Georg
Graduate Poster
I´d say "do", but as a German, I´m not an authority.
Ask a Radical Atheist
- Thread starter Piggy
- Start date
I´d say "do", but as a German, I´m not an authority.
To be lighty rude and jump in.
Er you are aware that Spock and Skywalker are fictional characters?
But to answer your question - within the fictional world they inhabit both Spock and Luke Skywalker are not "woo" because the "woo" they believe in does exist within the fiction that defines them. As to the "woo" in the fictional worlds being real well of course it ain't.
Depends on your definition of "mystic": if your definition of "mystic" also hides a god then yes, if it doesn't no.
Er you are aware that Spock and Skywalker are fictional characters?
But to answer your question - within the fictional world they inhabit both Spock and Luke Skywalker are not "woo" because the "woo" they believe in does exist within the fiction that defines them. As to the "woo" in the fictional worlds being real well of course it ain't.Depends on your definition of "mystic": if your definition of "mystic" also hides a god then yes, if it doesn't no.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
I can't agree.
There is no god or other supernatural critter.
If there were a god, however, it wouldn't be a very good god, and certainly would not be worthy of my respect, obedience, or worship.
The only honest and honorable response to such a creature would be contempt and condemnation.
However,
There is no god or other supernatural critter.
Last edited:
Not to me personally. I've been called here a "woo-atheist."
Limbo
Jedi Consular
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
Er you are aware that Spock and Skywalker are fictional characters?
Yes, of course. I'm not an idiot.
I suppose I should have added something like, "btw, I know these are fictional characters."
A square is a stupid, circle wannabe. LOL
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
I have to disagree back. That is really what the story of Job is about. God inflicts a bunch of misfortune on Job and I think Job complains and God's answer is "Hey, I'm God the Almighty and I created the universe and everything in it. Who are you to have an opinion?" I think if there were a God and made his presence felt to you, you would be inclined to want to please him in as much as every aspect of your fate is in his hands. If God is the alpha and the omega he is the definition of what is good and any views we would have about what is moral or just are puny and pointless in comparison. By definition, if God says slaughtering infidel babies is the right thing to do, it is. I think you understand what I am saying. I don't really get the "There is no God, but if there is one he is an *******!" thing even though I might feel that way myself. Any God who would have created the universe would define what is good and would make all the rules, so however righteous a person might feel in his own sense of justice, he would by definition be wrong if his sense of justice contradicted God's.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Similar to my objection. Unless you can make a case that God has to have certain characteristics, then you are stuck on this. It becomes "argument by dictionary". Of course, I agree that Piggy has superior command of the dictionary, but it still leaves wiggle room for the theist.
I made this post a few days ago.
It's "do". Plural (in this case, compound) subject takes plural verb. "It does". "They do."
Last edited:
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
I'm not comfortable with this. This seems to be some kind of dictionary definition of universe, which does not fit with physical observation. Rather, one should talk about an "observable universe," or even, "Hubble Volume." There is good reason to assume that the universe beyond the Hubble Limit shares similar properties to what we can observe, but we have to be careful in saying, "the universe is everything." Some popular theoretical cosmology articles include speculation about "multiple universes."
Piggy:
An analogy with other intelligent life - there is no evidence of an alien civilization, so far, but there are no rules (that we know of) expressly forbidding them, as such.
You've said that the fuzzy/contradictory/completely imaginary definitions are part of your conclusion that something cannot exist. You've said that a self-contradictory claim is a "no-claim." How are you able to rule that some kind of "great deceiver" (ugh, and I know who that sounds like) cannot exist? How can you determine that a simulation stack cannot exist (beyond Paul Davies's assertion, to which I agree, that the idea is useless). Do you not see a difference between "useless" and "cannot?"
ETA: To simplify my garble into one question:
Do you equate useless ideas with the subjects of useless ideas being forbidden?
Last edited:
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
It really does come down to this notion of a personal God versus the idea that you refer to the universe as God - which makes a kind of aesthetic sense, though it carries no particular implications. Is God a person or is God just the name you choose to use the world or the universe or existence? To me calling nature or the world or the universe your God is the same as being an atheist. The critical and defining element of all the major religions is this notion that God is a personage with intentions and desires and opinions about things. Not to believe this, in whatever form your non-belief takes is the moral equivalent of being an atheist. I have no issue with people who want to revere nature or the universe - I think it is worth revering. Many scientists hold nature in awe and reverence. Calling it God doesn't make it a person or an entity with intentions, but at least it does actually have some definable characteristics.
Isn't the whole thing about definitions? I agree that "universe" taken to mean "everything" is a simple dictionary definition but its the word that was used in the definition we were discussing and I say the only definition that makes any kind of sense. But if a deist wants to define their god using a term like "Hubble volume" we could look at that and see if it contains the same or a different contradiction. Out of curiosity have you ever seen anyone serious put forward such a definition for their god?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I know. I just wanted to present an actual, rather than hypothetical, example. This is the actual doxology sung by a real church. If Piggy is going to say there is no god for all values of "god", this value needs to be addressed.
I think a reasonable alteration would be to say that there is no god for all supernatural values of "god".
A chance to question a radical atheist, eh? Well it's not like I'm going to let that pass me by cause this is the first time I ever encountered one.
Thought a while about what's already been said in the thread and what opinions that might differ you from myself. If I would put an adjective before my own atheist views I guess it would be "lazy". You're the kind of man that stands up to defend your absence of belief in gods, while I'm more of the sort to reach for the remote to defend mine.
Since the "Meh! Whatever floats your boat." stance is fairly boring in a lively internet discussion I'll continue my lazy approach and deflect a question to me onto you.
"What would you do if God was proven to be real?" or perhaps rather expressed as "How would you react to the insight that the whole lot of the Bibel, even the parts that condradict *everything*, was scientifically proven to be a completely accurate description of our reality?"
My own answer was that I wouldn't *do* anything (well anything particularly interesting atleast), since for all practical reasons this insight would change nearly nothing in my day-to-day life. But I surmise that a more radical atheist might have a more radical reaction. So if you can spare the time Piggy I would love to read about it.
Thought a while about what's already been said in the thread and what opinions that might differ you from myself. If I would put an adjective before my own atheist views I guess it would be "lazy". You're the kind of man that stands up to defend your absence of belief in gods, while I'm more of the sort to reach for the remote to defend mine.
Since the "Meh! Whatever floats your boat." stance is fairly boring in a lively internet discussion I'll continue my lazy approach and deflect a question to me onto you.
"What would you do if God was proven to be real?" or perhaps rather expressed as "How would you react to the insight that the whole lot of the Bibel, even the parts that condradict *everything*, was scientifically proven to be a completely accurate description of our reality?"
My own answer was that I wouldn't *do* anything (well anything particularly interesting atleast), since for all practical reasons this insight would change nearly nothing in my day-to-day life. But I surmise that a more radical atheist might have a more radical reaction. So if you can spare the time Piggy I would love to read about it.
What, so I'm not cool then?
Of course you are!! Just didn't know you wanted to be my friend
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
You know: The God concept that is All-Powerful, All-KNowing, etc., etc.
How can you know such a God does not exist? What if it does, and it simply chose to not make you see it. Perhaps to test your faith, or the faith of others, who knows His will?! But, how do YOU know?!
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
That's an interesting question. My answer, more or less, is no, I haven't.
I had a friend who might have run to arguments like this at some point, but usually those come from people trying to go from a deist wedge to a personal, theist God.
Almost everyone here seems to be in agreement about the practical aspects of day-to-day living being somewhat separate from a theist God... I'm just indulging in some internet work diversion...
Its obviously a hypothetical.
Okay, so lets move through the hypothetical.
Hypothetically, lets assume computing power continues to increase virtually indefinitely. Quantum computers, even more exotic technologies, larger sizes, organic computing, all seems likely in the very long run. Give it, say, 2 million years beyond the level we're at now. Might be less. At this point, computing power is so immense that a single computer can do all the operations that every computer on this planet has ever done in an eyeblink.
Okay, now what would 'people' do with that (and I use the term loosely, as it will probably be a little loose by then). Well, a lot of things, probably stuff we haven't even thought of, but probably something they do now - simulations. Only instead of Spore, their Spore makes anything we have look like a joke. A fully realized virtual universe, complete with virtual intelligences, and virtual reality.
It would probably be a moderate to large project, even then. Lets say, in the history of the species, they only make 100-200 of them, to play around with.
One real universe. 100-200 simulations. Chances are, we're components of one of those simulations. And the simulating computer has all the powers we assign to God - full control of the simulation, full knowledge of everything in the simulation, full presence in every part of the simulation.
Hence why I'm an agnostic atheist. I really, really hope that isn't what is actually happening. However, I just can't see a way to rule out it being a logical possibility.
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
In the sputter of human enlightenment, there have been sun worshipers, who certainly didn't consider themselves atheists.
So in this case, perhaps your disagreement hinges on the fact that you don't consider the sun to be sentient.
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
Maybe he just can't stand the wormy little suck-ups who are always pestering him for favors ("Cure little Jimmy's cancer") and trying to get his autograph.