Ask a Radical Atheist

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well I sure don't know who you've been talking to or who it is you think had the authority to give you the 'rules' of being an atheist but I would have ignored anything like you are describing. I don't get why you felt you had to respond to someone else's definitions.

Atheism means only one thing, no god beliefs. And theism means god beliefs. There is no more to it than that.

Whoever it is you are talking about, like I said, why did you think they owned the clubhouse? Seems to me like you are overgeneralizing about many people from an experience with just a few.

 

[CFLarsen]

Liar. I posted the evidence in post #868.

Your claim was that I "rarely" provide links.

Note the weasel word. "Rarely" means that you can pick and choose the posts you want, and claim you were right.

Which is what you did: You focused on this thread alone, selecting the post range.

That's selecting your data. That's fraud.

You know that I provide links, whenever possible and relevant. In this thread, in other threads, too.

I am not the liar here.

 

[Apology]

Well I sure don't know who you've been talking to or who it is you think had the authority to give you the 'rules' of being an atheist but I would have ignored anything like you are describing. I don't get why you felt you had to respond to someone else's definitions.

Atheism means only one thing, no god beliefs. And theism means god beliefs. There is no more to it than that.

Whoever it is you are talking about, like I said, why did you think they owned the clubhouse? Seems to me like you are overgeneralizing about many people from an experience with just a few.

I didn't. I re-examined my own beliefs and found that there was some validity to Deism, although not enough for me to fully support it. However, I was close enough to believing Deism that I didn't feel I could call myself an atheist any more either. I simply didn't know, and I still don't, so the term "agnostic", without further categorization, describes my beliefs the most accurately. I've taken flack for it ever since, including here on the JREF forums, where, as I've said, I've been called a liar and an idiot for my position more than once.

Now that I've noticed (again) how often people in this part of the JREF forums call each other liars and are rude to each other over a concept that neither side can prove or disprove, I've decided to limit my posting to the General Skepticism board. The attitudes displayed here in religion and philosophy, and particularly in the last few pages of this thread, in my opinion, are unbecoming of skepticism, and frankly, I don't want any part of it. If I'm an idiot for anything, it's for thinking that not posting here for a few months would change my opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your claim was that I "rarely" provide links.

Note the weasel word. "Rarely" means that you can pick and choose the posts you want, and claim you were right.

Which is what you did: You focused on this thread alone, selecting the post range.

That's selecting your data. That's fraud.

You know that I provide links, whenever possible and relevant. In this thread, in other threads, too.

I am not the liar here.

My dozen page check revealed my memory was correct. In a dozen pages you didn't provide a single link out of your total of 4 posts requesting people reply to past posts. That is 0, even less than rare. It is evidence, it supports what I posted and you are a liar, not me.

You want to prove it isn't rare, then you waste your time on a bigger sample size. By my recollection and pilot study you rarely provide links when asking people to reply to past posts that you think they didn't reply to to your satisfaction. I certainly see no reason I need to take this any further. Stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Now that I've noticed (again) how often people in this part of the JREF forums call each other liars and are rude to each other over a concept that neither side can prove or disprove, I've decided to limit my posting to the General Skepticism board. The attitudes displayed here in religion and philosophy, and particularly in the last few pages of this thread, in my opinion, are unbecoming of skepticism, and frankly, I don't want any part of it. If I'm an idiot for anything, it's for thinking that not posting here for a few months would change my opinion.

Well here and in the political forums it gets more testy. But if you are referring to Claus, it wouldn't matter which forum that was in. I keep thinking he'll have a normal discussion and he keeps reminding me I should put him on ignore and that normal discussion's never going to happen.

 

[CFLarsen]

My dozen page check revealed my memory was correct. In a dozen pages you didn't provide a single link out of your total of 4 posts requesting people reply to past posts. That is 0, even less than rare. It is evidence, it supports what I posted and you are a liar, not me.

Notice how the goalposts move: From the past dozen pages, now it has also to be in specific posts that you, once again, cherry-pick.

Let's take a look at the whole thread.

In this thread, I post a link in #135.

And in #346.

And in #424.

And in #471.

And in #681. Note: This is not a "dozen" pages ago.

And in #778. Note: This is not a "dozen" pages ago.

And in #792. Note: This is not a "dozen" pages ago.

And in #818. Note: This is not a "dozen" pages ago.

Not only is it evidence that you cherry-picked, it is also evidence that you lied, once again: I have, in fact, provided links within the past "dozen" pages.

You want to prove it isn't rare, then you waste your time on a bigger sample size. By my recollection and pilot study you rarely provide links when asking people to reply to past posts that you think they didn't reply to to your satisfaction. I certainly see no reason I need to take this any further. Stop wasting everyone's time.

"Rarely" is a weasel word: No matter how many examples I provide, you can always claim that it isn't enough.

Stop being dishonest. Stop lying.

 

[Darat]

I do not have the stamina to make it through this thread to try and remove the many (often pathetic and childlike) Rule 11 & 12 breaches however any further breaches will result in further Mod action which may include suspension - no further warnings will be issued.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Piggy]

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.

There's nothing to get. And that's what you fail to understand, or pretend to fail to understand (I can't always tell who's who).

All of this about utterly undefined mystical experiences... it's baloney. It's patent baloney. Transparent baloney.

You're talking a bunch of words, but you're not actually making any claim for anything at all. It's like the woogle that I refuse to say what it is.

It's nothing. It's horsefeathers.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

There's nothing to get. And that's what you fail to understand, or pretend to fail to understand (I can't always tell who's who).

All of this about utterly undefined mystical experiences... it's baloney. It's patent baloney. Transparent baloney.

You're talking a bunch of words, but you're not actually making any claim for anything at all. It's like the woogle that I refuse to say what it is.

It's nothing. It's horsefeathers.

You raise a very good point. I think transparent baloney would be easily patentable. Especially if it were actually horsefeathers.

Dang, now you've got me reaching for my Marx Brothers collection.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Thanks.

I'm curious -- where did the pressure come from?

Of course, I'm not out to convert the world or anything. I reckon I'd like to, but I'd like to make it rain, too, if you know what I mean. I understand why folks stop at agnosticism, or an "I don't believe" brand of atheism.

But at the end of the day, what sticks in my shoe is this claim that one cannot reasonably go beyond agnosticism, that to affirm the correctness of atheism is to commit an error of thought... I understand why that's an attractive proposition, but I've found it to be false.

Because it's attractive, I get into these discussions from time to time, in various forms, largely to share ideas -- and see if I'm proven wrong about the big question, which I am sometimes -- and to bounce around clearer, more efficient ways of expressing why unapologetic atheism is reasonable as they get expressed.

When I first came on this board, I went through 3 very long threads before the last wall (the question of infinite definitions) fell, and another one before all the essential arguments had been laid out by different posters.

Now I think I can pretty well explain how the strong atheist position holds together regardless of the definition applied to "God".

Some folks are not going to agree with my premises -- like not believing in a compulsory universal openness to potential new evidence in all cases, or not limiting my assessment of the case to what it would be if I were performing science -- and some folks aren't going to agree with my logic.

But I hope some folks who might have rejected RA might at least come to see that it's well-reasoned, not unconsidered or dogmatic.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Fwiw, I agree with the former, but not the latter.

Personally, I don't see how an answer to this question could determine whether a person's an atheist.

I'd say that it's true that lamp posts are, technically, atheists (if you define that, quite reasonably, as "not possessing a belief in God or gods"), but that they can't possibly be theists ("possessing a belief in God or gods").

But that's just me. Words are social tender; they have clusters of meanings. YMMV

 

[Piggy]

I've decided to limit my posting to the General Skepticism board.

It would be very interesting to discuss this issue in that forum, as a topic of pure skepticism (not philosophy). But I'm sure it would get out of hand and that would be that.

 

[Apathia]

Piggy,

Good debunk of Theism, as I always say.
But beware putting yourself out on a metaphysical limb by saying that no matter what the definition of the word, "God," the so designated cannot exist and cannot be real.

The coin of the Skeptic Realm is empirical evidence, not philosophical fiat.
It is enough that the entity called God is an empirical no-show.
Unless it is very, very important to you personally that no quarter (or even a half-penny) be left as some kind of religious coinage to place you in possible debt.

For some perverse reason, your screen name is being changed into a pig emoticon, when I post it. Sorry, that's not intentional.

 

[Piscivore]

Piggy, now that the Claus Show has gone on hiatus for retooling, can you tell me if you think physicality is necessary for something to be considered "real"? I get that impression from what you have posted.

Do you feel there are certain necessary criteria a "god" definition must have to be considered a god?

Do you think there can be a correct definition of something if it is held as a minority opinion, referencing again the village full of people who think of "disease" as something caused by spirits and the one scientist who defines it as illness caused by germs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Piggy,

Good debunk of Theism, as I always say.
But beware putting yourself out on a metaphysical limb by saying that no matter what the definition of the word, "God," the so designated cannot exist and cannot be real.

The coin of the Skeptic Realm is empirical evidence, not philosophical fiat.
It is enough that the entity called God is an empirical no-show.
Unless it is very, very important to you personally that no quarter (or even a half-penny) be left as some kind of religious coinage to place you in possible debt.

For some perverse reason, your screen name is being changed into a pig emoticon, when I post it. Sorry, that's not intentional.

If I may ask, can you to tell me If you would make the same declaration about all other works of fiction? Is there any definition of a Harry Potter realm that was close enough to the fictional story to still be the Harry Potter realm that you want to put in that same category, "it could be real and we just don't know it". "Science cannot rule out the existence of a real Hogwarts and a real fireplace travel network now can they"?

The concept I think everyone misses when they consider the god question and the principle that science cannot prove something does not exist is just how fictional the god concept is. If you start from the place the evidence actually takes us, gods are just fictional characters. They are not things like quantum particles where there is some observation we cannot explain that someone has hypothesized a god concept as the explanation for.

That was the case originally, but now we have more than sufficient evidence that supports the conclusion god beliefs were not valid hypotheses for the observations that people made. How long do you keep your failed hypothesis? What is the reason one cannot simply say, that hypothesis was waaaay out there. Why must you put that particular failed hypothesis in some special category and say, "well gee, we can't really prove it was wrong"? Do we put any other failed hypotheses in a similar category?

We don't put all fictional characters in the category of you cannot prove the negative. We don't put all failed hypotheses in the category of you can't ever prove the failed hypothesis really failed in every single circumstance. God beliefs are left on the table, not because they offer some potential future solution to a current problem. God beliefs are left on the table strictly because of their specific historical origin which resulted in the nature of the meme. God beliefs explain nothing. They are no longer a rational hypotheses to explain anything. In fact, as I said earlier, as the evidence accumulates, god beliefs are defined as not interacting with the Universe, and as being outside the Universe for the very reason there is no evidence for them and they offer no explanation for anything we observe.

 

[Apathia]

If I may ask, can you to tell me If you would make the same declaration about all other works of fiction? Is there any definition of a Harry Potter realm that was close enough to the fictional story to still be the Harry Potter realm that you want to put in that same category, "it could be real and we just don't know it". "Science cannot rule out the existence of a real Hogwarts and a real fireplace travel network now can they"?

The concept I think everyone misses when they consider the god question and the principle that science cannot prove something does not exist is just how fictional the god concept is. If you start from the place the evidence actually takes us, gods are just fictional characters. They are not things like quantum particles where there is some observation we cannot explain that someone has hypothesized a god concept as the explanation for.

That was the case originally, but now we have more than sufficient evidence that supports the conclusion god beliefs were not valid hypotheses for the observations that people made. How long do you keep your failed hypothesis? What is the reason one cannot simply say, that hypothesis was waaaay out there. Why must you put that particular failed hypothesis in some special category and say, "well gee, we can't really prove it was wrong"? Do we put any other failed hypotheses in a similar category?

We don't put all fictional characters in the category of you cannot prove the negative. We don't put all failed hypotheses in the category of you can't ever prove the failed hypothesis really failed in every single circumstance. God beliefs are left on the table, not because they offer some potential future solution to a current problem. God beliefs are left on the table strictly because of their specific historical origin which resulted in the nature of the meme. God beliefs explain nothing. They are no longer a rational hypotheses to explain anything. In fact, as I said earlier, as the evidence accumulates, god beliefs are defined as not interacting with the Universe, and as being outside the Universe for the very reason there is no evidence for them and they offer no explanation for anything we observe.

You're certainly correct Theism is a failed hypothesis. The God's are superstition. It's not that they are just no-shows, but that they are at odds with what we are learning about the way reality is.
Yes, I repudiate Harry Potter.

 

[Limbo]

There's nothing to get.

Prove it Piggy.

You can't because you wouldn't even know where to start. Few skeptics, atheists would. They end up attacking strawmen, because of their ignorance and zealotry. And if they did know where to start, they would also know how futile trying to "debunk" it is, and how ignorant trying makes them look. You are utterly ignorant of esoterica, I can tell. How many papers and books have you read by scholars of esoterica, mysticism? I bet zero, if I am wrong please prove it. Please list them. How much time have you spend studying esoteric mystical philosophy? None, it is obvious to me, yet you think so highly of yourself that you can pronounce final absolute judgment: "there is nothing to get". If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you would at least qualify that with something like "that I can see". But no, mighty Piggy KNOWS despite his ignorance and prior to proper investigation. Pfft.

You are so ignorant, it is obvious to me, and yet you are so arrogantly sure of yourself it disgusts me. That is a horrible combination, people like you make me sick. You are ignorant of your own profound ignorance, and you are intellectually lazy, arrogant, snobbish and a jerk to boot. You are a pseudo-skeptic. You are contemptible. You are a waste of time and effort. You aren't worthy of Piggy's avatar. I am Simon, and you and your savage, ignorant peers are murdering me as I approach you with news of the "monster". You are not on Ralphs side of the island. You are an intellectual savage, you are on the other side of the island and you're too much of a fool to know it. I am dead to you.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." - Louis Armstrong

He means people like you, Piggy.

/ignore Piggy

From the Membership Agreement - Rule 12: Attack the argument, not the arguer. Please do not continue to post in this manner.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

esoteric mystical philosophy from the FreeDictionary.com

es·o·ter·ic (s-trk)
adj.
1.
a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.
b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.
2.
a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.

mys·ti·cal (mst-kl)
adj.
1. Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.
2. Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God: a mystical religion.
3. Enigmatic; obscure: mystical theories about the securities market.
4. Of or relating to mystic rites or practices.
5. Unintelligible; cryptic.

phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Yep, I admit to being ignorant of this tripe, thank goodness.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

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.

Perhaps both are honest positions, though I find the "lack of belief" a preferable one.

Trees do not have a brain to contemplate such matters so they can be removed from discussion.
Babies do not have the cognitive skills to contemplate such a topic, so yes they have a lack of belief.

I've haven't come across a definition of a supreme being that isn't complete with logical inconsistencies and contradictions.

Asking questions about an entity that is not definable, inconsistent, and contradictory becomes meaningless.

 

[Apathia]

I take a moment of silence in the memory of my departed Mother, a genius of a woman who was so irreligious that she wasn't even an Atheist.