Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piggy]

So we don't include Biblical literalism in the defintion of god. Where is it stipulated that fundamentalist Christians get to define god for the rest of us?

They don't. That was just one example, for comparison.

 

[Tricky]

You want a list?

I can give you authors, if you'd like. I don't have many of those books anymore. But I've read countless books of mysticism and esoterica.

What do you want to talk about? Tibetan Buddhism? Tarot? New Age? Shamanism? The Maharishi? Gurdjieff? Ram Das? Tim Leary? Edgar Cacey? Rumi and fakirs and whirling dervishes? Medieval contemplative monks? Jewish mysticism? What?

I'm not an atheist because I'm ignorant of religion, mysticism, mythology, and spirituality. I'm an atheist because I've studied these things.

If there is something in there which you believe can salvage the God hypothesis, then please produce it from the bag.

Nominated!

Especially the bold part.

 

[Apathia]

There are no non-theistic gods. That's what theism is... belief in God.
To me that's just humpty-dumptyism. It's redefining God to be something God never was.

If God is a "communal engagement" then it's equivalent to an idea, or a feeling, or perhaps a mass delusion. In that case, the experience is real, but nothing actually God-like is real.

It's kind of like re-defining phlogiston as the experience of seeing something burn -- which has no bearing on what phlogiston was actually believed to be before it was debunked.

The contemplative Asian sects have been at the redefining game longer than Westerners, that's all.

Personally, I'm not much interested in the question "Can we re-define 'God' in novel ways to refer to non-Godlike things which we already know exist, such as ideas or the universe, or to refer to utter philosophical abstractions that have no actual referent?"

That seems unimportant and trivial to me. However, the question of whether God actually exists... that's important.



I haven't said that, and wouldn't.

I'm not talking about all uses of these words -- such as calling Clapton a guitar god, for example, or saying that sleeping in til 8:00 and being served breakfast in bed is divine.

I'm not saying all definitions of the words, used in any sense whatsoever, are empty or nonsensical.

I'm talking about definitions of "God" or "gods", divine beings which theists actually believe in.

When we're talking about that, then yes, all definitions are either contrary to fact, or fall into some fatal error such as self-contradiction, lack of definition, emptiness, humpty-dumptyism, etc.

Good enough then. It's clear where your chalk lines are drawn and who you are daring to step over them. Pity that so far no theist has has come for the game.

BTW I wish you more "Divinity" in your life than just toast and jam on a tray.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm not restricting the discussion to any particular definition.

There are no non-theistic gods.

That sounds like you are. Perhaps you better define for me what you mean by theistic and non-theistic, because the dictionary definition means you are restricting the discussion to only "...one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world". That doesn't even come close to applying to all gods, and certainly not to the definition I'm talking about.

But that doesn't mean that I'm going to swallow any old definition anyone dreams up and ignore fatal problems with those definitions.

Please don't.

I can't accept "God is the universe" or "God is love" because those turn out to be empty if no other qualities are given.

I can't accept "God created the universe then had nothing more to do with it" because, again, it's a non-definition of God. It's merely crediting an I-don't-know with an action that does not require any god, leaving that I-don't-know undefined.

I can't accept mad-scientist scenarios because believers don't worship mad scientists (Not even Nicolai Tesla and Wilhelm Reich? )-- not even the Mormons, who believe that the God of the Bible used to be something kind of like us.

None of that is part of what I'm talking about.

I'm not following you here.

Are you saying that the villagers' disease-causing spirits really exist?

No, I'm saying that they had an incorrect idea about what it is they were talking about, so their definition of what caused the disease is probably not the one we should use.

Similarly, I don't think the "believers" have the first clue as to what it is they are actually worshipping, so I don't feel compelled to grant them license to define god for me.

Or are you saying that something causes the actions they credit these spirits with, but when looking for that cause, you have to "leave their definitions behind"?

If the latter, then you're simply saying that they're wrong about what causes disease, that something else causes disease.

Quite so.

You can't "leave their definitions behind" and simultaneously say that their ideas are correct.

I didn't say their ideas were correct. Their ideas are part and parcel of their flawed definition.

The question is not "Does something else do the things that theists believe God does?"

The question is "Does God exist?"

You're immediately dimissing the notion that it isn't god, but "something else", because you're assuming that god can only be "viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world". That's just not the case.

If it is "something else" doing those things, then what is it?

 

[Paulhoff]

Correct, which is the reason we have Analytic Philosophy Still, discussing these things is a philosophical endeavor, so strictly speaking if you don't like philosophy please don't discuss it. Sure, you can state that you don't believe in god because you don't buy metaphysical arguments, thats a position and it is respectable. But claiming that you can prove that there is no god will convert you in a philosopher! (my personal discussion with Piggy, he states that he hates philosophy and that he does not do philosophy and yet he make lots of philosophical argumentations in here).

If you need to call talking about a so-called god or so-called gods a philosophical endeavor, so be it, for you. I see no proof and/or need of a so-called god to explain anything, because in truth it doesn’t explain anything. There are billions of people in the world now, and many billions that lived before, and not one had the same exact belief in a so-called god or so-called gods, and not one of these so-called gods came close to the truth to what the so-called god was supposed to explain.

Paul

 

[Apathia]

BTW I wish you more "Divinity" in your life than just toast and jam on a tray.

Darn, too late to edit this out.
Piggy, I did not mean this as a taunt. I wish I could retract it, just so it doesn't get taken that way.

I was thinking about Southern Cooking this morning. You don't realize how "divine" it is till you are stuck in some southwestern state where they can't tell mustard greens from collard greens.
Are you still in Georgia. Apart from it being in the middle of the Bible Belt, I envy you.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ok, enough is enough, I will drop my final answer for his ultimate question:

"Does god exist?"

Here it goes Piggy, hold tight to your chair!!!

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

(or, in other words, you simply lack imagination).

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's rather pathetic, Zen. To say Piggy lacks imagination simply because he doesn't believe fiction to be fact is condescending and wrong. You also used the story of another atheist to convey that insult as well.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I had always enjoyed the AC short story.

I never suspected it to be used as a weapon, however feeble.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Dear fools, you two lack imagination too. My position is firm, skeptical to the bone. Yet some others, like Piggy, make bold affirmations from time to time. My take? it is a lack of imagination, but the funny thing is that it was not an attack, not even an argument. That you two fail to see where I'm coming from is not as bad as to state an opinion without knowing the rules of the game.

Piggy and I hold, more or less, the same things, our methods are different, and from time to time I play jokes on that he is a philosopher even when he hates philosophy.

That said, boys, relax. Not everyone who "attacks" an argument of a materialist is a woo. On the same token, not everyone who disagrees with materialists is a woo.

Hghr... if by AC you mean Arthur C. Clarke you are wrong, it is one of the best short stories written by Assimov. To tell the truth, it makes me cry, I find it incredibly poetic.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

hehehe I re-read my answer. Honestly, it is elegant and poetic. Sorry if you two can't see it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suspected your sentence came out differently than you intended. It does sound insulting, after all, rather than a good natured comment.

But I have to disagree. Why would one need god myths in order to have imagination. There are so many other more worthy things to ponder in the Universe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Dear fools, you two lack imagination too.

So now you attack more people. Nice.

That said, boys, relax. Not everyone who "attacks" an argument of a materialist is a woo. On the same token, not everyone who disagrees with materialists is a woo.

Telling people that they lack imagination is not an attack on any argument. It is an attack on a person's character. I can appreciate Asimov's short story, it's interesting. However, I simply don't believe it to be true or even a plausible explanation of "god."

 

[Robin]

hehehe I re-read my answer. Honestly, it is elegant and poetic. Sorry if you two can't see it.

"I bend the knee before Shakespeare, but no other poet living or dead" - William McGonagall

 

[Robin]

That said, boys, relax. Not everyone who "attacks" an argument of a materialist is a woo. On the same token, not everyone who disagrees with materialists is a woo.

Indeed not, Mach, Neurath, Schlick, Carnap to name but a few. But it all depends, does it not, upon the quality of the "attack"?

 

[articulett]

So now you attack more people. Nice.



Telling people that they lack imagination is not an attack on any argument. It is an attack on a person's character. I can appreciate Asimov's short story, it's interesting. However, I simply don't believe it to be true or even a plausible explanation of "god."

Moreover, telling someone "I am not a woo" is not a convincing argument. I think we each can decide for ourselves who we find unimaginative or likable or wooish.

These are opinions, after all. To me, those who believe other than materialism are woos-- they believe in something for which there is no good evidence... something that is identical (as far as the evidence goes) to much of the woo they don't believe in.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Hghr... if by AC you mean Arthur C. Clarke you are wrong, it is one of the best short stories written by Assimov. To tell the truth, it makes me cry, I find it incredibly poetic.

I meant Analog Computer, that's what it stood for in Asimov's story. It's one of my favorites as well.

As for the misunderstood attack comment, I retract it. We can't interpret everything perfectly on forums.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I can appreciate Asimov's short story, it's interesting. However, I simply don't believe it to be true or even a plausible explanation of "god."

I had never thought of it as anything but a clever, well written story.

I suppose that there are people who ponder that maybe a type IV civilization is cooking universes left and right.

Of course, it can't be ruled out, but using Occam's razor, I'll not sweat it.
Whether this is the Matrix or not, I still have to get my aging yet still sinewy ass to work in the morning.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There is something strange about a person who claims a person has no imagination because they don't believe in a god but then offers up a short story written by an atheist as an example of good imagination.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Interesting observation thai.

What would be your irony rating (1-10)?