Ask a Radical Atheist

CFLarsen said:
Do not presume to tell me what my argument is. Please.

I know what I was arguing: That Piggy isn't prepared to admit that he could be wrong.

Do you find anything in his responses in this thread that indicates that he is prepared to admit that he could be wrong?

Yes or no?

Do you understand that it isn't a question of whether the evidence presented was convincing or not, but a question of whether Piggy is prepared to admit that he could be wrong or not?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...
I know what you are arguing. And I can see you have no basis for your argument.

Your underlying premise is wrong. That premise is, because we don't see whatever it is you expect to see, it means something. But that is a false conclusion and is not a basis upon which we can conclude something about Piggy's willingness to change his conclusion about a subject. I think we can conclude, however, that as intelligent as Piggy is, he could not have gotten there without a willingness to learn new things and adapt conclusions to new information.

Claus: I don't see X in Piggy's post.
Skeptigirl: There is no reason X should be in Piggy's post.

But now that you mention it, just where in your own posts can we find, "anything in [your] responses in this thread that indicates that [you are] prepared to admit that [you] could be wrong"?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I know what you are arguing as well. And you have no basis for your argument.

Claus: I don't see X in Piggy's post.
Skeptigirl: There is no reason X should be in Piggy's post.

But now that you mention it, just where in your own posts can we find, "anything in [your] responses in this thread that indicates that [you are] prepared to admit that [you] could be wrong"?
Click to expand...

I am perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Now, do you find anything in Piggy's posts here that he thinks the same, yes or no?

Don't dodge. Don't change the subject. Don't make yet another personal attack. Don't talk about anything else.

Just answer the question.
 
CFLarsen said:
Piggy,

You clearly don't want to entertain the idea that you could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I already have, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not, any more than I'm wrong about the shape of the earth or the sum of 2 and 2.

So far, you haven't given me any reason to change my mind.
 
Limbo said:
Oh? Is Lord of the Flies fictional? Is Piggy fictional? Are you "concerned" with him? Obviously you are, since he is your avatar.

You obviously identify with the character of Piggy to some degree. Or is it coincidence that Piggy is scientific and skeptical?

Not that I expect an honest, thoughtful, and straightforward answer from you. I expect a glib evasion.
Click to expand...

I give serious, thoughtful answers to serious, thoughtful questions about the topic.

Questions about whether Star Wars or Star Trek characters are skeptics get the answers they merit.
 
CFLarsen said:
I am perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Now, do you find anything in Piggy's posts here that he thinks the same, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes

Piggy said:
"But let us see if anyone can land a solid punch against radical atheism. I don't believe anyone can."

"There is no longer any room for God. Do you find any? I do not."

"If there were a viable explanation for how a God or gods might exist, then the radical atheist position would be untenable."

"And on this thread, I just answer from my own little piggy brain. Depending on the question, you might get pure opinion."
Click to expand...
 
GreyICE said:
If we're agreed on a working definition, I will offer hypotheticals, yes. If you won't agree on a working definition, I think this discussion is pretty much over - we can't play with hypotheticals when someone reserves the right to change the rules at will.
Click to expand...

Sure. I have no problem with agreeing on stipulative definitions and discussing them. That can be very productive.

The problem on threads, though, is that there's always a certain percentage who don't understand the concept of a stipulative definition and continually want to argue why it might not be "correct". You won't get that from me, as long as we do agree on a working definition (i.e., one that's not a humpty-dumptyism, for example).

And in this case, a SD is quite apt, because after all, it only takes one legit definition of God which proves to be possibly real to throw my RA position out the window.
 
Piscivore said:
Yes
Click to expand...

No.

That doesn't say that Piggy is ready to admit he is wrong.

"I don't believe anyone can".​

That's very clear. He is not open to contrary evidence.

"There is no longer any room for God. Do you find any? I do not."​

Same: Nope, no longer any room for God. Piggy sure doesn't find any. And it's not as if Piggy is ignorant of any counter argument.

"If there were a viable explanation for how a God or gods might exist, then the radical atheist position would be untenable."​

But he doesn't think there is. And he knows what the explanations are. No room for change.

"And on this thread, I just answer from my own little piggy brain. Depending on the question, you might get pure opinion."​

But that isn't acceptance of contrary evidence.

Try again.
 
CFLarsen said:
Where?
Click to expand...

Wherever I happen to be.

I wasn't referring to this thread. I was referring to my life.

This is a question I have considered for many years and thought very closely about.

In the end, the last hurdle was the question: Must all legitimate definitions of God fail to describe something potentially real?

When that obstacle fell, I was able to conclude that we now know enough about the world to say without reservation that God is not real.

We live in a post-mythological world now. The thought system which gave rise to God theory and supported it has vanished, and been replaced by a thoroughly validated alternative worldview, the material worldview.

As a result, the ancient ideas about God have turned out to be contrary to fact.

So what's left?

Well, either God interacts with this world, or it doesn't.

If it does, and it violates known physical law, then it's contrary to fact and therefore false.

If it does, but is indistinguishable from mere physical reality, then it's not God, or it is a God which is nondifferent from not-God, and it is not reasonable to ask anyone to accept that God may be real only under the condition that God cannot be distinguished from not-God.

So those sets of claims can be taken off the table. The claim "God is real" is either false or meaningless under those conditions.

If God does not interact with the universe, then we have to ask where God is.

And we find that God either is itself left undefined (and therefore "God exists" becomes a meaningless statement) or is relegated to a purely imaginary (unanchored) realm where any notion, no matter how nonsensical, may happily exist, and so the terms "real" and "unreal" cease to apply. And again, it is not reasonable to demand that anyone accept that God may possibly be real under the condition that "real" becomes indistinguishable from "not real".

Therefore, all possible definitions of God fall into one of the following categories:
Empty
Nonsensical
Contrary to fact
Humpty-dumpytism
Meaningless

Therefore, there is no possible way in which the claim "God exists" or "God is real" may be said to have truth value.

Now, if you can show that my thinking is incorrect in these matters, I will concede that I have made a mistake in my thinking.
 
Piggy said:
Wherever I happen to be.

I wasn't referring to this thread. I was referring to my life.

This is a question I have considered for many years and thought very closely about.

In the end, the last hurdle was the question: Must all legitimate definitions of God fail to describe something potentially real?

When that obstacle fell, I was able to conclude that we now know enough about the world to say without reservation that God is not real.

We live in a post-mythological world now. The thought system which gave rise to God theory and supported it has vanished, and been replaced by a thoroughly validated alternative worldview, the material worldview.

As a result, the ancient ideas about God have turned out to be contrary to fact.

So what's left?

Well, either God interacts with this world, or it doesn't.

If it does, and it violates known physical law, then it's contrary to fact and therefore false.

If it does, but is indistinguishable from mere physical reality, then it's not God, or it is a God which is nondifferent from not-God, and it is not reasonable to ask anyone to accept that God may be real only under the condition that God cannot be distinguished from not-God.

So those sets of claims can be taken off the table. The claim "God is real" is either false or meaningless under those conditions.

If God does not interact with the universe, then we have to ask where God is.

And we find that God either is itself left undefined (and therefore "God exists" becomes a meaningless statement) or is relegated to a purely imaginary (unanchored) realm where any notion, no matter how nonsensical, may happily exist, and so the terms "real" and "unreal" cease to apply. And again, it is not reasonable to demand that anyone accept that God may possibly be real under the condition that "real" becomes indistinguishable from "not real".

Therefore, all possible definitions of God fall into one of the following categories:
Empty
Nonsensical
Contrary to fact
Humpty-dumpytism
Meaningless

Therefore, there is no possible way in which the claim "God exists" or "God is real" may be said to have truth value.

Now, if you can show that my thinking is incorrect in these matters, I will concede that I have made a mistake in my thinking.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. Because you summarily dismiss any counter-argument as "meaningless", regardless of the validity of said argument.

You are not willing to admit that you could be wrong.
 
CFLarsen said:
No.

That doesn't say that Piggy is ready to admit he is wrong.
Click to expand...
Pardon, but you didn't ask for evidence he was ready to admit he was wrong. You asked for "anything in Piggy's posts here that he [is perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise], yes or no?

"But let us see if anyone can land a solid punch against radical atheism.".​

"There is no longer any room for God. Do you find any? I do not."​

"If there were a viable explanation for how a God or gods might exist, then the radical atheist position would be untenable."​

But that isn't acceptance of contrary evidence.
Click to expand...
Did you present some evidence that unequivocally shows that he is wrong?

Did you?

Can you?

Yes or no?

Try again.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
No, you don't. Because you summarily dismiss any counter-argument as "meaningless", regardless of the validity of said argument.

You are not willing to admit that you could be wrong.
Click to expand...
:bwall

:id:

I think those two smiles say it all.


BTW, why won't you admit your underlying premise was wrong?
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
No its not. And yes, I will compare. It doesn't matter that you're sure your particular woo is less wooful than some other. Whether you want to label it as the ineffable principle behind the universe, or what have you, its God. A rose by any other name still has thorns.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Its not about what YOU say, Buddha is a man, not a god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

and again, TAO is not a god... and it have a concrete meaning, it is not "what I want" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Another piece of advice, do not assume someone is "woo" so naively.


______________

Piggy,

In the end, it doesn't matter what YOU believe, what matters to other individuals is what THEY believe, and how your philosophical arguments are completely irrelevant for them. See for example, even here GreyICE (presumably a skeptic) expresses his believe that Buddha and the Tao are gods.

But what matters (and it is now 9 pages of this?) is simply that you can't prove a negative, you can't prove there is no god and ergo all you have is a believe (that god cannot exist).

Furthermore, a definition of god is necessary to debate about its possible existence, and... it is arguable that there are as many gods as believers in the world. On which ground you can tell them that your definition is valid and theirs is not?

A skeptic will state that he/she sees no compelling reason to believe in a god, but will never declare that there can't be a god. This is an absurd statement.
 
Is "there are no demons" and absurd statement?

How about "there are no thetans"?

How about "there are no such thing as ghosts"?

There is no real magic?

Why would a statement about god be any more absurd?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
:rolleyes: Its not about what YOU say, Buddha is a man, not a god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
“Devotional” Mahayana developed a rich cosmography, with various supernatural Buddhas and Bodhisattvas residing in paradisiacal realms. The concept of trinity, or trikaya (三身), supports these constructions, making the Buddha himself into a transcendental god-like figure.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana
and again, TAO is not a god... and it have a concrete meaning, it is not "what I want" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
Click to expand...
Didn't say Tao was a God. I said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Emperor
Was.
Another piece of advice, do not assume someone is "woo" so naively.
Click to expand...
Why would you argue this stuff is any different from Christianity if you don't believe it? I mean read the article on Tao again;

The genesis out of Tao, begetting one, two and then three (TTE Chapter 42) can be understood in two levels, that out of Tao came Wuji, and then Taiji (TTE Chapter 40), a dualism of ying and yang which with the original Taiji makes three, as in the Taijitu, the mechanism for all earthly creation from there on was in place. This ontological beginning was personified into the eight elders, made up of the Three Pure Ones and the Five Supremes having been transformed from Taiji, albeit there is no ying and yang differentiation amongst the two. Daode Tianjun or Laozi, Lingbao Tianjun, Jinmu or Wuji Shengmu are revered by Taoists. Beneath these elders there is a long list of Chinese deities in the pantheon of gods worshipped by commoners as spiritual overlords who consider granting favours in return for adherence.

Immanence is present in all beings (Qingjing Jing QJJ verse 6 and Xishen Jing XSJ Chapter 6 verse 1-6) in which Tao takes the form of natural order. Adherents are urged to contemplate on this as the teleological explanation for an intrinsic finality to humanity, in that the union with the original primordial state by transcendence of temporal existence (TTE Chapter 39, XSJ Chapter 4) intellectually, and practically by a method (suggested in TTE Chapter 39, XSJ Chapter 6 and 39) and amplified further in other text calling on the adherents to better the thoughts and deeds by way of Xiuzhen [1] (TTE Chapter 5, 39), the observance of which is central to the teachings as the ideological way of life and beyond, for the adherents and the humanity. And that ideology must be complemented in practice with the adoption of the ethics of Tao which is De, the outward embodiment or countenance of Tao (TTE Chapter 27, 38, 51).

Woo...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom