Ask a Radical Atheist

CFLarsen said:
Then, you are not a skeptic.
Click to expand...

Well, if your brand of skepticism is what it is, then I don't guess I am.

But that's not my brand. I can't side with the know-nothings.

I'm with Azimov and Adams. And Hemingway, for that matter. We do learn things. We do know things.

If you're dead serious about believing there's a chance we'll find out leprechauns are real, I say you're wrong about that. I say it's obvious you're wrong about that.

And I can say that because I've taken a skeptical approach to it. Sometimes there are undeniable conclusions at the end of the process.
 
CFLarsen said:
When do we know when you are joking, and when do we know when you aren't?

If you can just go back, in any situation, and say "well, I was just kidding", when do we know when to take you seriously?

We can't, can we?

Therefore, it is safest to assume that you are always kidding. We should never take anything you say seriously.

It follows that whatever you say, you don't really mean. You are a joke.
Click to expand...
How do we know when you are claiming a fact and how do we know when you are merely claiming a possible fact?

Edited to add, I'm pretty sure most people would have recognized the dog comment was a joke.

Please address the rest of post #830
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Well, if your brand of skepticism is what it is, then I don't guess I am.

But that's not my brand. I can't side with the know-nothings.

I'm with Azimov and Adams. And Hemingway, for that matter. We do learn things. We do know things.

If you're dead serious about believing there's a chance we'll find out leprechauns are real, I say you're wrong about that. I say it's obvious you're wrong about that.

And I can say that because I've taken a skeptical approach to it. Sometimes there are undeniable conclusions at the end of the process.
Click to expand...
You are not approaching this rationally, Piggy. I am a skeptic. That is obvious by my clear understanding of skepticality. Now if I am a skeptic the the opposite of a skeptic is one who doesn't understand skepticality. So therefore if you don't understand what I am saying, or if you deny what I'm saying, then, ipso facto, you cannot be a skeptic. This is not a difficult concept, even for one who cannot fully acknowledge my correctness or stick to the scenario. If you doubt me, refer to post #135. That should answer any questions you might have. And if not, just shut up.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
You are not approaching this rationally, Piggy. I am a skeptic. That is obvious by my clear understanding of skepticality. Now if I am a skeptic the the opposite of a skeptic is one who doesn't understand skepticality. So therefore if you don't understand what I am saying, or if you deny what I'm saying, then, ipso facto, you cannot be a skeptic. This is not a difficult concept, even for one who cannot fully acknowledge my correctness or stick to the scenario. If you doubt me, refer to post #135. That should answer any questions you might have. And if not, just shut up.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you referenced post 135. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known you were being sarcastic. Serious caveat: One of the reasons I'm a loner is that I have defective social radar, including having a very hard time detecting irony (even when I'm looking at someone). Emoticons help.

Cause like my girlfriend tells me, when someone sees my winkie, they know it's just a little joke. ;)
 
Piggy said:
I wouldn't, if people didn't keep making them.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on! Isn't that why you opened a thread, inviting people to debate?

Piggy said:
And, on top of that, if they didn't keep insisting that no one may reasonably say anything stronger than "I don't know" about God on the basis of those empty arguments.

This whole myth that atheism -- real atheism, not warmed-over agnosticism -- is not a tenable position is one we're going to have to move through sooner or later.

I'm doing my small bit to make it perhaps a few minutes sooner.
Click to expand...

You are not make a very convincing case, are you?

Piggy said:
That doesn't matter.

(Btw, I think your contextometer is broken.)

God is not like DM.

We hypothesize DM because our current observations, and validated theories based upon them, indicate that it may be real.

God, on other hand, is a notion based on what we now know to be false deductions, a false world-view in fact. Furthermore, we have a highly successful model of reality which nowhere includes God. On top of that, we have reasonable theories why people should believe in God even if there is no God. And finally, all possible definitions of God which are not contrary to fact all contain fatal errors which, if used, render the statement "God exists" devoid of potential truth value.

God is not dark matter. God is phlogiston. God is the flat earth. God is geocentrism. God ain't.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do have a highly successful model of reality - but as you can see, it is one that constantly gets refined. What you are doing is swapping one form of dogma for another.

Piggy said:
If my aunt were a bicycle, would she have a kick-stand?

What in the wide world of sports does this have to do with the question of whether, in the world we all live in, we can affirm that God is real, affirm that God is not real, or admit we don't know?
Click to expand...

The point is that you wouldn't know if the Jedi religion was any different than the Christian one.

Piggy said:
Nope. I'm not dismissing it. I'm happy to demonstrate that it is absolutely eternally true that what theistic people believe in does not exist.

Yes, I changed "religious" to "theistic". Seems to me a person could follow a religion and be an atheist, and that a theist may not follow a religion.

So you were off on 2 points, but you're right, I have no qualms about pointing to a demonstrably wrong hypothesis and saying it's obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

And I don't see anyone disagreeing with you on that. It is your "cannot be right"-stance that people object to.

Piggy said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Can you understand why some religious people cannot explain why they like the idea of God?

Piggy said:
Nope. I didn't imply that anyone should agree with me or stop posting.

