Ask a Radical Atheist

[CFLarsen]

Hi, everybody.

I was out of pocket this weekend, and now there are several more pages.

I can't possibly catch up, I'm afraid.

If anyone has questions for me, in particular, that I've left unanswered, I hope you wouldn't mind reposting or summarizing.

I'd appreciate it.

-Piggy

Please address post #590.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You honesty think that most of the world's people; past and present, are delusional and you are one of the few with the truth.

Interesting.

It helps if your truths get rewarded with successful tests of those truths, you know like medicine that actually cures diseases instead of prayers to magical gods that don't cure diseases, stuff like that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think "God's" department is largely experiences inexplicable by science. Off the top of my head this would include - weird synchronicities and the like; altered states of awareness incl drug or ritual states; feelings of internal separation, of "two selves" such as in certain psychiatric conditions. God also deals with questions like "Who am I" or "Why am I here?" a lot.

You mean if you interrupt or distort the electrical-chemical neuro-transmissions in your brain, that is what you think is the territory of gods?

Maybe you'd like to borrow one of my anatomy and physiology books. I think you might find that we've made a lot of scientific progress in the field of the brain. It isn't really all that mysterious as you might think.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What does that mean, exactly?


If "god is just a myth", why do people build cathedrals for it? Why don't they do that for Spock? Why do they build churches for Jesus, but they don't for Zeus anymore? Isn't there something categorically different between these two?

This has a false underlying premise here, Piscivore. I already asked you and you ignored the question, does the fact a suicide bomber believes strongly enough in paradise with 72 virgins mean it must exist?

Again, are you even trying to think through what you are proposing here? By this reasoning if someone believes in a golden calf and builds a monument then there must be a golden calf god.

And what, did Zeus quit existing or will Jesus quit existing if people change to a new god in a couple more thousand years?

How does believing in Santa make Santa real? You are not making any sense.

 

[Nihilus]

Please address post #437 and #537.

This is what I get for being absent for a few days.

Out of curiosity, I went back to these posts presuming they might be concisely informative to the direction the thread had been taken, but they are instead verbal ping pong matches between two posters.

So, I tried (while holding my lethargy back) to skim through some of the recent stuff.

Are we at the point where the inexistence of the god concept is being scolded for the vacuous malleability of the term?

 

[Nihilus]

If "god is just a myth", why do people build cathedrals for it? Why don't they do that for Spock? Why do they build churches for Jesus, but they don't for Zeus anymore? Isn't there something categorically different between these two?

Anthropology is a wonderful science.

 

[Nihilus]

Because they don't like his ears.

Hey!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is what I get for being absent for a few days.

Out of curiosity, I went back to these posts presuming they might be concisely informative to the direction the thread had been directed, but they are verbal ping pong matches between two posters.

So, I tried (while holding my lethargy back) to skin through some of the recent stuff.

Are we at the point where the inexistence of the god concept is being scolded for the vacuous malleability of the term?

I'm not sure I understand your question. But it is my position that the "vacuous malleability of the [god] term" is the result of mounting evidence refuting previous god beliefs. At some point in the failure to find one shred of evidence god beliefs are based on real gods, and as god beliefs fall into the category of myths like bowling pins, you eventually reach the claim, god exists but there is no evidence. In the end you have nothing but a security blanket left for those that cannot let that last god belief go. Make up a god belief that requires no evidence. It's pretty obvious to me that the emperor has no clothes but a lot of people see clothes.

 

[Nihilus]

I'm not sure I understand your question. But it is my position that the "vacuous malleability of the [god] term" is the result of mounting evidence refuting previous god beliefs. At some point in the failure to find one shred of evidence god beliefs are based on real gods, and as god beliefs fall into the category of myths like bowling pins, you eventually reach the claim, god exists but there is no evidence. In the end you have nothing but a security blanket left for those that cannot let that last god belief go. Make up a god belief that requires no evidence. It's pretty obvious to me that the emperor has no clothes but a lot of people see clothes.

Well, in terms of spiritual/religious aspects, most (nearly all) gods are specifically designed to not be based on actual creatures. I'd love to do studies on the probability of theists, if encountering a being that qualifies in all their deity prerequisites, to actually worship the being which has (in this exercise) become manifest in front of them.

The idea isn't real in the first place. The beauty of keeping it within the imaginative realm is that it is able to continue to fulfill its perennial 'god of the gaps' role via eternal special pleading ("it's plan must be beyond our comprehension").

Sort of like the superposition of subatomic particles: all that infinite lustre of possibilities is wiped away once it's gauged.

Wait...it occurs to me I may have just given the new-age Jungia crowd another nonsensical reason to parallel quantum physics and pantheism...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please address post #437 and #537.

Post #437 is nothing but your childish insults. There is nothing there to respond to, don't expect an answer.

Post 537

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
If god is a thing, then it has parameters, it exists. If it is a world view, then that doesn't make it a different 'god concept', it makes it a different use of the word, god.

CFL: That doesn't answer the question: If "God is the universe", what makes "God is the universe" different from "God is what science explains"?

This makes no sense to me in light of what I posted. God is the Universe is the equivalent of naming the natural Universe, God. It doesn't change the nature of the Universe at all. It is a meaningless gesture.

What does it mean, the Universe is God? Is that supposed to make the Universe sentient? If so, it doesn't change any observations? It just isn't a relevant name change because nothing changes by renaming the Universe.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
What does the claim, God is the Universe mean? It differs not from describing the Universe through scientific observation. We are all star dust. The particles that we detect belonging to any thing existed before they became the thing and will exist after they are no longer the thing. Those same particles were all (in the form of energy) within the singularity and are now all within the Universe. They are all one, we are all part of the whole, the Universe.

This is not a definition of god, this is a different use of the word.

Not at all. It fits beautifully with the Christian god who made Adam and Eve, Adam from dust, Eve from Adam(dust).

It doesn't fit at all with the Adam and Eve myth. You are so far off base here it doesn't even make any sense. Sounds to me like you are fitting the Biblical Creation story to the evidence and nothing more.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, in terms of spiritual/religious aspects, most (nearly all) gods are specifically designed to not be based on actual creatures. I'd love to do studies on the probability of theists, if encountering a being that qualifies in all their deity prerequisites, to actually worship the being which has (in this exercise) become manifest in front of them.

The idea isn't real in the first place. The beauty of keeping it within the imaginative realm is that it is able to continue to fulfill its perennial 'god of the gaps' role via eternal special pleading ("it's plan must be beyond our comprehension").

Sort of like the superposition of subatomic particles: all that infinite lustre of possibilities is wiped away once it's gauged.

Wait...it occurs to me I may have just given the new-age Jungia crowd another nonsensical reason to parallel quantum physics and pantheism...

But the original god beliefs are lost in this description. Those beliefs were not of 'nebulous faith based, know it in your heart' gods. The original god beliefs were of 'mythical beings' that preforming rituals to had some impact on the world of ancient people. Are the people today who have redefined god as 'an untestable, faith is the key, being' the first real god believers and all those ancient humans with god beliefs we now call myths not yet aware of the real gods?

 

[Nihilus]

CFL: That doesn't answer the question: If "God is the universe", what makes "God is the universe" different from "God is what science explains"?

One question's answer is strictly interpretative. The other empirical.

 

[Nihilus]

But the original god beliefs are lost in this description. Those beliefs were not of 'nebulous faith based, know it in your heart' gods. The original god beliefs were of 'mythical beings' that preforming rituals to had some impact on the world of ancient people.

Short of theistic civilizations that believed in human avatars for the deities, I think most (all?) of the gods were always in existence in a realm separate from ours, whether their effects could be felt by us.

Are the people today who have redefined god as 'an untestable, faith is the key, being' the first real god believers and all those ancient humans with god beliefs we now call myths not yet aware of the real gods?

Gods are intended to be untestable. Anthropologically speaking, it's perhaps why certain god concepts survive longer: the more vacuous, the less prone to inevitable empirical dismissal.

All theists are mythical acolytes of one flavor or another.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where do you get the idea gods are intended to be untestable? Ancient people were expecting results for their rituals. That is a test. And when it failed they blamed themselves.

You seem to be taking the modern version of worship and applying it to the ancient god beliefs and I'm not sure you can support that view.

 

[CFLarsen]

Post #437 is nothing but your childish insults.

If you don't want to be called a fraud, don't be a fraud.

There is nothing there to respond to, don't expect an answer.

Not correct:

In 39,000 + posts you have probably never once admitted you had drawn the wrong conclusion.

Prove it.

Post 537This makes no sense to me in light of what I posted. God is the Universe is the equivalent of naming the natural Universe, God. It doesn't change the nature of the Universe at all. It is a meaningless gesture.

What does it mean, the Universe is God? Is that supposed to make the Universe sentient? If so, it doesn't change any observations? It just isn't a relevant name change because nothing changes by renaming the Universe.

It isn't a question of this making sense to you. You can't discard believers' claims because they don't make sense to you. Likewise, you can't decide that it isn't relevant, just because it isn't relevant to you.

Nevertheless, you agree that "God is the universe" is no different from "God is what science explains".

So why do you criticize the believers who say "God is the universe"? What claim do they make that you find so wrong?

It doesn't fit at all with the Adam and Eve myth. You are so far off base here it doesn't even make any sense.

You keep saying that it has to make sense to you to be a valid argument. Try to understand that you cannot dismiss an argument just because it doesn't make sense to you.

Sounds to me like you are fitting the Biblical Creation story to the evidence and nothing more.

No, I am pointing out that the explanation of us being star dust fits neatly with the idea that Adam (and therefore Eve) came from dust. The whole of us are made up of parts of the universe.

 

[Nihilus]

Where do you get the idea gods are intended to be untestable? Ancient people were expecting results for their rituals. That is a test. And when it failed they blamed themselves.

The deities themselves (their existence) and the effects wrought from worship of them are two drastically different things.

People today expect just as much (emotionally) from their deities. Perhaps a sacrifice for rainfall isn't needed thanks to irrigation now...but clearly, we see the point.

You seem to be taking the modern version of worship and applying it to the ancient god beliefs and I'm not sure you can support that view.

The human psychology behind it is the same. Obviously they are not equally parallel on each minute aspect. Humans, over the course of their history, have not psychologically changed enough to warrant the anthropomorphic presumptions that are born each generation.

I'm not sure there is a "view" that needs to be supported.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But, Nihilus, you are missing the point. What does the evidence support when you look at the origin of god beliefs? Does it support the position that god beliefs were a function of explaining and controlling the world around people? Does it support god beliefs were an answer to dealing with death and illness and natural disasters? Yes.

Where is there evidence god beliefs served some esoteric need to be loved or whatever the modern claim is as to why people 'need' god beliefs? You seem to be claiming that explaining and controlling the world was not the origin of god beliefs. So you have any sources for this version? Anthropology studies I have read suggest god beliefs were more basic as I describe and less esoteric as you describe.

Maybe I am missing your point?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

It isn't a question of this making sense to you. You can't discard believers' claims because they don't make sense to you. Likewise, you can't decide that it isn't relevant, just because it isn't relevant to you.

Excuse me Claus but I can draw whatever conclusions I think the evidence supports.

...Nevertheless, you agree that "God is the universe" is no different from "God is what science explains".

So why do you criticize the believers who say "God is the universe"? What claim do they make that you find so wrong?

This is why I don't bother answering your posts. You don't give a s*** what people answer, you just want to hear yourself rant. If you want to discuss my answers, fine. If you want to repeat yourself after hearing someone's answers then go suck eggs.

...
You keep saying that it has to make sense to you to be a valid argument. Try to understand that you cannot dismiss an argument just because it doesn't make sense to you.

Yes I can. What a ludicrous statement.

...No, I am pointing out that the explanation of us being star dust fits neatly with the idea that Adam (and therefore Eve) came from dust. The whole of us are made up of parts of the universe.

Well it is wrong because the Adam and Eve story doesn't say a thing about star dust or elementary particles or even atoms. You are fitting the evidence to the story by changing what the Bible actually says.

 

[CFLarsen]

Excuse me Claus but I can draw whatever conclusions I think the evidence supports.

It isn't a question of you drawing conclusions. It's a question of you deciding that other people's arguments/points/beliefs don't make sense, simply because they don't make sense to you. They make sense to the believers.

Deal with what people believe. Not what you want their beliefs to be.

This is why I don't bother answering your posts. You don't give a s*** what people answer, you just want to hear yourself rant. If you want to discuss my answers, fine. If you want to repeat yourself after hearing someone's answers then go suck eggs.

The problem you have is that they don't make claims - do they? So, you are effectively dismissing their claims without you having any reason to do so. You just dismiss whatever they say because they are believers.

Yes I can. What a ludicrous statement.

No, you can't. You are not the sole arbiter of what makes sense, especially not to other people.

Well it is wrong because the Adam and Eve story doesn't say a thing about star dust or elementary particles or even atoms. You are fitting the evidence to the story by changing what the Bible actually says.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen. 2.7

If you want to criticize a point, it is a very good idea to do your homework first.

 

[Senex]

Hi, everybody.

I was out of pocket this weekend, and now there are several more pages.

I can't possibly catch up, I'm afraid.

If anyone has questions for me, in particular, that I've left unanswered, I hope you wouldn't mind reposting or summarizing.

I'd appreciate it.

-Piggy

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.