “something exists” is by having overheard somebody mention Descartes and running with it like an intercepted football. Obviously, getting from there to pantheism isn’t something you’re likely to do if you’re aware of how “something exists” is acually derived - he grabbed the football and then turned and ran the wrong way. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966/160 "2010-01-15T23:12:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The scientific method does not require lab coats or publishing in peer reviewed journals, by the way. I agree with this. In fact, that exact thinking leads to disagreement from skeptics all the time, as in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11141798&postcount=40). > [@](#): > > 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? > How are your neighbors doing? That is observation and data collection. You test whether your coworkers are trustworthy all the time. And people make up models of how the American public behaves all the time, and tests them in experiments. My daughter does this in grad school, and is very frustrated when the results show that responses supporting her hypothesis may be due to chance with too high a probability. Honestly, most of this post to me just confirms what I said about the scientific method being unable to tackle the higher levels of our existence. Or in other words, I’m in agreement with **Keenenaw** and **JThunder** when they say that what you’re describing is not the scientific method by any stretch of the imagination. There is the detail that despite the strong adherence it gets from so many people, “the scientific method” is not rigidly defined. But if we say that any scientific results must objective (all researchers get the same results), replicable (the experiment produce the same results every time), and quantifiable (the results are precise measurements rather than vague assessments), then none of the approaches that you’re describing involve the scientific method. In fact, they fail on all three counts. To take the girlfriend example, your description shows exactly why the scientific method won’t work in that situation. You say: “If she does love you, she will say it, she will want to be around you, and she will treat you reasonably well.” But it’s wrong it both directions. Firstly, a woman could say she loves a man, spend time around him, treat him reasonably well, and yet not love him. Second, a woman might love a man and not do any of those things if circumstances intervened, or if they had a particular relationship which didn’t center on those things. The point being that the experience of the love between two people cannot be quantified, cannot be replicated, and cannot be objectively assessed by outsiders. In other words, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is a unique experience between just those two people, and it may be vastly different from what any other two people in love experience. Anybody who searched for love by trying to exactly replicate some sort of average of what others did would be setting him/herself up for failure. Or for another example, take “models of how the American public behaves”. Well, the big banks had highly sophisticated models which predicted that only a certain percentage of homeowners would default. Investment firms had models showing that they could earn certain percentages from subprime mortgages. The government had models showing that easy credit would only boost the economy. The only problem was that the models turned out to be wrong, because they were based on math rather than on human behavior. They could not predict that entry-level homeowners would become overconfident and take out mortgages that were too large. They could not predict that the major banks would sneak Ccc investments into Aaa bonds. They could not predict that government regulators would simply fail on a massive scale. In short, they could not predict the human element. They demonstrated what Gandhi said, “It is one of the chief follies of western man that he thinks he can devise a system so perfect that no one will need to be good.” You can take a survey of 500 homeowners and see how many of them default. You can even take ten such surveys. But the results don’t tell you what homeowners are going to do in the future. Humans live in social networks that are too complicated to understand; no one could account for and predict all the variables. So placing too much emphasis on replicable, objective results, without trying to actually understand the decisions that individuals make, can lead to disaster, as it did in this case. > [@](#): > > And as for your last sentence, there are plenty of drugs that work at the physical level and change things at the higher mental level. Hormones too. Don’t you get tetchy when you get hungry? That doesn’t mean you can understand the human mind just by looking at what drugs and hormones. They’re blunt instruments; their effects broad; they don’t explain the detailed decisions and behaviors of individuals. I can affect my computers behavior with a baseball bat, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good way to explore my computers behavior. The best way to learn about computers is to use them; same with the human mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refining-the-atheist-argument/524966.md?page=9)