I was recommending that you show me why I'm wrong, or produce a counterexample, or come up with something other than "but you could be wrong" or charges that I've "dismissed" ideas which I've in fact explained my objections to, and other arguments which no one would take seriously if the subject were not God.

Fish or cut bait, in other words.
Click to expand...

Taken seriously by you, no.

Piggy said:
But the question isn't "Does anyone find this idea meaningful to them, personally?"

The question is "Is God real?"

If your criteria for the latter is the former, then you can't expect me (or anyone else) to take you seriously, because the first query cannot produce an answer which distinguishes real things from unreal things.

So it's an irrelevant question.

As for Clapton, I'm just saying I don't particularly care for his blues tunes. I'm not taking up the question of his existance.
Click to expand...

If you can like the idea that there is a preferred blues guitar player, then you should be able to accept that there are people who feel the same way about a non-verifiable, non-intervening god.

Piggy said:
Well, if your brand of skepticism is what it is, then I don't guess I am.

But that's not my brand. I can't side with the know-nothings.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that we know nothing.

Piggy said:
I'm with Azimov and Adams. And Hemingway, for that matter. We do learn things. We do know things.

If you're dead serious about believing there's a chance we'll find out leprechauns are real, I say you're wrong about that. I say it's obvious you're wrong about that.

And I can say that because I've taken a skeptical approach to it. Sometimes there are undeniable conclusions at the end of the process.
Click to expand...

When are there not?

skeptigirl said:
How do we know when you are claiming a fact and how do we know when you are merely claiming a possible fact?
Click to expand...

Evidence, of course.

skeptigirl said:
Edited to add, I'm pretty sure most people would have recognized the dog comment was a joke.

Please address the rest of post #830
Click to expand...

It was funny, but I'd rather spend time on a serious discussion.
 
I see you are still avoiding addressing the error you made in god definition variations, Claus. Answer the part of post #830 you are ignoring please.
 
skeptigirl said:
I see you are still avoiding addressing the error you made in god definition variations, Claus. Answer the part of post #830 you are ignoring please.
Click to expand...

First, you are serious.

Then, you say it was a joke all along.

Then, you say you are serious after all.

I'm waiting for your next cartwheel.
 
Jedi is not a religion. There is no god. It is based on science. The high concentration of midichlorians in Jedi Knights has been well demonstrated, as well as their ability to communicate across time and space. You can observe (and probably measure) the force of The Force as it acts upon physical objects. At best, you could call Jediism a "talent" or, for those who follow the careers of Jedi Knights but are not themselves saturated with midichlorians, a fan club.
 
CFLarsen could you please address #829? Have I erred in my logic, namely you have categorically claimed something as false?
 
Tricky said:
Jedi is not a religion. There is no god. It is based on science. The high concentration of midichlorians in Jedi Knights has been well demonstrated
Click to expand...

I see you are of the Qi Gong faction, who places high importance on midichlorians. You understand the official dogma does not recognize midichlorians as having any high importance in Force use, don't you?

It smacks too much of the divine rights of kings, as opposed to the more freedom-based values of individual hard work.
 
CFLarsen said:
Read my explanations.
Click to expand...

I have. I still don't get it. My apologies.

Anyone else still paying attention who can let me know in their own words how CFLarsen has answered the question about dogs and gods? I have obviously missed it.
 
Post #830
skeptigirl said:
To clarify what I said, it was a joke. But now that the conversation has taken this twist, I think the joke can be taken as a statement of fact. I merely needed to provide the definition of 'god', which I did. Using that definition, the statement becomes an indisputable circular fact.

Definitions:
God = what my dogs think I am.

Statement of fact:
My dogs definitely think I am god.



I think you need to add this one to your list, Claus.
Click to expand...
Having trouble reading, Claus?
 
rwp said:
Hi folks. Just lurking here but it would make it a lot easier on my lazy a.. if you would link to the different posts you are referencing, for example, post #825 can be refenced using the link below:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3567501&postcount=825

I hope you will contribute the few extra seconds to copy that link and modify the last number when referencing (to make life easier on me). Thanks.
Click to expand...
Normally most of us would. In this case we are mostly asking Claus to do what he continually asks others to do, that is to answer posts we have ignored. And since he rarely provides the links, I for one see little reason to.

But for your sake, I will try to if I remember. In the above post, #830 is quoted in its entirety.
 
martu said:
CFLarsen said:
Read my explanations.
Click to expand...

I have. I still don't get it. My apologies.

Anyone else still paying attention who can let me know in their own words how CFLarsen has answered the question about dogs and gods? I have obviously missed it.
Click to expand...

[ClausMode] These are NOT the droids you're looking for. [/ClausMode]
 
CFLarsen said:
First, you are serious.

Then, you say it was a joke all along.

Then, you say you are serious after all.

I'm waiting for your next cartwheel.
Click to expand...
First I was serious? No, first I made a joke. Apparently you were the only one reading the thread that did not get the fact it was a joke.

Then a serious discussion took place following issues that arose from the joke.

No cartwheels, Claus, just a normal conversation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom