Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Piggy
No. God is not something we have no idea about. God is an ancient concept, and there's no use pretending it might be something entirely different.

But we had an idea that there was something that would later be called X-rays. X-rays is electromagnetic radiation that is between gamma rays and ultraviolet rays. The latter was discovered in 1801, so - since there was no reason to think that wavelengths shorter than ultraviolet rays was an impossibility, all it would take was to make something that would either produce those shorter-than-UV rays or detect them.

You're not paying attention.

God is not something we have yet to discover. It's not something we have no idea about.

It is also not a concept which can now be claimed to be anchored in deductions from known fact.

To pretend that this is the case is mere tomfoolery.

It is a debunked notion whose conceptual base has been replaced by a different and valid worldview.

 

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Piggy
All it makes you is a sloppy thinker.

Can you name one person who has absolutely no beliefs of any kind?

Non sequitur

 

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Piggy
Wrong again. I've said this very clearly. There is no possible definition of God which is valid (i.e. not mere humpty-dumptyism, or empty, or nonsense, or equivalent to not-God) which can be meaningfully said to possibly exist.

"Nonsense", "meaningful". Those are all value statements, not statements of facts.

I have no tolerance for post-modernist claptrap.

These are not value statements.

They are statements about the reasonableness and logicality of a claim or statement.

 

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Piggy
You might think of the former as a subset of the latter.

The reason God cannot exist is that the entire framework upon which the concept of God or gods rested -- the mythic, supernatural worldview -- has collapsed, and has been replaced by a naturalistic worldview which is now the only game in town.

It is the best explanation we have - so far. But it isn't the only one.

If you think there's a competitor in the ring, I reckon you'd best get busy describing it.

 

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Piggy
Some of these devices are easily exposed by careful examination, which reveals that the conditions they propose (under which God may exist) require us to accept that God may be real only if "real" ceases to be different from "not real", or if "God" ceases to be different from "not God", or if "exist" ceases to be different from "not exist".

So there is a subset of false arguments for God which rest upon rendering the statement "God exists" non-meaningful.

To you, no. But you can't deny that the idea of God is meaningful to others.

More post-modernist, easy-way-out non-thinking.

Name your nonsense, someone out there believes it.

That's not the bar, not the test.

 

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Piggy
No, it would not, because frisbees and beach balls are not hyperdimensional objects.

Oh? How do you know? Because the way they are defined?

Are you claiming that they are?

If so, you're out of your gourd.

What I said is perfectly accurate.

The earth is shaped more like a beachball than like a frisbee.

What happens to all these objects in hyperdimensions doesn't change that, relative to the reality we perceive.

You're grasping at straws.

Which is quite telling in itself.

 

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Piggy
Since I haven't made any such claim or addressed evolution, I fail to see the point of these questions.

Here's the point: Evolution is a fact. We're pretty good at pointing that out, when we debate creationists. "The theory of Evolution is a theory, sure, but evolution is a fact". You know how it goes.

Do you think evolution will ever be proven false?

You're going to have to do a damn sight better than that if you want to make this point relevant to a discussion of God.

The status of other theories is totally irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Piggy]

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?

In a place we haven't looked. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

What sort of place?

A remote star system?

An ad hoc imaginary world dreamed up solely to house God?

A "higher dimension" devoid of qualities?

None of these deserves consideration by a resonable person, for various reasons already mentioned.

Why are you reluctant to say where such a thing might be?

 

[Piggy]

This is another case of confusing the idea of a thing with the thing itself.

Your thoughts did not create the universe or do any of the things attributed to God by those who believe in God.

Heard of the creationist explanation of fossils being buried there by God to test our faith?

Is this truly the company you wish to keep?

 

[Piggy]

Is there any doubt about love? All you have to do is look at human behavior to understand that it's real. The totality of human activity makes no sense without it.

But what does that have to do with God?

There is much doubt about love. E.g., the way we view "love" in the western world is very different to how other cultures view it.

You got a definition of "love" nailed down?

You have not explained here the relevance to our discussion of God.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, that's the problem. The concept is so plastic that there are no agreed upon core qualities.

Certain things are certainly not God. A cheese sandwich is not God.

But it's impossible to say what God is, because the concept is so unbounded that no core set of qualities can be laid down.

Let me rephrase that: What qualities would an entity have to have in order for you to agree that calling it God would be accurate? If you think the word has been rendered semantically meaningless, what was the purpose of this thread? Can you justify your opinion that you cannot arrive at a definition of God, or is it an article of faith for you?

 

[Piggy]

But that doesn't mean that we won't find an even better explanation of the world in the future, one that could also encompass god.

Again, I must ask... also encompass what, exactly?

 

[Piggy]

Again, you use value statements: Meaningless, superfluous, childishness, nonsense.

Do you think quantum physics make sense?

More post-mod drivel.

And yet another spurious appeal to QM.

QM is empirically verified. God is a bunch of debunked mythology.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Hey, keep it up. I enjoy it.

But such a non-answer doesn't suffice.

If you're saying it exists, you either need to say where it exists, or explain how it may exist yet not exist anywhere.

We may even say that abstractions like "justice" exist someplace -- e.g., where there are people. There is no justice on Venus because it is uninhabited.

So again, where is this all-powerful, omniscient thing supposed to exist?

Does it move about?

Does it permeate the universe?

The answer is crucial, because then we will know how to detect it.

If there is no answer, I submit it's simply a half-baked notion with no possible grounding in reality.

 

[Piggy]

Ok, before stating the obvious, lets ask:

Why all possible definitions are wrong?

I didn't say they were "wrong". Many definitions of God are right -- that is, they accurately define God. There are also right definitions of unicorns. This has no bearing on their existence.

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.

If you admit that, then you admit that it's a concept with no core qualities, which means it's a non-concept.

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.

Since I have never claimed this, it deserves no response.

 

[Piggy]

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.

If it does not apply, you'd best get busy explaining how in the world something may be meaningfully said to exist, yet not exist anywhere.

 

[Piggy]

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

Indeed it is, provided that it is the result of thorough consideration of the data.

After years of study and consideration, I can reach no other conclusion.

 

[Piggy]

That is spot on, both act as if god doesn't exist which is all that matters really.

No. There is a meaningful difference between behaving as if something were not true, on the one hand, and asserting that it is not in fact true, on the other hand.

I assert that there is no God.

I do not merely behave as if there were no God.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy,

If God cured your assmar, then would you believe in Him?

Yes. Provided I knew that God had done it. By the same token, I would believe in Santa Claus if he cured my assmar.

 

[Piggy]

Let me rephrase that: What qualities would an entity have to have in order for you to agree that calling it God would be accurate? If you think the word has been rendered semantically meaningless, what was the purpose of this thread? Can you justify your opinion that you cannot arrive at a definition of God, or is it an article of faith for you?

The rephrasing doesn't change things.

The fact that there are no core qualities is a real problem.

The fact that I cannot provide you an answer is a symptom of that.

In fact, I put that very challenge before a Straight Dope thread several years ago, and even the believers could not come up with a single agreed-upon quality.

So no, this is not a mere article of faith with me.