Ask a Radical Atheist

Nick227 said:
It required a little contemplating, this is true. However, it still never ceases to amaze me how much people will try and conceptualise something, that by definition doesn't exist, simply to maintain a perspective or belief-system.
Click to expand...


Yep. Being a fallibilist, I still like to play with the ideas because you just never know.:)


Yes, we can but track those traces of identification as they recede into the human unconscious, like Jules Verne following the path of the inscribed letters towards the centre.

Nick
Click to expand...

Got any way to speed the process?
 
Nick said:
Yes, we can but track those traces of identification as they recede into the human unconscious, like Jules Verne following the path of the inscribed letters towards the centre.
Click to expand...

Ichneumonwasp said:
Got any way to speed the process?
Click to expand...

Uhmmm....accept that there aren't any processes? It's the Great Pilgrimage - from here to here!

Nick
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
There is evidence God beliefs are based on human imagination and not based on encounters with real gods.

As long as you equate your conviction there could be invisible pink unicorns because there is no evidence against such beings with your conviction there could gods because there is no evidence against such beings then you would be consistently applying skeptical principles.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the absence of evidence constitutes reason to believe in whatever there is no evidence for. Please show me where I supposedly made that statement or even as much as suggested that irrational idea.

No evidence of something which defies all we do know about the natural Universe is really not a reason to treat the God-no God question as a 50|50 proposition.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the concept of ID defies all we know about the universe. In fact, I opine quite to the contrary. As far as the 50/50 proposition-I being a theist obviously I don't share your view for what should be obvious reasons. Which should be OK since we are all entitled to our opinions-no?

Why Some Scientists Believe in God
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_02.htm
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I believe I have answered this (a natural Universe can exclude the possibility of a god because adding a god makes the Universe no longer natural so semantically you could hold the cannot exist position, and Piggy can give his answer himself)......but Senex gave me another thought on the matter.
Click to expand...

Right, but not everyone accepts that ontological position. There are plenty of dualists in this world. You and I and Piggy think they are wrong, but the issue is not what we think. It is what is possible.

God is not possible given a naturalistic ontology (except by using certain definitions), but naturalistic ontologies have not been proven to be the only possibility in this thread. I think we have made a very good case for monism in other threads.

You can have logical contradictions which exclude a possible god in a specific case. Can the omniscient god make a rock too large for anyone, even a god to lift. Logically you cannot have such a god because one state negates the other.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't exclude god. It means that the way we use words needs some work because the whole idea of omnipotence is either self-contradictory or simply means that the logically impossible isn't covered. The way to cover it is simply to pull back a bit and say that god is a being that can do all that is possible.
 
Nick227 said:
Wouldn't you consider this a dualistic position?

Nick
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but I'm stuck with English...........

I've wondered what a literary artform that really deals with this issue would look like. I don't think anyone could stand it.


Could I put the word I in it any more?
 
Last edited:
I think that an atheist who is vocal about their atheism inspires a defensive reaction in believers... it forces them to define exactly what they believe and why... faith encourages you not to think about this... it also forces them to consider rather their beliefs may be as delusional as Scientology or Islam or reincarnation or whatever other beliefs they do not share. If one can be true... then they are all equally likely as a starting point; we can't call examine every possible belief to see what "feels" right or gives us "signs". And if ONE is true, that still makes the vast majority of people throughout history and currently alive-- wrong... deluded. And yet each believer is sure it cannot be them.

So instead of facing that conundrum, they demonize the atheist. They do anything and everything to avoid facing the fact that they do not have a logically consistent belief system--just a need to believe. They have nothing more... they may be as delusional as a schizophrenic: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108989

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/229

They've learned to fear atheism... deny it in themselves... find things to dislike about the non believer-- all because faith includes that very meme to protect itself. I think I was an atheist for some time before I realized that I was willing to use the label on myself. And I hope that speaking up makes others less afraid.
 
Nick227 said:
I don't really see the point in being an atheist if you end up spending so much time thinking about God.

Nick
Click to expand...

