Skeptics - Please Refute!

[SkepticalScience]

So this guy I work with believes that Athiests and Fundamentalists are basically equally wrong. He sent me this email and asked me to refute it. What are your thoughts:


----cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------
When time permist, please refute:

The atheist, in effect, says:

'I've reviewed all the relevant evidence and have determined that this particular universe was not the result
of a willful and purposeful intent (God), but rather, was an accident (... Not willful, purposeful, or even intended).

- First he has decided that he's competent to determine which evidence is relevant.
- (for he accepts some types of evidence and excludes others)
- Then he decides that he has all of the relevant evidence.
- (for if he has less than all of the relevant evidence, he can not pronounce with absolute certainty)
- Then he decides that he's competent to evaluate it.
-(he's a wiz at super advanced math and astro-physics, nuclear theory, and literally everything else, even
the fields of study he's never heard of)
- In so doing, he expertly (and without error) cross-analyzes all the evidence of this universe against all
the evidence he's gathered over the years in investigating other universes.

After this amazingly unscientific approach to evaluating the evidence, he pronounces a 'scientific' verdict,
namely that, 'I have finished a comprehensive and expert evaluation of this universe (and all other universes, including the ones
I don't know about), and have concluded that God does not exist here or anywhere else'.

thanks,
----cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
So this guy I work with believes that Athiests and Fundamentalists are basically equally wrong. He sent me this email and asked me to refute it. What are your thoughts:


----cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------
When time permist, please refute:

The atheist, in effect, says:

'I've reviewed all the relevant evidence and have determined that this particular universe was not the result
of a willful and purposeful intent (God), but rather, was an accident (... Not willful, purposeful, or even intended).

- First he has decided that he's competent to determine which evidence is relevant.
- (for he accepts some types of evidence and excludes others)
- Then he decides that he has all of the relevant evidence.
- (for if he has less than all of the relevant evidence, he can not pronounce with absolute certainty)
- Then he decides that he's competent to evaluate it.
-(he's a wiz at super advanced math and astro-physics, nuclear theory, and literally everything else, even
the fields of study he's never heard of)
- In so doing, he expertly (and without error) cross-analyzes all the evidence of this universe against all
the evidence he's gathered over the years in investigating other universes.

After this amazingly unscientific approach to evaluating the evidence, he pronounces a 'scientific' verdict,
namely that, 'I have finished a comprehensive and expert evaluation of this universe (and all other universes, including the ones
I don't know about), and have concluded that God does not exist here or anywhere else'.

thanks,
----cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I'm agnostic so guess I'm safe huh? Actually he sounds like one too kinda.

Anyway, he is assuming that you need to know EVERYTHING to come to the conclusion there is no God. Unfortunately, we will never know everything. I think most atheists have come to their conclusions based on the best evidence they have. They then believe what is most probable.

Edit: Cool...post 100. Sorry, I'm easily entertained.

[pgwenthold]

Its a fun strawman, but stupid.

"I've reviewed all the relevant evidence and have determined that this particular universe was not the result
of a willful and purposeful intent (God), but rather, was an accident (... Not willful, purposeful, or even intended)."

Try something like:

"I've considered everything that has ever been suggested and I see no reason to think that this particular universe is anything but the consequence of natural physical processes. Thus, I don't believe it is."

Now, ask your co-worker if he has any reason to think otherwise? Be sure to warn him that "we can't explain it so it must be god" is a logical fallacy.

[tdn]

He puts an awful lot of words into the mouths of atheists. This is known as a "straw man."

This is better: "After looking at as many reputable sources as I was able to, I have not found any compelling evidence to support the notion of a divine being. I am, of course, open to any new evidence that comes along."

Of course, he does have one point -- there are close-minded atheists, just like there are close-minded anyone else. He's just saying that they are the norm. That's intellectually dishonest.

[Skeptical Greg]

Ditto!

He is making a lot of assumptions about what an Atheist is/believes.


If he trotted out an Atheist that actually embraces all he lists, I would have to agree with him.



Me = Atheist = without God = no reason to believe God/s exist = no way to prove they don't

[Phil]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
. . . After this amazingly unscientific approach to evaluating the evidence, he pronounces a 'scientific' verdict,
namely that, 'I have finished a comprehensive and expert evaluation of this universe (and all other universes, including the ones
I don't know about), and have concluded that God does not exist here or anywhere else'.

thanks,
----cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have no reason to conclude that god does exist."

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Phil
"I have no reason to conclude that god does exist."

But that statement makes no sense to the believer, because they have "faith"...which is, you find an idea you like and you decide it's true because of the way it makes you feel.

I've never been able to convince believers that for some people, belief is involuntary--it's the conclusion reached by the mind without deciding things consciously. They think I'm lying, because everyone picks and chooses beliefs the way you pick out items at a grocery store.

Believers seem to believe in God in exactly the same way they believe fire is hot.

[Phil]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But that statement makes no sense to the believer, . . . .

You're right, but since I have no way to control what makes sense to a believer, I stick with the statement and simply go have a beer with the sinners. Keeps me from slapping myself with my own feet.

[Nyarlathotep]

The problem with your co-workers e-mail is that it starts from a false assumption and runs with it. For one it confuses atheism, which deals witht he question of God's existance, with the question of how the universe was created. It is theoretically possible (though admittedly unlikely, in my experience) that one could be an atheist and still beleive some outside force created the universe (perhaps thinking the universe is a matrix-like computer simulation or somesuch).

For another thing, I have yet to meet an atheist that believes he has "reviewed all the relevant evidence and have determined that this particular universe was not the result
of a willful and purposeful intent (God), but rather, was an accident", so the rest of that e-mail is meaningless. It is far more common, in my expereince, for an atheist to think "I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me there is a God or that some other being created the universe. Therefore, until I see such evidence I have no reason to believe either claim. When/if I do, i will receonsider my position". None of the rest of your co-workers criticisms hold up against that attitude.

[Anathema]

Based upon the preponderance of evidence provided by adherents, I have concluded that the God of Abraham and the triune-godhead-creator of Chrisitianity do not exist. There is stong evidence that such beliefs were useful social-management tools; but their basis, rather than being delivered intact by any deity, is pure mythology.

Desire to embrace such deities was and still is driven by emotionalistic fear of death and uncertainty, misunderstandings of the complex world we live in, and our knowledge relative to the big picture. Assuming any conclusions based upon theistic assertions does nothing to advance real knowlege, and is therefore sheer folly.

[triadboy]

- First he has decided that he's competent to determine which evidence is relevant.
- (for he accepts some types of evidence and excludes others)

The preponderance of evidence (from all sciences) speak to an insignificant, life-sustaining world located in the boondocks of a non-descript galaxy - of which there are BILLIONS!

The evidence put forth by the fundamentalist is......what again?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by triadboy
The preponderance of evidence (from all sciences) speak to an insignificant, life-sustaining world located in the boondocks of a non-descript galaxy - of which there are BILLIONS!

The evidence put forth by the fundamentalist is......what again?

Well, uh...it's an awfully nice galaxy! Lots of places to eat, good view of the rest of the local supergroup, reasonable tax rates...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Well, uh...it's an awfully nice galaxy! Lots of places to eat, good view of the rest of the local supergroup, reasonable tax rates... And no shortage of bananas!:D

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And no shortage of bananas!:D

Which is solid evidence that not only was there a Creator, but that He or She was a monkey.

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Well, uh...it's an awfully nice galaxy! Lots of places to eat, good view of the rest of the local supergroup, reasonable tax rates...

High crime rate, though.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Well, uh...it's an awfully nice galaxy! Lots of places to eat... All the intergalactic truck drivers swear by it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But that statement makes no sense to the believer, because they have "faith"...which is, you find an idea you like and you decide it's true because of the way it makes you feel.
So when one person has just as much faith in their god as another person has in their own god, how can you tell which one is correct? That's right, you cant, so perhaps having "faith" really isnt a measure of "truth". As soon as its realized that faith doesnt mean anything, evidence and reason are usually favored in its place.

I've never been able to convince believers that for some people, belief is involuntary--it's the conclusion reached by the mind without deciding things consciously. They think I'm lying, because everyone picks and chooses beliefs the way you pick out items at a grocery store.
Here is a good place to start:
http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa061400a.htm

And another good place for a bit more detailed discussion:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/belief.html

[jimmygun]

Read my signature...

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience

- First he has decided that he's competent to determine which evidence is relevant.
- (for he accepts some types of evidence and excludes others)
- Then he decides that he has all of the relevant evidence.
- (for if he has less than all of the relevant evidence, he can not pronounce with absolute certainty)
- Then he decides that he's competent to evaluate it.
-(he's a wiz at super advanced math and astro-physics, nuclear theory, and literally everything else, even
the fields of study he's never heard of)
- In so doing, he expertly (and without error) cross-analyzes all the evidence of this universe against all
the evidence he's gathered over the years in investigating other universes.

After this amazingly unscientific approach to evaluating the evidence, he pronounces a 'scientific' verdict,
namely that, 'I have finished a comprehensive and expert evaluation of this universe (and all other universes, including the ones
I don't know about), and have concluded that God does not exist here or anywhere else'.

thanks,
----cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------

you guys have only addressed the opening line what about the rest of it?? :)

the coworker will notice that too . . .

[geni]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Read my signature...

Makes no sense. Science has very few if any proofs.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
you guys have only addressed the opening line what about the rest of it?? :)

the coworker will notice that too . . .

I think the point has been made that the opener is a straw man and as everything else follows on from that opener it all falls in unison.

[Dr Adequate]

Well yes. The answer is: "No, this is not what atheists think. No-one thinks like this. No-one could possibly think like this. This is clearly a bizarre fantasy. Why are you making up what atheists think instead of asking them and finding out?"

[Kitty Chan]

It just doesnt seem complete to base an answer on a opener piece and not look at the rest of the statement thats all.

For example I recently purchased a book entitled

"The Bomb In My Garden"

until one reads the book you will not know what its about. ;)

[Nex]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
It just doesnt seem complete to base an answer on a opener piece and not look at the rest of the statement thats all.

For example I recently purchased a book entitled

"The Bomb In My Garden"

until one reads the book you will not know what its about. ;)
Well, since we have read it, and can see that the argument relies heavily on the strawman set up in the first line, you're argument isn't very good.

But if you insist:

The atheist, in effect, says:

'I've reviewed all the relevant evidence and have determined that this particular universe was not the result
of a willful and purposeful intent (God), but rather, was an accident (... Not willful, purposeful, or even intended).
No atheist I know says that-- how can one person "review all relevant evidence"? Strawman fallacy.

- First he has decided that he's competent to determine which evidence is relevant.
- (for he accepts some types of evidence and excludes others)
This statement is true. However, everyone who addresses the question of god/s does this.
Excluding iffy and insubstantial evidence while retaining more solid evidence is mandatory in order to come to a reasonable and rational conclusion. If you accepted ALL evidence, iffy and solid, you would believe everything. Who does that? No one I have ever encountered, believer or not.

- Then he decides that he has all of the relevant evidence.
- (for if he has less than all of the relevant evidence, he can not pronounce with absolute certainty)
Strawman again. It is impossible for any one human to have all the evidence for or against god/s. One can only go on what one does have.
Also, atheists are well aware, for the most part, that there is no such thing as "absolute certainty" when it comes to the existence of god/s.

- Then he decides that he's competent to evaluate it.
-(he's a wiz at super advanced math and astro-physics, nuclear theory, and literally everything else, even
the fields of study he's never heard of)
Strawman again. And a really bad one at that.

- In so doing, he expertly (and without error) cross-analyzes all the evidence of this universe against all
the evidence he's gathered over the years in investigating other universes.
Strawman again. Another really bad one. Show me an atheist who claims perfection...

After this amazingly unscientific approach to evaluating the evidence, he pronounces a 'scientific' verdict,
namely that, 'I have finished a comprehensive and expert evaluation of this universe (and all other universes, including the ones
I don't know about), and have concluded that God does not exist here or anywhere else'.
Strawman again.

Coming to the conclusion that there either is no god/s or that there's no point in believing is not passed off by any atheist I know of as being a scientific conclusion.

There. The entire thing is just one big strawman fallacy. That wasn't so hard, was it? ;)

Edited to add:
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well yes. The answer is: "No, this is not what atheists think. No-one thinks like this. No-one could possibly think like this. This is clearly a bizarre fantasy. Why are you making up what atheists think instead of asking them and finding out?"
Dr. Adequate said it best. :D

[Batman Jr.]

There are other reductio ad absurdum arguments regarding omnipotence, omniscience, the other supposedly superlative characteristics of the gods of the major world religions and contradictions in the sacred texts that whatever is concluded about the formation of the universe is irrelevant in the realm of religion. We as atheists will often times point out that there is no evidence pointing toward an intelligent creator being an imperative accessory to the universe coming into being, but never have we relied on that fact to refute the religions of the world and nor have we said that there not only was not evidence for creationism, but that there was also evidence for exactly its converse.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience

After this amazingly unscientific approach to evaluating the evidence, he pronounces a 'scientific' verdict,
namely that, 'I have finished a comprehensive and expert evaluation of this universe (and all other universes, including the ones
I don't know about), and have concluded that God does not exist here or anywhere else'.


