Ask a Radical Atheist

CFLarsen said:
....and?
Click to expand...

According to your reasoning by you saying "There can't be.." in regards to a square circle you are not being skeptical and therefor shouldn't call yourself a sceptic. (I would rather not continue this derail of what or who is a sceptic in this thread else we'll end up being split to a new thread.)



CFLarsen said:
No, he can exist the way we have defined god.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Which god is this you are talking about?
 
skeptigirl said:
Get a dog. My dogs definitely think I am god.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this doesn't work with budgies.

One of them thinks I'm his best friend, the female doesn't give a rat's ass who I am and the other thinks my hand and me are two different beings.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Is there a difference between useless/irrelevant
Click to expand...

If something is irrelevant it is usually not useful.

The utility of making a language preference is usually that one prefers a certain language and hence it is useful because it is emotionally satisfying.

That utility is overridden by anyone who desires to exchange information - a common language is required. If, as in my example, there are two people who wish to communicate who have equivalent languages with atheistic an theistic naming conventions it would be convenient to choose one in order to facilitate communication.

That is, if you want to be sure you're talking about the same things it is usually a good idea to be sure you're using the same language: words and all.

and forbidden?
Click to expand...

Forbidden?
 
skeptigirl said:
A) There is no such god definition except when using the theoretical scientific principle of not being able to prove the negative, and

B) Such a god would be irrelevant if it did exist.
Click to expand...

I agree, but could there be some concept of god that is impossible to define because of our own limitations?

As I said earlier, an ant can't do math, never will be able to, but still the concepts and principles of math exist.

Am I making sense?
 
As I said earlier, an ant can't do math, never will be able to, but still the concepts and principles of math exist.
Click to expand...

I would say an ant does math perfectly well.

She just isn't much of a generalist.
 
CFLarsen said:
martu said:
And God can't exist due to the way we have defined God.
Click to expand...
No, he can exist the way we have defined god. The problem is that we invented god long before we discovered science.
Click to expand...

Would you mind defining him for me?

CFLarsen said:
Think of homeopathy: Hahnemann had a point when he started diluting stuff, because at that time, medicine hadn't progressed much since the Middle Ages. Since a lot of diseases just run their course, it made sense to do nothing. However, he didn't know how about molecules and that there was a limit to how much you could dilute something before there wasn't anything left.

Science caught up with Hahnemann's homeopathy, the same way we today know that thunder isn't Zeus (it's Thor).
Click to expand...

No Hahnemann did not have a point about diluting stuff as it was wrong. The consequences of this wrong action were right. It's the equivalent of giving Hahnemann the credit for placebo.

But that's not right; it was the chanting of 'Placebo Domino' that deserves credit for the placebo effect.
 
Piscivore said:
There is quite a difference to you. How do you know there is a difference to the dog?
Click to expand...

It's not a very skeptical approach to assume so much about a Dog's perceptions is it? Where is the evidence?
 
Last edited:
Where is the evidence?
Click to expand...

The Egyptians, for one, considered their leaders living gods.

Is there any more than an abstract difference between that which must be obeyed that is on Earth and that which must be obeyed that is in Heaven?
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
I'd respond that creating synonyms does not a new entity make - it just gives a new name to an existing entity.

At that point the choice of name for the same thing is arbitrary.

If I choose to create a language to describe the word that matches a strong atheist's in every way except that I use theistic names in place of atheistic names and I choose one over the other I am expressing a linguistic preference - I am not describing a different universe.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I have argued as much many times. But it still means that what you are stating is that there is no god for any definition of "god" that I will accept. Now from the point of communication, that is all well and good. Words must have meanings. They cannot be made up ad-hoc. Or more correctly, they should not, but theists will persist in doing so. What can you do about that? Nothing really. It would be wonderful if you could get them to agree to a general definition of what a god is before you attempt to engage them in any discussion, but that is simply not going to happen. Essentially, their definition is circular.

Theist: I believe in God.
Me: What is God?
Theist: It is what I believe in.

As such, you could say that they are not even talking about God, but rather their beliefs. Occasionally you'll even hear someone say something like "I believe what I believe", as if that somehow made it clearer.

So ultimately, I agree with Piggy and most others here that the theist position is fundamentally illogical and... er... unlexicographal. Yet opposing it still amounts to saying, "That is not a definition of god," and we simply cannot demand that people surrender the right to define god as they choose, regardless of how many dictionaries and theological texts they defy.
 
cyborg said:
The Egyptians, for one, considered their leaders living gods.

Is there any more than an abstract difference between that which must be obeyed that is on Earth and that which must be obeyed that is in Heaven?
Click to expand...

Erm is this responding to my 'Where is the evidence?' If so how does this explain how CFLarsen knows that dogs do not see us as Gods?
 
Upchurch said:
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".
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is kind of what I was saying in my first post.
skeptigirl said:
Not that you care about my opinion, but as an absolute atheist for all practical purposes I'll reiterate the point I often make on this issue. The only god we cannot test for is one defined specifically to be untestable.

A) There is no such god definition except when using the theoretical scientific principle of not being able to prove the negative, and

B) Such a god would be irrelevant if it did exist.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with this. I'm aware of the refutation to part of my definition of God, because I've often used it myself. "If X is God to you, then why is it necessary to call it God?" Like I said, the God I refer to is definitely not something I believe in or worship (in other words, it's not really my God) rather it's more of an acknowledgment of what people are actually referring to when they talk about God. That which they are referring to certainly may exist (nature, ideas, emotions, values, the universe) but again, why call it God?

To use Upchurch's post equating God with emotions / values as an example, I would say that it's a fairly accurate way of defining what God is to most people. At the same time I would ask, why is it necessary to call it God? It's not like you worship these principles, pray to them, or sing them praises.
 
Last edited:
Piscivore said:
That's rather my point. Claus is assuming the dog does not see his owner as a god, but only another, superior dog. How does he know?
Click to expand...

I have confused people obviously, I was agreeing with you. Or trying to.
 
Tricky said:
Yet opposing it still amounts to saying, "That is not a definition of god," and we simply cannot demand that people surrender the right to define god as they choose, regardless of how many dictionaries and theological texts they defy.
Click to expand...

If the person is seeking honest communication they will be able to acknowledge their language preference. Hence, it will be possible to separate those who wish to communicate honestly from those who don't - leaving us with the "good" theist to communicate with. (And vice-versa from the theist's perspective).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom