Ask a Radical Atheist

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because he's Claus.

[short derail]I propose a contest. If anyone can find a single post by Claus among his 39,300+ posts where Claus clearly and plainly states he was wrong they win. Claus, you are included, perhaps you can save us the work.

I know of at least one discussion where I believe Piggy expressed willingness to reconsider his conclusion based on new information. That would be re-consideration of non-human primates learning human language.

I have at least a handful. Granted, it is uncommon. However, that is because I usually post about stuff I have a lot of knowledge about.

This is not intended to have a laugh at your expense, Claus. I truly wonder if you are aware you never and I do mean absolutely never change your initial opinion in an exchange. I would love to find out that was wrong.[/short derail]

If anyone wants to pursue this we can start a new thread.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Is "there are no demons" and absurd statement?

How about "there are no thetans"?

How about "there are no such thing as ghosts"?

There is no real magic?

Why would a statement about god be any more absurd?

Simply because more meanings "fit" the word. Your god could be personal (Christians, Muslims), could be impersonal (some forms of Hinduism or even Judaism), could be even more abstract, (some naturalists have said that their god is the principle behind nature). Thats why.

 

[articulett]

I just want to add that I've seen Piggy cede points as well...

Claus--never.

I don't think has the basic awareness that, to the majority, his points seem to exist in mind. To me, he's "tangent stalker man" who no one quite understands... though in his head he's "Uber Skeptic--JREF Vigilante and Ombudsman".

 

[Limbo]

Claus,

It can be as hard talking to radical atheists as it is talking to religious fundamentalists, yes?

Piggy,

I see no point asking you any further questions.

 

[Piggy]

No, you don't. Because you summarily dismiss any counter-argument as "meaningless", regardless of the validity of said argument.

You are not willing to admit that you could be wrong.

Pardon my French, but that is complete b******t.

Your kneejerk response that all skeptics must always be open to new evidence for any and every proposition is mere dogma.

All you have to do to change my mind is to demonstrate how I am mistaken.

You have utterly failed to do so.

This mantra of yours is a poor loincloth.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, would you be so kind as to define exactly what you mean by "Humpty-dumpytism"? I have a vague idea that might be incorrect.

Humpty-dumptyism is defining a word or phrase to mean what you want it to mean, rather than what it is generally accepted to mean.

 

[Piggy]

On which ground you can tell them that your definition is valid and theirs is not?

My arguments do not depend on any single definition of God.

Please stop pretending that they do.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy,

I see no point asking you any further questions.

Fwiw, I see no point in you asking me any further questions either, since your questions thus far have been irrelevant and frivolous.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But Piggy, do you believe that aphoisokjes exist?

 

[Piggy]

But Piggy, do you believe that aphoisokjes exist?

Define them and I'll tell you.

I do, however, absolutely believe in potrzebie.

 

[Piggy]

Your god could be personal (Christians, Muslims), could be impersonal (some forms of Hinduism or even Judaism), could be even more abstract, (some naturalists have said that their god is the principle behind nature).

And not one of them could be meaningfully said to be God and to potentially exist.

Care to challenge me on that?

Then get off the pot and engage me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Define them and I'll tell you.

Well, it use to mean Leprechaun, but that's so easily falsifiable. So I'm gonna say that aphoisokjes is vaguely defined and no one can come to any consensus on the definition, therefore you can't prove it doesn't exist.

 

[Piggy]

Well, it use to mean Leprechaun, but that's so easily falsifiable. So I'm gonna say that aphoisokjes is vaguely defined and no one can come to any consensus on the definition, therefore you can't prove it doesn't exist.

Oh, but we've already done that.

Claims regarding undefined entities are non-claims.

They require no refutation.

 

[Tricky]

Actually, Claus keeps a little file of the times he's admitted he was wrong. Let me preempt him (and win Skeptigirl's prize) here.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Example.

Occasionally he has admitted getting a statistic wrong. Or a name. If you're looking for examples where he admitted his reasoning was wrong, you won't find them in those links.

 

[Limbo]

Claims regarding undefined entities are non-claims.

They require no refutation.

Wait a minute, I'm confused. Earlier you said, "My arguments do not depend on any single definition of God." So no matter what someones particular definition of God is, you will apply your arguments to it and then you win and so the definition doesn't matter, yes? But then you say undefined ones don't matter either.

So it's a lose-lose situation for those who try to debate you, isn't it? If they have a definition, it doesn't matter. If they don't it doesn't matter. You've covered your ass pretty well, haven't you?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, but we've already done that.

Claims regarding undefined entities are non-claims.

They require no refutation.

I agree. If a definition for a noun cannot be agreed upon, then it's meaningless and quite reasonable to say such a thing doesn't exist. Of course, this is lost on some people. "God" has a clear definition to most religious people, and for the rest, the definition is vague because they don't want their idea of "god" to be falsifiable.

Limbo, feel free to give Piggy a definition of "god" and maybe he can address it.

 

[GreyICE]

Oh, but we've already done that.

Claims regarding undefined entities are non-claims.

They require no refutation.

I note a continuing lack of participation on your part in locating a suitable definition. While I'm sure its not exactly your sole job to define it, your lack of interest renders this equivalent to making an entire thread that, to essentially says:

"I am very very sure I don't believe in something, but I'm not quite sure what it is I'm disbelieving." Not the most stellar argument that a rational thought process is going on, I have to admit.

 

[articulett]

How else can he not believe in someone's god unless they define it.

I maintain that if your god involves invisible and immeasurable forms of consciousness--and most gods do-- we can claim it doesn't exist for the same reason we can claim, ghosts, fairies, thetans and demons don't exist.

Just because you make your god "poorly defined" doesn't make it real or believable or likely to exist in any way. Are you as obtuse as Claus?

Piggy, like myself, does not believe any supernatural claim. We can say we don't believe in god as confidently as we can say we don't believe in thetans. There is no reason the existent of one nebulously defined thing is more likely to exist than the other. Period. Any argument you make for your god is useless if it can be used to substantiate a belief in thetans, demons, psychic powers or some other woo you don't believe.

 

[GreyICE]

How else can he not believe in someone's god unless they define it.

I maintain that if your god involves invisible and immeasurable forms of consciousness--and most gods do-- we can claim it doesn't exist for the same reason we can claim, ghosts, fairies, thetans and demons don't exist.

Just because you make your god "poorly defined" doesn't make it real or believable or likely to exist in any way. Are you as obtuse as Claus?

Piggy, like myself, does not believe any supernatural claim. We can say we don't believe in god as confidently as we can say we don't believe in thetans. There is no reason the existent of one nebulously defined thing is more likely to exist than the other. Period. Any argument you make for your god is useless if it can be used to substantiate a belief in thetans, demons, psychic powers or some other woo you don't believe.

The funny thing is that there are a lot of definitions of God, and they're all very easy to disbelieve, because they make no sense. However that just leaves you with a pile of disbelieved definitions.

That leaves you where I am, atheist-agnostic.

Aggregating all the definitions, and attempting to steamroll them into all future definitions so you arrive at positive atheism doesn't seem logical to me.

(P.S. I see you're still clicking the read button)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[short derail]I propose a contest. If anyone can find a single post by Claus among his 39,300+ posts where Claus clearly and plainly states he was wrong they win. Claus, you are included, perhaps you can save us the work.

I know of at least one discussion where I believe Piggy expressed willingness to reconsider his conclusion based on new information. That would be re-consideration of non-human primates learning human language.

I have at least a handful. Granted, it is uncommon. However, that is because I usually post about stuff I have a lot of knowledge about.

This is not intended to have a laugh at your expense, Claus. I truly wonder if you are aware you never and I do mean absolutely never change your initial opinion in an exchange. I would love to find out that was wrong.[/short derail]

If anyone wants to pursue this we can start a new thread.

I have been advised that I need to clarify this. The error must be more than something banal. If it is merely a name or number or some other single fact that is incorrect, that is not sufficient. The post we are looking for is one in which a conclusion is changed based on the information presented by another person. That is what Claus is asking of Piggy, to be open to changing a conclusion should convincing evidence be presented.

This definitely needs a new thread since it is too far off topic to be included in this one. I shall start one.