Ask a Radical Atheist

[lupus_in_fabula]

The problem with ’god as a metaphor’ is that it makes traditional dogma look silly.

The problem with traditional dogma is that it makes god look silly.

Why use the term god at all, especially if we have clearer and more functional descriptions available?

 

[Apathia]

Piggy,

You really do keep restricting the terms "God" and "Divine" to a Theistic frame. Of course I agree with you that our expanding grasp of our wider environment has found that reality is just to big and complex for the Sky Daddy tale.

I know religious professionals who consider Theism folklore or a kind of "graven image," and assert that the "Divine" is not a being but a quality of communal encounter and engagement. I don't find this kind of God-talk meaningless. You may find it unnecessary, and that's OK because other religious traditions have their own language that doesn't have the Sky Daddy history, (For exampe, "The Buddha Nature.")
Perhaps in time we'll have a secular "spirituality" that doesn't depend on recycled, redefined relgious terminology.

In citing the existance various non-theistic positions on the "divine," I'm not claiming that these have arguments for the existance of the Sky Daddy. What I meant to caution you about was the sweeping statement that all possible uses of the G-Word are nonsense, and that there is no possible use of "Divine" that isn't drivel. It's a tad overkill. But I understand your scorched earth tactic. May all the Gods die and the land blossom with reverence for life and shared being. Beware the carpetbaggers, though.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The problem with ’god as a metaphor’ is that it makes traditional dogma look silly.

The problem with traditional dogma is that it makes god look silly.

Why use the term god at all, especially if we have clearer and more functional descriptions available?

No particular reason. It's a handy word and it pisses some people off and confuses others.

All part of the game.

Words, words everywhere, nor any one to eat..........

I think I'll have a transubstantiation sandwich today.

 

[Apathia]

No particular reason. It's a handy word and it pisses some people off and confuses others.

All part of the game.

Words, words everywhere, nor any one to eat..........

I think I'll have a transubstantiation sandwich today.

I think I'll just bow out of all this God-talk and go get myself a satori on rye.

 

[Piscivore]

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).

How does one qualify as a "bona fide believer"?

You've got a contradiction here- you ask for a factual definition of god, yet you're restricting the discussion to the ones you know are non-factual. Just like the villagers and their spirits. I don't believe in a theistic god, but neither do I discount the fact that there is an entity- a non-physical, corporate, created entity- involved in what the "followers" of that god do. In trying to describe that entity, I'm going to have to leave the naive, superstitious definitions of the believers behind, aren't I?

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

I am, but that's not a different issue as I see it, it is the issue.

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.

So we don't include Biblical literalism in the defintion of god. Where is it stipulated that fundamentalist Christians get to define god for the rest of us?

(we do it for jollies if for nothing else, at least I did and I think that is really Piscivore's reason too)

Mostly.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sorry to interrupt. I restate that I can't say nothing about god (unless forced to confess that I am god), but still you present here a rather simplistic point of view, good to impress the less informed but inconclusive if you dig deeper, as you heavily rely on ad-hoc assumptions for most of your claims.

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).

Well, every old description of matter fits this. It has changed so much in the last couple of thousand years that it is ridiculous to keep telling that "the world is made of matter" (and yet you have zero issues with it), anyway, we have covered this issue on another thread,

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.

A flat earth is a useful notion under certain perspectives, geocentrism is as true and valid as heliocentrism (both are only true or false in relation to what you want to measure) and god is a useful notion for the vast majority's of people (granted not us). You can't render it obsolete FOR THEM because YOU cant find a use for the concept.

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.

Wrong. Their truth value is restricted, but they are not false because you know better, is just that your perspective is different. The earth goes around the sound is as true as the sun goes around the earth. Movement is relative. Evidences are valid as long they are useful, no other notion is necessary.

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.

2+2 what? with rabbits your mileage will vary. 2+2 can lead to many more than 5.

We do learn things. We do know things.

Some ideas are false.

God is one of those ideas.

Well, not exactly, truth values are difficult to assign, they are relative to us, its more a value of utility that a "thing in itself". Whats more, what is truth for you is not necessarily truth for another individual. Under several conditions, or for some world-views, god is logical, and from other world-views it is not. Now, please notice that humans do not share the same world-views, every individual has its own and so, your words and concepts can only be understood by those who believe more or less what you believe.

In this sense, you will NEVER EVER convince most believers with your logic, you will be perceived from simply evil to absurd.

Oh! I almost forget! I have been reading here that you do more philosophy than most of the self called "philosopher" members

 

[HghrSymmetry]

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.

I would say every individual discussing "god" is saying nothing.
Meaningless terms are hardly philosophy, just gibberish.

Discussing c:2.-7F%a,>/#wk)4z;` would be analogous.

-H "listen for the POP!" S

 

[articulett]

Yes, if the god you "believe in" is indistinguishable from a lie or a delusion--then pardon me, if I treat it as such.

 

[dglas]

I would say every individual discussing "god" is saying nothing.
Meaningless terms are hardly philosophy, just gibberish.

Discussing c:2.-7F%a,>/#wk)4z;` would be analogous.

-H "listen for the POP!" S

If there is absolutely one thing a history of religious stagnation must teach us, it is that we must not limit the scope of inquiry, even if we think we can do so legitimately. Merely thinking we can legitimately do so is a warning sign. It is not enough to think astrology is crap; one must know why it is crap. Otherwise, we ain't learned nothing!

We must know why and how it is gibberish, even if just to recognize it when it rears its ugly head again.

 

[articulett]

No particular reason. It's a handy word and it pisses some people off and confuses others.

All part of the game.

Words, words everywhere, nor any one to eat..........

I think I'll have a transubstantiation sandwich today.

use unleavened bread.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

We must know why and how it is gibberish, even if just to recognize it when it rears its ugly head again.

Specifically, discussions regarding this or that omnipotent, omniscient supreme entity are riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. That combined with a lack of an agreed upon definition renders the subject mere prattle.

That would be my "why" it's gibberish. It's a word without meaning.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Yes, if the god you "believe in" is indistinguishable from a lie or a delusion--then pardon me, if I treat it as such.

Acknowledged.
------------------
PS: The night sweats, facial ticks, and resurgence of paranoia have been disconcerting to your fans.

Then they noticed you were gone.


Welcome back.

 

[articulett]

Acknowledged.
------------------
PS: The night sweats, facial ticks, and resurgence of paranoia have been disconcerting to your fans.

Then they noticed you were gone.


Welcome back.

Yes, I'm back to darken door steps once more. Of course... (assume mysterious ecclesiastical tone) I never really left...(insert Twilight Zone music)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I would say every individual discussing "god" is saying nothing.
Meaningless terms are hardly philosophy, just gibberish.

Discussing c:2.-7F%a,>/#wk)4z;` would be analogous.

-H "listen for the POP!" S

Correct, which is the reason we have Analytic Philosophy Still, discussing these things is a philosophical endeavor, so strictly speaking if you don't like philosophy please don't discuss it. Sure, you can state that you don't believe in god because you don't buy metaphysical arguments, thats a position and it is respectable. But claiming that you can prove that there is no god will convert you in a philosopher! (my personal discussion with Piggy, he states that he hates philosophy and that he does not do philosophy and yet he make lots of philosophical argumentations in here).

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Yes, I'm back to darken door steps once more. Of course... (assume mysterious ecclesiastical tone) I never really left...(insert Twilight Zone music)

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Correct, which is the reason we have Analytic Philosophy Still, discussing these things is a philosophical endeavor, so strictly speaking if you don't like philosophy please don't discuss it.

I'm not a big fan of it, but don't mind the occasional romp. My focus was on a supreme being or "god" and the lack of a specific defintion.

Sure, you can state that you don't believe in god because you don't buy metaphysical arguments, thats a position and it is respectable.

You may have partially missed my point. I dont' neccessarily buy nonsensical words. This is where lack of belief is more accurate than disbelief.
If a subject is meaningless, then stating belief or disbelief becomes moot.
Perhaps you are speaking rhetorically, if so, then disregard my last paragraph.

But claiming that you can prove that there is no god will convert you in a philosopher! (my personal discussion with Piggy, he states that he hates philosophy and that he does not do philosophy and yet he make lots of philosophical argumentations in here).

I don't remember making any such claims. My entire point was that the subject in question is senseless.
Again, if rhetorical,...disregard.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, if the god you "believe in" is indistinguishable from a lie or a delusion--then pardon me, if I treat it as such.

How do you know when it is a lie and when it is a delusion?

If you treat it as a lie when it is a delusion, you are being grossly unfair.

 

[Piggy]

I guess the real question is, "should god as metaphor also die, or does the idea still have some usefulness?"

Well, I reckon metaphors are useful as long as the people using them believe that they are. Hard to argue with a metaphorical use of any term, really, as long as it doesn't get confused with actual reality.

 

[Piggy]

You really do keep restricting the terms "God" and "Divine" to a Theistic frame.

There are no non-theistic gods. That's what theism is... belief in God.

I know religious professionals who consider Theism folklore or a kind of "graven image," and assert that the "Divine" is not a being but a quality of communal encounter and engagement.

To me that's just humpty-dumptyism. It's redefining God to be something God never was.

If God is a "communal engagement" then it's equivalent to an idea, or a feeling, or perhaps a mass delusion. In that case, the experience is real, but nothing actually God-like is real.

It's kind of like re-defining phlogiston as the experience of seeing something burn -- which has no bearing on what phlogiston was actually believed to be before it was debunked.

I don't find this kind of God-talk meaningless. You may find it unnecessary, and that's OK because other religious traditions have their own language that doesn't have the Sky Daddy history, (For exampe, "The Buddha Nature.")
Perhaps in time we'll have a secular "spirituality" that doesn't depend on recycled, redefined relgious terminology.

The contemplative Asian sects have been at the redefining game longer than Westerners, that's all.

Personally, I'm not much interested in the question "Can we re-define 'God' in novel ways to refer to non-Godlike things which we already know exist, such as ideas or the universe, or to refer to utter philosophical abstractions that have no actual referent?"

That seems unimportant and trivial to me. However, the question of whether God actually exists... that's important.

What I meant to caution you about was the sweeping statement that all possible uses of the G-Word are nonsense, and that there is no possible use of "Divine" that isn't drivel.

I haven't said that, and wouldn't.

I'm not talking about all uses of these words -- such as calling Clapton a guitar god, for example, or saying that sleeping in til 8:00 and being served breakfast in bed is divine.

I'm not saying all definitions of the words, used in any sense whatsoever, are empty or nonsensical.

I'm talking about definitions of "God" or "gods", divine beings which theists actually believe in.

When we're talking about that, then yes, all definitions are either contrary to fact, or fall into some fatal error such as self-contradiction, lack of definition, emptiness, humpty-dumptyism, etc.

 

[Piggy]

How does one qualify as a "bona fide believer"?

By actually believing in God, not just tossing out novel ideas for the sake of argument.

You've got a contradiction here- you ask for a factual definition of god, yet you're restricting the discussion to the ones you know are non-factual.

I'm not restricting the discussion to any particular definition.

But that doesn't mean that I'm going to swallow any old definition anyone dreams up and ignore fatal problems with those definitions.

I can't accept "God is the universe" or "God is love" because those turn out to be empty if no other qualities are given.

I can't accept "God created the universe then had nothing more to do with it" because, again, it's a non-definition of God. It's merely crediting an I-don't-know with an action that does not require any god, leaving that I-don't-know undefined.

I can't accept mad-scientist scenarios because believers don't worship mad scientists -- not even the Mormons, who believe that the God of the Bible used to be something kind of like us.

Etc. etc. etc.

Just like the villagers and their spirits. I don't believe in a theistic god, but neither do I discount the fact that there is an entity- a non-physical, corporate, created entity- involved in what the "followers" of that god do. In trying to describe that entity, I'm going to have to leave the naive, superstitious definitions of the believers behind, aren't I?

I'm not following you here.

Are you saying that the villagers' disease-causing spirits really exist?

If so, I don't agree.

Or are you saying that something causes the actions they credit these spirits with, but when looking for that cause, you have to "leave their definitions behind"?

If the latter, then you're simply saying that they're wrong about what causes disease, that something else causes disease.

You can't "leave their definitions behind" and simultaneously say that their ideas are correct.

The question is not "Does something else do the things that theists believe God does?"

The question is "Does God exist?"