Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piscivore]

Excuse me, but human beings left every one of these artifacts.

Well, I wasn't claiming dogs made up god. (That, as I recall, was Claus' assertion). God is the reason that humans did all those things, though, isn't it?

The notion of God is not God.

Why not? There is the same kind and quantity of evidence for "God" as there is "America", isn't there?

And we have a perfectly good explanation of why people should believe in God even if God is not real.

"Should" is no part of my definition. The reason they do is irrelevant.

These are not qualities of God. These are things you might claim God does.

What is the difference? That's like saying "making things fall down" isn't a quality of gravity, it's just something it does.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. If your definition does not include a faith component, then you're contradicting those who actually claim God is real -- the faithful.

Not all the faithful require faith as a prerequisite of god's existance. Have you never heard "it doesn't matter if you believe in god, he believes in you"? It isn't part of their definition, and it isn't part of mine.

Your understanding of germ theory is not HD-ism, if your understanding agrees with what the theory actually is.

Right. So if I understand what's really going on with the faithful, why do I need to rely on their misconceptions for my definition?

A claim that God is created by human beings -- yeah, that's HD-ism, because the faithful don't actually think that.

I'm not giving the faithful's definition, I'm giving mine.

 

[Piggy]

@Piggy

Eric Clapton?

Y'know, I never understood the whole "Clapton is God" thing.

I mean, if I want to listen to a white boy play the blues, I'm gonna listen to Stevie Ray, or Lowell George, or JJ Cale.

Don't get me wrong, Eric knows his way around a fretboard like nobody's business. But his real strengths are psychedelic jamming, on the one hand, and pop tunes like "Wonderful Tonight" on the other.

He's an excellent guitarist, but I don't feel a whole lotta soul in him. When he got together with Winwood for "Dear Mr. Fantasy", Steve blew him off the stage.

And if I were Clapton, I'd shake in my boots before matching my axe with Duane Allman or Dickey Betts.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think there is a difference. Einstein for sure was not seriously saying that the universe was god. He was stating that he personally saw it as his "god", the thing he reveres most. That would not work for religious people who see god as an entity far superior to anything in this universe.

Yes, but I think it may be one switch we need to make in the way they see god and the universe. Take them away from what I would consider nonsensical notions and fix it all within a monistic scheme where the only possibility is Einstein's god. We have to rid ourselves of dualistic language. It is a disease.

Although I do agree with you on the idea that complete breaks with the past are very difficult, I think you are suggesting something even more difficult. You are suggesting that religious people who have always seen science and scientists as the mortal enemy of their beliefs will embrace the idea of changing to become a follower of that enemy. The very fact that this was Einstein's, or Spinoza's, or Darwin's idea will make it infinitely harder for them to swallow.

Entirely possible. It may be that such an attempt is destined for failure. But signal changes in words have worked wonders in the past.

I still feel there is a vast difference between why we keep the word "atom" and why we should change the definition of the word "god." Isn't the word for universe "universe?"

Well, yeah, but it's only a metaphor to ease discussion of the idea.

 

[Piggy]

Since Piggy has made it clear that leprechauns cannot exist, no definition of god would satisfy him.

And there you have it, my friends.

If that does not speak to the utter absurdity of the "God may exist" position, then I don't know what does.

If I were CFLarsen, I'd be ashamed to show my avatar on this forum after that remark.

 

[Piscivore]

And there you have it, my friends.

If that does not speak to the utter absurdity of the "God may exist" position, then I don't know what does.

It certainly speaks to the utter absurdity of Larsen's grasp of reason.

If I were CFLarsen, I'd be ashamed to show my avatar on this forum after that remark.

If he's not embarassed by the nonsense he's spouted over the sky marshall debacle I doubt anything will phase him.

 

[Piggy]

(and I'm really sorry to derail this thread into this direction for so long, Piggy).

No worries. As I said, I welcome side discussions as long as they're relevant.

Takes some of the burden off me, dontcha know.

I'm actually very pleased that this thread has generated some of the very interesting offshoots that it has. No one wants to just hear me ramble on all the time.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy,

OK, all those other issues aside, does this really boil down to "magic is impossible?"

If so, why is that the case? I think I completely agree, but I am not sure that I could prove it on logical grounds.

I consider magic to be completely debunked.

We now understand the fundamentals of action and reaction on the macro level. Magic bypasses those. It is therefore without any theory of potential action.

In addition, every single test of magic has been a bust for magic.

If validated models of our world disallow magic, and it fails testing at every turn, and the worldview which supported it has been replaced by a validated on which does not allow it, then it's bogus, plain and simple.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I consider magic to be completely debunked.

We now understand the fundamentals of action and reaction on the macro level. Magic bypasses those. It is therefore without any theory of potential action.

In addition, every single test of magic has been a bust for magic.

If validated models of our world disallow magic, and it fails testing at every turn, and the worldview which supported it has been replaced by a validated on which does not allow it, then it's bogus, plain and simple.

I fully agree (one of the primary things that should tell us to abandon the whole idea of magic is that it is based on infantile theories of causation and out-dated worldviews), but the one issue that I think deserves some attention is its "theory of potential action".

The same issue arises with libertarian free will. It also rests on a form of magic. There is no obvious means by which it can act -- it is really just dualism in disguise.

But, when it comes to ideas like 'god' we are stuck with potentialities. Is god potentially possible since we have this concept of magic? I mean, the whole way that god is supposed to act is by means of magic. If magic is possible logically, then can we say that god is also logically possible -- with the logically possible being those things that may be conceived? Or do you think we might be fooling ourselves with this whole idea of magic being conceivable? I'm not sure that we really use the word conceivable correctly.

One of the examples given for this idea is the following -- floating iron is not logically impossible since I can certainly conceive of the possibility. But can I really? For iron to float doesn't that require that it has a different specific gravity, and if it has a different specific gravity, then is it still iron, since its specific gravity is one of the central attributes of iron -- one of the things that makes it iron in the first place?

If we cannot really properly conceive of floating iron, can we actually conceive of magic (and god) or do we simply fool ourselves?

 

[Piscivore]

One of the examples given for this idea is the following -- floating iron is not logically impossible since I can certainly conceive of the possibility. But can I really? For iron to float doesn't that require that it has a different specific gravity... ?

No, it requires magnets.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it requires magnets.

No, seriously. Not iron acted on by other forces, but floating iron.

 

[Apathia]

Excuse me, but as it happens, I've read those guys. None of their arguments convince me.

You read them for arguments?
Well I guess Augustine had some, since he was an apologist.
Apart from him they have no arguments for the theology you debunk.
But they are good examples of a discourse about Transcendence apart from the Theistic packaging.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is what I have been saying all along. It is a different vocabulary allowing a different way of looking at the world -- the way that all advances are made.

One way of reforming Piggy's original post is to say that the old definitions for god have passed and we now need a new word or a new way of using the old word. [snip]

The objection to Piggy's OP is not ontological. It is semantic.....

If this is your position, then you just don't recognize it is what I have been trying to tell you all along yet you seem to think you have an argument with me.

Except, as far as, "we now need a new word or a new way of using the old word", I do have a different point of view. No, we don't need to change the definition of god. That's part of the problem. As god beliefs fall by the wayside knocked over by better observations and understanding of the natural Universe, people reluctant to give up magical thinking just keep shifting the definition of gods. Do we need to redefine Zeus and see if we can come up with a way for him to throw lightning bolts around while being beyond the reach of scientific inquiry?

From my understanding of Piggy's, "Gods can't exist", I put that in the context that if you have a natural universe which is rational, then you cannot have an irrational god in it. And if you do have an irrational god, then you don't have a natural universe that is rational. So if you accept that the natural Universe is rational, then it cannot have gods in it. I can't speak for that position and can't say I have correctly interpreted it.

From my perspective I say if you have a god which interacts with the Universe then that god should be detectable. And if gods are undetectable because they don't interact with the Universe then they are irrelevant.

I find the argument that one can define a god which exists but is undetectable to be nothing more than an exercise in science semantics. And on that level, who cares anyway? You cannot see invisible pink unicorns either.

In your discussion, I see nothing more than a different version of the definition of gods which have no physical presence in the Universe. It isn't that I don't get your point or don't understand what you are saying. It's that I see your discussion as merely a semantics argument. And that is something I don't see as a real discussion of the existence of gods. It is simply a useless discussion in semantics. Either such an argument addresses the principles of science which I don't disagree with, 'you cannot prove the negative' and 'you cannot test for something outside of the Universe'; or, such an argument addresses a useless discussion over the semantics of saying god cannot exist and going on to describe a nebulous thing as untestable, which in essence is a god that is outside of the Universe.

I do not buy the argument for a minute that the Eastern view of gods which are the natural Universe has any more validity than the Western view of gods that are outside of the Universe. Both of those describe an irrelevant god for all intents and purposes. You can argue relevance doesn't matter. It doesn't if all you are arguing is semantics. And you'll just have to disagree with me on the god which is an entity being qualitatively different from the god which is a relationship with the Universe. I view the latter as a relationship and the former as an entity and it isn't because I do not understand you.

All the concepts of god, if you follow the evidence, are creations of the human mind. I can create an awful lot of things in my mind. That doesn't give my thoughts any physical existence and a metaphysical existence is just another version of a place outside of the Universe.

Take the word 'atom' -- it originally meant 'indivisible'. Clearly that is not true, so we did not jettison the word, we simply rearranged what the word means. Or, to repeat, the word 'consciousness'.

This is a thing with evidence of its existence. The problem with changing the god definition is it gets changed because it keeps getting disproved. Prayers not answered, God must not answer prayers. The conclusion should be, then it looks like God is a myth along with a thousand other myths. Instead the goal post is just moved further back.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As an analogy, there is a man currently sitting in my living room I call "my husband". He was the same person before we were married, when I called him "my boyfriend". He hasn't changed, but our relationship has. The label I use for him demonstrates the relationship I have with him. "My husband" isn't the name for the relationship (that would be "marriage"), but I do not have to tell someone we are married when I refer to him as "my husband". I think this is the point you are trying to make, no?

Your marriage is not your husband, it is your relationship. Calling your boyfriend your husband describes your relationship with your husband. And whether you have relationship [A] with a boyfriend, or relationship with a husband, you are still talking about an entity, the man. So it follows then that Ichne is calling the natural Universe, God. But that doesn't make it any more a god than calling a telephone pole God. Nor does defining the Universe as God have any meaning.

So Ichne is essentially saying what he said, the word describes a thing, the Universe, which the person with that belief has a relationship with. The relationship is only relevant if it means something. What does it mean other than believing the Universe is [X]. What does that mean? Nothing as far as I can see.

 

[Limbo]

I've spent many hours of my life pondering this question. I take it seriously.

In that case may I suggest a couple of books for you to read?

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions
The Hero with a Thousand Faces
History of Mysticism: The Unchanging Testament

And Piggy if you would watch this 60 minute video it may give you a little food for thought, as you ponder this question.

/shrug

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Flatland, yep.

Could a two dimensional being see the 'third dimension' in flatland? They could see two dimensional 'cuts' of three dimensional objects passing through -- something that would look 'magical'.

And no, I am not making this as a specific claim, only that it is one possibility that discounts the idea that God is impossible. Especially if God encomapsses the entire third dimension that we experience so that we could not see any change in Him.

But in Flatland, there is evidence which is not explicable given the limited viewing capability. We have that issue with 11 dimensional leaky gravity string theories. And despite the claims there is no evidence, there are things we observe and need an explanation for.

With god beliefs, there is no evidence. We have invisible pink unicorns. There is no evidence upon which to hypothesize god. Why should we entertain the idea invisible pink unicorns could exist? Remember also, the evidence we do have supports the conclusion god beliefs are inventions of human imagination. And that evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed. "God" has left artifacts all over the place. Chartres. The Sistine Chapel, The Gutenberg Bible. The Acropolis. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salvation Army.


Behaviour patterns that would not exist absent the notion of "god". Praying, rituals, hymns.

If you look at the evidence here, there is overwhelming evidence within all manner of religious practices, rituals, beliefs, means of worship, historical actions, sacred texts, that they all came about by means of human imagination, human need to control the world they live in, to explain the world, to ease suffering of the loss through death and ease fear of what that death would mean when it was their turn. In no religious text or belief is there evidence that a human acquired any knowledge which was beyond what they could have known without a real god contacting them. The Torah/Bible/Koran strike out on the Big Bang, evolution, the germ theory and the existence of the rest of the Earth outside of the region the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions developed in.

The Nazca lines suggest maybe something flew over head and the Cargo Cults of the 20th century might add to that hypothesis. We aren't quite sure how the Great Pyramids were built or how ancient people moved huge stones or managed to make them fit together perfectly in Inca structures like Ollantaytambo. But considering the evidence in totality, there's no evidence gods moved great stones around for people. It is much more likely that by sheer manpower and years of tedious work people are responsible for all these structures.

I have to comment in posting this how interesting that you would list examples of simple structures we know were built by people with no 'super'natural powers or skills while ignoring the incredible architectural wonders and mysteries built to worship non- Judeo/Christian god except the Acropolis.

Creating arbitrary connecions between otherwise unconnected believers is one. Providing a basis for morals and ethics is another.

Morals are not based in religion, this is a myth. Morals are a product of biological/cultural evolutionary nature and nurture. Since when do people not murder and not steal because God told them not to?

Not quite. My definition does not include a faith component. Would you say that because Wolfman's Mousu friends think western medicine is another ritual for exorcising an evil spirit, my understanding of germ theory is "humpty-dumptyism"?

This argues for god beliefs being human constructs.

 

[Tricky]

No, seriously. Not iron acted on by other forces, but floating iron.

When doing rock analysis, you sometimes separate certain minerals using a very dense liquid (like carbon tetrabromide) which will float some of the lighter minerals on its surface.

I'm not sure what liquid would be dense enough to float iron without melting it, but I'm betting mercury or molten lead would do the trick. Lead has a high density, but a much lower melting point than iron, so you could probably melt lead and float unmelted iron on top of it, though I've never tried it.
***
ETA: Ah. Just checked. Mercury is much denser than iron, so yes, Iron will float on mercury, as will many other metals, including lead.

I realize that this has nothing to do with God, but the question came up, so...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can also float things that don't break the surface tension. A straight pin will float on water if properly placed on the surface.

 

[Tricky]

You can also float things that don't break the surface tension. A straight pin will float on water if properly placed on the surface.

True, but they must be very light. You could float any size or shape of a chunk of iron if you had enough mercury.

 

[Piscivore]

If you look at the evidence here, there is overwhelming evidence within all manner of religious practices, rituals, beliefs, means of worship, historical actions, sacred texts, that they all came about by means of human imagination, human need to control the world they live in, to explain the world, to ease suffering of the loss through death and ease fear of what that death would mean when it was their turn.

Agreed.

In no religious text or belief is there evidence that a human acquired any knowledge which was beyond what they could have known without a real god contacting them.

Agreed.

The Torah/Bible/Koran strike out on the Big Bang, evolution, the germ theory and the existence of the rest of the Earth outside of the region the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions developed in.

Hindu cosmology can be interpreted to resemble what we now know, but it's a stretch. Agreed.

The Nazca lines suggest maybe something flew over head and the Cargo Cults of the 20th century might add to that hypothesis. We aren't quite sure how the Great Pyramids were built or how ancient people moved huge stones or managed to make them fit together perfectly in Inca structures like Ollantaytambo. But considering the evidence in totality, there's no evidence gods moved great stones around for people.

Agreed.

It is much more likely that by sheer manpower and years of tedious work people are responsible for all these structures.

I never suggested otherwise. But none of these great works are something done out of boredom, mere idleness, are they? Something powerful made people who had to eke out a rough living do these things, yes? No mere whim or fairy tale. Whether this "god" has any of the properties we might think it ought to have- and as has been said, these qualities are capricious, subjective, and highly varied, such that it seems foolish to insist that "god" have any of them to be "god"- it at the very least is a powerful motivator, yes?

I have to comment in posting this how interesting that you would list examples of simple structures we know were built by people with no 'super'natural powers or skills while ignoring the incredible architectural wonders and mysteries built to worship non- Judeo/Christian god except the Acropolis.

I don't believe in the supernatural so it does not form any part of my definition. But by all means, the pyramids you mentioned- Asian, Egyptian, and Mesoamerican- Angkor wat, the Mahabharata, Chaco, the Ming tombs- these all make the list. And the list is staggering.

Morals are not based in religion, this is a myth.

Some are, for some people. I didn't say all.

Morals are a product of biological/cultural evolutionary nature and nurture.

Indeed.

Since when do people not murder and not steal because God told them not to?

Since the first mother taught their child that's why we don't.

This argues for god beliefs being human constructs.

Which was precisely my point. "God" emerges as a function, a product, of our human activity. This explains why it is universal and yet so subjective- exactly like national identity, or social class, or any of the other fictions we accept as 'real" without question.