Ask a Radical Atheist

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think so, as CFLarsen said, aren't scientists doing that all the time, come up with an hypothesis and try to see if it's true (especially in astrophysics)?

No, this misconstrues the concept. Hypotheses are generated to explain an observed phenomena. They aren't generated out of the blue such as this example:

Gee I think it's possible that we are really in the Matrix. I think I'll see if there is a way to unplug and discover the real world outside my consciousness.

You are Claus are changing the god definition just like moving a goal post. There are many god beliefs. There are a finite number of god beliefs. As the evidence accumulates against each god belief, then theists and agnostics adjust the definition of 'god' to exclude the value of that evidence.

If there is no evidence god throws lightning bolts at people or sets off volcanoes as a reaction to human activity, then gods don't manipulate weather and plate tectonics. If there is no evidence god created the Universe in 7 days, then "days" must mean something else. If there is no evidence god answers prayers, then gods don't answer prayers.

Eventually, you reach the point where you have to define god as creating everything then no longer interacting with the Universe. That is the deist view Claus is do find of. It is apparent there really are no gods operating within the Universe, so just define god as undetectable. Now you've moved the goalpost out of the reach of scientific inquiry.

There are several problems with that concept. The most obvious should be the absurdity of it. But even ignoring that, how did this god which doesn't interact within the Universe make it's presence known to people? How does it make it's requests for various rituals and behaviors known? If it does so by magic, then how did all the mythical god beliefs we have shown are invalid originate? You begin to get into logical absurdities.

You can continue to define that undetectable god that doesn't interact with the Universe. It is an irrelevant god by definition.

But look at it from an objective viewpoint. You have taken the conclusion, gods exist, and fit the evidence to the conclusion. If there is no evidence gods exist, then gods must be undetectable. It is absurd and a circular argument as well. If gods are undetectable, then we shouldn't know anything about them and if we don't know anything about them, then why are people even considering their potential?

If, OTOH, you follow the evidence, then you find it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that people made belief in gods up in an attempt to explain things and exert control over things in the natural world they felt otherwise powerless to control. And in none of those god definitions do you find a god that doesn't interact with the Universe.

The deist god definition is no more than a security blanket for people afraid to consider all god beliefs are equally mythical.

What I was trying to say is that there could be a concept of god that we haven't thought out yet, just like black holes wasn't even close from being a concept 500 years ago, or just like math is not a concept for ants, and most likely will never be given their constitution (but who knows, maybe in a few millions years they'll evolve into sentient beings).

True, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm not talking about a god that interacts with us haphazardly, or that gives us directions (contradictory ones), but some kind of "purpose" to the universe, or something.

Are you arguing we might find a sentient being operating within the laws of nature someday? Or are you arguing we might find a god which can defy the laws of nature?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tricky, I edited this into an earlier post but after you replied so here it is again:

OTOH, you say you are including god beliefs equally with invisible garage dragons, then you are stating a scientific principle.

But why argue so adamantly that we apply this principle to god beliefs? Would it really come up so often if it weren't for the nature of theistic beliefs and their pervasiveness within the human species? Yet the evidence is no greater for theist beliefs than it is for invisible garage dragons.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
You and I probably don't differ philosophically in any measurable way as to our lack of belief in woo. Like Martu, you prefer to round.

Yes, that concept is apt. But don't forget I have also added in, following the evidence to the conclusion that god beliefs are better explained as the result of human imagination than they are explained by human contact or interaction with actual gods.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, this misconstrues the concept. Hypotheses are generated to explain an observed phenomena. They aren't generated out of the blue such as this example:

Gee I think it's possible that we are really in the Matrix. I think I'll see if there is a way to unplug and discover the real world outside my consciousness.

Utter nonsense. When we discovered the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, we could hypothesize about the windows we hadn't observed, without having anything to observe.

You are Claus are changing the god definition just like moving a goal post.

Utter nonsense. I am not changing any god definition.

There are many god beliefs. There are a finite number of god beliefs. As the evidence accumulates against each god belief, then theists and agnostics adjust the definition of 'god' to exclude the value of that evidence.

Some do - some don't. Some stick to their beliefs, and acknowledge that what they have is merely belief.

Don't be so quick to label all believers hypocrites.

Eventually, you reach the point where you have to define god as creating everything then no longer interacting with the Universe. That is the deist view Claus is do find of.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Please clarify.

There are several problems with that concept. The most obvious should be the absurdity of it.

It may be absurd to you, but it isn't to the deists.

But even ignoring that, how did this god which doesn't interact within the Universe make it's presence known to people? How does it make it's requests for various rituals and behaviors known? If it does so by magic, then how did all the mythical god beliefs we have shown are invalid originate? You begin to get into logical absurdities.

Now you are conflating a deist god with an intervening god. Please present a coherent argument, instead of rambling on about religious people in general.

You can continue to define that undetectable god that doesn't interact with the Universe. It is an irrelevant god by definition.

To you, perhaps. It isn't to those who believe in such a god.

But look at it from an objective viewpoint.

You have proven, time and again, that you are incapable of doing just that.

You have taken the conclusion, gods exist, and fit the evidence to the conclusion. If there is no evidence gods exist, then gods must be undetectable. It is absurd and a circular argument as well. If gods are undetectable, then we shouldn't know anything about them and if we don't know anything about them, then why are people even considering their potential?

Because it comforts them.

You keep rejecting this as an explanation.

The deist god definition is no more than a security blanket for people afraid to consider all god beliefs are equally mythical.

So what? What's it to you?

Are you arguing we might find a sentient being operating within the laws of nature someday? Or are you arguing we might find a god which can defy the laws of nature?

Do you think that we might find either? That it is possible - however unlikely?

And could you answer post #241? If you can talk about me, then you can respond to my posts, when I take the time to respond to yours.

 

[Tricky]

OTOH, you say you are including god beliefs equally with invisible garage dragons, then you are stating a scientific principle.

But why argue so adamantly that we apply this principle to god beliefs? Would it really come up so often if it weren't for the nature of theistic beliefs and their pervasiveness within the human species? Yet the evidence is no greater for theist beliefs than it is for invisible garage dragons.

I think it is important to treat theist beliefs the same as you do invisible garage dragons. After all, what are theistic beliefs but something like an invisible garage dragon that got lucky?

As to why theistic beliefs are so pervasive and persistent, well, there are lots of threads on that. I don't want to derail.

Yes, that concept is apt. But don't forget I have also added in, following the evidence to the conclusion that god beliefs are better explained as the result of human imagination than they are explained by human contact or interaction with actual gods.

LOL. Indeed they are better explained by that, although I think that imagination is the tool, but the reason for the invention of gods is because, like good little DNA bottles should, we try hard not to die. Oops. Derailing anyway.

But yes, whatever infinitesimal percentage (call it "G") of a probability that gods actually exist, the percentage chance that they are creations of our imagination is 100 - G. Better than Ivory Soap's purity.

 

[Jimbo07]

Hello. Why did you think this was childish?

I didn't. Piggy called these sorts of arguments childish, and I was just giving a nod in that direction.

I would chalk that up to Piggy's literary license within the discussion.

No doubt, but we are no longer talking about: agnosticism, agnostic atheism, atheism, weak atheism or even strong atheism. Piggy is going after a position that has been termed "Radical Atheist." From what I understood from the O.P. the radical atheist says neither, "that God probably does not exist," nor, "that God does not exist," but goes so far as to say, "that God cannot exist."

But looking at it another way, how many god beliefs need to be debunked before you can say there is a pattern here and the evidence is mounting against ever finding one god belief based in fact?

You need only one case. It is the bane of skeptics, debunkers, atheists, scholars, scientists. Intellectual honesty demands that a failure makes us reexamine our assertions. It's not a problem, if you're not intellectually honest .

The next step is to say we find a natural explanation for everything we observe in the Universe.

Then you conclude that the Universe demonstrates to us that there are natural laws operating.

A god, by definition could defy those laws. In order to have a god, you have to have a Universe where natural laws could be defied.

You haven't shown that natural laws cannot be defied by something that can defy natural laws. In short, this doesn't account for some kind of... creature... that can exist due to a failure of formal logic.

If we have a Universe where the set of natural laws function, then by definition, a god does not exist within that universe.

If we have a Universe where the set of natural laws (routinely, typically, observed so far, locally) function, then by definition, a God can do whatever glorx (fifth gender pronoun ) pleases.

You can argue over 'does not' vs 'cannot'. But keep in mind that once you have a god, then you have to give up the Universe governed by natural laws.

Yes, but this is the opposite of what you were saying before.

You've just said that God's existence means that any natural laws are fleeting and can arbitrarily be set aside. I fully agree. If God exists... TRUST NOTHING! (same with magick, the matrix, etc.)

BUT having what appear to us to be natural laws does not "expressly forbid" (cannot) the above from happening.

 

[Pardalis]

No, this misconstrues the concept. Hypotheses are generated to explain an observed phenomena. They aren't generated out of the blue such as this example:

Gee I think it's possible that we are really in the Matrix. I think I'll see if there is a way to unplug and discover the real world outside my consciousness.

Good point, but that's not was I was implying. I'm not even sure it can be possible to observe "god" and to test it. I don't even want to try to give you a definition because that's exactly my point, there could be a concept that is beyond our reach of comprehension.

You are Claus are changing the god definition just like moving a goal post.

I'm not even proposing a definition of God. I don't necessarily agree with Claus, I just referred to his point about starting with an hypothesis and trying it out. In the case of god, I don't think you can try it out. Of course that has no scientific merit, but this isn't necessarily a scientific question.

Eventually, you reach the point where you have to define god as creating everything then no longer interacting with the Universe.

Maybe it's beyond that, I'm just saying the very concepts of "creation", and "it", and "interacting with the Universe" may be something else entirely, that we can't even fathom.

But even ignoring that, how did this god which doesn't interact within the Universe make it's presence known to people?

Again, I'm not talking about that god.

But look at it from an objective viewpoint. You have taken the conclusion, gods exist, and fit the evidence to the conclusion.

I haven't taken that conclusion at all. I'm just saying I don't know (and I don't really care to be honest, nothing to lose sleep over).

If there is no evidence gods exist, then gods must be undetectable. It is absurd and a circular argument as well. If gods are undetectable, then we shouldn't know anything about them and if we don't know anything about them, then why are people even considering their potential?

Think ot the example I keep repeating, the ant. To them alot of things are undetectable, but yet they exist. Humans don't have an infinite capability of understanding everything. We have limits, just like ants.

If, OTOH, you follow the evidence, then you find it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that people made belief in gods up in an attempt to explain things and exert control over things in the natural world they felt otherwise powerless to control. And in none of those god definitions do you find a god that doesn't interact with the Universe.

The deist god definition is no more than a security blanket for people afraid to consider all god beliefs are equally mythical.

I agree completely.

Are you arguing we might find a sentient being operating within the laws of nature someday? Or are you arguing we might find a god which can defy the laws of nature?

No.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Piggy,

If God cured your assmar, then would you believe in Him?

-Sir Drinks-a-lot

 

[martu]

Yes, that concept is apt. But don't forget I have also added in, following the evidence to the conclusion that god beliefs are better explained as the result of human imagination than they are explained by human contact or interaction with actual gods.

I'll round that up if I may.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't. Piggy called these sorts of arguments childish, and I was just giving a nod in that direction.



No doubt, but we are no longer talking about: agnosticism, agnostic atheism, atheism, weak atheism or even strong atheism. Piggy is going after a position that has been termed "Radical Atheist." From what I understood from the O.P. the radical atheist says neither, "that God probably does not exist," nor, "that God does not exist," but goes so far as to say, "that God cannot exist."



You need only one case. It is the bane of skeptics, debunkers, atheists, scholars, scientists. Intellectual honesty demands that a failure makes us reexamine our assertions. It's not a problem, if you're not intellectually honest .



You haven't shown that natural laws cannot be defied by something that can defy natural laws. In short, this doesn't account for some kind of... creature... that can exist due to a failure of formal logic.



If we have a Universe where the set of natural laws (routinely, typically, observed so far, locally) function, then by definition, a God can do whatever glorx (fifth gender pronoun ) pleases.



Yes, but this is the opposite of what you were saying before.

You've just said that God's existence means that any natural laws are fleeting and can arbitrarily be set aside. I fully agree. If God exists... TRUST NOTHING! (same with magick, the matrix, etc.)

BUT having what appear to us to be natural laws does not "expressly forbid" (cannot) the above from happening.

This posts reflects the problem of trying to answer single lines in a post without trying to look at the whole context of the post. I gave you an example of how one gets to an end result and you tried to address each step of the way in isolation.

Start over. There are sometimes different ways to view a problem. You can focus on the word "cannot" which is what you did.

How do you define the word 'god'? I include 'defies the laws of nature' in my definition since that is the core thing that distinguishes a 'god' from just highly skilled or valued people.

Either you have a natural Universe or you have one that has magical beings in it which defy the laws of nature. One excludes the other.

If you want to start moving the god definition goal post or claiming that defying the laws of nature can happen, then you are back to making the semantics argument. But if you want to use the definition of god as it would be if you weren't trying to fit the evidence to the conclusion, and if you accept that science is based on a natural Universe, then you cannot have both. A natural Universe excludes a god which defies the laws of the natural Universe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll round that up if I may.

 

[CFLarsen]

Please address post #241 and #284.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good point, but that's not was I was implying. [snip]

I have no issue with someone saying they have not followed the evidence to its conclusion or even thought the whole god concept through. In that case being agnostic is reasonable.

The problem I have is with people who have thought it through. There are two agnostic outcomes then.

One is the agnostic who is just referring to scientific purism that you cannot prove the negative and one always leaves open the possibility new evidence can surface in the future. I'm not concerned with this position. It is the equivalent of nit picking that the theory of gravity is just a theory. It is a semantics argument IMO.

But the second agnostic outcome is I think, wrong. That is the one where the agnostic makes the claim you cannot disprove the existence of gods because they really might be there. And not 'possibly there' as in invisible pink unicorns, but 'possibly there' as in we really don't have enough evidence to rule gods out. 'Faith based beliefs' are also differentiated from 'non-evidence based beliefs'. That elevates the lack of evidence as if there were 2 levels of 'no evidence'. There isn't.

I started a thread asking people to explain how they rationalize god beliefs while recognizing religious myths. No answer was ever articulated which actually replied to that challenge. How can a skeptic have no trouble dismissing Thor and Zeus yet have trouble concluding with equal certainty other god beliefs are similar myths? I have no trouble. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please address post #241 and #284.

Summarize your issues and I will. I don't find it productive to argue every sentence with you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Summarize your issues and I will. I don't find it productive to argue every sentence with you.

Don't play that game.

Just address post #241 and #284.

It's perfectly simple.

 

[Piggy]

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

Well, that's the problem. The concept is so plastic that there are no agreed upon core qualities.

Certain things are certainly not God. A cheese sandwich is not God.

But it's impossible to say what God is, because the concept is so unbounded that no core set of qualities can be laid down.

 

[Piggy]

[nitpick]

Phlogiston

[/nitpick]

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Piggy]

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?

I have no problem. It's an empty concept, therefore there are no meaningful claims about it, therefore nothing to refute. No problem.

 

[Piggy]

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

Just as we should not should not confuse the idea of a thing with the thing itself, we should not confuse feelings about a thing with the thing itself.

I can have feelings about unicorns. Doesn't mean they exist.

Love, of course, IS a feeling. God, however, is not a feeling. The universe was not created by our emotions. The faithful do not pray to our emotions.

This is transparently obvious.

You're being frivolous here.

 

[Piggy]

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?

What if you told me that?

If you told me that, I'd say you were wrong.

There is a perfectly reasonable theory to explain why we believe in God, which is not in itself supernatural.

If you told me that something indetectable was making me believe in God, I'd point out that you're engaging in empty verbiage.