Thinking about God, asking questions, and seeking answers came first. Calling myself an atheist came later. Religion is obviously a controversial topic, thus most people are going to have thought about it, and have something to say about it. Thinking about what people refer to as God, and the big questions in life often associated with religion, are part of being human.
 
skeptigirl said:
I believe I have answered this (a natural Universe can exclude the possibility of a god because adding a god makes the Universe no longer natural so semantically you could hold the cannot exist position, and Piggy can give his answer himself)......but Senex gave me another thought on the matter.
Click to expand...

hehehehe... "another thought on the matter" is clearly a euphemism ;)

isomethingwasp said:
Right, but not everyone accepts that ontological position. There are plenty of dualists in this world. You and I and Piggy think they are wrong, but the issue is not what we think. It is what is possible.
Click to expand...

You and your natural ontological position can't keep the ladies warm at night. :D
 
Silentknight said:
Thinking about God, asking questions, and seeking answers came first. Calling myself an atheist came later. Religion is obviously a controversial topic, thus most people are going to have thought about it, and have something to say about it. Thinking about what people refer to as God, and the big questions in life often associated with religion, are part of being human.
Click to expand...

I agree...

I was very concerned as a kid to learn that my ETERNITY apparently depended upon believing the right unbelievable story with enough fervency to convince an all knowing invisible entity.

The problem was, that although lots of adults seemed to really believe this--none of them seemed concerned enough about their ETERNITY to wonder whether the version they had was correct. This became increasingly alarming as I realized just how many versions there were. Moreover, I don't know how to "make" myself believe stuff. And if I went around to see what "feels" right... I risk making the same mistake as Schizophrenic people, Jonestown people, Mormons, Scientologists, those who speak in tongues, the Hijackers, etc. If one of these folks was right--the vast majority of people were wrong. And our ETERNITIES were at stake.

Until I realized that no scientists were testing to find out which of these infallible leaders, prophets, etc. were true. But James Randi had his MDC--and that made me very confident that if any of them were true--science would be refining and honing that knowledge as we speak. If anyone "could" know... then the information would be available for all. Skeptics dig true stuff.

Thinking about god and "eternity" lead me to my James Randi and my skepticism and my love affair with critical thought! I find that fantastically liberating. I hope my gratitude helps me be of similar service to others.

As for ontological positions--monism is the one I prefer for the one keeping me warm at night :)
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I am confused by your posts, Piscivore. Are you claiming that because people believe in something, their degree of commitment is evidence the thing they believe in is real? So a suicide bomber must really be going to that paradise full of virgins then?
Click to expand...

No, but the concept of "god" exists as a product of conciousness and does exert a force in the world. Just like your conciousness is a product of the activity of your neurons, but isn't dependent on any single neuron.

"God" is an entity exactly the same way the United States is an entity, or the Monsanto Corporation is an entity. Yet no one questions the existance of those entities, do they?

You can't talk to god, but you can talk to a believer, just like you can't call the "United States" on the phone, but you can talk to an American.

I think you might be hard pressed to find evidence god beliefs were actually the prime motivator here. It might be a conscious belief by a person, but moral decisions are subconscious choices most of the time.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were the prime motivator. But god beliefs do affect moral choices for some people.

God beliefs have motivated people to give up addictions and perhaps to work on a marriage. But fear of hell stopping someone from murder? Really?
Click to expand...
Why not? Just in keeping with your "addictions" theme they have a twelve step program for anger, don't they?

The Quakers refused to go to war because of their beliefs. Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

Taught yes, but the underlying prime motivator for moral decisions? You need some more evidence. The evidence I posted supported the underlying basis for moral decisions was independent of teaching.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were the prime motivator. I said they were an influence some of the time. How many Catholics have stayed in bad marriages because they thought god frowned on divorces?
 
I think that Pisci is just saying "god" exists in the same way that "morality" or "justice" exist... humans think of it as "out there"-- but it is subjective.

Sure believers don't concede that... heck, many think "evil" and "good" are characteristics that lie outside the human experience... but it's a product of the way our minds evolved.

Religion can influence moral choices in the same way that telling kiddies that Santa knows whether you are naughty and nice can influence behavior.

It cannot, apparently, keep clergy and gurus from sexual improprieties with their flock members and the children of those members.

I wonder if religion has prevented more murders or caused more... I often think religion removes the inborn moral repugnance we have for killing-- we just label the others as "evil" or "bad guys" to protect our own from. Right to life doesn't seem to extend to Iraqi life or prisoner life or even a decent life for the poor in the minds of many believers it seems.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Well, yeah, but I'm stuck with English...........

I've wondered what a literary artform that really deals with this issue would look like. I don't think anyone could stand it.
Click to expand...

It would look like the point at which you realise that life is good and philosophy fundamentally misguided. Like a party. The non-dualist moves into the reality of what is going on NOW, because his or her belief systematically destroys the choice to abstract oneself into an interpretation of reality.


Could I put the word I in it any more?
Click to expand...

If you figure non-dualism is a philosophy then you can't use "I." It depends how much you are prepared to be oppressed by your own mind.

Nick
 
Nick, did you watch the Tedtalks from the I Am Soul thread? I would think that you would related to some of Jill's experiences. I thought it was moving.
 
Nick227 said:
It would look like the point at which you realise that life is good and philosophy fundamentally misguided. Like a party. The non-dualist moves into the reality of what is going on NOW, because his or her belief systematically destroys the choice to abstract oneself into an interpretation of reality.
Click to expand...
Would that mean that a non-dualist does not have an interpretation of reality, but is aware of actual reality? Could a non-dualist describe this actual reality?

Nick227 said:
If you figure non-dualism is a philosophy then you can't use "I."
Click to expand...
Well, not exactly. I can agree that it is a philosophy without agreeing that it is a useful philosophy.


Nick227 said:
It depends how much you are prepared to be oppressed by your own mind.
Click to expand...
Can you give us an example by posting something here that is not based on an interpretation of the "I" that is posting it? I'm not sure what that would look like. In fact, I'm really struggling to see any advantage to non-dualism. It seems useless for communication, since there is no "I" and no "you". How do two brains exchange information?
 
Nick227 said:
It would look like the point at which you realise that life is good and philosophy fundamentally misguided. Like a party. The non-dualist moves into the reality of what is going on NOW, because his or her belief systematically destroys the choice to abstract oneself into an interpretation of reality.
Click to expand...

As an aesthtic, that would look too much like Southern California on a Tuesday morning. Sheryl Crow is fine and all, but............


If you figure non-dualism is a philosophy then you can't use "I." It depends how much you are prepared to be oppressed by your own mind.

Nick
Click to expand...

Right, um, that was the joke, like......


Being stuck with English it's a hard habit to break. I've been pondering how it could be encoded in language itself -- not the idea expressed using dualistic language, but a language that would bear the idea itself. I've not got very far obviously with every post littered in I and you speech......
 
Nick you said: "The 'ground of being' doesn't exist either."

But you assume a "baseline reality" exists--and that you experience it as a sort of oneness with the universe, right?

I think they are both sort of conceptual and subjective. There's objective reality... the one we each have subjective experiences of...we all interpret what is going on for our "organism". I'd say that subjective experience is both our "ground of being" and our "baseline reality". It's the "I", isn't it?

If not, then I have no idea what you are talking about or if it's useful or what it means. I'm presuming you have strong right brain experiences as described by the woman with the stroke. What she spoke of describes my own feeling of "being at one in the universe"... my body not having boundaries. (I hope I wasn't having a stroke...but it appears this has to do with a blending or failure of communication across the corpus colossum... it's been studied in split brain patients and people experiencing various sorts of hallucinations as well.

You seem to believe there is a "collective consciousness" that we "channel" so-to-speak, and that that is god, right? And so we (or "I") is just a "molecule" of this god or "life force" or something like that--right? Can it be falsified? Or is this on par with all invisible immeasurable gods, entities, and so forth?

If this cosmic consciousness is indistinguishable from a delusion, why shouldn't we treat it as such-- why it more likely than a matrix scenario or something?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom