Ask a Radical Atheist [Archive]

Silentknight

17th March 2008, 08:34 PM

Okay, I'll bite.

As you might have noticed, I tend to agree with you whenever it comes to biblical interpretation, since you state your arguments more eloquently than I could come up with on a moment's notice. However I'm the furthest thing from a "strong atheist" as is typically defined. I know what basis you have for labeling yourself as such though, in that any clearly defined gods, such as the God of the Abrahamic religions, has a contradictory definition and cannot logically exist. I actually agree with you on that.

The difference may come in the fact that I still use the terms God or gods in a metaphorical sense, to refer to abstract concepts or influential ideas. In other words, I refer to a God that is mostly stripped of the supernatural, dogmatic, metaphysical, and even causal attributes one normally associates with the term. It's fair to say that this is a conceptual god that I only use for the sake of philosophical argument; it's certainly not a god that I would go off and worship.

I'm not closed off to the possibility that there is something (or someone) out there in the universe that exists beyond our comprehension. I would even grant you that there is, because we've only explored an infinitesimal fraction of the universe. However, I would not necessarily call it God. As I stated before, even if God were to appear before me and shake my hand, I would stand where I am and extend my own hand in return. I would speak with him and learn as much as I can from him and about him. I would not get on my knees, relegate myself to the position of a slave, and start sending up prayers to him.

I have defined myself as a humanist, a Jeffersonian Christian, and have expressed my interest in Buddhism, Shamanism, and Christianity. Yet I also call myself an atheist, owing to the fact that I reject the theistic definitions of God, and do not believe in any worshiped beings called gods. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, in that I do not hold any view with absolute 100% certainty.

I suppose my question is, based on that, what are the similarities and differences between our views?

Piggy

17th March 2008, 09:18 PM

I suppose my question is, based on that, what are the similarities and differences between our views?

Seems to me we're similar in that we don't believe there is anything out there which can be called "god" in anything but a humpty-dumpty sort of way.

We're different in that I've reached the conclusion that God not only does not exist but cannot exist. There is no possible shaking of hands to contemplate.

Anything at all can be used metaphorically, so that sort of usage doesn't have any bearing on the actual question of existence, of course.

And to speak of a "god" which is stripped of any and all supernatural qualities is not to speak of a god at all. That's like speaking of a car which has no wheels, seats, steering mechanism, drive mechanism, chassis, or engine.

Non-theistic conceptions of God are self-contradictory. They're like non-aviary conceptions of birds.

Tricky

17th March 2008, 09:19 PM

Sorry Piggy, but this is a losing battle. There are too many definitions of God for you to prove them all impossible. And then some damn Pantheist is going to say something like "God is Nature" and what can you say? If you say "No its not," then you open yourself up to having them say, "Oh, so God the way you define it is impossible, eh?" Well, they're right. If they wan't to call trees "God" then you cannot possibly say they don't exist. All you can say is that they don't fit your definition of what a god should be.

So here is my question to the radical atheist:
Do you have a definition of "god" that every theist in the world will accept?

Unless the answer is "yes" then your quest for proving athieism correct is, I'm afraid, Quixotic. But you can still dream the impossible dream.

Piggy

17th March 2008, 09:32 PM

So here is my question to the radical atheist:
Do you have a definition of "god" that every theist in the world will accept?

But I've decided not to fight any battle, my friend.

I'm just answering questions, you see.

But I'm very aware of this rhetorical trick which I refer to as "appealing to the cookie jar".

The theists have this cookie jar into which anyone can drop any definition of "God" or "god" they please. When any particular definition runs afoul (which they all must do, and perhaps someone will ask me about that issue at some point) they point to this cookie jar and cry, "Yes, but there are an infinite number of possible other definitions in that cookie jar, and you can't disprove all of them!"

But the problem there is that you either have a claim or you do not.

And an infinitely plastic definition is no claim at all, since it has no agreed-upon qualities. It is a non-claim.

You cannot simply abandon your claim for a non-claim and somehow believe you have defended your point. (And I mean "you" here in the British sense of "one", not you in particular.)

The appeal to the cookie jar is an admission of failure per se.

To illustrate, let's take the example of flogiston. When the discovery of oxygen supplanted the debunked flogiston hypothesis, suppose the proponents of flogiston had said, "Well, actually, although everything we claimed about flogiston has proven untrue, and there is, in fact, a perfectly valid theory which accounts for all its supposed attributes, we reserve the right to redefine flogiston in any way we see fit, even in ways that contradict everything we've ever said, therefore you cannot say that flogiston doesn't exist".

This would be obvious nonsense to everyone.

And it's equally nonsense when applied to God.

The appeal to the cookie jar is a transparent and invalid rhetorical trick.

You either make a claim or you do not.

The appeal to the cookie jar is a non-claim.

Silentknight

17th March 2008, 09:33 PM

Seems to me we're similar in that we don't believe there is anything out there which can be called "god" in anything but a humpty-dumpty sort of way.

We're different in that I've reached the conclusion that God not only does not exist but cannot exist. There is no possible shaking of hands to contemplate.
I've given this some thought, and now I'm not sure the difference lies here. As far as the handshaking story goes, given that a god is a worshiped being, I would not call him a god because I would not be worshiping him. Hell, even if a giant bearded fatherly figure descended from the heavens, he would still not be God to me, because he wouldn't be an object of worship to me.
Anything at all can be used metaphorically, so that sort of usage doesn't have any bearing on the actual question of existence, of course.
Yeah, I know.
And to speak of a "god" which is stripped of any and all supernatural qualities is not to speak of a god at all. That's like speaking of a car which has no wheels, seats, steering mechanism, drive mechanism, chassis, or engine.

Non-theistic conceptions of God are self-contradictory. They're like non-aviary conceptions of birds.
I suppose what I meant by this is that I've settled on a definition of God, possibly one of only a few definitions of God, that does not run into those blatant logical contradictions that we've all heard of. It's more of an acknowledgment that what people commonly refer to as God is in reality a powerful or influential idea, and not an actual being. Ideas certainly exist, and they can have a strong bearing on how people live, act, and treat others.

But since I'm arguing from definitions, I can see your point. My point though was that this is not the kind of perspective on God that any given theist would accept, hence non-theistic. Deists would say that God is an impersonal first cause. Pantheists would say that God is the universe itself. I have often said that we are all "God" in a sense, although again, this is more of an acknowledgment of what people are actually referring to when they talk about God, in that man has only worshiped himself.

Descartes had a conceptual God, which is analogous to what I'm referring to, although I don't agree with his conclusions or reasons for believing. That's probably a different topic though. Also, I would probably agree if you were to ask me, "Why call it God at all?"

Piggy

17th March 2008, 09:33 PM

So here is my question to the radical atheist:
Do you have a definition of "god" that every theist in the world will accept?

Of course not, because they do not.

And the fact that they do not is damning.

If there are no core qualities which everyone can agree upon, then there is no actual claim being made. We're talking about nothing, or about nonsense.

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 09:40 PM

I, also, would say that I am a strong or radical atheist, for the same reasons you give in your OP. It's not like I would put up a fight if I was proven wrong though, but it seems pretty safe, to me, to say that it won't happen.

MG1962

17th March 2008, 09:41 PM

Tricky

17th March 2008, 09:42 PM

Of course not, because they do not.

And the fact that they do not is damning.

If there are no core qualities which everyone can agree upon, then there is no actual claim being made. We're talking about nothing, or about nonsense.
Well I don't disagree with you, but how do you respond if I say "God is Nature". Obviously nature exists. If I obstinately refuse to give any other definition of God, then you cannot say that you have proved my God doesn't exist. If you ask me to define it more, then I will simply say that you are not accepting my defintion of God, and I refuse to submit to yours. Even if you say "Can you show me any way that the universe would be different if nature exists, but it is not God?" they will counter that this isn't their claim.

No, my friend. This only works with rational people. If I had to choose a person who knew enough about different religions to be up to this task, it would be you. But it is still a hopeless task.

Puppycow

17th March 2008, 09:48 PM

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 10:00 PM

Well I don't disagree with you, but how do you respond if I say "God is Nature". Obviously nature exists. If I obstinately refuse to give any other definition of God, then you cannot say that you have proved my God doesn't exist. If you ask me to define it more, then I will simply say that you are not accepting my defintion of God, and I refuse to submit to yours. Even if you say "Can you show me any way that the universe would be different if nature exists, but it is not God?" they will counter that this isn't their claim.

No, my friend. This only works with rational people. If I had to choose a person who knew enough about different religions to be up to this task, it would be you. But it is still a hopeless task.

I am not Piggy, but the last time some one used the "God is Nature" argument on me, I responded, "You can worship nature, you can worship money, you can worship Justin Timberlake. That doesn't make any of them God." ;)

Michelle Lyon

17th March 2008, 10:03 PM

Piggy

17th March 2008, 10:10 PM

Okay as a radical athiest, do you see your lack of belief in other areas of your life or just the question of God. IE do you go to watch your favorite sports team play in spite of the pundits giving them no chance to win, and even yourself admiting that the team does not have the talent, but despite the odds you believe they might spring an upset and win.

In a sports match, there is always a chance that the underdog may win.

On the other hand, there is no chance that we may one day stumble upon a circle with corners. To be "open to new evidence" in that case is ridiculous.

We must be able to discern between the 2 cases.

Piggy

17th March 2008, 10:14 PM

Well I don't disagree with you, but how do you respond if I say "God is Nature". Obviously nature exists. If I obstinately refuse to give any other definition of God, then you cannot say that you have proved my God doesn't exist. If you ask me to define it more, then I will simply say that you are not accepting my defintion of God, and I refuse to submit to yours. Even if you say "Can you show me any way that the universe would be different if nature exists, but it is not God?" they will counter that this isn't their claim.

This is just another appeal to the cookie jar, with a nice dab of humpty-dumptyism thrown in for good measure.

Now let me be clear, I'm not attempting to persuade anyone here. I'm as realistic as you are about that.

But let us see if anyone can land a solid punch against radical atheism. I don't believe anyone can.

"God is nature" is a definition which posits God as equivalent to atheistic science. So by that definition, God is indistinguishable from not-God. Once again, theism retreats into a realm indistinguishable from atheism.

Piggy

17th March 2008, 10:17 PM

Piggy

17th March 2008, 10:19 PM

What scientific evidence do you have that suggests that there is no god? There's no evidence that I know of that there is one, but is there evidence that there isn't? And why believe in either case if there is no evidence in either case?

In every case in which a theistic explanation has butted heads with a non-theistic explanation, the latter has won.

There is no longer any room for God.

Do you find any? I do not.

Apathia

17th March 2008, 10:21 PM

I am not Piggy, but the last time some one used the "God is Nature" argument on me, I responded, "You can worship nature, you can worship money, you can worship Justin Timberlake. That doesn't make any of them God." ;)

Actually, I'd like to turn that around.
A God is something sombody worships. No more. No less.
Of course this doesn't satisfy the Christian who wants his God to be the thing everybody is supposed to worship.
And just in that supposed to lies the evil.

Anyone who's fool enough to worship Justin Timberlake is free to do so, but she'd better not hit me over the head with her celebrity magzine and tell me I must.

MG1962

17th March 2008, 10:22 PM

In a sports match, there is always a chance that the underdog may win.

On the other hand, there is no chance that we may one day stumble upon a circle with corners. To be "open to new evidence" in that case is ridiculous.

We must be able to discern between the 2 cases.

But unless I miss understand, an athiest draws their opinion from the lack of evidence in a God. Not definitive proof that God (in any form) does not exist.

So like the under dog sports team - as unlikely as the case may be, there is a chance God exists and may manifest itself in a way that you will change your world view.

Eejit

17th March 2008, 10:23 PM

I guess I'm in the same boat as Piggy, I too am sure that there cannot exist a God. I've no question for Piggy - sorry for butting in - I just want to make a point.

This thread reminds me of something I read in a book a few years back - I'm sorry to say that the title of it escapes me presently. The author too, I believe was a 'radical atheist.' He allowed for advanced life to exist in the universe but completely disagreed with the possibility of an omnipotent God existing. He introduced a scenario that even strained the most loyal believers:

What if a being just appeared before you and claimed that s/he was God?

What would this being have to do to prove s/he was God?

A fairly simple scenario with some profound consequences. No matter what this apparition does, one could postulate that it was an advanced lifeform rather than a God. Of course, this lifeform might just decide to zap your mind and make you believe (and thus make a joke of free will [not that it doesn't raise a chuckle or two anyway]). An observer to this zapping would call a foul and point out that this was the only option open to this 'God,' to prove s/he was a god.

Could such a being prove his or her divinity via rational debate? Methinks not and this is despite the assumption of omnipotence. Omnipotence is paradoxical and illogical regardless as to the setting in which one examines it.

For the theists out there: what would such a being have to do to prove to you that s/he is the God you believe in? (And not for example - some other entity, like Satan.)

Nihilus

17th March 2008, 10:24 PM

I think I'd be painted into the "radical atheist" corner as well.

I'm mentioned before that "god" does not exist because, at its nucleus, the word is not a noun, but a conglomeration of (ever varying) adjectives.

Wait...there was supposed to be a question in here somewhere, wasn't there?

Okay. Considering your stance on 'radical/strong' atheism, how would you describe the fundamental slips that weak atheists or agnostics make when it comes to the god concept? And, in your opinion, do you think the leniency towards permitting the possibility of the god concept is one of pseudo political correctness or more a unwillingness to step firmly into the 'hard atheist' line of thinking (or something else)?

Puppycow

17th March 2008, 10:24 PM

What scientific evidence do you have that suggests that there is no god? There's no evidence that I know of that there is one, but is there evidence that there isn't? And why believe in either case if there is no evidence in either case?

I think there is scientific evidence against a great many gods. Zeus for example, or Amon Ra. There is now quite a bit of evidence that lightning bolts are not hurled by any deity, and that the sun is a massive ball of hot plasma rather than a deity.

Wowbagger

17th March 2008, 10:25 PM

Isn't the Omni-everything, Ultimate God concept fundamentally untestable?

How do you know the Omni-everything, Ultimate God doesn't exist? What if it does, and it intentionally shaped the world for you to not see it, nor be prone to believe in it?

(Hey, I'm on your side. I'm just asking to see how you react, is all.)

Ron_Tomkins

17th March 2008, 10:27 PM

Agh. Another thread to see who's the biggest Atheist of them all.

Kind of reminds me those body building contests.

Puppycow

17th March 2008, 10:27 PM

I would ask "Who are you saying did these things?"

To which the answer would be "That which I call god."

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 10:28 PM

Agh. Another thread to see who's the biggest Atheist of them all.

Kind of reminds me those body building contests.

Oh, not me, I'm only 1,58 m tall :)

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 10:33 PM

Actually, I'd like to turn that around.
A God is something sombody worships. No more. No less.
Of course this doesn't satisfy the Christian who wants his God to be the thing everybody is supposed to worship.
And just in that supposed to lies the evil.

Anyone who's fool enough to worship Justin Timberlake is free to do so, but she'd better not hit me over the head with her celebrity magzine and tell me I must.

In that case, there can never be such a thing as an objective god, no?

ETA: Fran, I am only 1,54 m tall, so I am the smallest atheist. Woo hoo!

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 10:36 PM

ETA: Fran, I am only 1,54 m tall, so I am the smallest atheist. Woo hoo!

Damn! :D

Apathia

17th March 2008, 10:37 PM

A God is something sombody worships. No more. No less.

Piggy,

have you ever been a God? Have you had someone in your life who worshipped you?
It's so nice! I miss it.

Nihilus

17th March 2008, 10:42 PM

In that case, there can never be such a thing as an objective god, no?
Self-reflective sentience and pure objectivity are mutually exclusive.

Apathia

17th March 2008, 10:42 PM

In that case, there can never be such a thing as an objective god, no?

Yes, No objective God. Just as our Radical Atheist, Piggy, has pointed out so many times.

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 10:44 PM

Yes, No objective God. Just as our Radical Atheist, Piggy, has pointed out so many times.

Cool, excuse me while I go find a mirror and play god for a bit. Albeit a rather short one.

Jimbo07

17th March 2008, 10:47 PM

By my reckoning, we know enough now to say definitively not only that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.

I have followed your posts for some time. I accept that god(s) to this point have been defined by people, and so is akin to literary character(s). I think, "not." I'll even grudgingly give you, "does not." What I want to know is how do you get "cannot?" What is it that we now know that we can say that God (and again with the arbitrary definition problem already brought up in this thread) cannot exist? What rules forbid it?

BTW, Tricky, I loved:

This only works with rational people.

Apathia

17th March 2008, 10:49 PM

Self-reflective sentience and pure objectivity are mutually exclusive.

Like oil and water. But you've reminded me of something I can't articulate at the moment.

Oh yes, Nicholas of Cusa's "Coincidence of Opposites."

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 10:50 PM

Cool, excuse me while I go find a mirror and play god for a bit. Albeit a rather short one.

This early in the morning, looking at myself in the mirror... The god must be Kali :covereyes

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 10:55 PM

This early in the morning, looking at myself in the mirror... The god must be Kali :covereyes

Hey, you get to step all over Shiva. That's pretty cool. At this hour of the evening, I look more like Julia Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Child). :p

ETA: Although I am obviously not 6'2".

UnrepentantSinner

17th March 2008, 10:58 PM

The only thing I can say about the OP is that once one takes the step from weak atheism/agnosticism, one is no longer a skeptic, or at least applying the process of skepticism. That said... on to the flirting!

Oh, not me, I'm only 1,58 m tall :)

Hey baby... you like taller guys? I'm only 1.88m. Is that too short for you. :)

ETA: Fran, I am only 1,54 m tall, so I am the smallest atheist. Woo hoo!

I think Eos is about 5' even so she might be the petitist atheist poster here.

This early in the morning, looking at myself in the mirror... The god must be Kali :covereyes

Oh, please disregard my hitting on you above. It's not that I'm not into chicks with ebony skin, but the 3 inch talons and belt of severed heads are a bit of a turnoff. :p

Silentknight

17th March 2008, 11:00 PM

In that case, there can never be such a thing as an objective god, no?

ETA: Fran, I am only 1,54 m tall, so I am the smallest atheist. Woo hoo!

I'm 1.57m, or 5'2". That, and I stated that I have defined myself as an atheist as well as a humanist, a Jeffersonian Christian, and have expressed interest in Buddhism, Shamanism, and Christianity. But I guess I can't beat that.

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 11:04 PM

I think Eos is about 5' even so she might be the petitist atheist poster here.

Drat.

I'm 1.57m, or 5'2". That, and I stated that I have defined myself as an atheist as well as a humanist, a Jeffersonian Christian, and have expressed interest in Buddhism, Shamanism, and Christianity. But I guess I can't beat that.

I will see your Buddhism and raise you a Taoism.

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 11:12 PM

Hey baby... you like taller guys? I'm only 1.88m. Is that too short for you. :)

:D I kinda do like short, smallish guys. I never felt comfortable with people towering over me, or talking to their knees :p

Oh, please disregard my hitting on you above. It's not that I'm not into chicks with ebony skin, but the 3 inch talons and belt of severed heads are a bit of a turnoff. :p

*LOL* That's what all guys say. Weaklings! ;)

plumjam

17th March 2008, 11:12 PM

Agh. Another thread to see who's the biggest Atheist of them all.

Kind of reminds me those body building contests.

:D

yeah, soon the Commissar will be coming around with his stick, to enforce observance of the purest orthodoxy.

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 11:16 PM

Hey, you get to step all over Shiva. That's pretty cool.

No, not bad at all :) Shiva is cute. I like the androgynous ones :)

At this hour of the evening, I look more like Julia Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Child). :p

ETA: Although I am obviously not 6'2".

Aww :D

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:18 PM

Considering your stance on 'radical/strong' atheism, how would you describe the fundamental slips that weak atheists or agnostics make when it comes to the god concept? And, in your opinion, do you think the leniency towards permitting the possibility of the god concept is one of pseudo political correctness or more a unwillingness to step firmly into the 'hard atheist' line of thinking (or something else)?

This is just personal opinion based on limited observation, but the predominant error seems (to me) to be a tendency to privilege theory over actuality.

In my previous threads on this issue, more often than not, it came down to something like "I know there's no God, but the scientific framework can't prove there's no God, so I can't say there's no God", which is ridiculous.

The scientific model is not the only tool in the rational toolbelt.

All things considered, from a rational point of view, we may dispense with God.

But in the thread in which I challenged Sagan's dragon, it was amazing the number of people who absolutely refused to assert things they knew to be true simply because the scientific framework alone could not take them there.

It's like asserting that we can't make any claims beyond what a map shows, even though we have access to much more detail than what is possible on a map.

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:20 PM

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:22 PM

Piggy,

have you ever been a God? Have you had someone in your life who worshipped you?

No.

Apathia

17th March 2008, 11:26 PM

No.

Even like a demigod?

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 11:26 PM

:D

yeah, soon the Commissar will be coming around with his stick, to enforce observance of the purest orthodoxy.

The atheist orthodox commisar? Oh man, will you get a red butt or what ;)

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:27 PM

Even like a demigod?

Nope.

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 11:28 PM

Hmmmmm....

What if I were to define "God" as a result of certain functions of the limbic system. These functions specifically cause human beings to require a world-view that includes a higher power that devolves responsibility for their own actions, actions of others, and removes the random nature of death, destruction, and disaster. Furthermore, this "God" is not the limbic system itself, but a construct of it, much the way "consciousness" is also a construct of the brain.

Would you agree that this is both a reasonable definition of God and it does exist?

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:32 PM

What I want to know is how do you get "cannot?" What is it that we now know that we can say that God (and again with the arbitrary definition problem already brought up in this thread) cannot exist? What rules forbid it?

Given that the supernatural model of the universe has been thoroughly debunked, having lost every possible contest, and the naturalistic model has replaced it at every point....

God can be said to interact with our universe or not.

If not, then it cannot be said, in any meaningful way, to exist.

If so, then it either contradicts purely physical laws, or it does not.

If it does, then it is contrary to observed fact, and therefore false.

If it does not, then it is indistinguishable from not-God, and therefore meaningless.

And btw, the arbitrary definition ruse is not a "problem" for the reasons stated above... it is merely a retreat into a non-claim. It's as if the losing team, having lost every point in the match, decided to quit the field, and to claim victory in doing so, on the grounds that no further points may then be scored against them.

Apathia

17th March 2008, 11:32 PM

Nope.

Bummer!

plumjam

17th March 2008, 11:35 PM

The atheist orthodox commisar? Oh man, will you get a red butt or what ;)

gonna watch? :p

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:35 PM

dglas

17th March 2008, 11:35 PM

Alrighty then. Why are you people talking about yourselves? This is Piggy's thread.

So, I'm not gonna tell you where I am. I think you already know anyway. Instead...

Dear Piggy,

There are some people who might not believe in God, but pretend they do and advocate God belief (or the pretense of belief) because they feel it is in the best interests of society for the belief to be widespread. Leaving aside the honesty of their position, let us assume for the moment, that they honestly believe it is better for society if God-belief dominates.

Could you advocate such a position? If not, how would you respond?

Confuzzled in Canada.

Win Powerball!!!

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 11:38 PM

gonna watch? :p

You bet!! ;)

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 11:39 PM

No. This is to confuse the idea of a thing with the thing itself.

Most delusions, schizophrenia as an example, are simply ideas, but they are still powerful in and of themselves.

I can't save myself from starvation by eating my idea of a sandwich.

But you can save yourself from stress and a massive guilt trip by appealing to your idea of a god. How is this less real than schizophrenia?

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:41 PM

There are some people who might not believe in God, but pretend they do and advocate God belief (or the pretense of belief) because they feel it is in the best interests of society for the belief to be widespread. Leaving aside the honesty of their position, let us assume for the moment, that they honestly believe it is better for society if God-belief dominates.

Could you advocate such a position? If not, how would you respond?

Confuzzled in Canada.

Win Powerball!!!

I actually won Powerball in Boulder over the weekend, btw. Unfortunately, I only matched the powerball, so my winnings were all of $3, which -- minus my purchase price -- amounts to $2.

My mother fits in the camp you describe. She wants the grandkids taken to church for "social reasons", and they can make up their own minds later.

My objection is that the young mind is designed to believe what adults tell it to believe, and it's not such a simple matter to abandon belief in mythology, especially when powerful people are telling you it means burning in hell for eternity.

Personally, I can't see how it can possibly be an advantage to believe what's false rather than what's true.

It's kindof like saying there's some advantage to not seeing the cliff in front of you, because it's prettier to think it's not there.

Piggy

17th March 2008, 11:42 PM

But you can save yourself from stress and a massive guilt trip by appealing to your idea of a god. How is this less real than schizophrenia?

Real schizophrenia involves very different neurology.

UnrepentantSinner

17th March 2008, 11:44 PM

:D I kinda do like short, smallish guys. I never felt comfortable with people towering over me, or talking to their knees :p

Let me give you a human rickshaw ride through a crowded venue and get back to me.

*LOL* That's what all guys say. Weaklings! ;)

Yes ma'am... just don't send your thugii after me.

Hokulele

17th March 2008, 11:47 PM

Real schizophrenia involves very different neurology.

And this makes it more real how?

JEROME DA GNOME

17th March 2008, 11:53 PM

Just about anyone who's read my posts in this section of the forum knows that I'm a "strong atheist" or what Douglas Adams called a "radical atheist", or an atheist to the root -- that is, someone who does not merely claim "I do not believe in God", but rather that there is, in fact, no God to believe in.

To quote Mr. Adams: "I really do mean atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god -- in fact I am convinced that there is not a god.... It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly."

In fact, I go perhaps a bit farther than Mr. Adams in that I would not even use the word "opinion". By my reckoning, we know enough now to say definitively not only that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.

Usually, threads on this topic degenerate very quickly, so I've decided to try turning the tables a bit. Rather than attempting to prove my point -- which I've done ad nauseam anyway -- I've decided to let myself be a punching bag of sorts.

Ever want to know what or how a strong atheist thinks?

Just ask.

Get as tangential as you like, as long as the subject is touched upon in some way and not completely abandoned.

PS: Side discussions are welcome, but I'll only respond to questions.

Do you think it is possible that there are higher levels of intelligent conscious beings in the universe other than humans on Earth?

BTW: Thanks for the thread.

-Fran-

17th March 2008, 11:53 PM

Alrighty then. Why are you people talking about yourselves? This is Piggy's thread.

You're right!

Piggy, what do you say to Plumjam's comment above that seems to say that atheism is orthodox?

Let me give you a human rickshaw ride through a crowded venue and get back to me.

:eye-poppi :D

Yes ma'am... just don't send your thugii after me.

I'll call the stranglers back ;)

GreyICE

17th March 2008, 11:54 PM

Okay, as an agnostic atheist, here are my questions:

1) At what point does (a) being(s) move from having incomprehensible power to being indistinguishable from what we would label God? Do we stick with the big three - omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence - or do we go with something else?

2) If I could invent a plausible situation whereby there would be one or more entities or beings with these powers, would that be enough to move you from strong atheism to agnostic atheism?

JEROME DA GNOME

17th March 2008, 11:55 PM

I actually won Powerball in Boulder over the weekend, btw. Unfortunately, I only matched the powerball, so my winnings were all of $3, which -- minus my purchase price -- amounts to $2.

Your not a gambler. Gamblers would count that as a $3 win. :)

dglas

18th March 2008, 12:01 AM

My mother fits in the camp you describe. She wants the grandkids taken to church for "social reasons", and they can make up their own minds later.

Possibly, but this is not to the point.

My objection is that the young mind is designed to believe what adults tell it to believe, and it's not such a simple matter to abandon belief in mythology, especially when powerful people are telling you it means burning in hell for eternity.

Personally, I can't see how it can possibly be an advantage to believe what's false rather than what's true.

It's kindof like saying there's some advantage to not seeing the cliff in front of you, because it's prettier to think it's not there.

Your analogy is interesting in that it presents an clear-cut case of easily empirically verifiable fact. Let's try this one...

Suppose we were to take an analogy, say of the economic markets. Now, when it comes down to it, the tendency to buy and sell relies on confidence of the stability of the market. This is a matter of perception.

Now, I'm not saying that confidence in the market is not verifiable. Indeed, the stability of it is a measure of the confidence people have in it.

Is it not in our interests (advantageous) to present the market as stable, even if it isn't, lest we risk a market crash and downward spiral into depression?

One might make an argument that the moral stability relies on the confidence of the people in its status as just, objective (or at least universalizable), predictable and reliable.

Is it not in our interests (advantageous) to present morality as absolute, even if it isn't, lest we risk a breakdown of moral understanding and a downward spiral into chaos?

Being a bastard because you asked for it.... ;)

Surfing the Slippery Slope in Saskatoon...

Congratulations. I never thought anyone would...
Win Powerball!!!

Francesca R

18th March 2008, 12:02 AM

Oh, not me, I'm only 1,58 m tall :)Wow I'm either 1.59 or 1.6 (it varies). We have so much in common! Let's be best buddies. Come call for me whenever you log on and we'll hang about in threads together OK? ;)

Nope.This is OT as well but can I just check whether your screen name and avatar are connected with Lord of the Flies? :)

-Fran-

18th March 2008, 12:07 AM

Wow I'm either 1.59 or 1.6 (it varies). We have so much in common! Let's be best buddies. Come call for me whenever you log on and we'll hang about in threads together OK? ;)

Wheeee, someone cool wants to be my friend :)

Francesca R

18th March 2008, 12:09 AM

Wheeee, someone cool wants to be my friend :)Oooh look I posted after you! :) :D

[/sorry for your thread Piggy but it is too early in the morning for serious posts]

Puppycow

18th March 2008, 12:28 AM

If we can collectively ask more questions than Piggy can answer, does that mean we win and he loses?

dglas

18th March 2008, 12:36 AM

If we can collectively ask more questions than Piggy can answer, does that mean we win and he loses?

Dunno. Ask Piggy. ;)

Complexity

18th March 2008, 01:20 AM

Agh. Another thread to see who's the biggest Atheist of them all.

Kind of reminds me those body building contests.

I've been reading Piggy's posts with respect and interest for years.

I don't think that is why he started this thread.

Keep reading. You'll find it was started for much better reasons than that.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:22 AM

And this makes it more real how?

What makes which more real? I'm sorry, I've lost your train of thought -- but I'm riding several trains on this thread at the moment.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:28 AM

Do you think it is possible that there are higher levels of intelligent conscious beings in the universe other than humans on Earth?

Depends on what you mean by "higher levels".

Since intelligent conscious beings have evolved here, obviously the universe is capable of producing them. So there's no reason to believe that similar patterns have not occurred elsewhere.

And there's no reason to believe we're the top of the line. Could be some stunningly smart critters many light years away from us.

But I think Dennett is very likely right -- that consciousness results from a particular macro-structure of the brain: build brain A, then build brain B which in effect lives "inside" brain A.

In any case, consciousness depends on an underlying physical structure, and no viable physical structure to maintain consciousness exists at any super-macro level of organization. The notion that the entire universe is conscious, for example, just doesn't fly.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:38 AM

Piggy, what do you say to Plumjam's comment above that seems to say that atheism is orthodox?

Nothing. As I said, I'm only answering questions here, not responding to comments.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:42 AM

1) At what point does (a) being(s) move from having incomprehensible power to being indistinguishable from what we would label God? Do we stick with the big three - omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence - or do we go with something else?

To me, that's a non-question, since you're talking about purely imaginary beings here, unless you want to propose how in the world such creatures might exist.

2) If I could invent a plausible situation whereby there would be one or more entities or beings with these powers, would that be enough to move you from strong atheism to agnostic atheism?

If there were a viable explanation for how a God or gods might exist, then the radical atheist position would be untenable.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:47 AM

Your not a gambler. Gamblers would count that as a $3 win. :)

<aside>
Yes, I'm a gambler. But I don't consider lottery tickets to be gambling, because the odds are so bad. I buy one or two tickets a month in my state and consider it a donation to the education fund, and a what-the-heck blind stab at a ridiculous sum of money.

And since I only bought 1 Powerball ticket, I consider that the whole game, and I calculate my earnings as win-minus-loss.

By contrast, at the poker table, I do not count anything I may have already put in the pot when calculating how much I stand to win, because within that narrower frame of determining my pot odds at the moment, nothing in the pot is mine.

But in determining my overall earnings at the game, it goes back to what I've put in subtracted from what I've taken out.
</aside>

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:53 AM

Suppose we were to take an analogy, say of the economic markets. Now, when it comes down to it, the tendency to buy and sell relies on confidence of the stability of the market. This is a matter of perception.

Now, I'm not saying that confidence in the market is not verifiable. Indeed, the stability of it is a measure of the confidence people have in it.

Is it not in our interests (advantageous) to present the market as stable, even if it isn't, lest we risk a market crash and downward spiral into depression?

One might make an argument that the moral stability relies on the confidence of the people in its status as just, objective (or at least universalizable), predictable and reliable.

Is it not in our interests (advantageous) to present morality as absolute, even if it isn't, lest we risk a breakdown of moral understanding and a downward spiral into chaos?
No, because absolute morality allows people to turn off their minds.

To use your analogy, it's akin to the application of dogma to the markets -- this is always a good bet, that is always a bad bet. Reality doesn't work that way, of course.

The world is situational.

The notion that there would be a "spiral into chaos" if we remove religious thinking simply is not supported by the facts. In fact, atheists have just as much interest in maintaining an ethical society as everyone else does.

But religious thinking results in all sorts of nastiness. If you believe God wants X, or demands X, you feel compelled to follow that goal, no matter where it leads.

As Katherine Sedgewick wrote, a puritan is one who does good, even though evil shall ensue.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:54 AM

This is OT as well but can I just check whether your screen name and avatar are connected with Lord of the Flies? :)
Yes, as are my location and siggie.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:59 AM

If we can collectively ask more questions than Piggy can answer, does that mean we win and he loses?
:D

It's happened on other threads.

Actually, in this one, I wasn't actually joking -- tho having a little fun with the truthers' catch phrase -- when I said I'm just answering questions.

I've done the threads where the point was to fully support my claim.

Here, I really do just want to open it up for anyone who wants to know how or what a radical atheist -- in this case, me -- thinks, or who'd like to see how a radical atheist might handle a particular question.

And on this thread, I just answer from my own little piggy brain. Depending on the question, you might get pure opinion.

And I'm glad to see others chiming in. Side discussions are welcome. And it's a heavy topic, so a little levity has its place. I'd just hope we didn't get into long-running tangents involving chapter-long threads.

Georg

18th March 2008, 05:02 AM

I'm about where Richard Dawkins is on the scale.

Piggy: What would you say to a deist, who proposed a god who created the universe, but does not interfere in it. He created the laws of physics and set off the Big Bang and then retired. He doesn't listen to or answer prayers or send any messages to prophets or perform parlour tricks to impress us.

Hello Piggy!

I´m with you concerning the other gods (the ones that interfere with the universe), but:
how can you be absolutely sure that a deist god, as described by Puppycow in the part I bolded, does not and even cannot exist?

ETA: I don´t believe in that one either, but I cannot rule it out, that´s where we differ.

Francesca R

18th March 2008, 05:07 AM

Yes, as are my location and siggie.Didn't see those before. Anyway . . . you got the conch!

Darat

18th March 2008, 05:15 AM

Piggy as a radical atheist do you prefer coffee or The TEA?

Nogbad

18th March 2008, 05:19 AM

I would describe myself as a fundamentalist agnostic.

Interestingly if one says one is agnostic theists often assume that one is agnostic about their God - whereas I am a Pagan agnostic :D

Piggy

18th March 2008, 05:36 AM

I´m with you concerning the other gods (the ones that interfere with the universe), but:
how can you be absolutely sure that a deist god, as described by Puppycow in the part I bolded, does not and even cannot exist?

Because it's a non-thing. It has no qualities.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 05:37 AM

Piggy as a radical atheist do you prefer coffee or The TEA?

You just whooshed me there, Darat. :confused:

Francesca R

18th March 2008, 05:38 AM

Piggy: What would you say to a deist, who proposed a god who created the universe, but does not interfere in it. He created the laws of physics and set off the Big Bang and then retired. He doesn't listen to or answer prayers or send any messages to prophets or perform parlour tricks to impress us.I would ask "Who are you saying did these things?"To which the answer would be "That which I call god."Piggy what's your follow up to this?

Or alternatively, if I say: "I have absolutely no idea where the laws of matter and energy came from and how stuff began to exist, and so any explanation is as good as any other . . . namely good for nothing"

Then would there be any difference between your stance and mine?

Darat

18th March 2008, 05:40 AM

Seemed a very straightforward question to me. I've been reading a thread this morning that holds there is "the atheist" viewpoint so I was wondering what the correct preference was for coffee or The TEA for a radical atheist.

;)

Darat

18th March 2008, 05:50 AM

Hello Piggy!

I´m with you concerning the other gods (the ones that interfere with the universe), but:
how can you be absolutely sure that a deist god, as described by Puppycow in the part I bolded, does not and even cannot exist?

ETA: I don´t believe in that one either, but I cannot rule it out, that´s where we differ.

Since Piggy said he didn't mind side shoots, I'll add a comment to this:

I think the real problem with such a concept is that whilst the words look as if they are meaningful they actually do not produce a non-contradictory definition. Consider the definition we are using - it uses the word "universe", well universe simply means "everything" so how can God be something outside/beyond/more "everything" so the definition is contradictory. Or if God is part of the universe it is another contradiction (if he is part of the universe than his existence as part of the universe contradicts the part that has him having no affect on the universe).

I've never tried the exercise but I bet you'd find there is no why of defining this concept of a deist god that does not result in a self-contradiction in the definition.

Nogbad

18th March 2008, 05:55 AM

billydkid

18th March 2008, 06:24 AM

-- that is, someone who does not merely claim "I do not believe in God", but rather that there is, in fact, no God to believe in.

Well, this really makes no sense at all. The implication of the first sentence is "There is a God. I just don't believe in him." which would be a remarkably stupid claim for any person to make. This is why it always baffles me when a "faith based" person asks something to the effect of "So you are just turning your back on God?" Well, no, there is not God I am aware of so I can not very well turn my back on him. If there was a God, I would have to be extremely stupid to choose to piss him off.

Georg

18th March 2008, 06:28 AM

Because it's a non-thing. It has no qualities.

It has not a lot of qualities we know about, right. How does that rule out its existence?

Since Piggy said he didn't mind side shoots, I'll add a comment to this:

I think the real problem with such a concept is that whilst the words look as if they are meaningful they actually do not produce a non-contradictory definition. Consider the definition we are using - it uses the word "universe", well universe simply means "everything" so how can God be something outside/beyond/more "everything" so the definition is contradictory. Or if God is part of the universe it is another contradiction (if he is part of the universe than his existence as part of the universe contradicts the part that has him having no affect on the universe).

I've never tried the exercise but I bet you'd find there is no why of defining this concept of a deist god that does not result in a self-contradiction in the definition.

That´s the kind of answer I was looking for, thanks Darat.
How do deists define their deity? Are there common definitions?

-Fran-

18th March 2008, 06:31 AM

Nothing. As I said, I'm only answering questions here, not responding to comments.

Ah, OK, fair enough. Though it did turn into a question from me. I mean he is not the only one that has said this, I've seen this opinion many times, but his comment here now made me think to ask about it. But OK...

blobru

18th March 2008, 06:34 AM

The only God I could believe in is one who doesn't want to be believed in. So I don't (so's not to make her mad).
All the rest, the ones who need to be believed in, are great as jokes, bit like the priest who walks into a bar, except funnier. I believe the real god, the one who doesn't want to be believed in, invented them to divert attention from herself. And to give us something to laugh at. Those who laugh loudest... get the punchline (d-uh).
'Course there's a slight possibility I could be wrong, in which case I'll be broiling, if the pig-haters are right, or coming back as a 'rhoid, if the cow-lovers are.

Anyway, question: is there such a thing as a God fetish? A halo-chaser; prophet jones; slick to mix with the crucifixed? Jesus has amazing abs, and the cutest blue eyes... I've heard. And He's such a tease; always posing with that bit of cloth strategically clinging to his midrift. C'mon G-man, work it! (Don't get me started on that drives-the-mullahs-mad Muhammad; let's just say it's no secret what Sunni Man's been praying for.)

And the "Virgin" Mary is a MEGA-milf and then some... aarroooo! (scratches self behind ear.) Of course, the Holy Ghost's a pretty tough act to follow, but that didn't slow Joseph down. I like that she's shy, always on the verge of blushing, and wears lots of silk. Takes care of herself too, soft smooth skin, not a trace of leprosy. And her perfume, a sinful blend of frankincense and myrrh. So how about it, G-man? Does your mom go, eh? Is she a goer?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1718347dfb2f355ce8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11315)

Well, even if she isn't, plenty of other god-dish in the sea (this one's a goer, if you only want to go once, that is)...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1718347dfb286a9ab5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11314)

I only ask because a... friend of mine... has been having these... thoughts lately... and wants to know if they're... normal... or indirect proof of God, somehow?

signed, sick sect sex-fiend's fried friend.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 07:01 AM

Ever want to know what or how a strong atheist thinks?

Just ask.

Why do you consider yourself a skeptic?

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 07:04 AM

Because it's a non-thing. It has no qualities.

It has claimed qualities.

Hence, there's a claim.

Hence, if you want to call yourself a skeptic, you can't reject the possibility of it existing.

So why do you claim to be a skeptic?

Damien Evans

18th March 2008, 07:20 AM

Wheeee, someone cool wants to be my friend :)

What, so I'm not cool then?:p

Limbo

18th March 2008, 07:22 AM

Upchurch

18th March 2008, 07:35 AM

Darat

18th March 2008, 07:38 AM

Why do you consider yourself a skeptic?

Presumably because he uses skepticism to get to his conclusions and in forming his opinions. Remember scepticism is not about a conclusion but how you get to conclusions.

It has claimed qualities.

Hence, there's a claim.

...snip...

See my post above about one of the deist definitions of a god and to add to it although there is (simply because of how English is structured) an apparent claim when you use scepticism and critical thinking to examine the apparent claim you can see it contradicts itself, it is incoherent. Therefore there is in fact no actual claim to deal with. (I'm using claim in the sense of meaning a true statement about reality.)

Hence, if you want to call yourself a skeptic, you can't reject the possibility of it existing.

...snip...

Do you reject the claim that there could be a square circle?

Georg

18th March 2008, 07:47 AM

So, my question, Piggy, as god's advocate, is this: Do you not believe that love, beauty, hope, and truth does* not exist?

* grammar check: "does" or "do"?

I´d say "do", but as a German, I´m not an authority.

Darat

18th March 2008, 07:47 AM

To be lighty rude and jump in.

Piggy,

Is Spock a woo? How about Luke Skywalker? I assume you're familiar with teh Star Trek & Star Wars.

...snip...

Er you are aware that Spock and Skywalker are fictional characters? ;) But to answer your question - within the fictional world they inhabit both Spock and Luke Skywalker are not "woo" because the "woo" they believe in does exist within the fiction that defines them. As to the "woo" in the fictional worlds being real well of course it ain't.

Is the term "atheist mystic" an oxymoron?

...snip...

Depends on your definition of "mystic": if your definition of "mystic" also hides a god then yes, if it doesn't no.

Complexity

18th March 2008, 07:54 AM

If there was a God, I would have to be extremely stupid to choose to piss him off.

I can't agree.

There is no god or other supernatural critter.

If there were a god, however, it wouldn't be a very good god, and certainly would not be worthy of my respect, obedience, or worship.

The only honest and honorable response to such a creature would be contempt and condemnation.

However,

There is no god or other supernatural critter.

Apathia

18th March 2008, 07:55 AM

Is the term "atheist mystic" an oxymoron?

Not to me personally. I've been called here a "woo-atheist."

Limbo

18th March 2008, 07:57 AM

Er you are aware that Spock and Skywalker are fictional characters? ;)

Yes, of course. I'm not an idiot.

I suppose I should have added something like, "btw, I know these are fictional characters."

Apathia

18th March 2008, 07:58 AM

Do you reject the claim that there could be a square circle?

A square is a stupid, circle wannabe. LOL

billydkid

18th March 2008, 08:28 AM

I can't agree.

There is no god or other supernatural critter.

If there were a god, however, it wouldn't be a very good god, and certainly would not be worthy of my respect, obedience, or worship.

The only honest and honorable response to such a creature would be contempt and condemnation.

However,

There is no god or other supernatural critter.I have to disagree back. That is really what the story of Job is about. God inflicts a bunch of misfortune on Job and I think Job complains and God's answer is "Hey, I'm God the Almighty and I created the universe and everything in it. Who are you to have an opinion?" I think if there were a God and made his presence felt to you, you would be inclined to want to please him in as much as every aspect of your fate is in his hands. If God is the alpha and the omega he is the definition of what is good and any views we would have about what is moral or just are puny and pointless in comparison. By definition, if God says slaughtering infidel babies is the right thing to do, it is. I think you understand what I am saying. I don't really get the "There is no God, but if there is one he is an *******!" thing even though I might feel that way myself. Any God who would have created the universe would define what is good and would make all the rules, so however righteous a person might feel in his own sense of justice, he would by definition be wrong if his sense of justice contradicted God's.

Tricky

18th March 2008, 08:37 AM

Just to play the god's advocate...

I am a somewhat weaker atheist and a Unitarian Universalist. The church I attend follows the standard mid-western protestant service format, but with more liberal content. The doxology, for example, goes like this (as far as we can trust my memory):

Praise God, the love we all may share.Praise God, the beauty everywhere.Praise God, the hope of good to be.Praise God, the truth that sets us free.
Generally speaking, I make it a rule not to sing. Ever. So during the time in which the doxology is sung, I pick it apart trying to understand how and why it was written the way that it was.

My interpretation is that this is, in essence, a poetic definition of "God". Not necessarily a complete or technical definition, but still a definition.

So, my question, Piggy, as god's advocate, is this: Do you not believe that love, beauty, hope, and truth does* not exist?
Similar to my objection. Unless you can make a case that God has to have certain characteristics, then you are stuck on this. It becomes "argument by dictionary". Of course, I agree that Piggy has superior command of the dictionary, but it still leaves wiggle room for the theist.

I made this post a few days ago.
Atheist: I have never heard of any concept of God that I believe in.
Pantheist: I believe God is nature.
Atheist: I don't believe God is nature.
Pantheist: You don't believe in nature?
Atheist: Of course I believe in nature, I just don't believe it is God.
Pantheist: Well it is MY God, so you must have some kind of other God that you believe in that you are comparing to MY God.
Atheist: No. I have not found ANY gods I believe in.
Pantheist: Don't you believe in nature?
Atheist: Arrrrrrghhhh!

* grammar check: "does" or "do"?
It's "do". Plural (in this case, compound) subject takes plural verb. "It does". "They do."

billydkid

18th March 2008, 08:37 AM

Er you are aware that Spock and Skywalker are fictional characters?
Just as are Yaweh and Jehova and Elohimand Adonai and El Shaddai and Allah and so on.

Jimbo07

18th March 2008, 08:41 AM

it uses the word "universe", well universe simply means "everything" so how can God be something outside/beyond/more "everything" so the definition is contradictory.

I'm not comfortable with this. This seems to be some kind of dictionary definition of universe, which does not fit with physical observation. Rather, one should talk about an "observable universe," or even, "Hubble Volume." There is good reason to assume that the universe beyond the Hubble Limit shares similar properties to what we can observe, but we have to be careful in saying, "the universe is everything." Some popular theoretical cosmology articles include speculation about "multiple universes."

Piggy:
An analogy with other intelligent life - there is no evidence of an alien civilization, so far, but there are no rules (that we know of) expressly forbidding them, as such.

You've said that the fuzzy/contradictory/completely imaginary definitions are part of your conclusion that something cannot exist. You've said that a self-contradictory claim is a "no-claim." How are you able to rule that some kind of "great deceiver" (ugh, and I know who that sounds like) cannot exist? How can you determine that a simulation stack cannot exist (beyond Paul Davies's assertion, to which I agree, that the idea is useless). Do you not see a difference between "useless" and "cannot?"

ETA: To simplify my garble into one question:

Do you equate useless ideas with the subjects of useless ideas being forbidden?

billydkid

18th March 2008, 08:48 AM

Similar to my objection. Unless you can make a case that God has to have certain characteristics, then you are stuck on this. It becomes "argument by dictionary". Of course, I agree that Piggy has superior command of the dictionary, but it still leaves wiggle room for the theist.

I made this post a few days ago.
It's "do". Plural subject takes plural verb. "It does". "They do."It really does come down to this notion of a personal God versus the idea that you refer to the universe as God - which makes a kind of aesthetic sense, though it carries no particular implications. Is God a person or is God just the name you choose to use the world or the universe or existence? To me calling nature or the world or the universe your God is the same as being an atheist. The critical and defining element of all the major religions is this notion that God is a personage with intentions and desires and opinions about things. Not to believe this, in whatever form your non-belief takes is the moral equivalent of being an atheist. I have no issue with people who want to revere nature or the universe - I think it is worth revering. Many scientists hold nature in awe and reverence. Calling it God doesn't make it a person or an entity with intentions, but at least it does actually have some definable characteristics.

Darat

18th March 2008, 08:49 AM

I'm not comfortable with this. This seems to be some kind of dictionary definition of universe, which does not fit with physical observation. Rather, one should talk about an "observable universe," or even, "Hubble Volume." There is good reason to assume that the universe beyond the Hubble Limit shares similar properties to what we can observe, but we have to be careful in saying, "the universe is everything." Some popular theoretical cosmology articles include speculation about "multiple universes."

...snip...

Isn't the whole thing about definitions? I agree that "universe" taken to mean "everything" is a simple dictionary definition but its the word that was used in the definition we were discussing and I say the only definition that makes any kind of sense. But if a deist wants to define their god using a term like "Hubble volume" we could look at that and see if it contains the same or a different contradiction. Out of curiosity have you ever seen anyone serious put forward such a definition for their god?

Upchurch

18th March 2008, 08:49 AM

Similar to my objection.
I know. I just wanted to present an actual, rather than hypothetical, example. This is the actual doxology sung by a real church. If Piggy is going to say there is no god for all values of "god", this value needs to be addressed.

I think a reasonable alteration would be to say that there is no god for all supernatural values of "god".

Wauthan

18th March 2008, 09:24 AM

A chance to question a radical atheist, eh? Well it's not like I'm going to let that pass me by cause this is the first time I ever encountered one.

Thought a while about what's already been said in the thread and what opinions that might differ you from myself. If I would put an adjective before my own atheist views I guess it would be "lazy". You're the kind of man that stands up to defend your absence of belief in gods, while I'm more of the sort to reach for the remote to defend mine.

Since the "Meh! Whatever floats your boat." stance is fairly boring in a lively internet discussion I'll continue my lazy approach and deflect a question to me onto you.

"What would you do if God was proven to be real?" or perhaps rather expressed as "How would you react to the insight that the whole lot of the Bibel, even the parts that condradict *everything*, was scientifically proven to be a completely accurate description of our reality?"

My own answer was that I wouldn't *do* anything (well anything particularly interesting atleast), since for all practical reasons this insight would change nearly nothing in my day-to-day life. But I surmise that a more radical atheist might have a more radical reaction. So if you can spare the time Piggy I would love to read about it.

-Fran-

18th March 2008, 09:28 AM

What, so I'm not cool then?:p

Of course you are!! Just didn't know you wanted to be my friend ;)

Wowbagger

18th March 2008, 09:28 AM

My reaction to that is: What the hell are you talking about?
You know: The God concept that is All-Powerful, All-KNowing, etc., etc.

How can you know such a God does not exist? What if it does, and it simply chose to not make you see it. Perhaps to test your faith, or the faith of others, who knows His will?! But, how do YOU know?!

Jimbo07

18th March 2008, 09:50 AM

Out of curiosity have you ever seen anyone serious put forward such a definition for their god?

That's an interesting question. My answer, more or less, is no, I haven't.

I had a friend who might have run to arguments like this at some point, but usually those come from people trying to go from a deist wedge to a personal, theist God.

Almost everyone here seems to be in agreement about the practical aspects of day-to-day living being somewhat separate from a theist God... I'm just indulging in some internet work diversion... ;)

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 10:39 AM

To me, that's a non-question, since you're talking about purely imaginary beings here, unless you want to propose how in the world such creatures might exist.
Its obviously a hypothetical.

If there were a viable explanation for how a God or gods might exist, then the radical atheist position would be untenable.Okay, so lets move through the hypothetical.

Hypothetically, lets assume computing power continues to increase virtually indefinitely. Quantum computers, even more exotic technologies, larger sizes, organic computing, all seems likely in the very long run. Give it, say, 2 million years beyond the level we're at now. Might be less. At this point, computing power is so immense that a single computer can do all the operations that every computer on this planet has ever done in an eyeblink.

Okay, now what would 'people' do with that (and I use the term loosely, as it will probably be a little loose by then). Well, a lot of things, probably stuff we haven't even thought of, but probably something they do now - simulations. Only instead of Spore, their Spore makes anything we have look like a joke. A fully realized virtual universe, complete with virtual intelligences, and virtual reality.

It would probably be a moderate to large project, even then. Lets say, in the history of the species, they only make 100-200 of them, to play around with.

One real universe. 100-200 simulations. Chances are, we're components of one of those simulations. And the simulating computer has all the powers we assign to God - full control of the simulation, full knowledge of everything in the simulation, full presence in every part of the simulation.

Hence why I'm an agnostic atheist. I really, really hope that isn't what is actually happening. However, I just can't see a way to rule out it being a logical possibility.

bokonon

18th March 2008, 11:01 AM

To me calling nature or the world or the universe your God is the same as being an atheist.
In the sputter of human enlightenment, there have been sun worshipers, who certainly didn't consider themselves atheists.

The critical and defining element of all the major religions is this notion that God is a personage with intentions and desires and opinions about things. Not to believe this, in whatever form your non-belief takes is the moral equivalent of being an atheist.
So in this case, perhaps your disagreement hinges on the fact that you don't consider the sun to be sentient.

bokonon

18th March 2008, 11:04 AM

You know: The God concept that is All-Powerful, All-KNowing, etc., etc.

How can you know such a God does not exist? What if it does, and it simply chose to not make you see it. Perhaps to test your faith, or the faith of others, who knows His will?! But, how do YOU know?!
Maybe he just can't stand the wormy little suck-ups who are always pestering him for favors ("Cure little Jimmy's cancer") and trying to get his autograph.

Piscivore

18th March 2008, 11:04 AM

Cool, excuse me while I go find a mirror and play god for a bit. Albeit a rather short one.

I've got a little shrine to you next to the coffee maker.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 11:24 AM

Presumably because he uses skepticism to get to his conclusions and in forming his opinions. Remember scepticism is not about a conclusion but how you get to conclusions.

But whatever those conclusions may be, they will always be provisional, depending on the evidence. Therefore, we, as skeptics, cannot say that there is no god, end of story. Skeptics always open up for the possibility.

See my post above about one of the deist definitions of a god and to add to it
although there is (simply because of how English is structured) an
apparent claim when you use scepticism and critical thinking to
examine the apparent claim you can see it contradicts itself, it is incoherent.
Therefore there is in fact no actual claim to deal with. (I'm using claim in the
sense of meaning a true statement about reality.)

What are you saying, then? That God is encompassed by the scientifically explainable universe? That science encompasses everything there is in the universe?

Do you reject the claim that there could be a square circle?

There can't be, due to the way we have defined squares and circles.

billydkid

18th March 2008, 11:25 AM

In the sputter of human enlightenment, there have been sun worshipers, who certainly didn't consider themselves atheists.

So in this case, perhaps your disagreement hinges on the fact that you don't consider the sun to be sentient.Well, yeah. It makes some sort of sense at least to worship the sun. It is all life giving and without it none of us would exist. Of course the word "worship" is a difficult one. If by worship a person mean to praise in hopes of influencing the sun - well that is nutty. But if by worship one means to think especially highly of I don't have an issue with it. Also, I think of earth type religions as being specifically symbolic and allegorical. Say a South American people reveres the jaguar - they revere it, I would think, as a representive of the power and grace of nature and not as a supernatural entity whom they have to please. Say the American Indians kill a deer and then they thank it for giving it's life so that they may eat - I am thinking they don't really believe the dead deer cares about being thanked. It is an exercise in grace and gratitude toward nature without supposing they are somehow petitioning nature to do their bidding. Although I am sure there are nature religion who attribute supernatural powers to nature.

Pardalis

18th March 2008, 11:31 AM

Darat

18th March 2008, 11:40 AM

But whatever those conclusions may be, they will always be provisional, depending on the evidence. Therefore, we, as skeptics, cannot say that there is no god, end of story. Skeptics always open up for the possibility.

That would be the (useless) philosophical definition or school of skepticism first put forward by the likes of Pyrrho, not the methodological definition most people use today.

What are you saying, then? That God is encompassed by the scientifically explainable universe? That science encompasses everything there is in the universe?
[quote]

You seem to have misunderstood what claim Piggy was responding to, he was responding to a proposed deist definition of a god. I was explaining about the self-contradictory nature of that claim.

[QUOTE=CFLarsen;3538274]

There can't be, due to the way we have defined squares and circles.

May I remind you of your own words, to paraphrase:

"But whatever those conclusions may be, they will always be provisional, depending on the evidence. Therefore, we, as skeptics, cannot say that there is no square circle, end of story. Skeptics always open up for the possibility."

Hokulele

18th March 2008, 11:59 AM

What makes which more real? I'm sorry, I've lost your train of thought -- but I'm riding several trains on this thread at the moment.

Sorry, I realize you are juggling. Here is a recap of this sub-thread.

Hmmmmm....

What if I were to define "God" as a result of certain functions of the limbic system. These functions specifically cause human beings to require a world-view that includes a higher power that devolves responsibility for their own actions, actions of others, and removes the random nature of death, destruction, and disaster. Furthermore, this "God" is not the limbic system itself, but a construct of it, much the way "consciousness" is also a construct of the brain.

Would you agree that this is both a reasonable definition of God and it does exist?

No. This is to confuse the idea of a thing with the thing itself.

I can't save myself from starvation by eating my idea of a sandwich.

Most delusions, schizophrenia as an example, are simply ideas, but they are still powerful in and of themselves.

But you can save yourself from stress and a massive guilt trip by appealing to your idea of a god. How is this less real than schizophrenia?

Real schizophrenia involves very different neurology.

And this makes it more real how?

I should have said, why does having a different neurology make schizophrenia real, but god just an idea?

I generally agree with your stance on this issue, but am playing devil's (god's?) advocate a bit to, as you stated, see if I can get a solid punch in on radical atheism.

Hokulele

18th March 2008, 12:01 PM

I've got a little shrine to you next to the coffee maker.

Not the blender! :scared:

Tricky

18th March 2008, 12:03 PM

I've got a little shrine to you next to the coffee maker.
I have one too, but it's in the pantry. It is composed of tins pineapples, macadamia nuts and spam, and it's all arranged to look like a bitten boudin.

Hokulele

18th March 2008, 12:07 PM

I have one too, but it's in the pantry. It is composed of tins pineapples, macadamia nuts and spam, and it's all arranged to look like a bitten boudin.

What a coincidence! I burn you in effigy every Michaelmas.

martu

18th March 2008, 12:21 PM

Do you reject the claim that there could be a square circle?

There can't be, due to the way we have defined squares and circles.

And God can't exist due to the way we have defined God.

Complexity

18th March 2008, 01:55 PM

I think if there were a God and made his presence felt to you, you would be inclined to want to please him in as much as every aspect of your fate is in his hands.

You don't know me very well.

I'm a contrarian and curmudgeon from hell, or would be if there were such a place. (There's not).

It is very much like the presidency of a country - no being worthy of the job would want it.

If they existed, and they don't, I'd have no time for 'gods' that are more messed up than I am, and I have no burning need to be worshiped.

There are no gods or other supernatural beings, and I'm glad that such losers don't exist.

Skeptic Ginger

18th March 2008, 02:06 PM

Skeptic Ginger

18th March 2008, 02:15 PM

Sorry Piggy, but this is a losing battle. There are too many definitions of God for you to prove them all impossible. The number of god definitions is finite and I daresay though the task would be tedious, you could do it. But there is another way of addressing this problem making such a task unnecessary. Why try to fit the evidence to the conclusion? The scientific method is to follow the evidence to the conclusion.

If your conclusion is some of these magical beliefs are true or could be true, then you can go about testing everyone of the beliefs to see if you can fit the evidence to the conclusion. If gods do anything, that is testable. If they do nothing or only created things and sat back then they are irrelevant and would also not have been involved in forming people's god beliefs.

But if you follow the evidence to its logical conclusion, then the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion people made god beliefs up to explain what to them appeared inexplicable without magical explanations.

Skeptic Ginger

18th March 2008, 02:24 PM

I'm about where Richard Dawkins is on the scale.

Piggy: What would you say to a deist, who proposed a god who created the universe, but does not interfere in it. He created the laws of physics and set off the Big Bang and then retired. He doesn't listen to or answer prayers or send any messages to prophets or perform parlour tricks to impress us.Then such a god by definition would not care to be worshiped, prayed to, nor would such a god have intervened to make god beliefs. Just as Tricky's example "nature is god" both are essentially irrelevant. Science doesn't like to add irrelevant layers to natural explanations.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 02:24 PM

That would be the (useless) philosophical definition or school of skepticism first put forward by the likes of Pyrrho, not the methodological definition most people use today.

But what does it mean to be skeptical? Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this is not a practical position to take. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.
Michael Shermer: A Skeptical Manifesto (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html)

You seem to have misunderstood what claim Piggy was responding to, he was responding to a proposed deist definition of a god. I was explaining about the self-contradictory nature of that claim.

Ah, OK.

May I remind you of your own words, to paraphrase:

"But whatever those conclusions may be, they will always be provisional, depending on the evidence. Therefore, we, as skeptics, cannot say that there is no square circle, end of story. Skeptics always open up for the possibility."

....and?

And God can't exist due to the way we have defined God.

No, he can exist the way we have defined god. The problem is that we invented god long before we discovered science.

Think of homeopathy: Hahnemann had a point when he started diluting stuff, because at that time, medicine hadn't progressed much since the Middle Ages. Since a lot of diseases just run their course, it made sense to do nothing. However, he didn't know how about molecules and that there was a limit to how much you could dilute something before there wasn't anything left.

Science caught up with Hahnemann's homeopathy, the same way we today know that thunder isn't Zeus (it's Thor).

cyborg

18th March 2008, 02:29 PM

Well I don't disagree with you, but how do you respond if I say "God is Nature".

I'd respond that creating synonyms does not a new entity make - it just gives a new name to an existing entity.

At that point the choice of name for the same thing is arbitrary.

If I choose to create a language to describe the word that matches a strong atheist's in every way except that I use theistic names in place of atheistic names and I choose one over the other I am expressing a linguistic preference - I am not describing a different universe.

Skeptic Ginger

18th March 2008, 02:38 PM

...

Okay. Considering your stance on 'radical/strong' atheism, how would you describe the fundamental slips that weak atheists or agnostics make when it comes to the god concept? And, in your opinion, do you think the leniency towards permitting the possibility of the god concept is one of pseudo political correctness or more a unwillingness to step firmly into the 'hard atheist' line of thinking (or something else)?If one's argument is based solely on the concept one cannot prove a negative, then you have to ask yourself, do you really and truly equate god beliefs for which there is absolutely no evidence other than people's convictions (which can be explained) with invisible pink unicorns and flying sphaghetti monsters for which you also cannot prove the negative? In other words is it simply the theoretical concept and you are being a science purist, or are you closer to simple agnosticism?

If it is the former, then you are merely making a semantic argument. We can agree there is a scientific principle of always allowing for new things to be discovered with new evidence and we can agree on the scientific principle of not being able to prove the negative.

If it is the latter, then you are allowing yourself to consider some beliefs for which there is absolutely no evidence but not other beliefs for which there is equally absolutely no evidence. That is not skeptical nor scientific. In addition, within that semantic argument of scientific theory, as Piggy points out, you prove some negatives by proving an alternative. If it is made of steel, then it isn't made of wood.

If the evidence supports god beliefs are human fantasies, then the evidence supports god beliefs are not the result of real gods.

Skeptic Ginger

18th March 2008, 02:41 PM

Skeptic Ginger

18th March 2008, 02:42 PM

Agh. Another thread to see who's the biggest Atheist of them all.

Kind of reminds me those body building contests.This ignorance of the actual thread topic is astounding.

Skeptic Ginger

18th March 2008, 02:44 PM

Cool, excuse me while I go find a mirror and play god for a bit. Albeit a rather short one.

Get a dog. My dogs definitely think I am god.

Jimbo07

18th March 2008, 02:45 PM

creating synonyms does not a new entity make

How is such a god relevant?

I'll ask you both the same question I asked Piggy. Piggy said, "cannot."

Is there a difference between useless/irrelevant and forbidden? Also, if there is, is it an important difference?

Hokulele

18th March 2008, 02:47 PM

Get a dog. My dogs definitely think I am god.

I have a dog. She alternates between thinking I am a god (usually around mealtime or exercise time) and thinking I am a chew toy.

Granted, she is only 4 months old. :)

Darat

18th March 2008, 02:48 PM

....and?

According to your reasoning by you saying "There can't be.." in regards to a square circle you are not being skeptical and therefor shouldn't call yourself a sceptic. (I would rather not continue this derail of what or who is a sceptic in this thread else we'll end up being split to a new thread.)

No, he can exist the way we have defined god.

...snip...

Which god is this you are talking about?

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 02:48 PM

How is such a god relevant?

To what?

Pardalis

18th March 2008, 02:52 PM

Get a dog. My dogs definitely think I am god.

Unfortunately this doesn't work with budgies.

One of them thinks I'm his best friend, the female doesn't give a rat's ass who I am and the other thinks my hand and me are two different beings.

cyborg

18th March 2008, 02:58 PM

Is there a difference between useless/irrelevant

If something is irrelevant it is usually not useful.

The utility of making a language preference is usually that one prefers a certain language and hence it is useful because it is emotionally satisfying.

That utility is overridden by anyone who desires to exchange information - a common language is required. If, as in my example, there are two people who wish to communicate who have equivalent languages with atheistic an theistic naming conventions it would be convenient to choose one in order to facilitate communication.

That is, if you want to be sure you're talking about the same things it is usually a good idea to be sure you're using the same language: words and all.

and forbidden?

Forbidden?

Pardalis

18th March 2008, 02:59 PM

A) There is no such god definition except when using the theoretical scientific principle of not being able to prove the negative, and

B) Such a god would be irrelevant if it did exist.

I agree, but could there be some concept of god that is impossible to define because of our own limitations?

As I said earlier, an ant can't do math, never will be able to, but still the concepts and principles of math exist.

Am I making sense?

cyborg

18th March 2008, 03:01 PM

As I said earlier, an ant can't do math, never will be able to, but still the concepts and principles of math exist.

I would say an ant does math perfectly well.

She just isn't much of a generalist.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 03:04 PM

Get a dog. My dogs definitely think I am god.

No, he sees you as his top dog.

There's quite a difference.

martu

18th March 2008, 03:08 PM

And God can't exist due to the way we have defined God.
No, he can exist the way we have defined god. The problem is that we invented god long before we discovered science.

Would you mind defining him for me?

Think of homeopathy: Hahnemann had a point when he started diluting stuff, because at that time, medicine hadn't progressed much since the Middle Ages. Since a lot of diseases just run their course, it made sense to do nothing. However, he didn't know how about molecules and that there was a limit to how much you could dilute something before there wasn't anything left.

Science caught up with Hahnemann's homeopathy, the same way we today know that thunder isn't Zeus (it's Thor).

No Hahnemann did not have a point about diluting stuff as it was wrong. The consequences of this wrong action were right. It's the equivalent of giving Hahnemann the credit for placebo.

But that's not right; it was the chanting of 'Placebo Domino' that deserves credit for the placebo effect.

Piscivore

18th March 2008, 03:10 PM

No, he sees you as his top dog.

There's quite a difference.

There is quite a difference to you. How do you know there is a difference to the dog?

martu

18th March 2008, 03:27 PM

There is quite a difference to you. How do you know there is a difference to the dog?

It's not a very skeptical approach to assume so much about a Dog's perceptions is it? Where is the evidence?

cyborg

18th March 2008, 03:28 PM

Where is the evidence?

The Egyptians, for one, considered their leaders living gods.

Is there any more than an abstract difference between that which must be obeyed that is on Earth and that which must be obeyed that is in Heaven?

Tricky

18th March 2008, 03:33 PM

I'd respond that creating synonyms does not a new entity make - it just gives a new name to an existing entity.

At that point the choice of name for the same thing is arbitrary.

If I choose to create a language to describe the word that matches a strong atheist's in every way except that I use theistic names in place of atheistic names and I choose one over the other I am expressing a linguistic preference - I am not describing a different universe.
I agree, and I have argued as much many times. But it still means that what you are stating is that there is no god for any definition of "god" that I will accept. Now from the point of communication, that is all well and good. Words must have meanings. They cannot be made up ad-hoc. Or more correctly, they should not, but theists will persist in doing so. What can you do about that? Nothing really. It would be wonderful if you could get them to agree to a general definition of what a god is before you attempt to engage them in any discussion, but that is simply not going to happen. Essentially, their definition is circular.

Theist: I believe in God.
Me: What is God?
Theist: It is what I believe in.

As such, you could say that they are not even talking about God, but rather their beliefs. Occasionally you'll even hear someone say something like "I believe what I believe", as if that somehow made it clearer.

So ultimately, I agree with Piggy and most others here that the theist position is fundamentally illogical and... er... unlexicographal. Yet opposing it still amounts to saying, "That is not a definition of god," and we simply cannot demand that people surrender the right to define god as they choose, regardless of how many dictionaries and theological texts they defy.

martu

18th March 2008, 03:41 PM

The Egyptians, for one, considered their leaders living gods.

Is there any more than an abstract difference between that which must be obeyed that is on Earth and that which must be obeyed that is in Heaven?

Erm is this responding to my 'Where is the evidence?' If so how does this explain how CFLarsen knows that dogs do not see us as Gods?

Piscivore

18th March 2008, 03:42 PM

It's not a very skeptical approach to assume so much about a Dog's perceptions is it? Where is the evidence?

That's rather my point. Claus is assuming the dog does not see his owner as a god, but only another, superior dog. How does he know?

Tricky

18th March 2008, 03:43 PM

That's rather my point. Claus is assuming the dog does not see his owner as a god, but only another, superior dog. How does he know?

He has achieved Doghead.

Silentknight

18th March 2008, 03:44 PM

I know. I just wanted to present an actual, rather than hypothetical, example. This is the actual doxology sung by a real church. If Piggy is going to say there is no god for all values of "god", this value needs to be addressed.

I think a reasonable alteration would be to say that there is no god for all supernatural values of "god".
Yeah, this is kind of what I was saying in my first post.
Not that you care about my opinion, but as an absolute atheist for all practical purposes I'll reiterate the point I often make on this issue. The only god we cannot test for is one defined specifically to be untestable.

A) There is no such god definition except when using the theoretical scientific principle of not being able to prove the negative, and

B) Such a god would be irrelevant if it did exist.
I actually agree with this. I'm aware of the refutation to part of my definition of God, because I've often used it myself. "If X is God to you, then why is it necessary to call it God?" Like I said, the God I refer to is definitely not something I believe in or worship (in other words, it's not really my God) rather it's more of an acknowledgment of what people are actually referring to when they talk about God. That which they are referring to certainly may exist (nature, ideas, emotions, values, the universe) but again, why call it God?

To use Upchurch's post equating God with emotions / values as an example, I would say that it's a fairly accurate way of defining what God is to most people. At the same time I would ask, why is it necessary to call it God? It's not like you worship these principles, pray to them, or sing them praises.

martu

18th March 2008, 03:45 PM

That's rather my point. Claus is assuming the dog does not see his owner as a god, but only another, superior dog. How does he know?

I have confused people obviously, I was agreeing with you. Or trying to.

cyborg

18th March 2008, 03:47 PM

Yet opposing it still amounts to saying, "That is not a definition of god," and we simply cannot demand that people surrender the right to define god as they choose, regardless of how many dictionaries and theological texts they defy.

If the person is seeking honest communication they will be able to acknowledge their language preference. Hence, it will be possible to separate those who wish to communicate honestly from those who don't - leaving us with the "good" theist to communicate with. (And vice-versa from the theist's perspective).

Darat

18th March 2008, 03:48 PM

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 03:49 PM

I agree, but could there be some concept of god that is impossible to define because of our own limitations?

As I said earlier, an ant can't do math, never will be able to, but still the concepts and principles of math exist.

Am I making sense? It makes sense to me. The possibility that we haven't thought of a possibility (or that we simply lack the capacity and ability to conceive of that possibility) exists. Its like the description of superior intelligence (versus simply being very smart) in a book I read - there are probably mental and logical planes we are just not operating on.

Tricky

18th March 2008, 03:50 PM

If the person is seeking honest communication they will be able to acknowledge their language preference. Hence, it will be possible to separate those who wish to communicate honestly from those who don't - leaving us with the "good" theist to communicate with.
You've just summarized the history of the R&P boards.:D

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 03:51 PM

There is quite a difference to you. How do you know there is a difference to the dog?

We know quite a bit about dog behavior/psychology: It's a pack animal, it needs to know its place in the pack, and can be trained to do various things, etc. There is nothing that tells us that dogs have supernatural beliefs.

Do you want to argue that animals have supernatural beliefs? That is indeed an extraordinary claim.

Piscivore

18th March 2008, 03:52 PM

I have confused people obviously, I was agreeing with you. Or trying to.
Sorry, it happens so rarely I have trouble recognising it sometimes. :)

Piscivore

18th March 2008, 03:56 PM

We know quite a bit about dog behavior/psychology: It's a pack animal, it needs to know its place in the pack, and can be trained to do various things, etc. There is nothing that tells us that dogs have supernatural beliefs.

Do you want to argue that animals have supernatural beliefs? That is indeed an extraordinary claim.

No, I don't think animals have any "beliefs" whatsoever. I think that statements like "he sees you as his top dog" are common, yet unfounded, anthropomorphic misstatements that postulate an unevidenced level of cognition to explain a simple behaviour pattern.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 03:56 PM

Would you mind defining him for me?

Depends. Usually, we call it supernatural, but if it is the god you believe in, then only you can define him. There may be more to it for the individual than the mere supernatural.

No Hahnemann did not have a point about diluting stuff as it was wrong. The consequences of this wrong action were right. It's the equivalent of giving Hahnemann the credit for placebo.

Not merely that. He had a point in lowering the doses until they became harmless. Only he didn't know what was really happening.

Some were "cured" by their own bodies' ability to heal themselves. Some were "cured" by placebo.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 03:58 PM

No, I don't think animals have any "beliefs" whatsoever. I think that statements like "he sees you as his top dog" are common, yet unfounded, anthropomorphic misstatements that postulate an unevidenced level of cognition to explain a simple behaviour pattern.

Unfounded? What pattern is that, if not seeing you as top dog?

Vincent Vega

18th March 2008, 04:00 PM

I am an atheist.

I don't pretend to know there is no "god" however.

If you consider anything supernatural is outside of nature as we understand it, we could no more pretend to know the supernatural than a fish could understand the concept of space travel. There is certainly the possibility there is an omniscient intelligence that resides outside the universe we can comprehend, that can influence our universe in ways that we can't begin to comprehend.

I leave room for caveats.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:08 PM

Piggy what's your follow up to this?
No follow-ups to non-questions. It's "Ask a Radical Atheist", not "Chat with a Radical Atheist". ;)

Or alternatively, if I say: "I have absolutely no idea where the laws of matter and energy came from and how stuff began to exist, and so any explanation is as good as any other . . . namely good for nothing"

Then would there be any difference between your stance and mine?
Yes, we would be talking about different topics.

But also, you would be wrong. Any explanation is not, in fact, as good as any other.

Just because we don't know what caused X doesn't mean that anything you care to dream up could have possibly caused X.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:09 PM

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:15 PM

It has not a lot of qualities we know about, right. How does that rule out its existence?

As you defined it, it had no qualities whatsoever. Saying what something did is not the same as saying what it is.

Suppose I said, "There is a force which causes the motions of planets and stars."

You say, "You mean gravity, inertia...."

"No," I interrupt, "this is a supernatural force."

"Ok," you venture, "what is this force?"

"I call it Force X", I say.

"All right," you say, "what is this Force X?"

"I already told you," I reply. "It's supernatural and it causes the motion of planets and stars."

But I haven't really made any claim at all here. I've said what Force X is not (natural), and what it supposedly does, but I haven't said what I think it is, and I've denied that it is equivalent to those forces we do have some description of.

So when the deist argument is phrased as "Suppose God created the universe then had nothing more to do with it", I'm forced to ask "Suppose what created the universe then had nothing more to do with it?"

Piscivore

18th March 2008, 04:15 PM

Unfounded? What pattern is that, if not seeing you as top dog?

"Unfounded, anthropomorphic misstatements", not patterns. Dogs do evidence behaviour that appears subservient, but that does not necessitate they hold or understand abstract concepts such as "rank" or "superiority", does it? Do you think the dog is weighing in his mind all the parameters affecting his relationship with his owner before "deciding" to act subservient or not?

Do you think dogs "see" us in any abstract way? If so, what informs that opinion?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:18 PM

And He's such a tease; always posing with that bit of cloth strategically clinging to his midrift.
Oh, you're gonna love my calendar shot. ;)

I only ask because a... friend of mine... has been having these... thoughts lately... and wants to know if they're... normal... or indirect proof of God, somehow?

I think there's an interesting question behind there.

Seems to me if we somehow destroyed all evidence and memory of religion overnight, it would have reinvented itself by next Thursday.

I believe the urge toward religious thought is an artifact of the way our brains are built.

Jimbo07

18th March 2008, 04:19 PM

If something is irrelevant it is usually not useful.

My mistake. I thought that by using the / notation that it was clear that I found the words irrelevant and useful to be similar in this context, since both had been used in this thread. I was contrasting them with "forbidden."

Forbidden?

It is how I interpreted "cannot."

What is the difference between "useless" and "forbidden?" I don't believe that one can say that since an idea is useless, it's subject is forbidden from existing (like the trivial solution to a math problem, say).

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:20 PM

Why do you consider yourself a skeptic?

Because I'm hyper-rational, I suppose. I can't get by just accepting things. Someone's gotta show me the money.

Like Adams, I didn't come to the strong atheist position without many years of study and thought.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:21 PM

It has claimed qualities.

Hence, there's a claim.

Hence, if you want to call yourself a skeptic, you can't reject the possibility of it existing.

So why do you claim to be a skeptic?

Nope. It has no qualities. At least, not as it was presented in the post I was responding to.

Other definitions do have qualities, of course.

These invariably end up being nonsensical, empty, contrary-to-fact, humpty-dumptyisms, or indistinguishable from the qualities of not-God.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 04:23 PM

Because I'm hyper-rational, I suppose. I can't get by just accepting things. Someone's gotta show me the money.

Like Adams, I didn't come to the strong atheist position without many years of study and thought.

Nope. It has no qualities. At least, not as it was presented in the post I was responding to.

Other definitions do have qualities, of course.

These invariably end up being nonsensical, empty, contrary-to-fact, humpty-dumptyisms, or indistinguishable from the qualities of not-God.

But if it has no qualities, what's to accept?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:23 PM

Piggy,

Is Spock a woo? How about Luke Skywalker? I assume you're familiar with teh Star Trek & Star Wars.

Is the term "atheist mystic" an oxymoron?

Have you read any books by Karen Armstrong?

Given a chance, would you make religion illegal?

Fictional characters are fictional. I'm not really concerned with them.

Oddly enough, I don't think "atheist mystic" must necessarily be oxymoronic, but in practice it probably always is.

No.

No.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:26 PM

So, my question, Piggy, as god's advocate, is this: Do you not believe that love, beauty, hope, and truth does* not exist?

Love certainly exists. Its effects are seen all the time.

It's hard to say if beauty exists, but the experience of beauty certainly does. (I'm fascinated, for instance, by why it is that we find our world beautiful, and if there could be creatures out there on some world who look out every day and think, "Geez, what an ugly universe".)

Hope also certainly exists.

Truth is an alignment of thought and reality.

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 04:33 PM

So when the deist argument is phrased as "Suppose God created the universe then had nothing more to do with it", I'm forced to ask "Suppose what created the universe then had nothing more to do with it?"
I'm not sure that argument is entirely fair to the Deists. Assuming you have an entity who can create universes, influencing things that happen 14 or 15 billion years down the line during creation doesn't seem much more incredible than the premise.

Of course this argument quickly becomes moot (predestination versus free will) so screw it, it doesn't matter.

I was wondering if we can come up with a hypothetical description of God. I mean if we can't, then there's a semantical problem with the concept, and we can't even discuss it. I'll put forward: "Can accomplish anything within the universe, and knows everything that occurs within its bounds (all-powerful and all-knowing)"

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 04:33 PM

Love certainly exists. Its effects are seen all the time.

It's hard to say if beauty exists, but the experience of beauty certainly does. (I'm fascinated, for instance, by why it is that we find our world beautiful, and if there could be creatures out there on some world who look out every day and think, "Geez, what an ugly universe".)

Hope also certainly exists.

Truth is an alignment of thought and reality.

Does the feeling/experience of a god exist? Does the hope of a god exist? Do the effects of the feeling of a god exist?

See where I'm going?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:37 PM

Piggy:
An analogy with other intelligent life - there is no evidence of an alien civilization, so far, but there are no rules (that we know of) expressly forbidding them, as such.

There is no evidence of it, but it is entirely consistent with what we know of the universe.

This makes it what I call an "anchored" notion. Black holes are a good example. Before we had any means of detecting them, we had reason to believe they might be real, because what we knew of the world pointed to their potential existence.

Another example I've used before is the "7 bolt", a hypothetical piece of space junk, a bolt with a number engraved on it beginning with the digit 7, orbiting the earth. We have no reason to think this thing does exist, but it is anchored in the realm of the possible.

God is an unanchored concept. Its origins are myth and superstition and the patterns of our brains, and any reason we ever had for believing it might be true has been supplanted by a successful explanatory model of the world which does not include the supernatural.

That is why modern god-hypotheses can only avoid contradiction with known fact by either removing all qualities from God, relegating God to an entirely ad hoc and imaginary real which exists only for the purpose of housing him (and in which true and untrue cannot be distinguished), or by defining God as something which no one has ever thought God to be.

You've said that the fuzzy/contradictory/completely imaginary definitions are part of your conclusion that something cannot exist. You've said that a self-contradictory claim is a "no-claim." How are you able to rule that some kind of "great deceiver" (ugh, and I know who that sounds like) cannot exist? How can you determine that a simulation stack cannot exist (beyond Paul Davies's assertion, to which I agree, that the idea is useless). Do you not see a difference between "useless" and "cannot?"

ETA: To simplify my garble into one question:

Do you equate useless ideas with the subjects of useless ideas being forbidden?

I do think those "Matrix scenarios" are irrelevant.

These also are purely imaginary and unanchored.

What's worse, they take us into a realm where the very terms "real" and "unreal", "true" and "false", "exist" and "not exist" become indistinguishable.

In other words, God only becomes possible if we enter a purely speculative realm where the very notion of "exist" and "not exist" may not be distinguished.

If we must go to a realm where "real" and "not real" cannot be distinguished in order for God to be real, then God cannot be meaningfully said to be real. God can only be real if "real" and "unreal" become functionally equivalent, which is nonsense.

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 04:39 PM

Does the feeling/experience of a god exist? Does the hope of a god exist? Do the effects of the feeling of a god exist?

See where I'm going?

Sure. Similarly, when you're hearing voices, you are actually hearing those voices, if you're seeing the wall moving and sound (probably because of acid) you're seeing that. No one has ever claimed that love increases your chance of winning the lottery, or does anything other than alter the perceptions of those in love.

I'd say that no atheist would question that people can feel a desire to experience something greater than themselves, or hope to live on after death, or feel like someone is guiding their actions. Just when you start hypothesizing a God whose going around smiting people and flooding the continent and dropping big rocks with writing on them around, you have a problem (the same way you have a problem if you think nothing bad can happen if you're in love).

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:41 PM

I think a reasonable alteration would be to say that there is no god for all supernatural values of "god".

But this does not save God, because definitions which are not supernatural are either humpty-dumptyisms or are entirely equivalent to not-God (i.e. the mere physical universe).

And again, if God can only be real if we posit conditions in which God is not distinguishable from not-God, then God cannot be said meaningfully to exist.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 04:42 PM

or by defining God as something which no one has ever thought God to be.

Yes, "God only knows". But you are now using a religious argument.

If we must go to a realm where "real" and "not real" cannot be distinguished in order for God to be real, then God cannot be meaningfully said to be real. God can only be real if "real" and "unreal" become functionally equivalent, which is nonsense.

What if God was something that we simply haven't been able to detect yet?

Think about X-rays. We had no idea that they existed, until they were detected. Couldn't the same be said for god?

Bodhi Dharma Zen

18th March 2008, 04:43 PM

... someone who does not merely claim "I do not believe in God", but rather that there is, in fact, no God to believe in.

Which god? Are you claiming that every theist believe in the same god? if I say: "My god is the principle behind nature" does that makes me a believer in god?

Or do you believe that you have to clearly state that because any kind of phrasing that involves god implies that you believe in the same god others believe?

Say, for instance, that I talk to a Mormon, and he states "I'm convinced about the existence of god". Does this predisposes him to believe than when others talk about god... they are "really" talking about his god?

(for me this is your posture, denying god is denying your gods, not every other possible god).

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:44 PM

"What would you do if God was proven to be real?"

What would you do if Santa Claus took you on a ride in his sleigh?

That question pre-supposes the possible existence of God rather than examining the question of whether God may possibly exist.

or perhaps rather expressed as "How would you react to the insight that the whole lot of the Bibel, even the parts that condradict *everything*, was scientifically proven to be a completely accurate description of our reality?"

What would you do if the story of Peter Rabbit were scientifically proven to be historical?

Again, not a serious question, to my mind.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 04:44 PM

Sure. Similarly, when you're hearing voices, you are actually hearing those voices, if you're seeing the wall moving and sound (probably because of acid) you're seeing that. No one has ever claimed that love increases your chance of winning the lottery, or does anything other than alter the perceptions of those in love.

Neither does a Deist god.

I'd say that no atheist would question that people can feel a desire to experience something greater than themselves, or hope to live on after death, or feel like someone is guiding their actions. Just when you start hypothesizing a God whose going around smiting people and flooding the continent and dropping big rocks with writing on them around, you have a problem (the same way you have a problem if you think nothing bad can happen if you're in love).

But in that case, it has qualities.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:46 PM

You know: The God concept that is All-Powerful, All-KNowing, etc., etc.

How can you know such a God does not exist? What if it does, and it simply chose to not make you see it. Perhaps to test your faith, or the faith of others, who knows His will?! But, how do YOU know?!

Where would this all-knowing, all-powerful God be?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:49 PM

Its obviously a hypothetical.

Okay, so lets move through the hypothetical.

Hypothetically, lets assume computing power continues to increase virtually indefinitely. Quantum computers, even more exotic technologies, larger sizes, organic computing, all seems likely in the very long run. Give it, say, 2 million years beyond the level we're at now. Might be less. At this point, computing power is so immense that a single computer can do all the operations that every computer on this planet has ever done in an eyeblink.

Okay, now what would 'people' do with that (and I use the term loosely, as it will probably be a little loose by then). Well, a lot of things, probably stuff we haven't even thought of, but probably something they do now - simulations. Only instead of Spore, their Spore makes anything we have look like a joke. A fully realized virtual universe, complete with virtual intelligences, and virtual reality.

It would probably be a moderate to large project, even then. Lets say, in the history of the species, they only make 100-200 of them, to play around with.

One real universe. 100-200 simulations. Chances are, we're components of one of those simulations. And the simulating computer has all the powers we assign to God - full control of the simulation, full knowledge of everything in the simulation, full presence in every part of the simulation.

Hence why I'm an agnostic atheist. I really, really hope that isn't what is actually happening. However, I just can't see a way to rule out it being a logical possibility.

That's humpty-dumptyism. If God is defined as potentially a computer program, then it's not God, or at least, it's a God which (again) is indistinguishable from not-God.

It's also an invocation of the Great Deceiver trope, which has problems I've mentioned above.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:50 PM

Skeptics always open up for the possibility.

That is not true.

We don't need to be open to any "new evidence", for example, that the earth is actually shaped more like a frisbee than like a beach ball.

Some things we do know, and there ain't no going back.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:52 PM

The only thing that still makes me lean more toward the agnostic side is the possibility that the concept of god could very well elude us, much like an ant will never be able to do math.

As a strong atheist, do you have that in mind?

This doesn't wash with me.

This argument essentially holds that an as yet undefined thing might be real, which is a non-claim.

Jimbo07

18th March 2008, 04:52 PM

What's worse, they take us into a realm where the very terms "real" and "unreal", "true" and "false", "exist" and "not exist" become indistinguishable.

This isn't a bad answer, and I'm reasonably satisfied with it. It suggests that if I carry my argument much further, I'm going to have to argue strongly in favour of imaginary things.

I'm not sure what else I want to say yet, but for now I'm down to trying to distinguish fine points:

Is the phrase, "cannot be meaningfully said to exist," equivalent to, "cannot exist?"

The first seems to me to be saying that we cannot make a positive assertion, the second is a negtive assertion. Am I correct?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:55 PM

I should have said, why does having a different neurology make schizophrenia real, but god just an idea?

Because schizophrenia is by definition a state of delusion. That's what it's supposed to be. To be real, a state of delusion must exist.

Bread, on the other hand, is not qualified by states of delusion. If I hallucinate that I'm seeing bread, that doesn't make bread real.

No valid definition of God (and I mean God itself, the thing people really truly believe in) posits is as mere delusion with no corresponding substance. The faithful believe God is real, not a figment of their imaginations.

So in the case of God, as with bread, we must distinguish between the idea of the thing, and the thing itself. The two are not equivalent.

CFLarsen

18th March 2008, 04:57 PM

That is not true.

We don't need to be open to any "new evidence", for example, that the earth is actually shaped more like a frisbee than like a beach ball.

That would depend on how we measure it.

What shape is the Earth in the 4th dimension? The 5th, 6th, etc?

Some things we do know, and there ain't no going back.

Science as we know it today will never change?

What about evolution?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 04:59 PM

But if it has no qualities, what's to accept?

Nothing. Which is precisely what I do accept.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 05:01 PM

Does the feeling/experience of a god exist? Does the hope of a god exist? Do the effects of the feeling of a god exist?

See where I'm going?

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 05:02 PM

Sorry to leave off here for the day, but it's 7:00 and I have to log out. See y'all tomorrow.

Didn't expect this much traffic here. I may not be able to keep up, but I'll try to get around to as many questions as I can.

And yeah, I know I violated my rule and responded to a couple of comments. I'll try to do better. ;):D

Piscivore

18th March 2008, 05:13 PM

The faithful believe God is real, not a figment of their imaginations.

Actually, as a polypseudotheist, all of the many gods I honor are figments of my imagination.

Vincent Vega

18th March 2008, 06:52 PM

Where would this all-knowing, all-powerful God be?

That's your argument? I am dissapointed. Because you can't sense it it can't exist?

Outside the pond obviously, to continue the fish analogy. One can only hope to know within the limits of their own experience.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 07:42 PM

What if God was something that we simply haven't been able to detect yet?

What if God was what, exactly, that we haven't been able to detect yet?

Claims about entirely undefined entities are not claims at all.

It's like my claiming that a woogle exists. When you ask what it is, I say I have no clue, it's something we might run across one day, that's all.

This would be mere silliness.

It's claiming that your team cannot be defeated because you have no team.

Think about X-rays. We had no idea that they existed, until they were detected. Couldn't the same be said for god?

No. God is not something we have no idea about. God is an ancient concept, and there's no use pretending it might be something entirely different.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 07:46 PM

Which god?

Any God. You name it.

Are you claiming that every theist believe in the same god?

Nope.

if I say: "My god is the principle behind nature" does that makes me a believer in god?

All it makes you is a sloppy thinker.

Or do you believe that you have to clearly state that because any kind of phrasing that involves god implies that you believe in the same god others believe?

Nope.

Say, for instance, that I talk to a Mormon, and he states "I'm convinced about the existence of god". Does this predisposes him to believe than when others talk about god... they are "really" talking about his god?

Nope.

(for me this is your posture, denying god is denying your gods, not every other possible god).

Wrong again. I've said this very clearly. There is no possible definition of God which is valid (i.e. not mere humpty-dumptyism, or empty, or nonsense, or equivalent to not-God) which can be meaningfully said to possibly exist.

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 07:46 PM

That's humpty-dumptyism. If God is defined as potentially a computer program, then it's not God, or at least, it's a God which (again) is indistinguishable from not-God. A 'computer' with the capacity to idly exceed the thinking capacity of the entire human race while successfully simulating an entire universe bears no relationship to the adding machine you're typing on. It would be so far beyond merely sentient that we lack words to describe it. Not-God appears indistinguishable from God.

It's also an invocation of the Great Deceiver trope, which has problems I've mentioned above. Hmm? The Great Deceiver trope only has validity if we assume God is benevolent. Assuming an indifferent or malevolent God, there appears to be no real problem with God playing with humanity, besides the fact that we really, really, really hope it isn't happening.

The problem is that we don't appear to be pinning down the definition here. You keep stating that God-like entities would be indistinguishable from not-God. Is there, or is there not a meaning to the word? Can we make the definition 'something that possesses complete power over the entire universe and knows everything that occurs within it' or is that not acceptable.

Also note that God may be a particularly ancient concept, but that does NOT mean it is well-defined. Lightning, as a word, existed long before they had a real definition for what it was, beyond 'flash of loud destructive light in the sky'

Tricky

18th March 2008, 07:50 PM

Any God. You name it.
Multivac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question).

Piggy

18th March 2008, 07:53 PM

Is the phrase, "cannot be meaningfully said to exist," equivalent to, "cannot exist?"

The first seems to me to be saying that we cannot make a positive assertion, the second is a negtive assertion. Am I correct?

You might think of the former as a subset of the latter.

The reason God cannot exist is that the entire framework upon which the concept of God or gods rested -- the mythic, supernatural worldview -- has collapsed, and has been replaced by a naturalistic worldview which is now the only game in town.

The old views of God still persist, but they are clearly contrary to fact, so we may dispense easily with them.

Yet the urge to believe in God, as well as the strong cultural traditions of belief, persist even among those who are aware of this fact.

So all sorts of dodges and subterfuges arise to attempt to prop up the dead theory.

These include:

The appeal to the cookie jar.

Humpty-dumptyism.

Inventing entirely imaginary (unanchored) ad hoc realms devoid of qualities which serve only to house God.

Appealing to a future definition (one of the most bizarre ploys in the bag).

Defining God as equivalent to not-God.

Some of these devices are easily exposed by careful examination, which reveals that the conditions they propose (under which God may exist) require us to accept that God may be real only if "real" ceases to be different from "not real", or if "God" ceases to be different from "not God", or if "exist" ceases to be different from "not exist".

So there is a subset of false arguments for God which rest upon rendering the statement "God exists" non-meaningful.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 07:56 PM

That would depend on how we measure it.

What shape is the Earth in the 4th dimension? The 5th, 6th, etc?

No, it would not, because frisbees and beach balls are not hyperdimensional objects.

Science as we know it today will never change?

What about evolution?

Since I haven't made any such claim or addressed evolution, I fail to see the point of these questions.

Damien Evans

18th March 2008, 07:56 PM

Of course you are!! Just didn't know you wanted to be my friend ;)

Ah. Well, now you do.:)

Piggy

18th March 2008, 07:58 PM

That's your argument? I am dissapointed. Because you can't sense it it can't exist?

No, I'm seriously asking you that question.

Where do you propose such a thing would exist?

I am not claiming that everything we don't currently perceive must not exist.

Now, where would such a thing supposedly exist?

Apathia

18th March 2008, 07:58 PM

Oddly enough, I don't think "atheist mystic" must necessarily be oxymoronic, but in practice it probably always is.

Yes, once it gets translated into metaphysical language, it soon becomes moronic.

godofpie

18th March 2008, 08:09 PM

If anyone would like to prove Piggy wrong I'm happy to become your God. I do require a tithe of 10% of your earnings for the rest of your life. (Given the current financial situation in the USA for USA worshippers this has to be in Euros or gold not USA dollars.)

I promise I will be a more responsive God than the one with the long white beard that lives above the clouds and I will not demand the sacrifice of your first born - unless they repeatedly kick the back of my seat on a transatlantic flight.
I've got dibs on Darat. Piggy, I have never met Darat. I assume he exists because he posts here and he leads me to believe he is omnipotent and ambivalent which is exactly the same g.o.d.(good orderly direction) I found in AA. Since I started reading this forum especially the agnostic/atheist posts I have started to ask myself do I really need a g.o.d. to stay sober. My relationship with my g.o.d. is very simple. I say a prayer every night (not on my knees, just in bed and eyes closed) thanking g.o.d. for keeping me sober and asking that his/hers/they/its will be done in my life, not mine. All I can tell you is that I feel better when I say the prayer than when I don't. So, even though I kind of feel like a hypocrite, I am going to continue to pray. G.o.d. doesn't have to exist in a tangible sense to be beneficial to me. Could you concede that g.o.d. can exist as a thought?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 08:25 PM

Could you concede that g.o.d. can exist as a thought?

This is another case of confusing the idea of a thing with the thing itself.

Your thoughts did not create the universe or do any of the things attributed to God by those who believe in God.

A Christian Sceptic

18th March 2008, 09:04 PM

A Christian Sceptic

18th March 2008, 09:05 PM

Piggy:

This is a seperate question and I didn't want it associated with the first one.

Do you think certain types of beliefs are made based on probabilities? Do you think religious beliefs are the same way - or different?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 09:06 PM

Do you believe in love? What scientific evidence would you need to believe someone loves you? Would you also accept other evidence? If so, what kind? How much evidence do you need before you believe it?

Is there any doubt about love? All you have to do is look at human behavior to understand that it's real. The totality of human activity makes no sense without it.

But what does that have to do with God?

Piggy

18th March 2008, 09:08 PM

Do you think certain types of beliefs are made based on probabilities? Do you think religious beliefs are the same way - or different?

I'm afraid I don't understand you.

When I play poker, I make all sorts of judgments based on probabilities.

But again, what does this have to do with God?

Do I think religious beliefs are similar or different from what, exactly?

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 09:13 PM

Some of these devices are easily exposed by careful examination, which reveals that the conditions they propose (under which God may exist) require us to accept that God may be real only if "real" ceases to be different from "not real", or if "God" ceases to be different from "not God", or if "exist" ceases to be different from "not exist".Does this come in English?

A Christian Sceptic

18th March 2008, 09:20 PM

Is there any doubt about love? All you have to do is look at human behavior to understand that it's real. The totality of human activity makes no sense without it.

I was wondering what evidence you use to come to those conclusions? What about love for you?

But what does that have to do with God?

You only want God questions?

OK - is your belief about God based on probabilities? So that - currently you'd say there is no God because there is a 0% chance, or maybe a 5% chance He's there? So, in other words, it's so low - you've decided that there is no God. And if so, what percentage of probability do you need before you believe He's there?

A Christian Sceptic

18th March 2008, 09:23 PM

I'm afraid I don't understand you.

When I play poker, I make all sorts of judgments based on probabilities.

But again, what does this have to do with God?

Do I think religious beliefs are similar or different from what, exactly?

Yeah - reading it - it doesn't make much sense.:boggled: Sorry. I think I crossed some thoughts there.

Do you have any beliefs that you have that you've made based on probabilities?

-Fran-

18th March 2008, 09:28 PM

Ah. Well, now you do.:)

Aaaww :):blush:

Piggy

18th March 2008, 09:35 PM

Does this come in English?

Sure.

Let's take the case of claims such as "God might exist in another dimension we can't perceive" or "God may exist but be beyond our understanding".

Do we really need to take such claims seriously?

Well, no, actually we don't.

In these cases, we're asked to accept the notion that God may exist under conditions in which existence cannot be distinguished from non-existence, in which the terms "real" and "not real" have no functional difference.

And if God can be said to "exist" or to be "real" only under such conditions, then there is no meaningful claim of God's existence or reality.

Or let's take the case of the claim that "God is nature" or "God is the universe" or "God is whatever created the universe".

In these cases, any meaningful difference between God and mere physical reality is erased. So God is proposed to exist only under conditions in which God cannot be distinguished from not-God.

In all of these cases, the claim "God is real" or "God exists" become meaningless statements.

And to ask anyone to affirm that a meaningless statement may potentially be true is unreasonable.

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 09:42 PM

Sure.

Let's take the case of claims such as "God might exist in another dimension we can't perceive" or "God may exist but be beyond our understanding".

Do we really need to take such claims seriously?

Well, no, actually we don't.

In these cases, we're asked to accept the notion that God may exist under conditions in which existence cannot be distinguished from non-existence, in which the terms "real" and "not real" have no functional difference.

And if God can be said to "exist" or to be "real" only under such conditions, then there is no meaningful claim of God's existence or reality.

Or let's take the case of the claim that "God is nature" or "God is the universe" or "God is whatever created the universe".

In these cases, any meaningful difference between God and mere physical reality is erased. So God is proposed to exist only under conditions in which God cannot be distinguished from not-God.

In all of these cases, the claim "God is real" or "God exists" become meaningless statements.

And to ask anyone to affirm that a meaningless statement may potentially be true is unreasonable.

Hmm, well that would kill your rejection of what I wrote quite nicely, which is why I couldn't figure it out. The scenario posited with the simulation makes God and Not-God quite easily distinguishable.

Edit: Also agree with what Bodhi wrote below. You can't just write your definition of what God is in such a way that God cannot exist and then declare God doesn't exist because your definition is unworkable. I put forward my definition twice already, and you have both times avoided commenting on it, despite the fact that it does lay a reasonable framework for declaring a being God.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

18th March 2008, 09:42 PM

Wrong again. I've said this very clearly. There is no possible definition of God which is valid (i.e. not mere humpty-dumptyism, or empty, or nonsense, or equivalent to not-God) which can be meaningfully said to possibly exist.

Nope, this merely clear things up. You clearly state here that any definition should fit your own definition, ergo, you are playing a variant of strawman.

Tricky

18th March 2008, 09:43 PM

And to ask anyone to affirm that a meaningless statement may potentially be true is unreasonable.
To declare it false is also unreasonable. The only thing you can say is that it is meaningless.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 09:44 PM

I was wondering what evidence you use to come to those conclusions? What about love for you?
This thread is not about love. I need to understand the relevance here.

You only want God questions?

OK - is your belief about God based on probabilities? So that - currently you'd say there is no God because there is a 0% chance, or maybe a 5% chance He's there? So, in other words, it's so low - you've decided that there is no God. And if so, what percentage of probability do you need before you believe He's there?

No, probabilities have nothing to do with it for me.

It boils down to this:

The entire worldview which produced and allowed the god hypothesis has vanished. As a result, all claims about God's existence have been rendered contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or meaningless.

If we take the current claims about God and apply them to, say, flogiston -- another dead proposal which was replaced by a valid one, namely oxygen -- the silliness of modern God claims becomes apparent.

Once it was clear that oxygen, not flogiston, was the critical agent of combustion, suppose flogiston theorists had said things like:

"Actually, we were wrong about the properties of flogiston. We now believe it has properties identical to those of oxygen."

"You can't say flogiston doesn't exist because we might one day discover something currently entirely unknown which we could call flogiston if we so chose."

"You can't say flogiston doesn't exist because we've decided that it has no core properties, so anyone is free to make up any definition they choose, and you can't possibly refute them all, because they are infinite."

"Flogiston may exist, but on a higher plane of existence."

"Flogiston may be entirely beyond our understanding. If so, you can't possibly say it's not real, because by definition we'd all be ignorant of it."

"You can't say flogiston isn't real because someone might one day think of an entirely new definition for it which actually conforms to something we observe."

It's all rubbish.

And yet we're expected to accept such ridiculous arguments about God?

I think not.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 09:47 PM

To declare it false is also unreasonable. The only thing you can say is that it is meaningless.

This is one of the most persistent errors about God.

Meaningless statements have no possible truth value.

One does not need to "declare them false" or disprove them. That step is superfluous.

Take the meaningless statement "The Fourth of July is taller than C sharp minor".

It's mere childishness to assert that it cannot be disproved, then claim that this means that we must somehow hold out the possibility that it may be true.

Nonsense has no possible truth value. It needs no disproving.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 09:48 PM

Edit: Also agree with what Bodhi wrote below. You can't just write your definition of what God is in such a way that God cannot exist and then declare God doesn't exist because your definition is unworkable. I put forward my definition twice already, and you have both times avoided commenting on it, despite the fact that it does lay a reasonable framework for declaring a being God.

Put it in a question and I'll answer it.

Piggy

18th March 2008, 09:51 PM

Nope, this merely clear things up. You clearly state here that any definition should fit your own definition, ergo, you are playing a variant of strawman.

Wrong again. I've explained why the appeal to the cookie jar is invalid, and I'll be happy to explain why all possible definitions must end in these possibilities if the question is asked.

Hokulele

18th March 2008, 09:53 PM

If we take the current claims about God and apply them to, say, flogiston -- another dead proposal which was replaced by a valid one, namely oxygen -- the silliness of modern God claims becomes apparent.

Phlogiston

GreyICE

18th March 2008, 09:57 PM

Put it in a question and I'll answer it.

What characteristics or criteria would an entity or entities have to meet in order for them to be labeled God(s)?

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 12:34 AM

I'll ask you both the same question I asked Piggy. Piggy said, "cannot."

Is there a difference between useless/irrelevant and forbidden? Also, if there is, is it an important difference?"Forbidden"? Sorry, I don't get your point.

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 12:38 AM

I agree, but could there be some concept of god that is impossible to define because of our own limitations?

As I said earlier, an ant can't do math, never will be able to, but still the concepts and principles of math exist.

Am I making sense?No.

You can make all sorts of god definitions and then try to have science address gods so defined. That is fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

What does the evidence actually support? It overwhelmingly supports all god beliefs are myths of human imagination.

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 12:42 AM

No, he sees you as his top dog.

There's quite a difference.You don't know that. Can you read my dogs' minds?

But aside from that, it depends on how you define gods. If I were just top dog, then I would be with the pack most of the time, eat my fill and maybe let them have the leftovers, yadda yadda yadda. That is trying to fit my role into the animal model. That may be just as fallacious as trying to interpret everything animals do within a human framework.

No, I am god, their creator, the controller of their ultimate fate.

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 12:44 AM

It's not a very skeptical approach to assume so much about a Dog's perceptions is it? Where is the evidence?They worship me. :D The evidence for that is overwhelming.

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 12:49 AM

We know quite a bit about dog behavior/psychology: It's a pack animal, it needs to know its place in the pack, and can be trained to do various things, etc. There is nothing that tells us that dogs have supernatural beliefs.

Do you want to argue that animals have supernatural beliefs? That is indeed an extraordinary claim.Do you want to argue that because dogs view dogs a certain way they necessarily view their human owner in the same way?

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 12:59 AM

Oh, you're gonna love my calendar shot. ;)Which year is that? I'll buy one. I'm kind of curious.

I think there's an interesting question behind there.

Seems to me if we somehow destroyed all evidence and memory of religion overnight, it would have reinvented itself by next Thursday.

I believe the urge toward religious thought is an artifact of the way our brains are built.It may be that our brains are hard wired to find patterns and associations and to draw conclusions. But I have a more optimistic view here that given the fact humans have improved in our ability to systematically observe the Universe and that we have evolved a better understanding of how to determine cause and effect we would not be making the same mistakes made 100,000 years ago (give or take). Beliefs in gods is a remnant of the past. It is a growing pain we have yet to fully conquer. But to think we've made no progress and that god beliefs are simply part of the human condition, that I do not believe.

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 01:03 AM

I'm not sure that argument is entirely fair to the Deists. Assuming you have an entity who can create universes, influencing things that happen 14 or 15 billion years down the line during creation doesn't seem much more incredible than the premise.

Of course this argument quickly becomes moot (predestination versus free will) so screw it, it doesn't matter.

I was wondering if we can come up with a hypothetical description of God. I mean if we can't, then there's a semantical problem with the concept, and we can't even discuss it. I'll put forward: "Can accomplish anything within the universe, and knows everything that occurs within its bounds (all-powerful and all-knowing)"In that deist view of god, how does one explain the belief then? The deist god set things in motion and sat back to watch, how did god beliefs then arise?

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 01:07 AM

...What if God was something that we simply haven't been able to detect yet?...If gods are undetectable, then where did all the beliefs come from? Why are they so discrepant?

Skeptic Ginger

19th March 2008, 01:16 AM

Piggy:

Do you believe in love? What scientific evidence would you need to believe someone loves you? Would you also accept other evidence? If so, what kind? How much evidence do you need before you believe someone loves you?

NOTE: Yes - I know it's tempting to give a silly answer (with plenty of euphemisms), but I'm really hoping for a serious answer.To describe love as an intangible concept is merely the inability to actually conceptualize what love is. I have no trouble conceptualizing the thing called love. It exists. It has describable characteristics. It has measurable and observable characteristics. Just because some people are unable to articulate the qualities and characteristics and underlying psycho-social-biological qualities of love does not mean those qualities and characteristics are not there and do not exist as real things. They are there and they do exist. Gods are not analogous.

CFLarsen

19th March 2008, 02:32 AM

Nothing. Which is precisely what I do accept.

But if you don't have to accept anything wrt a deist god, what's your problem?

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

If you don't deny that feelings of love exist and feelings of a god exist, what is the difference?

What if God was what, exactly, that we haven't been able to detect yet?

Claims about entirely undefined entities are not claims at all.

It's like my claiming that a woogle exists. When you ask what it is, I say I have no clue, it's something we might run across one day, that's all.

This would be mere silliness.

What if I told you that there is something that make you believe in god - yet you can't see it, we haven't any clue as to what it is, and we can't measure it - yet?

No. God is not something we have no idea about. God is an ancient concept, and there's no use pretending it might be something entirely different.

But we had an idea that there was something that would later be called X-rays. X-rays is electromagnetic radiation that is between gamma rays and ultraviolet rays. The latter was discovered in 1801, so - since there was no reason to think that wavelengths shorter than ultraviolet rays was an impossibility, all it would take was to make something that would either produce those shorter-than-UV rays or detect them.

All it makes you is a sloppy thinker.

Can you name one person who has absolutely no beliefs of any kind?

Wrong again. I've said this very clearly. There is no possible definition of God which is valid (i.e. not mere humpty-dumptyism, or empty, or nonsense, or equivalent to not-God) which can be meaningfully said to possibly exist.

"Nonsense", "meaningful". Those are all value statements, not statements of facts.

You might think of the former as a subset of the latter.

The reason God cannot exist is that the entire framework upon which the concept of God or gods rested -- the mythic, supernatural worldview -- has collapsed, and has been replaced by a naturalistic worldview which is now the only game in town.

It is the best explanation we have - so far. But it isn't the only one.

Some of these devices are easily exposed by careful examination, which reveals that the conditions they propose (under which God may exist) require us to accept that God may be real only if "real" ceases to be different from "not real", or if "God" ceases to be different from "not God", or if "exist" ceases to be different from "not exist".

So there is a subset of false arguments for God which rest upon rendering the statement "God exists" non-meaningful.

To you, no. But you can't deny that the idea of God is meaningful to others.

No, it would not, because frisbees and beach balls are not hyperdimensional objects.

Oh? How do you know? Because the way they are defined?

Since I haven't made any such claim or addressed evolution, I fail to see the point of these questions.

Here's the point: Evolution is a fact. We're pretty good at pointing that out, when we debate creationists. "The theory of Evolution is a theory, sure, but evolution is a fact". You know how it goes.

Do you think evolution will ever be proven false?

No, I'm seriously asking you that question.

Where do you propose such a thing would exist?

I am not claiming that everything we don't currently perceive must not exist.

Now, where would such a thing supposedly exist?

In a place we haven't looked. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

This is another case of confusing the idea of a thing with the thing itself.

Your thoughts did not create the universe or do any of the things attributed to God by those who believe in God.

Heard of the creationist explanation of fossils being buried there by God to test our faith?

It could be true - only it falls outside a scientific explanation, since the explanation is non-falsifiable.

Is there any doubt about love? All you have to do is look at human behavior to understand that it's real. The totality of human activity makes no sense without it.

But what does that have to do with God?

There is much doubt about love. E.g., the way we view "love" in the western world is very different to how other cultures view it.

You got a definition of "love" nailed down?

Hmm, well that would kill your rejection of what I wrote quite nicely, which is why I couldn't figure it out. The scenario posited with the simulation makes God and Not-God quite easily distinguishable.

Edit: Also agree with what Bodhi wrote below. You can't just write your definition of what God is in such a way that God cannot exist and then declare God doesn't exist because your definition is unworkable. I put forward my definition twice already, and you have both times avoided commenting on it, despite the fact that it does lay a reasonable framework for declaring a being God.

Precisely.

Let's say you and I were twins. We are brought up exactly the same way, as Catholics. We go to the same classes, we are told the exact same thing.

But if we are questioned about God, we won't give the same answers. To me, god would be one thing, to you another. Sure, there would be huge overlaps, but at some point, somewhere, we would disagree on what god is.

This thread is not about love. I need to understand the relevance here.

Love is a concept that encompasses a lot of different things, depending on who you are.

The entire worldview which produced and allowed the god hypothesis has vanished. As a result, all claims about God's existence have been rendered contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or meaningless.

If we take the current claims about God and apply them to, say, flogiston -- another dead proposal which was replaced by a valid one, namely oxygen -- the silliness of modern God claims becomes apparent.

Once it was clear that oxygen, not flogiston, was the critical agent of combustion, suppose flogiston theorists had said things like:

"Actually, we were wrong about the properties of flogiston. We now believe it has properties identical to those of oxygen."

"You can't say flogiston doesn't exist because we might one day discover something currently entirely unknown which we could call flogiston if we so chose."

"You can't say flogiston doesn't exist because we've decided that it has no core properties, so anyone is free to make up any definition they choose, and you can't possibly refute them all, because they are infinite."

"Flogiston may exist, but on a higher plane of existence."

"Flogiston may be entirely beyond our understanding. If so, you can't possibly say it's not real, because by definition we'd all be ignorant of it."

"You can't say flogiston isn't real because someone might one day think of an entirely new definition for it which actually conforms to something we observe."

It's all rubbish.

And yet we're expected to accept such ridiculous arguments about God?

I think not.

As long as the arguments take into account that this could, in the future, be so, yes. Today, however, we have a much better explanation, namely science.

But that doesn't mean that we won't find an even better explanation of the world in the future, one that could also encompass god.

This is one of the most persistent errors about God.

Meaningless statements have no possible truth value.

One does not need to "declare them false" or disprove them. That step is superfluous.

Take the meaningless statement "The Fourth of July is taller than C sharp minor".

It's mere childishness to assert that it cannot be disproved, then claim that this means that we must somehow hold out the possibility that it may be true.

Nonsense has no possible truth value. It needs no disproving.

Again, you use value statements: Meaningless, superfluous, childishness, nonsense.

Do you think quantum physics make sense?

Wrong again. I've explained why the appeal to the cookie jar is invalid, and I'll be happy to explain why all possible definitions must end in these possibilities if the question is asked.

But then, your mind is closed to new possibilities. You cannot call yourself a skeptic, then.

CFLarsen

19th March 2008, 02:34 AM

You can make all sorts of god definitions and then try to have science address gods so defined. That is fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

We do that in science all the time: Invent definitions and hypotheses which we test against scientific findings.

The difference is that in science, we throw out the definitions and hypotheses if the facts show them false.

You don't know that. Can you read my dogs' minds?

That's what you are doing: Reading your dogs' minds.

But aside from that, it depends on how you define gods. If I were just top dog, then I would be with the pack most of the time, eat my fill and maybe let them have the leftovers, yadda yadda yadda. That is trying to fit my role into the animal model. That may be just as fallacious as trying to interpret everything animals do within a human framework.

No, I am god, their creator, the controller of their ultimate fate.

And yet, they can bite you. They can try to take control over a whole family. Precisely as they can do in a pack.

They worship me. :D The evidence for that is overwhelming.

Show your evidence, then.

Do you want to argue that because dogs view dogs a certain way they necessarily view their human owner in the same way?

What behavior is so different that you think that dogs have supernatural beliefs?

It may be that our brains are hard wired to find patterns and associations and to draw conclusions. But I have a more optimistic view here that given the fact humans have improved in our ability to systematically observe the Universe and that we have evolved a better understanding of how to determine cause and effect we would not be making the same mistakes made 100,000 years ago (give or take). Beliefs in gods is a remnant of the past. It is a growing pain we have yet to fully conquer. But to think we've made no progress and that god beliefs are simply part of the human condition, that I do not believe.

And yet, people still flock to various religions, and all sorts of new age beliefs.

How do you explain that?

In that deist view of god, how does one explain the belief then? The deist god set things in motion and sat back to watch, how did god beliefs then arise?

Maybe we discovered that it was an explanation that made sense to us?

If gods are undetectable, then where did all the beliefs come from? Why are they so discrepant?

Because we are also as humans equipped with something called imagination?