Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piggy]

Just about anyone who's read my posts in this section of the forum knows that I'm a "strong atheist" or what Douglas Adams called a "radical atheist", or an atheist to the root -- that is, someone who does not merely claim "I do not believe in God", but rather that there is, in fact, no God to believe in.

To quote Mr. Adams: "I really do mean atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god -- in fact I am convinced that there is not a god.... It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly."

In fact, I go perhaps a bit farther than Mr. Adams in that I would not even use the word "opinion". By my reckoning, we know enough now to say definitively not only that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.

Usually, threads on this topic degenerate very quickly, so I've decided to try turning the tables a bit. Rather than attempting to prove my point -- which I've done ad nauseam anyway -- I've decided to let myself be a punching bag of sorts.

Ever want to know what or how a strong atheist thinks?

Just ask.

Get as tangential as you like, as long as the subject is touched upon in some way and not completely abandoned.

PS: Side discussions are welcome, but I'll only respond to questions.

 

[Complexity]

You rock, Piggy. I agree.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Okay, I'll bite.

As you might have noticed, I tend to agree with you whenever it comes to biblical interpretation, since you state your arguments more eloquently than I could come up with on a moment's notice. However I'm the furthest thing from a "strong atheist" as is typically defined. I know what basis you have for labeling yourself as such though, in that any clearly defined gods, such as the God of the Abrahamic religions, has a contradictory definition and cannot logically exist. I actually agree with you on that.

The difference may come in the fact that I still use the terms God or gods in a metaphorical sense, to refer to abstract concepts or influential ideas. In other words, I refer to a God that is mostly stripped of the supernatural, dogmatic, metaphysical, and even causal attributes one normally associates with the term. It's fair to say that this is a conceptual god that I only use for the sake of philosophical argument; it's certainly not a god that I would go off and worship.

I'm not closed off to the possibility that there is something (or someone) out there in the universe that exists beyond our comprehension. I would even grant you that there is, because we've only explored an infinitesimal fraction of the universe. However, I would not necessarily call it God. As I stated before, even if God were to appear before me and shake my hand, I would stand where I am and extend my own hand in return. I would speak with him and learn as much as I can from him and about him. I would not get on my knees, relegate myself to the position of a slave, and start sending up prayers to him.

I have defined myself as a humanist, a Jeffersonian Christian, and have expressed my interest in Buddhism, Shamanism, and Christianity. Yet I also call myself an atheist, owing to the fact that I reject the theistic definitions of God, and do not believe in any worshiped beings called gods. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, in that I do not hold any view with absolute 100% certainty.

I suppose my question is, based on that, what are the similarities and differences between our views?

 

[Piggy]

I suppose my question is, based on that, what are the similarities and differences between our views?

Seems to me we're similar in that we don't believe there is anything out there which can be called "god" in anything but a humpty-dumpty sort of way.

We're different in that I've reached the conclusion that God not only does not exist but cannot exist. There is no possible shaking of hands to contemplate.

Anything at all can be used metaphorically, so that sort of usage doesn't have any bearing on the actual question of existence, of course.

And to speak of a "god" which is stripped of any and all supernatural qualities is not to speak of a god at all. That's like speaking of a car which has no wheels, seats, steering mechanism, drive mechanism, chassis, or engine.

Non-theistic conceptions of God are self-contradictory. They're like non-aviary conceptions of birds.

 

[Tricky]

Sorry Piggy, but this is a losing battle. There are too many definitions of God for you to prove them all impossible. And then some damn Pantheist is going to say something like "God is Nature" and what can you say? If you say "No its not," then you open yourself up to having them say, "Oh, so God the way you define it is impossible, eh?" Well, they're right. If they wan't to call trees "God" then you cannot possibly say they don't exist. All you can say is that they don't fit your definition of what a god should be.

So here is my question to the radical atheist:
Do you have a definition of "god" that every theist in the world will accept?

Unless the answer is "yes" then your quest for proving athieism correct is, I'm afraid, Quixotic. But you can still dream the impossible dream.

 

[Piggy]

So here is my question to the radical atheist:
Do you have a definition of "god" that every theist in the world will accept?

But I've decided not to fight any battle, my friend.

I'm just answering questions, you see.

But I'm very aware of this rhetorical trick which I refer to as "appealing to the cookie jar".

The theists have this cookie jar into which anyone can drop any definition of "God" or "god" they please. When any particular definition runs afoul (which they all must do, and perhaps someone will ask me about that issue at some point) they point to this cookie jar and cry, "Yes, but there are an infinite number of possible other definitions in that cookie jar, and you can't disprove all of them!"

But the problem there is that you either have a claim or you do not.

And an infinitely plastic definition is no claim at all, since it has no agreed-upon qualities. It is a non-claim.

You cannot simply abandon your claim for a non-claim and somehow believe you have defended your point. (And I mean "you" here in the British sense of "one", not you in particular.)

The appeal to the cookie jar is an admission of failure per se.

To illustrate, let's take the example of flogiston. When the discovery of oxygen supplanted the debunked flogiston hypothesis, suppose the proponents of flogiston had said, "Well, actually, although everything we claimed about flogiston has proven untrue, and there is, in fact, a perfectly valid theory which accounts for all its supposed attributes, we reserve the right to redefine flogiston in any way we see fit, even in ways that contradict everything we've ever said, therefore you cannot say that flogiston doesn't exist".

This would be obvious nonsense to everyone.

And it's equally nonsense when applied to God.

The appeal to the cookie jar is a transparent and invalid rhetorical trick.

You either make a claim or you do not.

The appeal to the cookie jar is a non-claim.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Seems to me we're similar in that we don't believe there is anything out there which can be called "god" in anything but a humpty-dumpty sort of way.

We're different in that I've reached the conclusion that God not only does not exist but cannot exist. There is no possible shaking of hands to contemplate.

I've given this some thought, and now I'm not sure the difference lies here. As far as the handshaking story goes, given that a god is a worshiped being, I would not call him a god because I would not be worshiping him. Hell, even if a giant bearded fatherly figure descended from the heavens, he would still not be God to me, because he wouldn't be an object of worship to me.

Anything at all can be used metaphorically, so that sort of usage doesn't have any bearing on the actual question of existence, of course.

Yeah, I know.

And to speak of a "god" which is stripped of any and all supernatural qualities is not to speak of a god at all. That's like speaking of a car which has no wheels, seats, steering mechanism, drive mechanism, chassis, or engine.

Non-theistic conceptions of God are self-contradictory. They're like non-aviary conceptions of birds.

I suppose what I meant by this is that I've settled on a definition of God, possibly one of only a few definitions of God, that does not run into those blatant logical contradictions that we've all heard of. It's more of an acknowledgment that what people commonly refer to as God is in reality a powerful or influential idea, and not an actual being. Ideas certainly exist, and they can have a strong bearing on how people live, act, and treat others.

But since I'm arguing from definitions, I can see your point. My point though was that this is not the kind of perspective on God that any given theist would accept, hence non-theistic. Deists would say that God is an impersonal first cause. Pantheists would say that God is the universe itself. I have often said that we are all "God" in a sense, although again, this is more of an acknowledgment of what people are actually referring to when they talk about God, in that man has only worshiped himself.

Descartes had a conceptual God, which is analogous to what I'm referring to, although I don't agree with his conclusions or reasons for believing. That's probably a different topic though. Also, I would probably agree if you were to ask me, "Why call it God at all?"

 

[Piggy]

So here is my question to the radical atheist:
Do you have a definition of "god" that every theist in the world will accept?

Of course not, because they do not.

And the fact that they do not is damning.

If there are no core qualities which everyone can agree upon, then there is no actual claim being made. We're talking about nothing, or about nonsense.

 

[-Fran-]

I, also, would say that I am a strong or radical atheist, for the same reasons you give in your OP. It's not like I would put up a fight if I was proven wrong though, but it seems pretty safe, to me, to say that it won't happen.

 

[MG1962]

Okay as a radical athiest, do you see your lack of belief in other areas of your life or just the question of God. IE do you go to watch your favorite sports team play in spite of the pundits giving them no chance to win, and even yourself admiting that the team does not have the talent, but despite the odds you believe they might spring an upset and win.

 

[Tricky]

Of course not, because they do not.

And the fact that they do not is damning.

If there are no core qualities which everyone can agree upon, then there is no actual claim being made. We're talking about nothing, or about nonsense.

Well I don't disagree with you, but how do you respond if I say "God is Nature". Obviously nature exists. If I obstinately refuse to give any other definition of God, then you cannot say that you have proved my God doesn't exist. If you ask me to define it more, then I will simply say that you are not accepting my defintion of God, and I refuse to submit to yours. Even if you say "Can you show me any way that the universe would be different if nature exists, but it is not God?" they will counter that this isn't their claim.

No, my friend. This only works with rational people. If I had to choose a person who knew enough about different religions to be up to this task, it would be you. But it is still a hopeless task.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm about where Richard Dawkins is on the scale.

Piggy: What would you say to a deist, who proposed a god who created the universe, but does not interfere in it. He created the laws of physics and set off the Big Bang and then retired. He doesn't listen to or answer prayers or send any messages to prophets or perform parlour tricks to impress us.

 

[Hokulele]

Well I don't disagree with you, but how do you respond if I say "God is Nature". Obviously nature exists. If I obstinately refuse to give any other definition of God, then you cannot say that you have proved my God doesn't exist. If you ask me to define it more, then I will simply say that you are not accepting my defintion of God, and I refuse to submit to yours. Even if you say "Can you show me any way that the universe would be different if nature exists, but it is not God?" they will counter that this isn't their claim.

No, my friend. This only works with rational people. If I had to choose a person who knew enough about different religions to be up to this task, it would be you. But it is still a hopeless task.

I am not Piggy, but the last time some one used the "God is Nature" argument on me, I responded, "You can worship nature, you can worship money, you can worship Justin Timberlake. That doesn't make any of them God."

 

[Michelle Lyon]

What scientific evidence do you have that suggests that there is no god? There's no evidence that I know of that there is one, but is there evidence that there isn't? And why believe in either case if there is no evidence in either case?

 

[Piggy]

Okay as a radical athiest, do you see your lack of belief in other areas of your life or just the question of God. IE do you go to watch your favorite sports team play in spite of the pundits giving them no chance to win, and even yourself admiting that the team does not have the talent, but despite the odds you believe they might spring an upset and win.

In a sports match, there is always a chance that the underdog may win.

On the other hand, there is no chance that we may one day stumble upon a circle with corners. To be "open to new evidence" in that case is ridiculous.

We must be able to discern between the 2 cases.

 

[Piggy]

Well I don't disagree with you, but how do you respond if I say "God is Nature". Obviously nature exists. If I obstinately refuse to give any other definition of God, then you cannot say that you have proved my God doesn't exist. If you ask me to define it more, then I will simply say that you are not accepting my defintion of God, and I refuse to submit to yours. Even if you say "Can you show me any way that the universe would be different if nature exists, but it is not God?" they will counter that this isn't their claim.

This is just another appeal to the cookie jar, with a nice dab of humpty-dumptyism thrown in for good measure.

Now let me be clear, I'm not attempting to persuade anyone here. I'm as realistic as you are about that.

But let us see if anyone can land a solid punch against radical atheism. I don't believe anyone can.

"God is nature" is a definition which posits God as equivalent to atheistic science. So by that definition, God is indistinguishable from not-God. Once again, theism retreats into a realm indistinguishable from atheism.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy: What would you say to a deist, who proposed a god who created the universe, but does not interfere in it. He created the laws of physics and set off the Big Bang and then retired. He doesn't listen to or answer prayers or send any messages to prophets or perform parlour tricks to impress us.

I would ask "Who are you saying did these things?"

 

[Piggy]

What scientific evidence do you have that suggests that there is no god? There's no evidence that I know of that there is one, but is there evidence that there isn't? And why believe in either case if there is no evidence in either case?

In every case in which a theistic explanation has butted heads with a non-theistic explanation, the latter has won.

There is no longer any room for God.

Do you find any? I do not.

 

[Apathia]

I am not Piggy, but the last time some one used the "God is Nature" argument on me, I responded, "You can worship nature, you can worship money, you can worship Justin Timberlake. That doesn't make any of them God."

Actually, I'd like to turn that around.
A God is something sombody worships. No more. No less.
Of course this doesn't satisfy the Christian who wants his God to be the thing everybody is supposed to worship.
And just in that supposed to lies the evil.

Anyone who's fool enough to worship Justin Timberlake is free to do so, but she'd better not hit me over the head with her celebrity magzine and tell me I must.

 

[MG1962]

In a sports match, there is always a chance that the underdog may win.

On the other hand, there is no chance that we may one day stumble upon a circle with corners. To be "open to new evidence" in that case is ridiculous.

We must be able to discern between the 2 cases.

But unless I miss understand, an athiest draws their opinion from the lack of evidence in a God. Not definitive proof that God (in any form) does not exist.

So like the under dog sports team - as unlikely as the case may be, there is a chance God exists and may manifest itself in a way that you will change your world view.