Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piscivore]

Seems like you are just saying the god concept is real. That is not the same as saying gods are real.

But why is it not? Sure, I get that "the believers" don't think so, but why do they get to define it?

As a metaphor, consider Dorothy. If you asked her who the Wizard of Oz was while she was on her way to retrieve the Wicked Witch's broomstick, she'd tell you he was a giant green all-powerful head. That's what she was serving. She probably would not have done something so hazardous for a small little Kansas snake oil peddler, but that's what she did in actuallity.

Similarly, the believers pray to, build churches for, and donate money to what they think is an omnipotent, omnipresent, merciful supernatural being. In reality "the man behind the curtain" is a corporate, subjective, and consentualy created entity that dwells in their heads and acts through their actions.

So evidence for god beliefs and god concepts is different than evidence for gods exists.

Only if you define them as separate things. If you define it as something that must have an objective, independant physical manifestation, yes, you are right. But is that the only possibility?

Anyway, I've said that what I think is going on with the "god concept" is categorically different from just "concepts" in general. No one I'm aware of has ever felt compelled to build a temple for the number thirty-seven.

Would you care to answer the question related to personal identity?

The discussion with Beth ends with post #1308 on page 33 in this thread. You'll do best to work back from there rather than try to go forward from wherever it starts. The points got clearer in the end and were repeated a lot in the middle. Beth may have had more to say but she's temporarily limited in typing due to a finger injury.

Thanks, I'll read it tommorow.

 

[Piscivore]

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here).

Jump right in, no apology necessary. Welcome to the forum!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here). But I think I can suggest a couple of examples that might fit the bill of something that is non-physical and yet exists.

The first one is the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics--for example, "i", which is defined as the square root of -1. By definition, negative numbers cannot be square-rooted, since squaring any number yields a positive number (or 0, if you're squaring 0). Yet, we somehow still have "i".

The other example is related to Piscivore's example of dreams. Any fictional story or character obviously has no physical reality--for example, no extraordinary detective named Sherlock Holmes who had a sidekick named Watson ever existed in the physical world. Yet the fictional stories created in people's minds manifest in the physical world--...

The fact we have an imagination is not evidence the things we imagine exist. And the same is true for math. Would it exist if we weren't here? No. None of that supports the fact that if we imagine gods that is somehow evidence of gods.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Only if you define them as separate things. If you define it as something that must have an objective, independant physical manifestation, yes, you are right. But is that the only possibility?

You can define gods as imaginary things people imagine.

I can say anything I can think of exists in my thoughts. So what?

God believers do not have that concept of gods. They have a concept of gods as being outside of pure imagination. So I'm really not sure why you are off in this irrelevant side track.

..Anyway, I've said that what I think is going on with the "god concept" is categorically different from just "concepts" in general. No one I'm aware of has ever felt compelled to build a temple for the number thirty-seven.

Then you believe Zeus exists? Golden calf gods exist? Vishnu exists?

..Would you care to answer the question related to personal identity?

If I knew what you meant.

In the meantime, it might be useful to read what I posted about what is a conclusion and what is evidence and why conclusions are not evidence.

 

[Piscivore]

The fact we have an imagination is not evidence the things we imagine exist. And the same is true for math. Would it exist if we weren't here? No.

You're playing with two different senses of the word exist here, SG.

"The fact we have an imagination is not evidence the things we imagine [subsist as independent, objective entities]."

"And the same is true for math. Would it [subsist as a concept in our minds] if we weren't here? No." (Further implying since we are here, it does.)

None of that supports the fact that if we imagine gods that is somehow evidence of gods.

Not if one keeps using that same, tired, traditional, incorrect view of "gods" that you can't seem to look away from.

 

[Piscivore]

You can define gods as imaginary things people imagine.

I can say anything I can think of exists in my thoughts. So what?

So what happens when you share that thought with someone else?

God believers do not have that concept of gods. They have a concept of gods as being outside of pure imagination.

So what? F[rule X] them. They don't get to run the show just because they are blinded by their misconceptions.

So I'm really not sure why you are off in this irrelevant side track.

You're asking me to believe that the only possible Wizard of Oz is the big green floating head, and I'm trying to tell you about the man behind the curtain.

Then you believe Zeus exists? Golden calf gods exist? Vishnu exists?

Yes. Not as independent, objective entities but as subjective, dependent, created entites. Humans made the gods they pretend to serve. The idea was concieved by a human, bred by humans, modified by humans, served by humana, and acts through humans. Nonetheless, for all of this, it is greater than any one human, and is not destroyed by any one human's disbelief.

If I knew what you meant.

Do you think your conciousness exists seperately from your brain?
Do you think what "you" are is different from your conciousness?

In the meantime, it might be useful to read what I posted about what is a conclusion and what is evidence and why conclusions are not evidence.

I will, tomorrow, I promise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm at a loss trying to understand the logic of your view here, Piscivore.

When you get time, (no hurry), could you define what you mean by the word, 'god'? In particular, how is an imagined god any different from an imagined Harry Potter?

 

[dglas]

Actually, Pisc. You should start a new thread.

 

[Robin]

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here). But I think I can suggest a couple of examples that might fit the bill of something that is non-physical and yet exists.

The first one is the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics--for example, "i", which is defined as the square root of -1. By definition, negative numbers cannot be square-rooted, since squaring any number yields a positive number (or 0, if you're squaring 0). Yet, we somehow still have "i".

The other example is related to Piscivore's example of dreams. Any fictional story or character obviously has no physical reality--for example, no extraordinary detective named Sherlock Holmes who had a sidekick named Watson ever existed in the physical world. Yet the fictional stories created in people's minds manifest in the physical world--a person may write his idea down and have it published as a book, movie, or TV show. If a story becomes popular enough, fans may create websites devoted to it, or even organize conventions at which they can gather with other fans to discuss that particular work of fiction. The story itself has no physical reality, but the books (or movie scripts, reels of film, etc) do. Events surrounding the idea (fan conventions, etc) occur in the real world, and obviously all the readers/viewers of the story exist. Furthermore, we can categorize statements about fictional works as true or false. To continue with the Sherlock Holmes example, we can say that "Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street" is true and that "Sherlock Holmes had pink hair" is false. (I believe Steven Pinker discussed the concept of making objectively true or false statements about fictional characters--I think he even used Sherlock Holmes as an example--in one of his books, but I honestly can't remember which one. It might be "The Stuff of Thought", but I could be wrong.)

In other words abstract or imaginary.

 

[Hokulele]

To briefly comment on the discussion between Piscivore and skeptigirl, which is more real, "Piscivore" and "skeptigirl" as we know them in this forum, or the people behind the keyboards? Technically, "Piscivore" is just a concept, not necessarily a real person, as we cannot know whether the opinions expressed here are truly the views of the man/woman/Cthuloid behind the keyboard. And yet, here we are reacting to "Piscivore" as if it were real. Similarly, "god" may be a convenient avatar for many to hide behind when expressing opinions that may or may not be truly theirs, but are still useful for a reason. Is this "god" any less real?

 

[dglas]

To briefly comment on the discussion between Piscivore and skeptigirl, which is more real, "Piscivore" and "skeptigirl" as we know them in this forum, or the people behind the keyboards? Technically, "Piscivore" is just a concept, not necessarily a real person, as we cannot know whether the opinions expressed here are truly the views of the man/woman/Cthuloid behind the keyboard. And yet, here we are reacting to "Piscivore" as if it were real. Similarly, "god" may be a convenient avatar for many to hide behind when expressing opinions that may or may not be truly theirs, but are still useful for a reason. Is this "god" any less real?

Piscivore is Cod.
But is he/she/it an abstraction or an emergent property?
Something's fishy here....

 

[Hokulele]

Piscivore is Cod.
But is he/she/it an abstraction or an emergent property?
Something's fishy here....

Submergent, I'd say.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm at a loss trying to understand the logic of your view here, Piscivore.

When you get time, (no hurry), could you define what you mean by the word, 'god'? In particular, how is an imagined god any different from an imagined Harry Potter?

Can't you just answer the questions?

What happens when you share that thought with someone else?

Do you think your consciousness exists separately from your brain?

Do you think what "you" are is different from your consciousness?

Nothing in these questions requires you to understand Piscivore's point. They are all about your point.

 

[Alric]

I am still waiting for any evidence for something beyond the physical. Barring some word games that truthfully are not convincing at all.

 

[Piscivore]

Can't you just answer the questions?

What happens when you share that thought with someone else?

Do you think your consciousness exists separately from your brain?

Do you think what "you" are is different from your consciousness?

Nothing in these questions requires you to understand Piscivore's point. They are all about your point.

Claus, she and I are having a perfectly pleasant discussion, and she is under no obligation to answer anything she does not want to. Please stop trying to bully her, especially on my behalf.

I'm at a loss trying to understand the logic of your view here, Piscivore.

If you will bear with me, I think I have to lay some foundation first, and if you wouldn't mind I think it really would help if you did think about and try to answer those questions. I really am going somewhere with them.

When you get time, (no hurry), could you define what you mean by the word, 'god'? In particular, how is an imagined god any different from an imagined Harry Potter?

Well, I feel I've done so already, repeatedly and at length. But I'm ovbviously not getting it across. I think we are running afoul of a few differences in basic premises, and I'd like to root those out first.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, she and I are having a perfectly pleasant discussion, and she is under no obligation to answer anything she does not want to. Please stop trying to bully her, especially on my behalf.

If you ask questions, don't you want answers?

Or do you merely discuss for the sake of discussing?

 

[Piscivore]

To briefly comment on the discussion between Piscivore and skeptigirl, which is more real, "Piscivore" and "skeptigirl" as we know them in this forum, or the people behind the keyboards? Technically, "Piscivore" is just a concept, not necessarily a real person, as we cannot know whether the opinions expressed here are truly the views of the man/woman/Cthuloid behind the keyboard. And yet, here we are reacting to "Piscivore" as if it were real. Similarly, "god" may be a convenient avatar for many to hide behind when expressing opinions that may or may not be truly theirs, but are still useful for a reason. Is this "god" any less real?

Exactly.

Skeptigirl, whether you know it or not, you are participating in creating God just by your talking about him in this thread. Actually, the very fact that you are having trouble looking beyond the traditional qulaities of the god with which you were probably raised argues in my favour. Why would this concept be so strong in your head if "god' were just a belief? You don't believe in it.

Piscivore is Cod.
But is he/she/it an abstraction or an emergent property?
Something's fishy here....

Submergent, I'd say.

 

[Piscivore]

If you ask questions, don't you want answers?

I may want them, but I have no right to demand them. I'm not an inquisitor or a toddler.

Or do you merely discuss for the sake of discussing?

Is that an unknown concept to you?

Please go take your games elsewhere. You've done enough damage here already.

 

[notheist]

Exactly.

Skeptigirl, whether you know it or not, you are participating in creating God just by your talking about him in this thread. Actually, the very fact that you are having trouble looking beyond the traditional qulaities of the god with which you were probably raised argues in my favour. Why would this concept be so strong in your head if "god' were just a belief? You don't believe in it.

So. if I think of a jelly donut, it will EXIST? NO?.. But Why not?... I thought of it.

What you are not getting is the concept of existence. Your concept of god is just in YOUR head and as such can't help or hurt anyone but you. ERGO the only thing that is exist is your idea of god. not an actual entity.

 

[Piscivore]

So. if I think of a jelly donut, it will EXIST? NO?.. But Why not?... I thought of it.

Not outside of your own head, no. That's why more than one person is required.

What you are not getting is the concept of existence. Your concept of god is just in YOUR head and as such can't help or hurt anyone but you.

Quite so.

ERGO the only thing that is exist is your idea of god. not an actual entity.

What do you mean by "actual entity"?