Ask a Radical Atheist

[CFLarsen]

You can make all sorts of god definitions and then try to have science address gods so defined. That is fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

We do that in science all the time: Invent definitions and hypotheses which we test against scientific findings.

The difference is that in science, we throw out the definitions and hypotheses if the facts show them false.

You don't know that. Can you read my dogs' minds?

That's what you are doing: Reading your dogs' minds.

But aside from that, it depends on how you define gods. If I were just top dog, then I would be with the pack most of the time, eat my fill and maybe let them have the leftovers, yadda yadda yadda. That is trying to fit my role into the animal model. That may be just as fallacious as trying to interpret everything animals do within a human framework.

No, I am god, their creator, the controller of their ultimate fate.

And yet, they can bite you. They can try to take control over a whole family. Precisely as they can do in a pack.

They worship me. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

Show your evidence, then.

Do you want to argue that because dogs view dogs a certain way they necessarily view their human owner in the same way?

What behavior is so different that you think that dogs have supernatural beliefs?

It may be that our brains are hard wired to find patterns and associations and to draw conclusions. But I have a more optimistic view here that given the fact humans have improved in our ability to systematically observe the Universe and that we have evolved a better understanding of how to determine cause and effect we would not be making the same mistakes made 100,000 years ago (give or take). Beliefs in gods is a remnant of the past. It is a growing pain we have yet to fully conquer. But to think we've made no progress and that god beliefs are simply part of the human condition, that I do not believe.

And yet, people still flock to various religions, and all sorts of new age beliefs.

How do you explain that?

In that deist view of god, how does one explain the belief then? The deist god set things in motion and sat back to watch, how did god beliefs then arise?

Maybe we discovered that it was an explanation that made sense to us?

If gods are undetectable, then where did all the beliefs come from? Why are they so discrepant?

Because we are also as humans equipped with something called imagination?

 

[martu]

Depends. Usually, we call it supernatural, but if it is the god you believe in, then only you can define him. There may be more to it for the individual than the mere supernatural.

Translation - no I can't define him.

Not merely that. He had a point in lowering the doses until they became harmless. Only he didn't know what was really happening.

Some were "cured" by their own bodies' ability to heal themselves. Some were "cured" by placebo.

I call this wrong, feel free to call it what you will.

 

[CFLarsen]

Translation - no I can't define him.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I can't define god for other people.

I call this wrong, feel free to call it what you will.

What is "wrong" with it?

 

[martu]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I can't define god for other people.

Do you have a definition for yourself? And how do you know these definitions other people have are consistent and sensible definitions?

What is "wrong" with it?

Are you really asking me what is wrong with The Organon?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have a definition for yourself? And how do you know these definitions other people have are consistent and sensible definitions?

I don't believe in any gods.

How do you define god?

Are you really asking me what is wrong with The Organon?

No, I'm asking you what was "wrong" about lowering the doses until they became harmless.

 

[martu]

I don't believe in any gods.

How do you define god?

I don't. I can't. Hence my conclusion that he can't exist, if someone shows me a sensible consistent definition I'll listen.

No, I'm asking you what was "wrong" about lowering the doses until they became harmless.

The reason why.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't. I can't. Hence my conclusion that he can't exist, if someone shows me a sensible consistent definition I'll listen.



The reason why.

You're a close-minded troll, then.

 

[martu]

You're a close-minded troll, then.

Why troll? I can see why you think I am close-minded.

Can I ask why you are close-minded to the idea that dogs see us as gods?

 

[Tricky]

This is one of the most persistent errors about God.

Meaningless statements have no possible truth value.

One does not need to "declare them false" or disprove them. That step is superfluous.

Take the meaningless statement "The Fourth of July is taller than C sharp minor".

This is where I think you go off track. Of course it is correct that meaningless statements have no current truth value, but just because a statement is currently meaningless doesn't mean that it will always be meaningless.

Léon Foucault: Do you think x-rays can penetrate human flesh?
Lord Kelvin: What the **** are you talking about?

So yes, throwing out an undefined term is meaningless, having no truth value, for or against, until and unless a definition can be attached to it. I reserve a very small possibility of the term "god" someday acquiring a meaningful definition.

 

[martu]

I reserve a very small possibility of the term "god" someday acquiring a meaningful definition.

How about the term "scgyuhx6gtz.:y"?

 

[Darat]

This is where I think you go off track. Of course it is correct that meaningless statements have no current truth value, but just because a statement is currently meaningless doesn't mean that it will always be meaningless.

Léon Foucault: Do you think x-rays can penetrate human flesh?
Lord Kelvin: What the **** are you talking about?

So yes, throwing out an undefined term is meaningless, having no truth value, for or against, until and unless a definition can be attached to it. I reserve a very small possibility of the term "god" someday acquiring a meaningful definition.

Your example doesn't really work as "x-ray" was just a label that represented a very clearly defined, measured, repeatable phenomenon.

 

[Tricky]

Your example doesn't really work as "x-ray" was just a label that represented a very clearly defined, measured, repeatable phenomenon.

Not in Kelvin and Foucault's day it didn't. Or if I'm wrong about that, just substitute two people from an even earlier date in my example. You get the idea.

(Oh, and sorry about the masking. I forgot which forum I was on.)

 

[Tricky]

How about the term "scgyuhx6gtz.:y"?

Also possible. We simply can't assign a zero possibility to any future events.

 

[Darat]

Also possible. We simply can't assign a zero possibility to any future events.

So what is scgyuhx6gtz.:y? And on what basis are you saying it might in the future be proved to be true?

Which takes us back to the x-ray example you used, x-ray was originally used as a label for a phenomenon, not the other way around.

 

[martu]

Also possible. We simply can't assign a zero possibility to any future events.

What can you tell me about scgyuhx6gtz.:y?

 

[Wowbagger]

How is such a god relevant?

Relevance is irrelevant!

How do YOU know it does not exist?!!!!!!!

Where would this all-knowing, all-powerful God be?

Anywhere it wants to be! What part of "all-powerful" did you not understand?!!!!!!


Actually, I should probably stop posting in this thread. I feel dirty, somehow, doing this to y'all.

 

[Tricky]

What can you tell me about scgyuhx6gtz.:y?

It's a term which has been discussed on an internet forum.

 

[Wowbagger]

Although, it is worth noting that I liked how you formulated this argument:

If we take the current claims about God and apply them to, say, flogiston -- another dead proposal which was replaced by a valid one, namely oxygen -- the silliness of modern God claims becomes apparent.

(snip)

 

[billydkid]

You don't know me very well.

I'm a contrarian and curmudgeon from hell, or would be if there were such a place. (There's not).

It is very much like the presidency of a country - no being worthy of the job would want it.

If they existed, and they don't, I'd have no time for 'gods' that are more messed up than I am, and I have no burning need to be worshiped.

There are no gods or other supernatural beings, and I'm glad that such losers don't exist.

I understand what you are saying. Do you understand what I am saying? That if there were a God, his perspective on morality and justice, by definition, would be the correct one and it would be nothing other than hubris to suppose that your's might be superior. You do see how there being a God (in the personal, willful, omniscient sense most of us grew up learning) it changes everything. If there were such a God his will defines what is good and not good. It matters not how contrarian or what a curmugeon a person might be. What both of us might consider high moral integrity and admirable character in real life, would by definition be just wrong were there to actually exist such a God as we are considering. By definition it would be wrong inspite of how you or I might feel about it. If there were such a God he would be the final arbiter and I just don't see how you get around that. All those qualities that both you and I find admirable in people - moral courage, character, independence and so on - become meaningless in a universe such as the one we are postulating - one owned by and governed by an omniscient creator.

 

[martu]

It's a term which has been discussed on an internet forum.

It is. Care to define it?