Ask a Radical Atheist

People... people... easy. You are running instead of walking. I do not see any compelling reason to believe in god. In the same manner, I appreciate intelligent science fiction.

I believe the story is worth a reading, I believe you can't disprove "god" and I believe if you do affirm that it doesn't exists you lack imagination. Sorry. I didn't write it as an insult, if the wording sounds like that I apologize. Was not my intention at all.

That said, I sustain that it is lack of imagination. Why? Because we live immerse in our own little heads. One thing is to be a skeptic, to doubt. Another very different to deny (humans will never fly) based on what we know.

I believe this short story illustrates the point in that there are ways to conceive a creature like god. Its a story, it is science fiction, yet, it is undeniable that Issac Asimov have more imagination than us. And again, this is not insulting us.
 
articulett said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I also know that, in this forum, there are lots of believers who attempt to fight against the preferred point of view of skeptics (materialism in one or other form).

articulett said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here you are dead wrong. Unbelievable wrong. Take me, for lacking a better example, I make no ontological commitments, other than that, I'm comfortable with the naturalist research that some claim is behind materialism. There you go. A materialism skeptic who is not a woo. :)
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this has been already discussed. Echoing the OP, the only rational position is not to believe in god. There is no evidence for the existence of god. Zilch. Nada.

God has the same chance of existing as the 10 imaginary things I will imagine in the 10 min. That is, much below the threshold of reality.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I believe the story is worth a reading, I believe you can't disprove "god" and I believe if you do affirm that it doesn't exists you lack imagination. Sorry. I didn't write it as an insult, if the wording sounds like that I apologize. Was not my intention at all.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is possible that the sun is being pushed through the sky by a dung beetle?
 
Alric said:
God has the same chance of existing as the 10 imaginary things I will imagine in the 10 min. That is, much below the threshold of reality.
Click to expand...

Are you limiting "reality" to only that which is physically manifested?

Have you read any of my posts in this thread (aside from the ones where I'm having fun with Larsen, that is)?
 
skeptigirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the first, maybe it sounds like an insult, I honestly don't see it that way though.

With your second comment I have reservations. I'm proposing no myth, but a tale, and I insist in that a skeptic, or even a hard core materialist, should stop in "I see no compelling reason to believe in god" and not claim that there is none.

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false." is a common theist argument (woo argument actually) and this is what Piggy is doing in the thread!

"The sentence 'there is no god' is true because there is no proof of it being false."
 
Piscivore said:
Are you limiting "reality" to only that which is physically manifested?

Have you read any of my posts in this thread (aside from the ones where I'm having fun with Larsen, that is)?
Click to expand...

I'll read them if you can provide any evidence of another reality besides what is physically manifested, and how it can interact with reality.

After all, people that believe in god also would have to believe he can affect the physical world. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
Alric said:
I'll read them if you can provide any evidence of another reality besides what is physically manifested, and how it can interact with reality.
Click to expand...
Is that a yes?

Why do non-physically manifested things have to be part of a separate reality? Dreams exist in this reality, don't they?

I do believe I have provided plenty of evidence in those posts for what my understanding of god is, and its existance.

After all, people that believe in god also would have to believe he can affect the physical world.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to dictate to people what they must believe? That's what it sounds like. Why must they believe he can affect the physical world?

In any case, one of my key points was that the effects it has in the physical world is evidence that what I understand god to be exists. I think that's what I opened with.

Otherwise, what's the point?
Click to expand...
You don't understand the reason they would believe something, so it's worthless or untrue by default? Is that what you are saying?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
...
With your second comment I have reservations. I'm proposing no myth, but a tale, and I insist in that a skeptic, or even a hard core materialist, should stop in "I see no compelling reason to believe in god" and not claim that there is none.

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false." is a common theist argument (woo argument actually) and this is what Piggy is doing in the thread!

"The sentence 'there is no god' is true because there is no proof of it being false."
Click to expand...
This is stated without the other equally important part of what I said and what the facts are. Try again and this time address my entire reason instead of this annoying single cherry picked aspect. It's taken me years to perfect my position. It deserves to be addressed in its entirety. :)

1) There is no evidence for god beliefs.
2) The scientific principle, one cannot prove the negative, is inappropriately used as if it somehow supported the idea god beliefs require agnosticism.

3) There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are made up and not the result of real interactions with gods.
4) There is another scientific principle which states one should follow the evidence, not fit the evidence to the facts.
 
Last edited:
Piscivore said:
Is that a yes?

Why do non-physically manifested things have to be part of a separate reality? Dreams exist in this reality, don't they?
Click to expand...
And they have a physical aspect as well. Got any examples of something that exists without any physical evidence in the same way gods are claimed?

You might be able to argue something like math. But I think one can connect that to the physical as well.

Maybe I am missing your point.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
This is stated without the other equally important part of what I said and what the facts are. Try again and this time address my entire reason instead of this annoying single cherry picked aspect. It's taken me years to perfect my position. It deserves to be addressed in its entirety. :)

1) There is no evidence for god beliefs.
2) The scientific principle, one cannot prove the negative, is inappropriately used as if it somehow supported the idea god beliefs require agnosticism.

3) There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are made up and not the result of real interactions with gods.
4) There is another scientific principle which states one should follow the evidence, not fit the evidence to the facts.
Click to expand...

I didn't wanted to conclude all your ideas from one post. I will gladly tackle your points. :)

1) What it has been discussed ad nauseam is that this depends on what the word means. Piggy (sorry I have not been following the thread post by post) says that every meaning is void or nonsensical. I believe the short story proves otherwise, there can be a concept of god that is not void and makes sense (not that I believe it is actually the case).

2) No. Read the form of the argument, it is a fallacy. No emotions needed.

3) Agreed. And I believe we all have here transcended the personal gods that are in the mind of most believers.

4) Agreed. I have no presented an argument to favor "god existence", only presented evidence in that deny it is as foolish as believe it. We have not enough elements to make a claim.
 
Sometimes I dream about fairies and flying gorillas. Neither of which, as far as I know, exist.
 
Alric said:
Sometimes I dream about fairies and flying gorillas. Neither of which, as far as I know, exist.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the content of your dreams, but dreams themselves. These dreams you have exist, yes? Are they physically manifested somewhere? Can we pluck one out of your brain and slide it under a microscope?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom