Ask a Radical Atheist

skeptigirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


Oh.
I see.
How unfortunate.

Sorry to have bothered you. Carry on.
 
Piggy,

Is there any room for beliefs that do something positive other than add to our best, most consistent description of the world, or would you consider this humpty-dumptyism? I'm thinking of something like Douglas Adams' take on Balinese rice farming rituals in "Is There An Artificial God".

Please pardon me if you've already answered some version of this question. I've only started catching up properly.
 
dglas said:
Oh.
I see.
How unfortunate.

Sorry to have bothered you. Carry on.
Click to expand...
But dglas, it was Limbo who posted that, not you.

If it means something to you then tell me what it means because I found the description, "esoteric mystical philosophy", completely and utterly meaningless in the context of Limbo's ranting post.



I hope you know I really like you and bunnies. ;)
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help her gain world domination
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
esoteric mystical philosophy from the FreeDictionary.com


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

:rolleyes:

I have nothing to say about god... but this is nonsense, nothing but a demonstration of blatant ignorance. Every individual discussing god or the nature of reality is DOING PHILOSOPHY, sorry to burst your bubble, but whether you like it or not, you are doing philosophy (Piggy too). Deal with it.

BTW skeptigirl, I added emphasis in some places, so you can focus on what matters, leaving aside obsolete philosphical tasks. Now, if any of you (Piggy and you this is) bothered to LEARN something instead of babbling I would suggest a reading on Analytic Philosophy. Who knows? maybe you can learn a thing or two. :)
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, advocate of ignorance.

/ignore skeptigirl
Click to expand...
I do not believe admit and advocate are synonymous, nor does one need to understand the position of what someone has posted in a rant.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
:rolleyes:

I have nothing to say about god, but this is plain nonsense. Every individual discussing god or the nature of reality is DOING PHILOSOPHY, sorry to burst your bubble, but whether you like it or not, you are doing philosophy (Piggy too). Deal with it.

BTW skeptigirl, I added emphasis in what matters here, leaving aside OBSOLETE philosphical tasks. Now, if any of you bothered to LEARN something instead of babbling I would suggest a reading on Analytic Philosophy. Who knows? maybe you can learn a thing or two. :)
Click to expand...
I have no issue with discussing the philosophical aspects of a subject such as this.

Add esoteric mysticism and throw in a few, "you are all stupid because you don't think like I do", putting my comments in context and you will be reading what I posted more accurately.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
:rolleyes:

I have nothing to say about god, but this is plain nonsense. Every individual discussing god or the nature of reality is DOING PHILOSOPHY, sorry to burst your bubble, but whether you like it or not, you are doing philosophy (Piggy too). Deal with it.

BTW skeptigirl, I added emphasis in what matters here, leaving aside OBSOLETE philosphical tasks. Now, if any of you bothered to LEARN something instead of babbling I would suggest a reading on Analytic Philosophy. Who knows? maybe you can learn a thing or two. :)
Click to expand...

You and dglas are making an error- she did not decry philosophy on its own, but as paired with "esoteric" and "mystical". As such, especially in regards to the senses which you have emphasised, the other two terms are contradictory with "philosophy" as you and dglas are understanding it.
 
Whoops. I guess I read that wrong. I read it as equating all three examples. My apologies. I am so used to people just bashing philosophy as if the only branches of it are esoteric and mystical, that defensiveness is a reflex action now.

I sit corrected and with bunnies to boot.

(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help her gain world domination

To hell with Winning Powerball!!!
I got a bunny!
I shall hug it and squeeze it and nurture it and name it Toby, and then auction it's life off online, like the cold unfeeling non-theistic monster I am. :D
 
Apathia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not worried too much about metaphysical limbs b/c I have no particular use for metaphysics.

I'm also not concerned about philosophy and have no plans to issue any fiats.

However, I am indeed saying that the position you express here is in fact incorrect.

It is not simply the case that we lack evidence. God's troubles are deeper than that. The notion of God was based on assumptions and a world-view that have been overturned and replaced. As a result, all of the old definitions are dead, and the new definitions which have been dreamed up all contain fatal flaws (as we've seen, they are empty, or contrary to fact, or nonsensical, or humpty-dumptyisms).

None of the metaphysical, philosophical, or rhetorical ploys such as we've seen here and on other threads can save God.

They can't save phlogiston, they can't save flat earth, they can't save geocentrism, they can't save leprechauns or unicorns, and they can't save God.

All of these are debunked notions can be labeled false. We don't need to be open to any potential new evidence, because the evidence we have is conclusive.

If there is a philosophical dogma being floated around, it's the notion that skeptics must always be open to evidence for any crazy idea anyone thinks up.

There is no justification for this dogma, and I seriously doubt that the people espousing it actually live by it.

There will never be new evidence that 2+2=5 in our everyday lives, or that the sun rises in the west, or that our planet is a disk, or that circles have corners, etc.

We do learn things. We do know things.

Some ideas are false.

God is one of those ideas.
 
Piscivore said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Dreams are real. Justice and injustice are real.

Piscivore said:
Do you feel there are certain necessary criteria a "god" definition must have to be considered a god?
Click to expand...

It must not be empty or undefined (terms which are empty or undefined don't describe anything) and it must conform to actual usage -- in other words, it must describe something that bona fide believers actually believe in (not, for example, a Matrix).

Piscivore said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's a different issue. Now you're getting into questions of fact.

The villagers' idea of disease is wrong because it's contrary to fact, and the scientist's idea of disease is correct because it is factual.

Similarly, fundamentalist Christians' ideas of God are easily shown to be wrong because Biblical literalism is easily debunked.
 
Limbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

You want a list?

I can give you authors, if you'd like. I don't have many of those books anymore. But I've read countless books of mysticism and esoterica.

What do you want to talk about? Tibetan Buddhism? Tarot? New Age? Shamanism? The Maharishi? Gurdjieff? Ram Das? Tim Leary? Edgar Cacey? Rumi and fakirs and whirling dervishes? Medieval contemplative monks? Jewish mysticism? What?

I'm not an atheist because I'm ignorant of religion, mysticism, mythology, and spirituality. I'm an atheist because I've studied these things.

If there is something in there which you believe can salvage the God hypothesis, then please produce it from the bag.
 
epeos76 said:
Piggy,

Is there any room for beliefs that do something positive other than add to our best, most consistent description of the world, or would you consider this humpty-dumptyism? I'm thinking of something like Douglas Adams' take on Balinese rice farming rituals in "Is There An Artificial God".

Please pardon me if you've already answered some version of this question. I've only started catching up properly.
Click to expand...

Is there any room? Well, sure.

I don't think, though, that they have an impact on the question of whether the claim "God exists" can have truth value.

There's only so far we can stray before we're using the term "God" metaphorically.
 
Piggy said:
Well, I'm not worried too much about metaphysical limbs b/c I have no particular use for metaphysics.

I'm also not concerned about philosophy and have no plans to issue any fiats.

However, I am indeed saying that the position you express here is in fact incorrect.

It is not simply the case that we lack evidence. God's troubles are deeper than that. The notion of God was based on assumptions and a world-view that have been overturned and replaced. As a result, all of the old definitions are dead, and the new definitions which have been dreamed up all contain fatal flaws (as we've seen, they are empty, or contrary to fact, or nonsensical, or humpty-dumptyisms).

None of the metaphysical, philosophical, or rhetorical ploys such as we've seen here and on other threads can save God.

They can't save phlogiston, they can't save flat earth, they can't save geocentrism, they can't save leprechauns or unicorns, and they can't save God.

All of these are debunked notions can be labeled false. We don't need to be open to any potential new evidence, because the evidence we have is conclusive.

If there is a philosophical dogma being floated around, it's the notion that skeptics must always be open to evidence for any crazy idea anyone thinks up.

There is no justification for this dogma, and I seriously doubt that the people espousing it actually live by it.

There will never be new evidence that 2+2=5 in our everyday lives, or that the sun rises in the west, or that our planet is a disk, or that circles have corners, etc.

We do learn things. We do know things.

Some ideas are false.

God is one of those ideas.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. I don't see any way to save god as a 'being' separate from the universe unless you want to believe in magic -- an idea which is based on a misunderstanding of the material world and a consequence of the way our minds form associations.

The only possible approaches to 'save god' that I can see are rhetorical -- use the word in a different way (we do it for jollies if for nothing else, at least I did and I think that is really Piscivore's reason too) or view god as some multidimensional 'superstructure', which is just materialism writ large (in more than three dimensions).

The funny thing is that this is where some theologians are beginning to tread -- they seem to be taking the 'god is a story that helps us to live fully human lives' approach.

God as a metaphysical entity is long dead. I guess the real question is, "should god as metaphor also die, or does the idea still have some usefulness?" If we're stuck with the fundies, then I say poke it with a pointy stick. If we could set a new course, to mix a metaphor, then the idea can bloom fruitfully.

People, being people, I think we are stuck with the metaphor and the fundies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom