Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piggy]

So, on behalf of radical atheists: boxers or briefs?

Boxers

 

[articulett]

Depends.

 

[GreyICE]

Depends.

So did not need to know about your diaper fetish...

 

[Piggy]

Please address post #590.

Thank you for yet another condescending dismissal of all who disagree with you.

You don't seem to understand what the word "dismiss" means.

Yes, I'm saying theists are wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts.

But they're the ones with the empty arguments, so I have no qualms with that.

There are a lot of scientists who would love to hear what your understanding of dark matter is. I'll await your face on Science magazine real soon.

What's that got to do with it? If you're saying that dark matter is an empty "I dunno", you're wrong. I don't have to be an expert on dark matter to know that.

There's a reason it's postulated. It's a hypothesis that's a direct result of what's known and what's observed.

God ain't.

You can say that because you know. But what if, a thousand years from now, all copies of Star Wars is lost, but only the Jedi religion is left?

Yes, I can say that because I know.

Jedi religion?

You wouldn't - right up until the moment you moved the goalposts, by referring - yet again - to your own judgment of what is "meaningful", "relevant" and now, "genuine".

Again and again, you boil it down to what you think and like. Everything that is not to your liking, you dismiss.

Whose judgment am I to rely on? Yours?

I haven't dismissed anything. I've explained why it fails.

But look, we all have to make up our own minds. That's the reality we live in. You make up yours, I make up mine. We all rely on our own judgment all the time.

The fact is, God has been debunked. If you say it's part of our reality, you're wrong, because you'd have to say something about what it is, and you can't without making it contrary to fact. The remaining choices are to undefine it, make it empty, set up conditions whereby real and not-real are indistinguishable, or invent an ad hoc unanchored realm to house it where anything you dream up may reside.

All that is absurd.

And it's telling that your arguments in favor of compulsory universal agnosticism amount, at the end of the day, to "You could be wrong, you know".

I accept that people can have beliefs that are meaningful to them, even if it isn't meaningful to me.

So can I, if you're talking about favorite songs or childhood memories.

But when you're talking about whether X exists, and someone says, in effect, "Yes, but only if X remains undefined", or, "Yes, but only if conditions are such that 'exist' and 'not exist' cannot be distinguished"... then I don't care a hill of beans whether what they're saying is meaningful to them -- it's nonsense.

I'm not going to adore the emperor's robes for you.

Since you have also rejected every definition merely because you say it is in "error", there will be no definition of God that would satisfy you.

Now I'm just going to call you a liar. Sorry, but I've explained why these various scenarios are bogus.

Oh? It's censorship for those who disagree with you?

I can't censor you. It's just my advice that you should actually show why I'm wrong than keep making generic appeals to principle. I know you're free to take it or leave it.

So, it isn't meaningful to you to listen to Clapton if you want to listen to a white boy play the blues?

What the hell are you talking about?

Magic may be completely debunked, but is it impossible?

Yeah. It's bogus. It ain't real. Do you really believe that it is? Or does a certain modeling system reach its limits when it comes to that question, and you cannot bring yourself to pull your head out of that model?

 

[Piggy]

Are we at the point where the inexistence of the god concept is being scolded for the vacuous malleability of the term?

No. There was some of that early on, but then it pretty much stopped.

 

[Piggy]

Where's piggy anyway?

Home from work now. Taking some long days this week so I can get away into and thru the city and out the other side before rush hour on Friday, then off to a poker game in South Carolina.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The point of both is that we come from something we don't expect - at first. We don't think about it in our daily lives that we are, in fact, made of star stuff.

Likewise, the story of Adam and Eve is to remind us that we are creations of God - so don't get any ideas.

"Remind us we are creations of God"? And you call yourself a skeptic?

What evidence do you have what the myth of Adam and Eve is supposed to remind us of and what evidence do you have that we are creations of a god?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Randi dismissed the claim because there was no evidence.

Read Randi's rebuttal of Nostradamus.

And I dismiss god claims for the same reason.

 

[Paulhoff]

Likewise, the story of Adam and Eve is to remind us that we are creations of God - so don't get any ideas.

No Adam and Eve and no so-called god.

Paul



There are no ideas to get.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I'm guessing that Santa was just using the A&E example as an analogy?

Just my 2 pennies.

 

[martu]

Randi dismissed the claim because there was no evidence.

Read Randi's rebuttal of Nostradamus.

So you agree that one can come to a 100% decision about something? I thought you said that's not what true skeptics do, there is always the chance, no matter how small, something might be true?

 

[CFLarsen]

You don't seem to understand what the word "dismiss" means.

Yes, I'm saying theists are wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts.

But they're the ones with the empty arguments, so I have no qualms with that.

You spend an awful lot of time on what you consider empty arguments.

What's that got to do with it? If you're saying that dark matter is an empty "I dunno", you're wrong. I don't have to be an expert on dark matter to know that.

There's a reason it's postulated. It's a hypothesis that's a direct result of what's known and what's observed.

But we don't know what DM is.

Yes, I can say that because I know.

Jedi religion?

Yes, Jedi religion.

No, it's not an official religion, but you can't deny that there are a lot of people who adhere to the Jedi religion.

Jump 1,000 years ahead in time. No traces of any Star Wars movies. The origins are lost. Only people who write about Jedis and believe in them, or claim to be them.

Now what? Is that a religion on par with e.g. the Christian one(s)?

Whose judgment am I to rely on? Yours?

I haven't dismissed anything. I've explained why it fails.

But look, we all have to make up our own minds. That's the reality we live in. You make up yours, I make up mine. We all rely on our own judgment all the time.

The fact is, God has been debunked. If you say it's part of our reality, you're wrong, because you'd have to say something about what it is, and you can't without making it contrary to fact. The remaining choices are to undefine it, make it empty, set up conditions whereby real and not-real are indistinguishable, or invent an ad hoc unanchored realm to house it where anything you dream up may reside.

All that is absurd.

And it's telling that your arguments in favor of compulsory universal agnosticism amount, at the end of the day, to "You could be wrong, you know".

And you could.

It's fine if you acknowledge that it is your opinion. But you keep dismissing what religious people believe in as if it were the absolute, eternal truth.

So can I, if you're talking about favorite songs or childhood memories.

But when you're talking about whether X exists, and someone says, in effect, "Yes, but only if X remains undefined", or, "Yes, but only if conditions are such that 'exist' and 'not exist' cannot be distinguished"... then I don't care a hill of beans whether what they're saying is meaningful to them -- it's nonsense.

I'm not going to adore the emperor's robes for you.

Can you define why you like a particular song?

Now I'm just going to call you a liar. Sorry, but I've explained why these various scenarios are bogus.

Sorry, but that's what you are doing: Reject any definition because it doesn't make sense to you.

I can't censor you. It's just my advice that you should actually show why I'm wrong than keep making generic appeals to principle. I know you're free to take it or leave it.

That's a far cry from what you advocated: That I should "put a cork in it" because I disagreed with you.

What the hell are you talking about?

I am talking about the way you use "meaningful" as an argument why you are right. Clapton is highly regarded as a blues guitarist, especially among his fellow musicians. Yet, you don't find it "meaningful" to listen to him, if you want to hear a white boy play the blues.

The exact same can be said for those who find meaning in various concepts of god, especially those who don't claim a verifiable, intervening one.

Yeah. It's bogus. It ain't real. Do you really believe that it is? Or does a certain modeling system reach its limits when it comes to that question, and you cannot bring yourself to pull your head out of that model?

Then, you are not a skeptic.

"Remind us we are creations of God"? And you call yourself a skeptic?

What evidence do you have what the myth of Adam and Eve is supposed to remind us of and what evidence do you have that we are creations of a god?

*ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding*

Talking about something does not mean one advocates it.

I'm talking about the Christian explanation of the first people. I don't claim that we are creations of God.

 

[martu]

It's fine if you acknowledge that it is your opinion. But you keep dismissing what religious people believe in as if it were the absolute, eternal truth.

You dismiss what the Nostrodamus followers believe don't you? What is the difference?

 

[CFLarsen]

You dismiss what the Nostrodamus followers believe don't you? What is the difference?

That they - or, rather, Nostradamus - could be right.

I know: Not very likely, and we have excellent natural explanations. But still: If you want to call yourself a skeptic, you have to be open-minded. You just want to see the evidence, that's all.

 

[martu]

That they - or, rather, Nostradamus - could be right.

I know: Not very likely, and we have excellent natural explanations. But still: If you want to call yourself a skeptic, you have to be open-minded. You just want to see the evidence, that's all.

So Randi was wrong to block Madus? The next email could be the one that contains the evidence to show Nostradamus was right.

 

[Piscivore]

That they - or, rather, Nostradamus - could be right.

I know: Not very likely, and we have excellent natural explanations. But still: If you want to call yourself a skeptic, you have to be open-minded. You just want to see the evidence, that's all.

How about Sylvia? Ready to give her a break? What about that guy on the plane with the gun that may or may not be a sky marshal?

 

[CFLarsen]

So Randi was wrong to block Madus? The next email could be the one that contains the evidence to show Nostradamus was right.

No, he wasn't wrong to block Madus. If Madus has evidence, it will get to Randi one way or another.

How about Sylvia? Ready to give her a break?

Clairvoyance is not an impossibility.

What about that guy on the plane with the gun that may or may not be a sky marshal?

Whether sky marshals should be armed or not has nothing to do with skepticism.

 

[martu]

No, he wasn't wrong to block Madus. If Madus has evidence, it will get to Randi one way or another.

Yes good point. I still think Randi rounds down but I'll leave that line here.

Can I ask why you are 100% sure that dogs don't see us as Gods?

 

[Piscivore]

Clairvoyance is not an impossibility.

Then why oppose her?

Whether sky marshals should be armed or not has nothing to do with skepticism.

I'm not talking about whether sky marshalls should be armed. I'm talking about your stated position that you "have to" kill the man you see carrying a gun on a plane without leaving the possibility open that evidence will show he is a sky marshall, and therefore not a threat to you.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not talking about whether sky marshalls should be armed. I'm talking about your stated position that you "have to" kill the man you see carrying a gun on a plane without leaving the possibility open that evidence will show he is a sky marshall, and therefore not a threat to you.

But if he did kill a sky marshall, he would then admit his mistake.