Ask a Radical Atheist

[Georg]

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.

Hello Piggy!

I´m with you concerning the other gods (the ones that interfere with the universe), but:
how can you be absolutely sure that a deist god, as described by Puppycow in the part I bolded, does not and even cannot exist?

ETA: I don´t believe in that one either, but I cannot rule it out, that´s where we differ.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes, as are my location and siggie.

Didn't see those before. Anyway . . . you got the conch!

 

[Darat]

Piggy as a radical atheist do you prefer coffee or The TEA?

 

[Nogbad]

I would describe myself as a fundamentalist agnostic.

Interestingly if one says one is agnostic theists often assume that one is agnostic about their God - whereas I am a Pagan agnostic

 

[Piggy]

I´m with you concerning the other gods (the ones that interfere with the universe), but:
how can you be absolutely sure that a deist god, as described by Puppycow in the part I bolded, does not and even cannot exist?

Because it's a non-thing. It has no qualities.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy as a radical atheist do you prefer coffee or The TEA?

You just whooshed me there, Darat.

 

[Francesca R]

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?"

To which the answer would be "That which I call god."

Piggy what's your follow up to this?

Or alternatively, if I say: "I have absolutely no idea where the laws of matter and energy came from and how stuff began to exist, and so any explanation is as good as any other . . . namely good for nothing"

Then would there be any difference between your stance and mine?

 

[Darat]

Seemed a very straightforward question to me. I've been reading a thread this morning that holds there is "the atheist" viewpoint so I was wondering what the correct preference was for coffee or The TEA for a radical atheist.

 

[Darat]

Hello Piggy!

I´m with you concerning the other gods (the ones that interfere with the universe), but:
how can you be absolutely sure that a deist god, as described by Puppycow in the part I bolded, does not and even cannot exist?

ETA: I don´t believe in that one either, but I cannot rule it out, that´s where we differ.

Since Piggy said he didn't mind side shoots, I'll add a comment to this:

I think the real problem with such a concept is that whilst the words look as if they are meaningful they actually do not produce a non-contradictory definition. Consider the definition we are using - it uses the word "universe", well universe simply means "everything" so how can God be something outside/beyond/more "everything" so the definition is contradictory. Or if God is part of the universe it is another contradiction (if he is part of the universe than his existence as part of the universe contradicts the part that has him having no affect on the universe).

I've never tried the exercise but I bet you'd find there is no why of defining this concept of a deist god that does not result in a self-contradiction in the definition.

 

[Nogbad]

Seemed a very straightforward question to me. I've been reading a thread this morning that holds there is "the atheist" viewpoint so I was wondering what the correct preference was for coffee or The TEA for a radical atheist.

Atheism is understandable - Ateaism is unacceptably evil.

 

[billydkid]

-- 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.

Well, this really makes no sense at all. The implication of the first sentence is "There is a God. I just don't believe in him." which would be a remarkably stupid claim for any person to make. This is why it always baffles me when a "faith based" person asks something to the effect of "So you are just turning your back on God?" Well, no, there is not God I am aware of so I can not very well turn my back on him. If there was a God, I would have to be extremely stupid to choose to piss him off.

 

[Georg]

Because it's a non-thing. It has no qualities.

It has not a lot of qualities we know about, right. How does that rule out its existence?

Since Piggy said he didn't mind side shoots, I'll add a comment to this:

I think the real problem with such a concept is that whilst the words look as if they are meaningful they actually do not produce a non-contradictory definition. Consider the definition we are using - it uses the word "universe", well universe simply means "everything" so how can God be something outside/beyond/more "everything" so the definition is contradictory. Or if God is part of the universe it is another contradiction (if he is part of the universe than his existence as part of the universe contradicts the part that has him having no affect on the universe).

I've never tried the exercise but I bet you'd find there is no why of defining this concept of a deist god that does not result in a self-contradiction in the definition.

That´s the kind of answer I was looking for, thanks Darat.
How do deists define their deity? Are there common definitions?

 

[-Fran-]

Nothing. As I said, I'm only answering questions here, not responding to comments.

Ah, OK, fair enough. Though it did turn into a question from me. I mean he is not the only one that has said this, I've seen this opinion many times, but his comment here now made me think to ask about it. But OK...

 

[blobru]

The only God I could believe in is one who doesn't want to be believed in. So I don't (so's not to make her mad).
All the rest, the ones who need to be believed in, are great as jokes, bit like the priest who walks into a bar, except funnier. I believe the real god, the one who doesn't want to be believed in, invented them to divert attention from herself. And to give us something to laugh at. Those who laugh loudest... get the punchline (d-uh).
'Course there's a slight possibility I could be wrong, in which case I'll be broiling, if the pig-haters are right, or coming back as a 'rhoid, if the cow-lovers are.

Anyway, question: is there such a thing as a God fetish? A halo-chaser; prophet jones; slick to mix with the crucifixed? Jesus has amazing abs, and the cutest blue eyes... I've heard. And He's such a tease; always posing with that bit of cloth strategically clinging to his midrift. C'mon G-man, work it! (Don't get me started on that drives-the-mullahs-mad Muhammad; let's just say it's no secret what Sunni Man's been praying for.)

And the "Virgin" Mary is a MEGA-milf and then some... aarroooo! (scratches self behind ear.) Of course, the Holy Ghost's a pretty tough act to follow, but that didn't slow Joseph down. I like that she's shy, always on the verge of blushing, and wears lots of silk. Takes care of herself too, soft smooth skin, not a trace of leprosy. And her perfume, a sinful blend of frankincense and myrrh. So how about it, G-man? Does your mom go, eh? Is she a goer?



Well, even if she isn't, plenty of other god-dish in the sea (this one's a goer, if you only want to go once, that is)...

​

I only ask because a... friend of mine... has been having these... thoughts lately... and wants to know if they're... normal... or indirect proof of God, somehow?

signed, sick sect sex-fiend's fried friend.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Just ask.

Why do you consider yourself a skeptic?

 

[CFLarsen]

Because it's a non-thing. It has no qualities.

It has claimed qualities.

Hence, there's a claim.

Hence, if you want to call yourself a skeptic, you can't reject the possibility of it existing.

So why do you claim to be a skeptic?

 

[Damien Evans]

Wheeee, someone cool wants to be my friend

What, so I'm not cool then?

 

[Limbo]

Piggy,

Is Spock a woo? How about Luke Skywalker? I assume you're familiar with teh Star Trek & Star Wars.

Is the term "atheist mystic" an oxymoron?

Have you read any books by Karen Armstrong?

Given a chance, would you make religion illegal?

 

[Upchurch]

Just to play the god's advocate...

I am a somewhat weaker atheist and a Unitarian Universalist. The church I attend follows the standard mid-western protestant service format, but with more liberal content. The doxology, for example, goes like this (as far as we can trust my memory):

Praise God, the love we all may share.
Praise God, the beauty everywhere.
Praise God, the hope of good to be.
Praise God, the truth that sets us free.
​

Generally speaking, I make it a rule not to sing. Ever. So during the time in which the doxology is sung, I pick it apart trying to understand how and why it was written the way that it was.

My interpretation is that this is, in essence, a poetic definition of "God". Not necessarily a complete or technical definition, but still a definition.

So, my question, Piggy, as god's advocate, is this: Do you not believe that love, beauty, hope, and truth does* not exist?



* grammar check: "does" or "do"?

 

[Darat]

Why do you consider yourself a skeptic?

Presumably because he uses skepticism to get to his conclusions and in forming his opinions. Remember scepticism is not about a conclusion but how you get to conclusions.

It has claimed qualities.

Hence, there's a claim.

...snip...

See my post above about one of the deist definitions of a god and to add to it although there is (simply because of how English is structured) an apparent claim when you use scepticism and critical thinking to examine the apparent claim you can see it contradicts itself, it is incoherent. Therefore there is in fact no actual claim to deal with. (I'm using claim in the sense of meaning a true statement about reality.)

Hence, if you want to call yourself a skeptic, you can't reject the possibility of it existing.


...snip...

Do you reject the claim that there could be a square circle?