Ask a Radical Atheist

UnrepentantSinner said:
Hey baby... you like taller guys? I'm only 1.88m. Is that too short for you. :)
Click to expand...

:D I kinda do like short, smallish guys. I never felt comfortable with people towering over me, or talking to their knees :p

UnrepentantSinner said:
Oh, please disregard my hitting on you above. It's not that I'm not into chicks with ebony skin, but the 3 inch talons and belt of severed heads are a bit of a turnoff. :p
Click to expand...

*LOL* That's what all guys say. Weaklings! ;)
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Agh. Another thread to see who's the biggest Atheist of them all.

Kind of reminds me those body building contests.
Click to expand...

:D

yeah, soon the Commissar will be coming around with his stick, to enforce observance of the purest orthodoxy.
 
Nihilus said:
Considering your stance on 'radical/strong' atheism, how would you describe the fundamental slips that weak atheists or agnostics make when it comes to the god concept? And, in your opinion, do you think the leniency towards permitting the possibility of the god concept is one of pseudo political correctness or more a unwillingness to step firmly into the 'hard atheist' line of thinking (or something else)?
Click to expand...

This is just personal opinion based on limited observation, but the predominant error seems (to me) to be a tendency to privilege theory over actuality.

In my previous threads on this issue, more often than not, it came down to something like "I know there's no God, but the scientific framework can't prove there's no God, so I can't say there's no God", which is ridiculous.

The scientific model is not the only tool in the rational toolbelt.

All things considered, from a rational point of view, we may dispense with God.

But in the thread in which I challenged Sagan's dragon, it was amazing the number of people who absolutely refused to assert things they knew to be true simply because the scientific framework alone could not take them there.

It's like asserting that we can't make any claims beyond what a map shows, even though we have access to much more detail than what is possible on a map.
 
Wowbagger said:
Isn't the Omni-everything, Ultimate God concept fundamentally untestable?

How do you know the Omni-everything, Ultimate God doesn't exist? What if it does, and it intentionally shaped the world for you to not see it, nor be prone to believe in it?

(Hey, I'm on your side. I'm just asking to see how you react, is all.)
Click to expand...

My reaction to that is: What the hell are you talking about?
 
Hmmmmm....

What if I were to define "God" as a result of certain functions of the limbic system. These functions specifically cause human beings to require a world-view that includes a higher power that devolves responsibility for their own actions, actions of others, and removes the random nature of death, destruction, and disaster. Furthermore, this "God" is not the limbic system itself, but a construct of it, much the way "consciousness" is also a construct of the brain.

Would you agree that this is both a reasonable definition of God and it does exist?
 
Last edited:
Jimbo07 said:
What I want to know is how do you get "cannot?" What is it that we now know that we can say that God (and again with the arbitrary definition problem already brought up in this thread) cannot exist? What rules forbid it?
Click to expand...

Given that the supernatural model of the universe has been thoroughly debunked, having lost every possible contest, and the naturalistic model has replaced it at every point....

God can be said to interact with our universe or not.

If not, then it cannot be said, in any meaningful way, to exist.

If so, then it either contradicts purely physical laws, or it does not.

If it does, then it is contrary to observed fact, and therefore false.

If it does not, then it is indistinguishable from not-God, and therefore meaningless.

And btw, the arbitrary definition ruse is not a "problem" for the reasons stated above... it is merely a retreat into a non-claim. It's as if the losing team, having lost every point in the match, decided to quit the field, and to claim victory in doing so, on the grounds that no further points may then be scored against them.
 
Hokulele said:
Hmmmmm....

What if I were to define "God" as a result of certain functions of the limbic system. These functions specifically cause human beings to require a world-view that includes a higher power that devolves responsibility for their own actions, actions of others, and removes the random nature of death, destruction, and disaster. Furthermore, this "God" is not the limbic system itself, but a construct of it, much the way "consciousness" is also a construct of the brain.

Would you agree that this is both a reasonable definition of God and it does exist?
Click to expand...

No. This is to confuse the idea of a thing with the thing itself.

I can't save myself from starvation by eating my idea of a sandwich.
 
Alrighty then. Why are you people talking about yourselves? This is Piggy's thread.

So, I'm not gonna tell you where I am. I think you already know anyway. Instead...

Dear Piggy,

There are some people who might not believe in God, but pretend they do and advocate God belief (or the pretense of belief) because they feel it is in the best interests of society for the belief to be widespread. Leaving aside the honesty of their position, let us assume for the moment, that they honestly believe it is better for society if God-belief dominates.

Could you advocate such a position? If not, how would you respond?

Confuzzled in Canada.

Win Powerball!!!
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
No. This is to confuse the idea of a thing with the thing itself.
Click to expand...


Most delusions, schizophrenia as an example, are simply ideas, but they are still powerful in and of themselves.

I can't save myself from starvation by eating my idea of a sandwich.
Click to expand...


But you can save yourself from stress and a massive guilt trip by appealing to your idea of a god. How is this less real than schizophrenia?
 
dglas said:
There are some people who might not believe in God, but pretend they do and advocate God belief (or the pretense of belief) because they feel it is in the best interests of society for the belief to be widespread. Leaving aside the honesty of their position, let us assume for the moment, that they honestly believe it is better for society if God-belief dominates.

Could you advocate such a position? If not, how would you respond?

Confuzzled in Canada.

Win Powerball!!!
Click to expand...

I actually won Powerball in Boulder over the weekend, btw. Unfortunately, I only matched the powerball, so my winnings were all of $3, which -- minus my purchase price -- amounts to $2.

My mother fits in the camp you describe. She wants the grandkids taken to church for "social reasons", and they can make up their own minds later.

My objection is that the young mind is designed to believe what adults tell it to believe, and it's not such a simple matter to abandon belief in mythology, especially when powerful people are telling you it means burning in hell for eternity.

Personally, I can't see how it can possibly be an advantage to believe what's false rather than what's true.

It's kindof like saying there's some advantage to not seeing the cliff in front of you, because it's prettier to think it's not there.
 
Hokulele said:
But you can save yourself from stress and a massive guilt trip by appealing to your idea of a god. How is this less real than schizophrenia?
Click to expand...

Real schizophrenia involves very different neurology.
 
-Fran- said:
:D I kinda do like short, smallish guys. I never felt comfortable with people towering over me, or talking to their knees :p
Click to expand...

Let me give you a human rickshaw ride through a crowded venue and get back to me.

-Fran- said:
*LOL* That's what all guys say. Weaklings! ;)
Click to expand...

Yes ma'am... just don't send your thugii after me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom