Ask a Radical Atheist

[CFLarsen]

Here Claus, I'll let you off the hook on one point.

You claimed that all god definitions must include immortality.

No, I didn't. Another lie from you.

Come on. You know I'm frequently referring to my Viking heritage. Do you really think I am ignorant of the Aesir and their fate during Ragnarok?

You don't have a case. Drop it. It's pathetic.

All god definitions do not include immortality. I showed that irrefutably. So in reply to your original attempt to poke holes in my assertion my dogs see me as god, you remain wrong, some gods are mortal.

You can try to weasel your way out of the fact that you moved the goalposts, but it won't work.

However, I left the modifier, some Greek gods, out of my original reply.

No, you did not. You included it later, when you discovered that you were wrong.

You can assume the statement "the Greek gods" then becomes, "all Greek gods". I had not intended to say all Greek gods, it was an oversight. I was merely thinking of some of the tales where Greek gods were killed. There are many such stories in Greek god myths.

No, it was not an oversight. You discovered, after I pointed it out to you, that you were wrong.

You should admit that you were wrong, instead of trying to make it look as if your "omissions" is all my fault.

So, now that we have cleared that matter up, I again ask you to take back your false accusation that I lied about your frequently asking people to address particular posts without linking to the posts in question. I did not,

You did lie. You know perfectly well that I provide link after link, source after source, reference after reference.

You simply tried to get out of an uncomfortable situation by raising doubt about everything I post, by claiming that I rarely provided sources.

You are a liar, pure and simple.

nor have I ever said that you never provide a link.

I didn't claim you did.

I did recall that on at least one occasion recently you had provided a link. But I also recalled that in many cases I had had to tediously go back and find a post by its number.

Oh, my! I provide the reference, and you have to click on the appropriate page? I am so bad!

"rarely provides the links"
"he didn't usually include links"

In this case, my use of the modifiers, "rarely", and "didn't usually" were valid.

Not unless you quantify it. Did you? No. You just threw it out, to cast doubt about my credibility.

It was a cheap attempt, and it didn't work.

And I demonstrated the validity by citing all the previous posts in 12 consecutive pages of this thread where in none of your requests that people answer specific posts were there links to the posts you asked people to address.

You are such a manipulative liar. Now, it has to be when people ask me to provide sources.

If you would care to do an honest survey of the times you include a link to the post you request someone answer and the times you do not,

That is not my job. That is yours.

I will modify my statement if the evidence suggests I was incorrect. Selective memory is a common occurrence among most humans. An honest survey is one that records the times you provided a link in a review of consecutive posts, not one that you cherry pick the times you did provide a link.

Or you could just take back you accusation I am a liar and let the thing drop. I suspect no one is terribly interested in this tripe anyway.

Not only are you a liar, you keep lying.

 

[articulett]

Piggy said:

[q]we know enough now to say definitively not only that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.[/q]

Who are "we"? I suppose you mean scientists, but I haven´t heard of any peer reviewed paper where God was studied scientifically and then rejected.
God cannot exist? It depends on the definition, as I said previously if you pick the deist definition then you will find it hard to say categorically "god cannot exist".
My whole point is you cannot say whether or not God exists, why? because there is not even a universal definition of what god is, second, you have no way to test its existence. I know, you have already stated your radical atheism, but this is not different to the radical theism of christians and muslims.

"We" means rational people. Just like rational people say there are no such thing as demons, thetans, or ghosts. See, when something is indistinguishable from the non existent of that "something"-- we say it doesn't exist. When things exist, there is evidence for it. I'm sure you haven't read any peer reviewed articles on the non-existence of Leprechauns or Santa either. If scientists thought that something we did in this life would or could influence some hypothetical next one, they'd be refining and honing that knowledge so that they and others could have a super duper next life.

But there's NOTHING there. Nothing.

Your response is just silly. When one makes claims, such as "god exists" it behooves them to define it and show evidence-- otherwise, it's "meaningless". I'm sure you won't be reading peer reviewed papers saying that "woogles" don't exist. That doesn't mean that woogles do exist or that they've been defined with any degree of clarity. Gods meet the same criteria. If the people who believe in god sound as nebulous and murky as the people who believe in "woogles" or "thetans" or "bigfoot"-- then I think it's safe to assume they are nursing a delusion.

It's been eons of believing in assorted invisible entities... and not an iota of proof. You can hang on for the ride... but if demands of evidence are met with the apologisms on this thread, then I think it's a good bet that we can write "god" off with Zeus.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just so you don't waste a lot of thread space with requests I answer post 921, Claus, I am informing you now that this pedantic argument has gotten so ridiculous that in respect for others who I'm pretty sure are tired of it, and because I am completely bored with it, I am not going any further with this nonsense.

Your post is a bore. No one but you seems to care. Give it a rest. Come back when you actually want to discuss an issue rather than argue pedantically correct use of articles and other adjectives.

And I supported my claims, unlike you continuing to childishly whine I am a liar.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just so you don't waste a lot of thread space with requests I answer post 921, Claus, I am informing you now that this pedantic argument has gotten so ridiculous that in respect for others who I'm pretty sure are tired of it, and because I am completely bored with it, I am not going any further with this nonsense.

Your post is a bore. No one but you seems to care. Give it a rest. Come back when you actually want to discuss an issue rather than argue pedantically correct use of articles and other adjectives.

And I supported my claims, unlike you continuing to childishly whine I am a liar.

You did not support your claims.

When you already have been outed as a liar, stop lying.

 

[Piscivore]

Claus, could you please answer the questions in posts #875 and #905?

 

[GreyICE]

I meant their the entities they build the building for don't exist any more than the gods they sacrificed virgins into Volcanoes for.

People have done all sorts of sacrifice, built buildings and, honored mother nature and assorted gods... via pyramids and such... the gods you are describing ARE the same... they are just more nebulously defined and keep changing roles... it's sort of this thing that people claim to believe in so they can feel like one of the humble, good, faithful people. But they will offer forth no qualities for this god that distinguish him from other invisible entities and personification of concepts that people have believed in or claimed to believe in over the years. To me, it's like saying "the universe is my god"-- Kids leave money under their pillow for a tooth fairy... they believe in that-- they are good because Santa "knows". You seem to try to be making god sound like more than that because more people claim to believe in a god... but that doesn't make any of the gods they believe in real.

I think what you are describing in your head is more useful of a definition or a concept than a real definition. It really is like describing nature as "mother nature"--and then hanging the qualities or vision you want on to that "character". I would say such a god "exists" only in the way that "mother nature" or "GAIA" exists. Just because more people have more varieties and definition and attributes to things that they or we call "gods" and/or pretend that it is a singular "outside" entity they believe in-- doesn't make "god" any more real or that definition any more useful or explanatory than for me to say I believe in "mother nature" or the fates came and took him to death. It's an anthropomorphized concept... America has qualities that you can pin down... measure... define-- not so much gods. To you your definition might not be like demons or they might be more "real" than demons... or more "influential" (I suggest many people may get morals from fear of demons and hell as well as gods)-- But I still can't distinguish the god you are describing from delusions of gods past and present.

You don't "believe in" America. And when you fight for "America"; it's an ideal you are fighting for. Companies are material things that can be measured and described. Gods have only fuzzy, fleeting, disappearing definitions in order so no-one can pin them down and prove they do not exist. But to me... and I imagine to Piggy... gods exist no more than demons... no more than Xenu or thetans or ghosts or angels or "Mother Nature". They exist only in the imagination of the believer even as the believer builds monuments or practices exorcisms or pays lots of money to get "cleared". To me you sound like you are trying to play a semantic game to make "god" a more meaningful less dismiss worthy phrase. But I can't tell "god" from "Allah" or "Zeus" the way you describe him. If they are the same... than they are all "characters" like Santa.

If someone can make a claim that "gods" are more real than "demons" (however defined) I'd like to see the case. For now, I put gods in the same category as Demons and Mother Nature and Jesus and Mithras. I don't need to disprove beings that have not been shown to exist in reality. I just don't believe. Gods are the same as Leprechauns as far as being "real" in any way. People who believe in invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness that exist absent a material brain are all delusional per my assessment. There is no evidence to suggest this can happen. I'd like a coherent definition or piece of evidence, but it just sounds like words to take "god" out of all other categories, but not make him fit in any category of things known to exist.

Sure, people do things because they thinK god is real... but people traveled the globe thinking the earth was flat. I find no reason to believe in either even as I understand why others do. Your analogies don't follow. We are talking about visible entities that are conscious and based in matter versus invisible entities that are purported to be conscious--but show no evidence of existing at all. I think you are saying that when you hear people say they believe in god--you give that more "weight" than demon belief and such. But that doesn't make "god" more real.

Since this is the contents of post 666, is Articulett the antichrist?

 

[Gurdur]

God, I love the sheer pointlessness of this all. Makes Waiting For Godot look like a really happy musical starring Doris Day, with a stunningly happy ending.

 

[Piscivore]

God, I love the sheer pointlessness of this all. Makes Waiting For Godot look like a really happy musical starring Doris Day, with a stunningly happy ending.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy said:

[q]we know enough now to say definitively not only that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.[/q]

Who are "we"?

Anyone. Everyone.

I suppose you mean scientists

No, I don't.

In fact, when Sagan stops short of a-dragon-in-the-garage-ism, he's coming from a scientific angle.

I'm coming from a rational angle, which is not quite as narrow.

As of now, there is enough known about the world that, when all is taken into account, it's possible to determine that the statement "God exists" cannot have any truth value.

God cannot exist? It depends on the definition, as I said previously if you pick the deist definition then you will find it hard to say categorically "god cannot exist".

It does not depend on the definition.

Once I was able to understand why it doesn't depend on the definition, the last wall crumbled and I became a strong ("radical") atheist.

If the deist definition you're talking about is "God created the world then had nothing more to do with it", that's no harder to debunk than any of the others.

If that's all that's said, then God is left undefined (no qualities are given to it; rather, it is simply credited with an event we already know occurred -- the origin of the universe -- which, by itself, does not require or even include God).

And the statement "X exists" is nonsense if X is left undefined. It's not reasonable to demand that people admit that X might possibly exist if you refuse to define X.

If there are some qualities proper to God above and beyond this, what are they?

My whole point is you cannot say whether or not God exists, why? because there is not even a universal definition of what god is, second, you have no way to test its existence. I know, you have already stated your radical atheism, but this is not different to the radical theism of christians and muslims.

The "appeal to the cookie jar" has already been dealt with very early in this thread.

If you abandon your definition of the thing you claim is real and instead assert that there is no definition -- that anyone can make up anything they want -- you've done yourself no favors because, again, you're making a non-claim.

If I tell you woogle exists, and you ask what it is, and I say anyone can make up any definition they want, then it's obvious I'm not actually talking about anything.

No special exceptions for God.

 

[Limbo]

As of now, there is enough known about the world that, when all is taken into account, it's possible to determine that the statement "God exists" cannot have any truth value.

Cannot have any [exoteric] truth value, yes I agree with that more or less. Esoteric truth value is another matter, and an atheist mystic (which you have admitted is not an oxymoron) would be able to extract and grok such esoteric truth from world religion. So an atheist mystic would have a conception and experience of "divinity" which you are not in a position to fathom much less debunk.

This is a part you're not getting, Piggy.

 

[articulett]

Ugh... I can't stand that silly lie about there being "fundamentalist atheism." Is there fundamental non belief in astrology? Fundamentalist skepticism? Fundamentalist non belief in demons? Fundamentalist non belief in the supernatural.

Fundamentalist is about "fundamentals"-- core beliefs. Not lack of beliefs. I know your preachers have confused you on this... but lack of faith does not equal faith. Saying that there is no evidence of any "god" that makes any sense is not the same as saying that there is a god and you know what he wants. I know you guys can get confused... faith based thinking fuzzes the mind. But there is a huge difference between conclusions based on evidence and conclusions based on faith. Religion and fundamentalism deals in the latter. Skepticism involves rejection of the latter and the use of the former to find out what is objectively true no matter what people "believe".

 

[Hawk one]

When you already have been outed as a liar, stop lying.

I wish you'd follow your own advice, as you'd been repeatedly been outed as a liar many times, without ever admitting to that.

How does the taste of the foot in your hypocritical mouth taste, liar?

 

[articulett]

Cannot have any [exoteric] truth value, yes I agree with that. Esoteric truth value is another matter, and an atheist mystic (which you have admitted is not an oxymoron) would be able to extract and grok such esoteric truth from world religion. So an atheist mystic would have a conception of "divinity" which you are not in a position to fathom much less debunk.

This is a part you're not getting, Piggy.

Is anyone "getting" this?

 

[CFLarsen]

as you'd been repeatedly been outed as a liar many times

I keep asking for evidence, but it never appears.

 

[Apathia]

Cannot have any [exoteric] truth value, yes I agree with that more or less. Esoteric truth value is another matter, and an atheist mystic (which you have admitted is not an oxymoron) would be able to extract and grok such esoteric truth from world religion. So an atheist mystic would have a conception and experience of "divinity" which you are not in a position to fathom much less debunk.

This is a part you're not getting, Piggy.

"divinity"
Yes, but keep that in quotes please.
As a mystical type who is not a Theist I, myself, affirm a reverance and integration in the "Sacred." I don't have a problem with anyone who tags the word, "God" onto that experience.

I do have a beef with Christian equivocators who try to translate that into their Theistic belief.

I do not have an esoteric knowledge. I have an engagement with reality. I have how I relate to myself and my environment. That's different from talk about something objective out there independent of my interaction.

Ironically, what is "Divine" for me is that the Holy isn't restricted to a single, exclusive entity, but any event or person is holy in the moment of my paying full attention to her.

As I've poited out before, there are a number of NonTheist positions reagrding divinity. Sometimes you have to ask people just what they mean by "God," and most don't have much of a meaning to give you, except that God is a being out there who predates everything we experience as reality.
This is Theism.

I suspect Piggy does better for his personal life by not using the word "God," given all the negative baggage and limitation it brings with it. I was raised in the Bible Belt as well. he cleans the table throughly and disposes of every last crumb. Now he's free to be Human without sullying that holiness with superstitious filth.

I see your post contains another G-word.
"Grock"
OMG! I'd rather have the word "God," than that joke! lol.

 

[Apathia]

Is anyone "getting" this?

I'm getting it.
There's a point to be made about an experience of the "Divine," that transcends Theistic God talk.
I get that. But I don't "grock" it, thank you.

 

[Apology]

I have a lot of respect for your position, Piggy. To say that you simply don't believe in God is in my view, more honest than all this "atheists lack a belief in God, which is different from disbelief in God, and therefore trees and babies are also atheist because they lack a belief in God," hullaballoo. I was a strong atheist for a very long time, and decided to leave when I was pressured to accept implicit atheism. I'd rather call myself agnostic and retreat from atheism than accept something that I consider complete malarkey. Good for you for standing up for what you believe in---or disbelieve in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I keep asking for evidence, but it never appears.

Liar. I posted the evidence in post #868.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I was a strong atheist for a very long time, and decided to leave when I was pressured to accept implicit atheism. I'd rather call myself agnostic and retreat from atheism than accept something that I consider complete malarkey. ....

Could you explain this a bit more? I am unclear what You mean here.

 

[Apology]

Could you explain this a bit more? I am unclear what You mean here.

I was told that atheism encompasses children and inanimate objects. I was told that if I did not endorse this concept then I wasn't a "true" atheist. I accepted that I wasn't a "true" atheist and chose agnosticism, because I don't believe that any being that isn't conscious and self-aware can be categorized into either atheism or theism. I thought it was bull when Christians said it, and it's no less bull when atheists say it. I hear this same argument continued to be pushed on this board and many others. It's really quite a kick in the teeth for a life-long atheist, who was never indoctrinated into any religion, to be officiously told that they're not a true atheist.

I owe those people a lot, even if they were full of it. Without their constant challenges to the "truth" of my atheism, I would never have re-examined my own beliefs or the validity or merit of the beliefs of others, such as the Deists. There's no way to prove the Deists wrong, you know. Personally, the best I can do about Deism is muster up some Apathism about the concept of a god that does nothing, i.e. "If it's there and I can't see it or feel any effects from it upon my life, why should I care?" I refuse to append Atheism or Theism to the term Agnostic, because I waver on my position between the two. Some days, there just ain't no God. Some days, maybe there is something we can't see or understand.

There are no days in which I believe that any currently existing organized religion is true. On that I agree with atheism 100%. It's unfortunate that Atheism can't seem to agree that I should be allowed to use the term Agnostic to define myself, without further sub-categorization, and that somehow my position is dishonest or ignoble in some way (all accusations that have been leveled against me on this board as well.)

It's a shame, really. If those atheists had left well enough alone, I'd have been a lifetime ally. Instead, much like poor Piggy, I felt ridiculed and disenfranchised by my own belief system. It's a shame that the strongest members are considered the weakest link. It takes a lot of guts to say, "I BELIEVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST" and to stand up for that belief. It doesn't take any less guts to say "I BELIEVE THAT NONE OF US KNOW" as well. Reviling those unbelievers of religion that don't happen to agree how one's unbelief should be expressed only weakens atheism that much more.