While there may be atheists who reach that conclusion, I would put myself in the category of, "I have finished a comprehensive evaluation of how things work on this planet and I see absolutely no evidence of a personal, ominipotent, eternal being." Maybe there is a god or gods, but they don't seem to answer anybody's prayers at a rate distinguishable from chance. Maybe some god did create the universe and then he died - I see no reason why a creator would have to be immortal. I cannot evaluate every piece of evidence in the entire world, but I believe that I have evaluated enough that the probablity of the type of God that your friend is describing is for all practical purposes close enough to zero that it doesn't make much of a difference.



If I said that there was a Marilyn Monroe Bradford Exchange collectors' plate (http://bradfordexchange.collectiblestoday.com/ct/product/prdid-106113001.jsp) in orbit around Neptune, would your believer friend consider it or would he dismiss the idea despite his not having the competence to evaluate the data related to such a claim.



Aplogies to the creators of the teacup orbiting Pluto analogy. It seemed a bit out-of-date.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Nex
Strawman again. It is impossible for any one human to have all the evidence for or against god/s. One can only go on what one does have.
Also, atheists are well aware, for the most part, that there is no such thing as "absolute certainty" when it comes to the existence of god/s.


Shoot, there isn't "absolute certainty" when it comes to pretty much _anything_!

Of course, it depends on your definition of "absolute certainty." If it is anything like absolute alcohol, it's far from being absolute. I take "absolute" to mean 100.00000000000000%. Suppose it is only 99.999999999%? Is that absolute or not? Suppose it is 99.999...

(ducking)

[Nex]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Shoot, there isn't "absolute certainty" when it comes to pretty much _anything_!

Of course, it depends on your definition of "absolute certainty." If it is anything like absolute alcohol, it's far from being absolute. I take "absolute" to mean 100.00000000000000%. Suppose it is only 99.999999999%? Is that absolute or not? Suppose it is 99.999...

(ducking)
Does that mean Absolut Vodkaâ„¢ is at risk of a lawsuit for misrepresenting its product? :D

[plindboe]

"Atheist" simply means "a person with no belief in God". Tell him that.

The ones he addresses is a minute fraction(perhaps 1%) of the atheists, that are certain there is no God/gods. The vast majority simply doesn't believe in that one thing this guy so feverishly believes in. He's the one provoked because others don't believe what he believes and therefore makes up this entire pile of strawmen to show that atheists are fanatics.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Nex


Thanks hopefully it will be helpful to SkepticalScience

and Im not left with a feeling you are being dismissive.

What was said at the opener is a character of a atheist, dont forget the same character is portrayed of christians.

Those lousy labels again painting images and charactures. :)

[SezMe]

I want to support plindboe's statement. Atheism is a statement about one's beliefs regarding god. It is most certainly NOT a statement regarding one's knowledge of god's existence.

An atheist simply has no god beliefs. Period. It has nothing at all to do with the origin of the universe. It is a strawman in concept, even before Nex effectively got to the details.

Now agnosticism/gnoticism does deal with one's knowledge regarding the existence of god. But even here, various theories regarding the origin of the universe do not necessarily bear on the question.

[SkepticalScience]

I took a lot of your thoughts and combined them with a few of mine, and sent out a response.

He replied back with the following:



---------------------------------BEGIN-------------------------------------
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Given the clarification of your position, I agree that I might need need to refine my
arguments. But I'm wondering, preliminarily, do you accept the following revision or your statement as true?

"I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that a God or some other being did (or did not) create the universe. Therefore, until I see such evidence I have no reason to believe (or disbelieve) that one exists. When/if I do, I will reconsider my position".
--------------------------------END-----------------------------------------


There is something suspect with his statement there. I take issue with the "disbelieve" and the "did not" part of the response.

What do you all think??

[Anathema]

Your friend appears to be strongly advocating "hard agnosticism". Perhaps an introduction to Occam is in order?

He appears to be wed to the view that wallowing in shoulder-shrugging indecision is a sound operative philosophy. You might suggest to him the benefits of pursuing a path of disbelief as a means to build the kind of knowledge that insists on proof. We have a reason to disbelieve overly-complex and/or unfounded assertions, especially when simpler (if not yet completely proven) possible alternative scenarios deliver more tangible results.

An example:

Someone had to first disbelieve that disease was caused by the wrath of Our Loving Lord God, before the basis of germ theory stood a bleeding chance in hell. Plagues went on and on, while the bleevers sought to appease God -- instead of burning bodies and washing their hands...

[SkepticalScience]

repeat