Ask a Radical Atheist

[CFLarsen]

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

But do you want them?

Is that an unknown concept to you?

Not at all. I just find it a futile waste of time.

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

Asking people to answer pertinent questions is not a game. To me, at least.

 

[Piscivore]

Not at all. I just find it a futile waste of time.

Then please don't let me waste it any further. Buh-bye.

 

[notheist]

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


Quite so.


What do you mean by "actual entity"?

No matter how many people you have, it still won't get you a donut.


Imaginary stuff is of little value, except maybe entertainment.

What you are having trouble imagining is the idea your god idea has no worth to anyone but you, so you got to get others to embrace it. Sorry but I and many others sure don't need the god idea, and in fact that freedom makes our lives more fulfilling. But if a god idea floats your boat, go for it, just don't kid yourself it useful to anyone but you.

 

[Piscivore]

No matter how many people you have, it still won't get you a donut.

You haven't read my earlier post in this thread, I never said it would. This is why I asked you for your definition of "actual entity". I'm not claiming "god" is an independent, objective entity, like your donut.

And, just to be pedantic, the idea in your head can get you a donut, only you have to make it happen with your own hands. Or get someone else to do it for you. I don't think this intermediate step invalidates the notion that the idea led to the realisation. Michealangelo had to concieve of his David before he could carve it, yes? I think it is ludicrous to expect anyone to think that thinking about a donut will make one materialise, yet I seem to see people arguing against that notion.

Imaginary stuff is of little value, except maybe entertainment.

"Imaginary stuff" can also inspire, enrage, incite, and pacify. Don't sell imagination short.

What you are having trouble imagining is the idea your god idea has no worth to anyone but you, so you got to get others to embrace it. Sorry but I and many others sure don't need the god idea, and in fact that freedom makes our lives more fulfilling. But if a god idea floats your boat, go for it, just don't kid yourself it useful to anyone but you.

That's amusing, you assume I'm some sort of theist.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then please don't let me waste it any further. Buh-bye.

So, you ask questions just for the sake of asking questions.

I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Imaginary stuff is of little value, except maybe entertainment.

I hope that's a joke. "imaginary stuff" is all we have and will ever have. Every thinking process is imagination, every musical composition, every experiment, every theory, all science and every prediction comes from our thinking processes... yep thats right... pure imagination!

BTW, in this thread, it is because that that so many temples exist, churches, wars, complete ideologies come from imagining gods. How come "imaginary stuff is of little value"

 

[Piscivore]

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.

I don’t want to step on Beth’s toes, or get embroiled in the other thread right now, so I’ll try to keep this short.

In the case of the conclusion a thing is red because it looks red, the color of the thing is still the evidence.

Not quite, the experience of the colour of the thing is the evidence. That the thing is a certain colour is the conclusion.

Evidence is a physical thing. It exists.

Are we back to “exists” = “physical” now?

One can dissect the neuro sensory system in a person.

Indeed, and one will not find “red” there because it is a transitory pattern of firings of neurons, not the neurons themselves. The experience of red, and the experience of god, are not physical. They are not independent of the physical activity of the neurons, but they are not in themselves physical entities. You can map them, such as with Alric’s EEG, but “the map isn’t the territory”.

In the case of the red evidence, we have the red thing.

Here is your error repeated. The red thing is not evidence of red. The experience of “red’ is evidence that the thing is perceived as “red”. What the thing is, what shade of red it is, may be up for debate, but the experience of percieving the thing as "red" is evidence that there is a thing and that a quality is possess is reflecting light in the wavelengths humans have learned to call "red". Nothing more. It might not be conclusive, incontrovertable evidence, but it is evidence.

Contrariwise, Beth’s assertion that the experience of god is evidence of god is misleading and incorrect as well. What is experienced when most people say they “felt god” or “communed with god” is an emotional reaction to certain stimuli, such as attending church. This experience is evidence that the experiencer had an emotional reaction to something. Whether that “something” can be called “god” or not is up for debate and needs more evidence, but the experience is evidence that “something” does exist and a quality it possesses is engendering the experienced emotional response. It might not be conclusive, incontrovertable evidence, but it is evidence.

Therefore, it seems to me that both of you mixed up "evidences" and "conclusions". I don't think I am doing that.

ETA: Plumjam and I had a very similar discussion just a couple days ago, in the midst of a lot of other things. Starts here, if you are interested.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I hope that's a joke. "imaginary stuff" is all we have and will ever have. Every thinking process is imagination, every musical composition, every experiment, every theory, all science and every prediction comes from our thinking processes... yep thats right... pure imagination!

BTW, in this thread, it is because that that so many temples exist, churches, wars, complete ideologies come from imagining gods. How come "imaginary stuff is of little value"

By the same token… saying “imaginary stuff is all we have” is pure imagination too. Thus we can never know it that’s actually so, or if your rebuttal is nonsense. I would say that such way of arguing is pretty darn useless.

 

[notheist]

"Imaginary stuff" can also inspire, enrage, incite, and pacify. Don't sell imagination short.

I do not, in fact I make my living as a designer and artist. But also know the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form. An artist who is all imagination and no craft is not much of an artist.

 

[SirPhilip]

I do not, in fact I make my living as a designer and artist. But also know the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form. An artist who is all imagination and no craft is not much of an artist.

Quite. Art doesn't actually exist, but well developed visual communication skills. It is actually artists who do deliver on meaningful experiences outside the normal, and can also affect a deep shift of judgment about the way things work (such as propaganda), and the way people are psychologically.

 

[CFLarsen]

Quite. Art doesn't actually exist, but well developed visual communication skills. It is actually artists who do deliver on meaningful experiences outside the normal, and can also affect a deep shift of judgment about the way things work (such as propaganda), and the way people are psychologically.

The same can be said for advertising.

Do you think there is a difference between art and advertising?

 

[Piscivore]

I do not, in fact I make my living as a designer and artist. But also know the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form.

Well, now we're back to talking about stories. Stories exist, but they are not physical. Sometimes they are contained in a book, sometimes not. Even when they are, the map is not the territory. Further, stories can grow and change as they are spread. They become bigger than what was originally in the originator's head. I'd ask you to refer to the many variant versions of "The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy". Douglas Adams is dead, but the story lives on. It has grown, changed, and spread far across the globe from the idea that once dwelt in his head.

If you think that this doesn't apply to stories encoded in fixed form like a book, try Googling "Harry Potter fanfic".

ETA: On further reflection, I think you're mistaken to say "the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form". I think it would be more accurate to say "the images in my head are nothing untill I share them."

 

[Alric]

So, is the argument that god is like a fantasy story?

I agree!

 

[Piscivore]

So, is the argument that god is like a fantasy story?

I agree!

Do you think stories exist?

 

[Alric]

Do you think stories exist?

Of course not. That is why they are called "stories".

 

[SirPhilip]

The same can be said for advertising. Do you think there is a difference between art and advertising?

Hm! Hard one. Maybe.

 

[Piscivore]

Of course not. That is why they are called "stories".

I think you need to read up a bit.

 

[CFLarsen]

Hm! Hard one. Maybe.

What is the difference between art and advertising, then?

 

[Tricky]

What is the difference between art and advertising, then?

Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.

 

[CFLarsen]

Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.

Patrons of the arts never demanded that they be portrayed favorably?

You don't want to go down that road, do you?