Ask a Radical Atheist

[articulett]

You have got to be kidding me, right? Have you bothered to read this thread, or are you a freakin' moron?

The latter.

 

[articulett]

I don't really see the point in being an atheist if you end up spending so much time thinking about God.

Nick

There's no point in being a skeptic if you are just going to be skeptical of ridiculous and nonsensical claims... (and invisible immeasurable entities)

 

[Nick227]

Yes -- one of the reasons why I do not self-identify as an atheist.

But, on the side of those who do intentify in that way, there is a large pressure from the surrounding society to explain oneself.

Your same comment could have been made against many of the early church fathers -- what's the point of being an orthodox Christian if you end up spending so much time thinking about heresies, paganism, Mithraism, and Isis worship.

But, I mean, you must know when you take this position that you are practically begging to spend large portions of your time debating whether God exists or not. Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with the actual belief, more a desire to confront people.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just thought I'd share, since I sort of share some of Piggy's disdain for certain philosophies, and I know Piggy likes him, and I picked up a book of Wallace Stevens poetry a few moments ago and opened on this:

On the Manner of Addressing Clouds

Gloomy grammarians in golden gowns,
Meekly you keep the mortal rendezvous,
Eliciting the still sustaining pomps
Of speech which are like music so profound
They seem an exaltation without sound.
Funest philosophers and ponderers,
Their evocations are the speech of clouds.
So speech of your processionals returns
In the casual evocations of your tread
Across the stale, mysterious seasons. These
Are the music of meet resignation; these
The responsive, still sustaining pomps for you
To magnify, if in that drifting waste
You are to be accompanied by more
Than mute bare splendors of the sun and moon.

and because I don't know how to finish some run-on sentences, especially when they get this long and begin to resemble the opening of A Farewell to Arms, and please stop me.......

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But, I mean, you must know when you take this position that you are practically begging to spend large portions of your time debating whether God exists or not. Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with the actual belief, more a desire to confront people.

Nick

For some, yes,if they make a big deal about it. There are other people who just go about not worrying about it, like Complexity. He has decided what he believes and doesn't make a lot of fuss that he doesn't believe in god. He'll make a brief comment and move on. I respect that.

Others like the god-talk. I like god-talk, personally. I think it's a great way to spend the time. I can't think of anything better to contemplate than 'the ground of being', but I'm weird that way.

 

[Nick227]

Of course it begs to be taken apart -- that is the whole point of the thread. This is just one proposal for why the statement "god cannot exist" is potentially wrong and nothing more. Again, I don't believe this garbage, but the gauntlet was thrown down. I'm just playing by the rules. So far he hasn't touched this one yet.

How about if one says that God cannot exist because everything that exists must have been created, according the majority of philosophical traditions anyway. And the ones that don't agree don't believe in God either. If God exists it thus begs the question - What created God?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Others like the god-talk. I like god-talk, personally. I think it's a great way to spend the time. I can't think of anything better to contemplate than 'the ground of being', but I'm weird that way.

The 'ground of being' doesn't exist either.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

For some, yes,if they make a big deal about it. There are other people who just go about not worrying about it, like Complexity. He has decided what he believes and doesn't make a lot of fuss that he doesn't believe in god. He'll make a brief comment and move on. I respect that.

Others like the god-talk. I like god-talk, personally. I think it's a great way to spend the time. I can't think of anything better to contemplate than 'the ground of being', but I'm weird that way.

The student turned to the master and said "What must I do to get enlightened?" The master replied "Well, it is a simple matter. I can give you a meditation and in 1 minute you will be enlightened. What do you think?" "Great, let's go for it," said the student. "OK," said the master, "all you have to do is spend one minute sitting in meditation and throughout this time you must not think about monkeys. I repeat it is absolutely imperative that you don't have one single thought about monkeys, or the process won't work."

6 weeks later the student came to visit the master, grey-haired, dishevelled, and apparently not having slept for a long time. "My God," he said, "I never used to think about monkeys ever, and now I cannot stop! They are everywhere in my thoughts - running, jumping, turning in circles and doing stupid things. Even my dreams are all full of monkeys. I don't get a moment's peace." "OK," said the master, "now do you understand the nature of the mind?"

Nick

 

[articulett]

A lot of people come here to proffer their woo... as skeptics we consider it and disregard it if they have nothing new or different or worth considering. It's kind of sporting. God is a big one people like to go on about... but they never really say what this god thing they believe in "is"... they just want atheists to feel shame for not believing in the nebulous, invisible "whatever" they believe in. And we tell them why we find such believes unsupportable--why we find gods as unsupportable as Scientology Thetans or Astrological signs.

We do that with all sorts of woo--conspiracy theories, bigfoot, homeopathy, OBEs, and whatever other pseudo sciency sounding stuff people want us to respect or believe in. I know theists like to pretend that this talk about god must mean that he's powerful in our minds... but it's really begging for any coherent definition or evidence that makes the concept worthy of belief or respect since believers are omnipresent and seem to feel better for being able to believe whatever incoherent "feeling" they've managed to to see as proof or a sign of some god.

Faith is promoted as a means of "higher knowledge"-- it appears to be a way to make you feel like you know something without knowing anything coherent, useful, or worth knowing. It's mistaking a feeling or perception as a "higher truth". We have those same feelings, we just don't attribute them to whatever it is to "god" (or Xenu or the Holy Spirit or Thetan clearing or Astrological influence). We want to know the real reasons so we can hone our understanding of ourselves and the real world.

 

[Limbo]

I submit that most people here sound a whole lot more like someone I might learn something from-- than you.

Then do me a favor and put me on ignore. I'll do the same for you.

Based on what I've seen from you, I won't be missing much.

 

[articulett]

Then do me a favor and put me on ignore. I'll do the same for you.

From what I've seen from you, I won't be missing much.

Please do put me on ignore. No, you won't miss anything. You negate all information that doesn't fit your faith.

As for myself, I will continue to leave you off ignore, because you amuse me. (And I'll feel so much less guilty about tossing barbs your way knowing that I can't possibly hurt your feelings because you have me on ignore. --Thanks for letting me know. )

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

How about if one says that God cannot exist because everything that exists must have been created, according the majority of philosophical traditions anyway. And the ones that don't agree don't believe in God either. If God exists it thus begs the question - What created God?

Nick

Because the statement 'everything that exists must have been created' is an assumption. We either exist with an infinite regress, an eternal presence (or absence as the case may be), or a first cause. Many call each of these 'god'. So, I'm not sure that helps the issue along.

The 'ground of being' doesn't exist either.

But you wouldn't necessarily think that without contemplating it, now would you?

The student turned to the master and said "What must I do to get enlightened?" The master replied "Well, it is a simple matter. I can give you a meditation and in 1 minute you will be enlightened. What do you think?" "Great, let's go for it," said the student. "OK," said the master, "all you have to do is spend one minute sitting in meditation and throughout this time you must not think about monkeys. I repeat it is absolutely imperative that you don't have one single thought about monkeys, or the process won't work."

6 weeks later the student came to visit the master, grey-haired, dishevelled, and apparently not having slept for a long time. "My God," he said, "I never used to think about monkeys ever, and now I cannot stop! They are everywhere in my thoughts - running, jumping, turning in circles and doing stupid things. Even my dreams are all full of monkeys. I don't get a moment's peace." "OK," said the master, "now do you understand the nature of the mind?"

Yes, of course, monkeys are tasty.

Personally, I choose to engage my time in this way. I am well aware that many folks who say that their atheism consists in "not believing in god" actually exhibit the alternative "actively disbelieving in god" and demonstrate it by how much time they spend on the whole god question (to which they are opposed).

I am interested in how all these debates pan out because I have not resolved all my own issues over god questions.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

A lot of people come here to proffer their woo... as skeptics we consider it and disregard it if they have nothing new or different or worth considering. It's kind of sporting. God is a big one people like to go on about... but they never really say what this god thing they believe in "is"... they just want atheists to feel shame for not believing in the nebulous, invisible "whatever" they believe in. And we tell them why we find such believes unsupportable--why we find gods as unsupportable as Scientology Thetans or Astrological signs.

We do that with all sorts of woo--conspiracy theories, bigfoot, homeopathy, OBEs, and whatever other pseudo sciency sounding stuff people want us to respect or believe in. I know theists like to pretend that this talk about god must mean that he's powerful in our minds... but it's really begging for any coherent definition or evidence that makes the concept worthy of belief or respect since believers are omnipresent and seem to feel better for being able to believe whatever incoherent "feeling" they've managed to to see as proof or a sign of some god.

Faith is promoted as a means of "higher knowledge"-- it appears to be a way to make you feel like you know something without knowing anything coherent, useful, or worth knowing. It's mistaking a feeling or perception as a "higher truth". We have those same feelings, we just don't attribute them to whatever it is to "god" (or Xenu or the Holy Spirit or Thetan clearing or Astrological influence). We want to know the real reasons so we can hone our understanding of ourselves and the real world.

Well, yeah, but leave Xenu out of this -- he's kinda cute, doing his boogaloo shuffle.

 

[hammegk]

I am interested in how all these debates pan out because I have not resolved all my own issues over god questions.

Do you have an ontological position?

Piggy presumably accepts physicalism (or whatever the most current term is) as the be-all and end-all of reality.

 

[Senex]

Do you have an ontological position?

Piggy presumably accepts physicalism (or whatever the most current term is) as the be-all and end-all of reality.

Grab your ankles and assume the ontolological position. Piggy and his accepting of physicalism (that term works as well as any other) will be here before you know it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you have an ontological position?

Piggy presumably accepts physicalism (or whatever the most current term is) as the be-all and end-all of reality.

I'm a monist as well, but I have no idea what the ultimate substance *is*. As a consequence the only possible god that I can accept is the 'universe' itself and I tend to use the word 'god' to carry the connotation that the universe is unknowable at a fundamental level that my only reaction can be reverence. Of course, since that ultimate substance may actually be 'nothing', it could mean reverence for 'nothing'.

I don't agree with any form of dualism that I have ever heard of -- I can't make sense of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No evidence? The Egyptian pyramids and temples were built by volunteers to glorify their god, same with Chartres. They carved the names of the gods on them, put images in stained glass in the windows. The Mahabharata, the Bible, the Egyptian books of the Dead were all written to explicate and preserve the gods they describe. What evidence exists that any of these things I mentioned was motivated by any reason apart from a god?

I am confused by your posts, Piscivore. Are you claiming that because people believe in something, their degree of commitment is evidence the thing they believe in is real? So a suicide bomber must really be going to that paradise full of virgins then?

"Some". Not all. Some people do not murder, do not steal, because they fear god.

I think you might be hard pressed to find evidence god beliefs were actually the prime motivator here. It might be a conscious belief by a person, but moral decisions are subconscious choices most of the time.

God beliefs have motivated people to give up addictions and perhaps to work on a marriage. But fear of hell stopping someone from murder? Really?

"Some things". Not all. Some kids are taught some things are bad because god disapproves.

Taught yes, but the underlying prime motivator for moral decisions? You need some more evidence. The evidence I posted supported the underlying basis for moral decisions was independent of teaching.

 

[Nick227]

Because the statement 'everything that exists must have been created' is an assumption. We either exist with an infinite regress, an eternal presence (or absence as the case may be), or a first cause. Many call each of these 'god'. So, I'm not sure that helps the issue along.

Well, a lot of materialists believe in causation, I imagine. I don't personally so much, but it strikes me that many do. Thus, if God exists, it seems reasonable that there must have been something to cause God.

(Of course, if you ask me, it's all just one long battle for the identified mind to deal with the reality that actually nothing has any cause).

The 'ground of being' doesn't exist either.

But you wouldn't necessarily think that without contemplating it, now would you?

It required a little contemplating, this is true. However, it still never ceases to amaze me how much people will try and conceptualise something, that by definition doesn't exist, simply to maintain a perspective or belief-system.

I am interested in how all these debates pan out because I have not resolved all my own issues over god questions.

Yes, we can but track those traces of identification as they recede into the human unconscious, like Jules Verne following the path of the inscribed letters towards the centre.

Nick

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Michelle Lyon: What scientific evidence do you have that suggests that there is no god? There's no evidence that I know of that there is one, but is there evidence that there isn't? And why believe in either case if there is no evidence in either case?

That's an excellent point! If one takes pride in being skeptical, then that skepticism should be evenly applied. Unfortunately it isn't. Which casts suspicion as to the motives in applying skepticism in that arbitrary seemingly self-serving way.

There is evidence god beliefs are based on human imagination and not based on encounters with real gods.

As long as you equate your conviction there could be invisible pink unicorns because there is no evidence against such beings with your conviction there could gods because there is no evidence against such beings then you would be consistently applying skeptical principles.

No evidence of something which defies all we do know about the natural Universe is really not a reason to treat the god-no god question as a 50|50 proposition.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I fully agree, but that is not the challenge that Piggy threw down at the beginning. His challenge was that god cannot exist. ....

I believe I have answered this (a natural Universe can exclude the possibility of a god because adding a god makes the Universe no longer natural so semantically you could hold the cannot exist position, and Piggy can give his answer himself)......but Senex gave me another thought on the matter.

You can have logical contradictions which exclude a possible god in a specific case. Can the omniscient god make a rock too large for anyone, even a god to lift. Logically you cannot have such a god because one state negates the other.