Ask a Radical Atheist

I think you all need to know that there is a god. I'm god. No, no prayers, no sacrifices (but OK to send money). It's an easy job; no obligations, no work (flip side: Not being omnipotent, I need to work for a living, but what the heck).

I'm not a jealous god, for all I care, anybody can be god too, if they want, be my guest.

Hans
 
skeptigirl said:
"Forbidden"? Sorry, I don't get your point.
Click to expand...

When Piggy said that, "we know enough now to say definitively... that God cannot exist," I read it to mean that some rule had been discovered which expressly forbade the existence of God. For example, "A equals not A," is forbidden by identity. One has to imagine a scenario where A can equal not A, which Piggy is calling absurd. I liked the answer, however...

... while discovering our existence in a simulation stack would definitely wreak havoc with our ability to distinguish the real from the unreal, it doesn't rule out the possibility of some meta-reality (assigning the term reality to our current simulation level, or Hubble Volume, if you want to think in terms of physics). So I fully agree that the distinction between "real" and "unreal" becomes muddy, the more you have to twist to define God, however...

I like Piggy's answer, but I realize it hasn't satisfied the condition. How do you justify the jump from "useless speculation," to, "expressly forbidden?" I accept that God (at least, in most forms that I've ever heard expressed) does not exist. Are you willing to recant on the cannot?

You can claim that it is childish of Tricky to assert that scgyuhx6gtz.:y might someday be found to exist, but even so, you haven't addressed the childish question, merely dismissed it. (Note how I essentially compare those who might run to this line of reasoning as childish, while seeming to argue in their favour :D)

ETA: Ooh! Here's my revised question:

How would you respond, if given the statement, "God cannot exist," I reply, "can too, poopy pants :p"?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, as CFLarsen said, aren't scientists doing that all the time, come up with an hypothesis and try to see if it's true (especially in astrophysics)?

What I was trying to say is that there could be a concept of god that we haven't thought out yet, just like black holes wasn't even close from being a concept 500 years ago, or just like math is not a concept for ants, and most likely will never be given their constitution (but who knows, maybe in a few millions years they'll evolve into sentient beings).

What does the evidence actually support? It overwhelmingly supports all god beliefs are myths of human imagination.
Click to expand...
True, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm not talking about a god that interacts with us haphazardly, or that gives us directions (contradictory ones), but some kind of "purpose" to the universe, or something.
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Wrong again. I've explained why the appeal to the cookie jar is invalid, and I'll be happy to explain why all possible definitions must end in these possibilities if the question is asked.
Click to expand...

Ok, before stating the obvious, lets ask:

Why all possible definitions are wrong?

Now lets get back to the obvious. You can't prove that no god exists, don't be silly.

You must admit the possibility of anyone having their definition of choice regarding god. When you speak about a chair, options are limited, but when you deal with a concept like god (without clear ontological references) you can say that your god is not personal, beyond being, beyond cause and effect, beyond time.. and you will still have a definition... and you can't prove it wrong (you can claim is irrational, or absurd, or whatever, but not "wrong").

If you say that the only valid definition is yours, then you are just teasing others and, if anything, proving here that you are not a skeptic. "I see no compelling reason to believe in any possible god." that suffices and it is less arrogant that "I know for sure no god could possibly exist".
 
Piggy said:
No, I'm seriously asking you that question.

Where do you propose such a thing would exist?

I am not claiming that everything we don't currently perceive must not exist.

Now, where would such a thing supposedly exist?
Click to expand...

You might as well ask what existed before the big bang, or what the universe is expanding within?

In other words "where" is a relative concept that may not apply.
 
It's interesting that while a number of people participating in this thread have eulegized Arthur C. Clarke as a connsumate skeptic, IIRC, in his "verdict" episode of World of Strange Powers, he gave ghosts his highest likelyhood of existing.

IMO, I think he was incorrect with that conclusion, but it again highlights the difference between actual skepticism, cynicism and belief. Rejecting things conditionally that fail to have sufficient evidence is skepticism, rejecting everything that doesn't fit into your Weltanshcauung just because it doesn't is cynicism, and dogmatically asserting things which don't fit your world view cannot possibly exist is belief.

Whatever strong atheism is in the spectrum of belief, it's not skepticism.
 
Tricky said:
At present, that is all I know about it. I reserve the possibility that I may know more in the future. I thought I had made that clear.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough.

I do understand your point of view but when it comes to invisible dragons in garages I'm with Sagan.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
It's interesting that while a number of people participating in this thread have eulegized Arthur C. Clarke as a connsumate skeptic, IIRC, in his "verdict" episode of World of Strange Powers, he gave ghosts his highest likelyhood of existing.

IMO, I think he was incorrect with that conclusion, but it again highlights the difference between actual skepticism, cynicism and belief. Rejecting things conditionally that fail to have sufficient evidence is skepticism, rejecting everything that doesn't fit into your Weltanshcauung just because it doesn't is cynicism, and dogmatically asserting things which don't fit your world view cannot possibly exist is belief.

Whatever strong atheism is in the spectrum of belief, it's not skepticism.
Click to expand...

That's nice. You must be somone that can define god as you're so sure it could exist, can you define him\her\it for me please?
 
martu said:
Ok fair enough.

I do understand your point of view but when it comes to invisible dragons in garages I'm with Sagan.
Click to expand...
Me too. I see no reason to believe they exist. I think it is damned unlikely, almost, but not quite, zero possibility.
 
Jimbo07 said:
You can claim that it is childish of Tricky to assert that scgyuhx6gtz.:y might someday be found to exist, but even so, you haven't addressed the childish question, merely dismissed it. (Note how I essentially compare those who might run to this line of reasoning as childish, while seeming to argue in their favour :D)
Click to expand...

Hello. Why did you think this was childish?
 
Tricky said:
....

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.
Click to expand...
Which is simply a semantic argument of scientific purity. Scientific philosophy never rules anything out. The scientific method proposes one cannot prove the negative.

The mistake I see you making here is using these principles to avoid drawing a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence. Yet we draw those conclusions all the time and don't waste time arguing that the rules in science do not allow such absolutes.

How many times do you discuss evolution theory always careful to add the caveat, "yet we don't know absolutely", or, "but there is always a chance new evidence will refute evolution theory"? How about, "there is always the chance we could find out gravity isn't keeping us on the Earth's surface, it could be something else"?

You make a correct argument if one is merely talking about pure scientific reasoning. But how much time is occupied in your contemplation of the possibility of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters or that gravity and evolution theory are not 'proved'? I dare say, not much.

What I see is that despite the same overwhelming evidence against the beliefs in mythical gods being real, some skeptics and scientists feel the need to apply a different standard of certainty when it comes to challenging god beliefs. You claim there might be a god (technically) but do you make the same assertion Thor and Zeus might be real? Do you make the same assertion we might find out one day people float in Earth's atmosphere, we just didn't know it?

The semantics of purist scientific philosophy, rules, principles, whatever you want to call it, is not a reason to take the potential for the basic observations of the natural world as tentative. It is not the equivalent of the potential of discovering something new or discovering that a current paradigm was wrong. The latter is always possible. But it is not used to declare agnosticism about anything and everything we have overwhelming evidence for in the natural Universe except in a semantic argument about science.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Also possible. We simply can't assign a zero possibility to any future events.
Click to expand...
Including the absurd?

By that token it is a semantic argument. If you really believe gods are more possible than invisible unicorns, then you are not looking at the evidence. OTOH, you say you are including god beliefs equally with invisible garage dragons, then you are stating a scientific principle.

But why argue so adamantly that we apply this principle to god beliefs? Would it really come up so often if it weren't for the nature of theistic beliefs and their pervasiveness within the human species? Yet the evidence is no greater for theist beliefs than it is for invisible garage dragons.
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
Relevance is irrelevant!

How do YOU know it does not exist?!!!!!!!....
Click to expand...
Don't feel bad about playing devil's advocate. It serves to sharpen one's thoughts on a matter.

The point of something being irrelevant is not a matter of whether one should care or whether something has significance. In this case the term refers to the fact that something for which there is no evidence whatsoever is not relevant to the nature of the Universe. Are invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters relevant to the nature of the Universe? Is a god layer added to the laws and conclusions we draw about the nature of the Universe really relevant to the natural Universe?

God beliefs are certainly relevant. They are part of the human condition. But god beliefs add nothing else to the nature of the Universe. Anything a god would do that was detectable would add to the nature of the Universe. But a god that didn't interact with the Universe is irrelevant to the nature of that universe.
 
Last edited:
Jimbo07 said:
....

How would you respond, if given the statement, "God cannot exist," I reply, "can too, poopy pants :p"?
Click to expand...
I would chalk that up to Piggy's literary license within the discussion.

But looking at it another way, how many god beliefs need to be debunked before you can say there is a pattern here and the evidence is mounting against ever finding one god belief based in fact?

The next step is to say we find a natural explanation for everything we observe in the Universe.

Then you conclude that the Universe demonstrates to us that there are natural laws operating.

A god, by definition could defy those laws. In order to have a god, you have to have a Universe where natural laws could be defied.

If we have a Universe where the set of natural laws function, then by definition, a god does not exist within that universe.

You can argue over 'does not' vs 'cannot'. But keep in mind that once you have a god, then you have to give up the Universe governed by natural laws. You cannot have both.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Which is simply a semantic argument of scientific purity. Scientific philosophy never rules anything out. The scientific method proposes one cannot prove the negative.
Click to expand...
I won't deny that my position is based on my training in science.

skeptigirl said:
The mistake I see you making here is using these principles to avoid drawing a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence. Yet we draw those conclusions all the time and don't waste time arguing that the rules in science do not allow such absolutes.
Click to expand...
Who said I hadn't drawn a conclusion? I conclude there is no god just as much as I conclude that gravity works and that evolution has occurred. But even though the likelihood of being wrong about them is incredibly small, it is still a provisional conclusion.

skeptigirl said:
How many times do you discuss evolution theory always careful to add the caveat, "yet we don't know absolutely", or, "but there is always a chance new evidence will refute evolution theory"? How about, "there is always the chance we could find out gravity isn't keeping us on the Earth's surface, it could be something else"?
Click to expand...
LOL. Only when I get into discussions like this. But it is assumed. Still, I generally try to phrase things so as not to make absolute statements. (See, I even said "I generally try", not "I always" because the latter would be an absolute. :D )

skeptigirl said:
You make a correct argument if one is merely talking about pure scientific reasoning. But how much time is occupied in your contemplation of the possibility of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters or that gravity and evolution theory are not 'proved'? I dare say, not much.
Click to expand...
I find that scientific reasoning works quite well when discussing woo. I say, "I have no evidence for God" and it answers or even prevents those who try to make the strawman that I am denying the possibility of God.

skeptigirl said:
What I see is that despite the same overwhelming evidence against the beliefs in mythical gods being real, some skeptics and scientists feel the need to apply a different standard of certainty when it comes to challenging god beliefs. You claim there might be a god (technically) but do you make the same assertion Thor and Zeus might be real? Do you make the same assertion we might find out one day people float in Earth's atmosphere, we just didn't know it?
Click to expand...
No, the standard is the same. I don't believe in Thor and Zeus for exactly the same reason that I don't believe in the Christian versions of God. But there is no need to get into people's faces about it. I find that little can be gained by deliberately insulting someone about their beliefs. Once you've done that, the likelihood of pleasant discourse trends toward zero too.

skeptigirl said:
The semantics of purist scientific philosophy, rules, principles, whatever you want to call it, is not a reason to take the potential for the basic observations of the natural world as tentative. It is not the equivalent of the potential of discovering something new or discovering that a current paradigm was wrong. The latter is always possible. But it is not used to declare agnosticism about anything and everything we have overwhelming evidence for in the natural Universe except in a semantic argument about science.
Click to expand...
Semantics is everything. For example, I believe "agnostic" means "without knowledge", not "tentative". Just as Martu and I only now discovered that we were actually talking about the same thing, even to the point of using the same words about it, it is critical to any philosophical discussion to make sure that people know how you are using words. That is why, in this sort of discussion, I always am specific about what it means when I say "I don't believe in God." That sort of statement is so easy to misinterpret.
I admit, I prefer scientific language to philosophical language. It's what I'm trained in and it is what I understand best. I believe it is superior as a means of accurate communication. YMMV.

You and I probably don't differ philosophically in any measurable way as to our lack of belief in woo. Like Martu, you prefer to round.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom