# Why is this site overwhelmingly atheist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938 "2014-08-30T04:04:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/1 "2014-08-30T04:04:47Z")
> **[Spontaneous generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis)** > > Spontaneous generation is a superseded scientific theory that held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by the Greek philosopher and naturalist Aristotle, who compiled and expanded the work of earlier natural p... ‘The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’ The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. Where do we start guys? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/2 "2014-08-30T04:06:17Z")
Because we average smarter than everybody else? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/3 "2014-08-30T04:12:18Z")
If I don’t believe the Judeo-Christian creation fable I must be an atheist? I sense a middle someone is excluding. ---
**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:** [August 30, 2014, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/4 "2014-08-30T04:14:01Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis) > > ‘The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’ > > The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. Where do we start guys? Science kept marching on past the death of Louis Pasteur, And The Big Bang Theory doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics. edited to add: And what **dropzone** said. ---
**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:** [August 30, 2014, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/5 "2014-08-30T04:17:43Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Where do we start guys? With you explaining which creation myth you believe and why. Please pick from [this list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths) or describe your preferred creation myth if it does not appear. Please describe, at least in general terms, any supporting evidence you know of. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/6 "2014-08-30T04:24:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > With you explaining which creation myth you believe and why. Please pick from [this list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths) or describe your preferred creation myth if it does not appear. **Please describe, at least in general terms, any supporting evidence you know of.** Prediction: God said it, that settles it. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_B](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jim_b/32/4338_2.png) [@Jim\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_B)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/7 "2014-08-30T04:25:40Z")
If I may chime in here for just a moment. I wonder if anyone _ **really** _ believes the Genesis creation myth anyways. Because some people just don’t know what it says. It mentions God dividing the waters. And speaks of a _“firmament”_. These are clear references to the widely held ancient belief that the world is flat, with a massive geodesic dome, protecting us from the waters above. I’m not kidding. That’s what the “firmament” is (look it up). So if you don’t believe the world is flat, you must be an atheist? Personally, I believe in God, Darwinism, and a round earth. I don’t believe in an afterlife. But 1 out of four ain’t bad;). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/8 "2014-08-30T04:33:26Z")
OP, you made two points. Let’s take these as true: 1. Life must come from life. 2. The Big Bang Theory violates thermodynamics How does god solve either? You can’t attribute properties to god that one couldn’t also give the universe without special pleading, e.g. eternal, popped in from nothing, bootstrap from simpler forms, etc. They both have the same supposed problems. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/9 "2014-08-30T05:30:05Z")
I’d just like the OP to explain in what way the Big Bang Theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, I know that it doesn’t really, but I’d like to know what’s his understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/10 "2014-08-30T05:41:39Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis) > > ‘The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’ > **[Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html)** > > Creationists often claim that Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and hence any naturalistic origin of life. This article shows what Pasteur really demonstrated and gives a history of the subject from early ideas of spontaneous generation... > [@](#): > > What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution. > > **Introduction** > > A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that “spontaneous generation” was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that “spontaneous generation” has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. > **[Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)** > > A big reason creationist arguments against evolution are so effective is that major misconceptions about the topic abound. This article clears up five of the most important misconceptions about evolution. > [@](#): > > This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. > > However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? > > The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical laws. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Where do we start guys? In the beginning… 😛 we do have [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org) for several years already, you should start there as pointed many times before in previous threads. They do BTW cite the published science for further reading, the point here is that you need to be aware at least of what the scientists are actually saying now and not hang on to incomplete and misleading sources that you are using. As for the Atheist quip, I’m now an Agnostic, but OPs like the one you did make me respect more the Atheists than the creationists. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/11 "2014-08-30T06:14:47Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis) > > ‘The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’ > > […] Where do we start guys? How about “Louis Pasteur was not omniscient and therefore any theory or observation of his cannot be considered as universal, axiomatic truth” ? That seems like an OK start to me. I’ll even start : “Louis Pasteur might have been wrong, on only narrowly right. His frame of observation was severely limited both by technological means and lifespan”. Now you. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/12 "2014-08-30T06:25:24Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > How about “Louis Pasteur was not omniscient and therefore any theory or observation of his cannot be considered as universal, axiomatic truth” ? > > That seems like an OK start to me. I’ll even start : “Louis Pasteur might have been wrong, on only narrowly right. His frame of observation was severely limited both by technological means and lifespan”. Now you. And…Pasteur was right, given an atmosphere rich with Oxygen…but the primordial atmosphere wasn’t, and so life had a chance to arise. The situation today isn’t the same as it was some four billion years ago. I always love it when people try to disprove current scientific models with junior high school levels of understanding. It’s like the kid who thought he could disprove Einstein’s theory of Relativity…and couldn’t even work with square roots. Isn’t “Pride” a sin in these guys’ book? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/13 "2014-08-30T06:33:24Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are a _product_ of the Big Bang. You may as well complain that the Constitution must be false because it contradicts Wickard v. Filburn. ---
**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:** [August 30, 2014, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/14 "2014-08-30T06:37:22Z")
Pasteur knew nothing about DNA or even viruses. In any case, biology does not have the kinds of relatively simple laws that physics has. The OP can come back and apologize now. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/15 "2014-08-30T07:47:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > And…Pasteur was right, given an atmosphere rich with Oxygen…but the primordial atmosphere wasn’t, and so life had a chance to arise. The situation today isn’t the same as it was some four billion years ago. Hence the “universal” qualifier. Pasteur’s observation may have been shit hot for its time and place. It probably was (I wouldn’t know, but he was French which makes it all very suspect :)). But that time and place were positively meaningless in a geological time frame. Or even on a simple, global scale since the range of his observations was very limited, geographically speaking. Did he plumb the abyssal depths ? No, no he fucking did not. So Pasteur’s axioms are worth what they’re worth and not one iota more, and should only be considered valid (or applicable, even) within their precise and specific context. The inferences he draws from them may or may not be pertinent, and certainly aren’t The Truth for All Eternity, Amen. Which was the point I was trying to get across to the OP. Who’s going to be a drive-by account anyway. And Lord knows religious types never seem to be satisfied with a non-simple, non-final answer to anything ; but hey. I got none better to do today. > [@](#): > > I always love it when people try to disprove current scientific models with junior high school levels of understanding. It’s like the kid who thought he could disprove Einstein’s theory of Relativity…and couldn’t even work with square roots. > > Isn’t “Pride” a sin in these guys’ book? “I read the Wiki page on \ and found a flaw in it while taking a dump, surely that means I’m a genius and nobody thought about it before.” Yes, there’s an XKCD for this. Because of course there is. He’s a math guy, they get potty geniuses dividing by zero every Wednesday, regular. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/16 "2014-08-30T07:54:01Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [ > The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. Where do we start guys? I’m so sick of this crap. Thermodynamics is a fairly complex topic, and my thermo class was one of the hardest classes I took in college. Most people in the US don’t get any significant exposure to thermodynamics unless they do an AP Physics class in high school or do an Engineering or Physics major in college. So, here we have a complex topic which you have obviously never studied in any depth, but yet you run around making definitive statements about it. And the statements are false. What kind of person does that? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/17 "2014-08-30T10:20:44Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. Where do we start guys? Huh. See, it was my impression that the big bang theory was widely accepted among practising physicists, most of which will have gone through at least one course in thermodynamics in college. And that various scientific organizations, many of which have multiple people specializing in thermodynamics, accept it as valid. I’m wondering why they haven’t rejected it, or rejected modern thermodynamics. Oh wait, I know! It’s because _you’re completely ignorant of the subject you’re opining about_. The big bang theory does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is an _ancient_ creationist hobby-horse and it has been false from day one. You think it does? PUBLISH! Put your shit in the peer-reviewed journals, win a nobel prize, and stop bugging _us_ with your crap. After all, if you’re capable of overturning decades of research in physics, you must be the best at thermodynamics the world has ever seen, with like 5 different degrees in thermodynamics! Similarly, appealing to the law of biogenesis. Oh look, research from a century ago that’s been supplanted. What’s next, want to bring up Bechamp and Lamarck? And of course, our rejection of creationism has nothing to do with atheism. It’s entirely valid to believe that god created the big bang, or that god guided abiogenesis and evolution. I think it’s silly, but at least it’s working with the evidence. What’s not valid is to ignore the vast body of scientific research that validates the big bang theory and abiogenesis in favor of bronze-age mythology. The reason there aren’t many young-earth creationists here is because the site’s motto is “fighting ignorance”, not “let’s chill out in the dark ages”. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/18 "2014-08-30T10:26:11Z")
Also, obligatory: [xkcd: Revolutionary](http://xkcd.com/675/) Read the hoverover text. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/19 "2014-08-30T10:43:20Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis) > > ‘The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’ > > The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. Where do we start guys? OP asks a question, then proceeds to demonstrate ignorance towards science and logic. Apparently in OP’s world, appealing to bad science AND ignorance is enough to make one a believer. As to your title question - I’m not sure it IS the case that this board is overwhelmingly atheist. I think atheists are more outspoken here, which gives that illusion. Then again, maybe it is overwhelmingly atheist. It might be the case because the outspoken theists on the board bring up poor arguments, turning theists away from theism. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/20 "2014-08-30T11:08:59Z")
The fish sure are biting today. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938.md?page=2)