# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/321 "2014-09-10T10:23:41Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Those were just errors in transcription/translation. God tried its level best to explain this stuff, but the imperfect humans wrote it down wrong. Or maybe they wrote it down right at first but it got messed up in the copying process or distorted in translation. Why would an all Knowing being not know how to reach an imperfect being that he had created? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/322 "2014-09-10T10:25:47Z")
> [@simster](#): > > it’s not - except that the Bible gets “special” status based on the belief that it is a “Holy Book” - and some treat it even more special than others. > > If it were treated as any other historical document with cultural significance, it wouldn’t be the “Bible”. That brings up the question of who declared it to be a Holy Book? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/323 "2014-09-10T11:47:10Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Why would an all Knowing being not know how to reach an imperfect being that he had created? This does assume that a _actual_ All Knowing Being and a _hypothetical_ All Knowing Being have the same level of “all knowingness”. Also, maybe All Knowing Beings know how to reach their created imperfect beings but simply aren’t able to do it. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![orangeapples](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@orangeapples](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orangeapples)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/324 "2014-09-10T17:26:38Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > This does assume that a _actual_ All Knowing Being and a _hypothetical_ All Knowing Being have the same level of “all knowingness”. > > Also, maybe All Knowing Beings know how to reach their created imperfect beings but simply aren’t able to do it. > > CMC fnord! Which would then seem to fly in the face of All Powerful, one would think. 🙂 I don’t subscribe to the notion that there’s an Almighty being at work in the world, but I don’t find it difficult to accept such a being would be beyond the scope of our understanding if that being existed. I do, however, struggle with the default “He works in mysterious ways” response to any challenge to that belief that can’t be readily addressed by the faithful. If this being exists, and if this being is almighty, and if this being really gives a damn (literally even) what we do or don’t do down here on our little chunk of rock, then how could this being not possess some clear and effective way to convey this to us. Something that doesn’t rely on some dude having a dream or seeing things or hearing voices. Reductive, I know, but still pertinent in my estimation. Once upon a time, that _might_ have sufficed, but clearly that’s no longer the case. Upon review, I should probably indicate I speak to the broader point in this discussion, not **crowmanyclouds** ’ post specifically. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/325 "2014-09-10T17:58:54Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Like, say, God’s cure for [leprosy](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/14.html#2)? Great Og on a stick, that passage blew my mind. Luckily, SAB summed it up with this: > [@](#): > > God’s law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird’s blood. Wipe some blood on the patient’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That’s all there is to it. I can think of no sane reason why THE LORD offered this as a cure for leprosy. Actually, He doesn’t really say it’s a cure. He just told Moses to use it. THE LORD apparently has a sense of humor and sent Moses on a snipe hunt. Upon seeing the code, I see you found a clever way of hiding fnord. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/326 "2014-09-10T18:07:31Z")
> [@orangeapples](#): > > Which would then seem to fly in the face of All Powerful, one would think. 🙂 > > I don’t subscribe to the notion that there’s an Almighty being at work in the world, but I don’t find it difficult to accept such a being would be beyond the scope of our understanding if that being existed. I do, however, struggle with the default “He works in mysterious ways” response to any challenge to that belief that can’t be readily addressed by the faithful. > > If this being exists, and if this being is almighty, and if this being really gives a damn (literally even) what we do or don’t do down here on our little chunk of rock, then how could this being not possess some clear and effective way to convey this to us. Something that doesn’t rely on some dude having a dream or seeing things or hearing voices. Reductive, I know, but still pertinent in my estimation. Once upon a time, that _might_ have sufficed, but clearly that’s no longer the case. > > Upon review, I should probably indicate I speak to the broader point in this discussion, not **crowmanyclouds** ’ post specifically. The bible has Jesus telling the followers — “Whatever you ask in my name…” “Faith as small as a mustard seed…” both of those are then qualified by other users as “having to be in the right frame of mind, or you don’t have enough faith…” - but the Bible is clear on what the expectations are. Since Jesus (in the bible) is “Son of God” and “God himself” (depending on a couple of viewpoints)- it seems you have right there as simple a statement as could possibly be made - and yet it still “never happens”. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/327 "2014-09-10T20:12:01Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If God is nowhere then where is he? He has to be in existence if he exists. All beings need a place to be. So perhaps God is not " a" being but being? That is one possibility. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/328 "2014-09-10T20:58:35Z")
> [@orangeapples](#): > > Which would then seem to fly in the face of All Powerful, one would think. 🙂 {…} Isn’t there something about an OmniMax god being logically impossible? (The [Problem of Evil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)?) Not that I care, since I hate¹ the logical arguments for a god² with a passion! ¹ I have a logical argument for X, therefor X exists, have you met the dragon in my garage? His name is Carl! ² I’ll never understand how those making those arguments can go from _logical argument for a god_ to _therefore Jesus and his Dad_ without showing their work. In the end though, just as with “nothing”, until we actually get a _All Knowing_ and/or _All Powerful_ being “in the lab” our definitions of _All Anything_ are mere placeholders. > [@orangeapples](#): > > {…} I don’t subscribe to the notion that there’s an Almighty being at work in the world, but I don’t find it difficult to accept such a being would be beyond the scope of our understanding if that being existed. I do, however, struggle with the default “He works in mysterious ways” response to any challenge to that belief that can’t be readily addressed by the faithful. > > If this being exists, and if this being is almighty, and if this being really gives a damn (literally even) what we do or don’t do down here on our little chunk of rock, then how could this being not possess some clear and effective way to convey this to us. Something that doesn’t rely on some dude having a dream or seeing things or hearing voices. Reductive, I know, but still pertinent in my estimation. Once upon a time, that _might_ have sufficed, but clearly that’s no longer the case. {…} > [@](#): > > The “What would change your mind” question came up again in e-mail. I’ve provided an answer many times, but the following version might be worth thinking about: > > "I don’t know what would change my mind, and I don’t need to know. In fact, it would be arrogant for me to presume that I could even come up with an answer, because that presumes that I’m sufficiently knowledgeable that I can tell the difference between ‘a vastly superior technology that is beyond my understanding’ and ‘the powers of a god’. > > But, if there is a god, that god should know exactly what it would take to change my mind…and that god should be capable of doing whatever it would take. The fact that this hasn’t happened can only mean one of two things: > > 1. No such god exists. > 2. Whatever god exists doesn’t care to convince me, at this time. > > In either case, it’s not my problem and there’s nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile, all of those believers who think that there is a god who does want me to know that he exists - are clearly, obviously, undeniably… wrong." > > Matt Dillahunty CMC fnord! ---
**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:** [September 10, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/329 "2014-09-10T22:23:47Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Isn’t there something about an OmniMax god being logically impossible? (The [Problem of Evil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)?) You don’t even need omnibenevolence - omnipotence and omniscience are logically impossible. If at time X God knows he is going to do Y, he is powerless not to do Y, and is is thus not omnipotent. If he can do Y or not Y, then he doesn’t know what he is going to do, and is not omniscient. The common argument against this is that he just doesn’t choose to change his mind, but that is irrelevant - what is important is that he can’t. Omnibenevolence works also since God is constrained to not to anything not maximally benevolent. However, since we are clearly not living in the best of all possible worlds, it does not matter. > [@](#): > > Not that I care, since I hate¹ the logical arguments for a god² with a passion! > ¹ I have a logical argument for X, therefor X exists, have you met the dragon in my garage? His name is Carl! > ² I’ll never understand how those making those arguments can go from _logical argument for a god_ to _therefore Jesus and his Dad_ without showing their work. > > In the end though, just as with “nothing”, until we actually get a _All Knowing_ and/or _All Powerful_ being “in the lab” our definitions of _All Anything_ are mere placeholders. > CMC fnord! For 15 years or more I’ve had a challenge out for anyone using the cosmological argument for god to get from there to any god mentioned in a human religion. No takers. Such a creator god could at least inspire a holy book with something resembling the correct information. Maybe the creator created for a totally different planet - and they got an accurate Bible. We just showed up by accident, without a clue as to what went on. It seems that many - perhaps most - believers still think the earth is the center of the universe deep down in their hearts. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/330 "2014-09-10T23:38:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You don’t even need omnibenevolence - omnipotence and omniscience are logically impossible. If at time X God knows he is going to do Y, he is powerless not to do Y, and is is thus not omnipotent. If he can do Y or not Y, then he doesn’t know what he is going to do, and is not omniscient. I don’t believe that “omniscient” is generally meant to include knowing the future. In God’s case, I think his “omniscience” is held to be a side effect of his omnipresence, but he lives within the same time stream as us. The Bible makes it fairly clear that God judges people in real-time, punishing the Jewish tribes as they obey and disobey him, throughout the OT. And then the whole purpose of the NT is to change the rules, so clearly he wasn’t forecasting the future, or he’d have been able to be more proactive and prevent all the things that piss him off, beforehand. Of course, I would have liked to have seen Jesus draw a map of the Earth, reveal some of the equations behind quantum physics, or simply to have told people to rub themselves on cow teets every once in a while to prevent Smallpox. There’s plenty of things he could have done that would have been far more miraculous than changing a river into wine while no one but the one guy who chronicled it was watching the river. God’s omniscience be what it may, there’s certainly no evidence that Jesus had any of it. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/331 "2014-09-11T00:27:43Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > . . . What’s the criterion for “cud-chewer,” exactly? I don’t think hares qualify. Their noses go up and down, but not because they’re chewing cud. They also eat their own droppings, but I don’t think that counts, either. > [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > Great Og on a stick, that passage blew my mind. . . . I can think of no sane reason why THE LORD offered this as a cure for leprosy. Actually, He doesn’t really say it’s a cure. He just told Moses to use it. . . . I’m not sure if it’s saying it will heal him, or just that if he becomes healed, this is what to do make him ceremonially clean. Sort of like there are ritual things to do after a woman’s period stops, but doing the things doesn’t stop her period. ---
**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:** [September 11, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/332 "2014-09-11T00:40:00Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I don’t believe that “omniscient” is generally meant to include knowing the future. In God’s case, I think his “omniscience” is held to be a side effect of his omnipresence, but he lives within the same time stream as us. The Bible makes it fairly clear that God judges people in real-time, punishing the Jewish tribes as they obey and disobey him, throughout the OT. And then the whole purpose of the NT is to change the rules, so clearly he wasn’t forecasting the future, or he’d have been able to be more proactive and prevent all the things that piss him off, beforehand. Supposedly the prophecies coming true are evidence of god. Do you you think they are just luck? Would God lose money at the racetrack? A god who did not know the future is just as blind as we are. And various “proofs” of god define god as the greatest there can be. An omniscient deity knowing the future is greater than one not knowing it. The problem is: which is greater - a fully omniscient but not omnipotent god or a fully omnipotent but not omniscient god? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/333 "2014-09-11T01:57:34Z")
We could probably run several hundred posts discussing the issues surrounding prophecy. The primary problem is that a prophetic declaration cannot be validated until after the prophesied event has transpired, and often the event or result is subject to interpretation, because divine prophecies are not even as clear as particulate material in a dense colloidal suspension. Then, of course, there is the question of whether an actor was influenced by the prophecy itself. In the end, the metric for assessing the legitimacy of a prophet is as :dubious: as that of any other evidence for the existence of any given superbeing. ---
**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:** [September 11, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/334 "2014-09-11T02:26:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The problem is: which is greater - a fully omniscient but not omnipotent god or a fully omnipotent but not omniscient god? The latter is logically impossible, since an omnipotent being could by definition just grant itself omniscience. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/335 "2014-09-11T02:34:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . which is greater - a fully omniscient but not omnipotent god or a fully omnipotent but not omniscient god? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The latter is logically impossible, since an omnipotent being could by definition just grant itself omniscience. I had the same answer, by a slightly different route: the omnipotent being causes events to come out the way he wants, and so he has “omniscience” in a passive sense. “You see that glass window? It’s going to be broken in just a moment.” Puts fist through window. “See? I knew that was going to happen.” ---
**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:** [September 11, 2014, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/336 "2014-09-11T05:44:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The latter is logically impossible, since an omnipotent being could by definition just grant itself omniscience. It’s generally accepted that omnipotence does not extend to logically impossible things, so if the bi-omni situation were logically impossible (which it is) then an omnipotent god couldn’t give herself omniscience. ---
**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:** [September 11, 2014, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/337 "2014-09-11T05:47:38Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > We could probably run several hundred posts discussing the issues surrounding prophecy. The primary problem is that a prophetic declaration cannot be validated until after the prophesied event has transpired, and often the event or result is subject to interpretation, because divine prophecies are not even as clear as particulate material in a dense colloidal suspension. Then, of course, there is the question of whether an actor was influenced by the prophecy itself. In the end, the metric for assessing the legitimacy of a prophet is as :dubious: as that of any other evidence for the existence of any given superbeing. The claim of legitimate and fulfilled prophecy is pretty clear. How they actually did was not so good. I could probably write a Biblical-type prophecy about the outcome of a horse race which would be correct (under certain interpretations) no matter which horse won. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2014, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/338 "2014-09-11T05:52:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It’s generally accepted that omnipotence does not extend to logically impossible things, so if the bi-omni situation were logically impossible (which it is) then an omnipotent god couldn’t give herself omniscience. Why is omnipotent + omniscient logically impossible? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2014, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/339 "2014-09-11T06:16:32Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Why is omnipotent + omniscient logically impossible? If you already know what you are going to do then you can’t chose to do anything else. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2014, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/340 "2014-09-11T06:27:02Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > If you already know what you are going to do then you can’t chose to do anything else. > > CMC fnord! That doesn’t strike me as a contradiction. The entity can do anything it wants to do. That it knows in advance what it is going to want is not a violation of that principle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938.md?page=18)