Ask a Radical Atheist

I just don't understand what "spiritual sciences" are or how they "attempt to deal with" anything. But I think you should revisit the I am Soul thread and watch the TED talks. I think there is something useful you are trying to convey, but I"m not sure anyone but you is understanding you.

Articulett, I wonder what you think to maybe just sticking with what you understand and not worry so much about others. I feel like some people clearly get what I'm saying, others not, (I am the same with what others write) but only you seem to take this position of feeling you need to articulate for them. It's a bit of a weird dynamic, like you are afraid of what you feel and need to identify yourself with some wider body, that it makes you feel more secure or something. I find it a bit manipulative to be honest, like you want to portray me as some isolated minority. I mean, I can behave like this at times but I also am enjoying writing and learning on all the issues we discuss here.

You obviously have a lot of good ideas and insights into this whole area so I'm a bit surprised that you seem to spend so much time either writing about Tom Cruise or claiming to speak for others. I don't really see the need.

Yes, this is what happens when you debate with therapists!

Nick
 
It seems to me the obvious question, at this point, is to ask on what basis one determines that an experience is such that it necessitates an explanation beyond "The World" and into the realm of "God." What sort of experiences do not fit into either "The Self" and "The World?"

In other words, please give me an "experience" which cannot be understood in terms of neither the "self" [ego] nor "The World."

I think "God's" department is largely experiences inexplicable by science. Off the top of my head this would include - weird synchronicities and the like; altered states of awareness incl drug or ritual states; feelings of internal separation, of "two selves" such as in certain psychiatric conditions. God also deals with questions like "Who am I" or "Why am I here?" a lot.


So, if I read you correctly, you are suggesting that the reason for the creation of God is to act as a way of understanding things quite different to ourselves in terms we can identify with. Our lives seem to have a beginning and an end, therefore we seek to understand the universe the same way. In order to accommodate this beginning-end aspect of the universe, we posit a first-cause (God) to accommodate our limited conceit. Am I close here?

Yes, I think so. Examining the world around us from the perspective of subject-object, it seems that there are many "processes" taking place in life - birth, living, dying, growth, formation, dissolution, etc. Believing these processes to be a priori real, rather than simple artifacts of objectivity, the ego naturally begins to wonder about itself in these terms and a lot of seemingly unanswerable questions begin to come up.


I do not see how this follows. While we may, through understanding of self, conceive of the possibility of the universe being other than we are (in terms of beginning-end causality), it seems by no means necessary THAT we do so, Strangely enough, it strikes me that we might, understanding ourselves, still conceive of the universe as having a beginning and end, and that therefore despite a clear understanding of ourselves, we can still posit a God as an "explanatory" device.

I might even go a step further and suggest that with a non-dualist perspective, it may be more difficult to posit the difference between our own experiences and the universe so as to negate the need for a God as an explanatory device for an external phenomenon we cannot otherwise fit into the parameters of our experience.

Am I misunderstanding something?

No, your last paragraph is pretty much what I'm talking about.

Nick
 
Oh, well I understand that. And I agree. Theatre. Drama. Pagaentry. Myth. Storytelling. We are a storytelling species and we share information through emotional dramas and personification of concepts and ideals.
That is certainly part of it, but there is a lot more to it than just that. "Jesus" isn't just a personification of mercy, or compassion. "Krishna" isn't just a way of feeling good about being a Hindu. These are entities that profoundly affect what we do, who we are.

I'm quite earnest when I say that "god" is exactly the same sort of thing as "America"- I might even go so far as to say that "America" itself is a god, under this definition. "America" does not represent any one ideal, any one notion. It isn't just a banner under which people identify themselves. It is a living, growing, thing, not bound up in any one person's head, or entombed in a building or a document, or shackled to any one metaphor.

Neither is "god".

Many of our decisions are made based on emotions and instinct, though we may confabulate more prosaic reasons. Drama can be a better teacher or means of bonding or relating than something that doesn't "inspire" emotional involvement. And I agree that it's hard to put this "essence" into words, and how the term "god" might encompass it. Do you consider yourself a believer in "god"-- and is this the explanation for the god you "believe in" or that inspires you?
As I said, this definition of god does not require belief. The evidence for it abounds, all across the globe and the historical record.

Usually what inspires me is a nice big fat fresh raw salmon served by a young girl in a short skirt.

A lot of times I hear about a belief in "god"... but it doesn't really sound like a belief... more of a feeling... a meaningful way on interpreting the world. I suspect that a lot of people aren't sure what the believe... or the details or words to describe it or why they believe it. They just want to be counted in amongst the believers and "know" they "believe in" something.
While there are undoubtedly a few people like this, I think you'll find that most people have no trouble at all explaining in specific detail what they think god values, what he wants, what his nature is, even what he looks like.
 
Last edited:
These are entities that profoundly affect what we do, who we are.

They are mythical heroes that may affect what people do on different levels per person.

It is a living, growing, thing, not bound up in any one person's head, or entombed in a building or a document, or shackled to any one metaphor.

No, it's just a country.


God is just a myth.
 
What does that mean, exactly?

He's wrong. It's a band!


If "god is just a myth", why do people build cathedrals for it? Why don't they do that for Spock? Why do they build churches for Jesus, but they don't for Zeus anymore? Isn't there something categorically different between these two?

Depends on who is 'looking'?
 
What does that mean, exactly?

The power of the internet is that there are online dictionaries.

If "god is just a myth", why do people build cathedrals for it?

They're stupid enough to believe the myth.

Why don't they do that for Spock?

Because they don't like his ears.

Why do they build churches for Jesus, but they don't for Zeus anymore?

Because Jesus replaced Zeus as the favored myth.

Isn't there something categorically different between these two?

More people believe some myths than others.
 
Articulett, I wonder what you think to maybe just sticking with what you understand and not worry so much about others. I feel like some people clearly get what I'm saying,

Nick

Who? I think you sound far more manipulative than me. It's a dialogue-- you don't care if people understand you? Or are my questions just too tough, because they make you consider you might be wrong?

Since you feel free to share your opinion of me with me, I guess you've solicited my opinion of you. I don't think you're saying anything true or of value and you come across as very pedantic... at least to me. I don't see anyone following you, but you and others are free to correct that perception, of course. If "non-dualism" of your variety is true or useful-- it would behoove all of us to gain clarity. If you are just trying to fool yourself, then continue with your monologues. You seem eager for others to conclude they are wrong, but offer no evidence to consider... meanwhile you show no willingness to entertain that possibility in yourself.

Therapist, heal thyself.

ETA--aack... I just read your post where you said "synchronicity"-- I'm having flashbacks of undercover elephant/justgeoff.
 
Last edited:
That is certainly part of it, but there is a lot more to it than just that. "Jesus" isn't just a personification of mercy, or compassion. "Krishna" isn't just a way of feeling good about being a Hindu. These are entities that profoundly affect what we do, who we are.

I'm quite earnest when I say that "god" is exactly the same sort of thing as "America"- I might even go so far as to say that "America" itself is a god, under this definition. "America" does not represent any one ideal, any one notion. It isn't just a banner under which people identify themselves. It is a living, growing, thing, not bound up in any one person's head, or entombed in a building or a document, or shackled to any one metaphor.

Like the Internet?
As I said, this definition of god does not require belief. The evidence for it abounds, all across the globe and the historical record.

Usually what inspires me is a nice big fat fresh raw salmon served by a young girl in a short skirt.


While there are undoubtedly a few people like this, I think you'll find that most people have no trouble at all explaining in specific detail what they think god values, what he wants, what his nature is, even what he looks like.

Okay... so what does god value... what qualities does she have? Does she interfer with physcis in order to answer prayers? What is her nature and what does she look like? Usually when I try to pin people down on this, they get defensive or oblique. Who here has answered those kind of questions? Usually believers just want to tell non-believers how arrogant they are not to believe in (insert nebulous entity that they call "god")

America exists and will have existed whether people are "believing in it" or not. The same is not true of any gods.
 
Last edited:
Hi, everybody.

I was out of pocket this weekend, and now there are several more pages.

I can't possibly catch up, I'm afraid.

If anyone has questions for me, in particular, that I've left unanswered, I hope you wouldn't mind reposting or summarizing.

I'd appreciate it.

-Piggy
 
Like the Internet?
Very much so, yes.

Okay... so what does god value... what qualities does she have?
As I said, the specifics vary from person to person, and especially from culture to culture. Just like what I think "America" is is going to differ from what a White Supremicist is going to think. It can also be modified as the culture changes or as it crosses cultural boundaries. The Jesus of the Christian is not the Jesus of the Muslim.

Another quality it has is is universiality. Every single culture has come up with a "god" to worship.

It is a collective, corporate entity. While it exists as a product of the human "mind", but is not bound to any one particular individual. The more people that have it in mind, the stronger, the more vital it is. It encourages those that participate in it to transmit it to others.

It "lives" in the books, the art, the temples that are dedicated to it, insofar as these artifacts bring the god to mind. It causes those that "follow" it to create these artifacts to preserve it.

In exchange for this, it provides its faithful with many blessings- a sense of purpose to a purposeless existance, a sense of signifigance in an uncaring, impersonal universe, a feeling of stability against a chaotic, unknowable future. Something for a tribeless primate evolved to live in packs it no longer easily forms on simple kinship lines with which to identify.

When it is completely forgotten, it dies.

I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind immediately.

Does she interfer with physcis in order to answer prayers?
No. But sometimes people will modify their behaviour in order to effect what they see as its will.

What is her nature and what does she look like?
It depends on who you ask. To a Christian, it's going to be a kind, compassionate man with stringy hair, a ragged beard, a dirty robe and sandals. To a Hindu, one of several dozen well-defined dieties, from elephant-headed Ganesh to Krishna to Brahma the sleeping lord of creation. To some of the Mesoamericans, it was Tlaloc the crocodile-headed god of rain, or Coatlicue, the serpent mother that devours her own children. To the Chinese, it was their ancestors; to the animist, the spirits that exist within every single thing, from rocks and plants and rivers to cell phones and cars.

Usually when I try to pin people down on this, they get defensive or oblique.
Well, you might be asking the wrong people then.

Who here has answered those kind of questions? Usually believers just want to tell non-believers how arrogant they are not to believe in (insert nebulous entity that they call "god")
You have to understand that for a lot of people they have never questioned the nature of their god, and never met anyone who has before. It's a bit like learning about what your parents were like as unruly children, or finding out some of the unpleasant things your nation has done in the past that your gradeschool teacher never mentioned, IMO. Learning that not everyone shares your unique world view is a hard pill to swallow at first.

Then there is a bit of having to explain what "red" is to the blind man. Who can immediately describe something which thusfar has been plainly obvious to eveyone else they've ever known?

America exists and will have existed whether people are "believing in it" or not. The same is not true of any gods.
Oh? Did Jesus evaporate in a puff of logic, absent from everyone's mind when you became an atheist? It exists as long as it isn't forgotten. Same goes for America.

What did the tribes of Neanderthals call themselves? What nations might they have formed? They don't exist, they are forgotten. One day, I guarantee, America will be too. On that day, when all evidence is gone, America will have never existed.
 
Why I'm a strong atheist, in a nutshell:

When I think about the question "Is God real?" or "Does God exist?", I have to start with what God is.

It's an ancient notion which has become unanchored. All its original props have been knocked out from under it.

The idea has its origins in myth and superstition. Some folks want to stop me there and claim this is all irrelevant, but it's certainly not, because it matters a great deal that all its anchors have been replaced by other models of reality, and it's necessary in order to determine whether a particular definition of God is actually a definition of God.

A few millennia ago, God was actually an anchored concept. It explained lots of things, like the origin of stuff, motions of stars, illness, weather and climate, fertility, why people are the way they are, consciousness, and so forth, long before the time of science and medicine (or modern contemplative religions).

But all those ideas were wrong. We know that now.

There's nothing in our experience or in our observation of the reality we inhabit that bears a trace of anything that looks like God, or evidence of God, and nothing that requires God.

So as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of God.

It was the end of phlogiston. It was the end of flat earth. It was the end of geocentrism. No special outs for God.

But if the old ideas turn out to be demonstrably false, can we replace them with new ones?

That depends. Darwin’s theories have been modified, but are still recognizable as Darwinian theory. But if all the old ideas turn out to be false, then no.

God is an odd case, admittedly. Because no God was ever found, naturally notions of God were pretty free-wheeling – when there’s no referent, what’s to stop you? – and they changed a lot, so people have become accustomed to allowing total freedom with qualities of God – if not for what they believe, then for what qualifies as a god, even if it’s a false one worshipped by an infidel.

Which isn’t an out, but rather another black eye for the hypothesis – no idea with even a single anchor in reality could boast no agreement on a single indispensable quality, and what’s worse, no means of establishing any bases for potential agreement.

So God has fled to entirely imaginary realms – undefined spaces, or ad hoc figments dreamed up solely for him to live in.

Or else God itself has lapsed into non-definition.

Clearly, a claim that something undefined (e.g. “it’s utterly beyond our understanding and I can’t tell you what it is”) is also “real” is clearly nonsense. And to “exist” in an undefined space also makes no sense. It’s gibberish. There’s nothing there to believe.

And when it gets to the point of dreaming up an imaginary space to house an entity that’s been debunked... I can’t take that seriously. If you start accepting conditions like that, you’ve moved into a space where “real” and “not real” have no criteria, and in fact are irrelevant. To say “God is real in that space” is meaningless.

So what are you left with?

The old Gods are dead. The overwhelming majority of believers still believe in a disproven God, the one we know is contrary to fact.

The rest have simply redefined God in an entirely novel way.

As long as God dips a toe into our universe, it gets ridiculous.

So God is given illusory identities (e.g., “God is love” or “God is the universe”) by tacking the term onto another thing which is not God and pretending not to notice that it still has no independent qualities and is therefore still a non-thing. Or by dreaming up beings with the powers of God, but which no one actually claims to be God.

Or God is simply banished from reality, and yet still claimed to “exist”.

All of these ploys are transparent. We wouldn’t accept them for any other proposal.

So why does God persist? That’s the final brick, I’m afraid. We also have perfectly sensible theories for why people should believe in God even if it’s not real. So now, all the points are accounted for.

At this point, given what we know, for anyone to ask me to take seriously the proposition “God is real” or “God exists”... it’s absurd. I can’t honestly say that could even possibly be true.

When God is dead, you can’t just turn him into something else, or into nothing, or claim he’s real but in a way that’s the same as not being real.

If anyone can show different, let me know, but I sure don’t see how.
 
Getting to the issue of why people still cling to Theism, here's a quote from Pema Chodron's When Things Fall Apart:

"Theism is a deep seated conviction that there's some hand to hold:
if we just do the right things, someone will appreciate us and take care of us. It means thinking that there's always going to be a babysitter available when we need one. We are all inclined to abdicate our responsibilities and delegate our authority to someone outside ourselves. Nontheism is realxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves. We sometimes think that dharma is something outside of ourselves - something to believe in, something to measure up to. However, dharma isn't a belief; it isn't dogma. It is total appreciation of impermanence and change.

Dhama gives us nothing to hold onto at all.

Nontheism is finally realizing that there's no babysitter that you can count on. You just get a good one and then he or she is gone. Nontheism is realizing it's not just babysitters that come and go. The whole of life is like that. This is the truth, and the truth is inconvenient."

For many, the truth is too inconvenient. So they exchange responsibility, freedom, awareness, and integrity for the comfort of the God of The Safety Net.

I remember when I depended upon that God, so I can't be coldly condemming those who still do. Also as a disclaimer, I do know Theists who are mature and don't expect God to come running to get them out of the messes they've put themselves in. Life provides ample lessons for us, belief in God or no.
 
Hi, everybody.

I was out of pocket this weekend, and now there are several more pages.

I can't possibly catch up, I'm afraid.

If anyone has questions for me, in particular, that I've left unanswered, I hope you wouldn't mind reposting or summarizing.

I'd appreciate it.

-Piggy
So, on behalf of radical atheists: boxers or briefs?
 
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.
If you look at what I quoted in my reply, Rad, you'll see I included Michelle's comment about there being no evidence against gods existing, not just your reply to her. I was commenting on the exchange, not replying just to your comments. Sorry for the confusion. However, you do go on to admit you are ignoring the evidence which supports god beliefs being made up by humans. That contradicts your comment on skepticism.

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
I've seen those arguments. They are not evidence based. In fact, they aren't even scientific. It's nothing more than God of the Gaps revisited. Whatever science has yet to discover, must be god that did it. It is foolish. And more importantly it ignores the evidence we do have about what is really behind god beliefs.

Where is there any evidence real gods ever really interacted with humans?
 
Last edited:
....

"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?

....
Your conceptualization of "existence" is confused here. Math 'exists' but is simply a concept. Most argue math does not exist except as a thought. The United States may not technically be a real geographical place like a mountain is and borders might be arbitrary, but the United States physically exists.

The god concept certainly exists and has an impact. But that doesn't provide evidence that a real physical god exists. And if it is just a concept (which is what the evidence supports), then it is not the same as Monsanto or the United States.
 
I looked up monism. I don't understand it past that it has rules that limit you.

I'm a warm intelligent guy. You live too far away but others don't ;)
Connecticut is a long way from Seattle too. ;)
 
Last edited:
Almost. But not just that. It is subjective, but it is also universal. Every single culture that we know of at some point produced a god. Every one. Many of them independantly, and most of them several examples.

People speak of the will of god. No one speaks of the "will of justice", do they?We can recognise that the "will of god" is the will of the people who serve it, speak for it, but how is this different from the men who speak for the United States?

We have kids dying in Iraq right now because they think it is serving "America". How is this different from the kids that died in the Crusades because they believed it would serve God?
Because "America" can be seen, touched, and physically felt. God beliefs are just an idea. If you wanted to compare god beliefs to democracy, on the one hand you could compare the philosophy of democracy. That would compare with your god concept. But we also refer to a physical government that accompanies that philosophy. There is no evidence of a physical god and that just leaves the philosophy part. One is in the real world the other is just in peoples' heads.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom