Who Really is an Atheist?

[Arising_uk]

Me, me, me...I'm really an Atheist, promise. At least with respect to all the 'God's' I've heard about on this forum from the theists. Now Spinoza's maybe and even Leibniz's but upon the whole I think Kant nailed such questions.

[Nick_A]

the doc wrote: An atheist denies the existence of God, all else is window dressing.

A perfect example of blind denial. How can anyone deny what cannot be comprehended? Suppose we live in a multi dimensional universe. We cannot comprehend the fourth dimension much less the fifth and the sixth even less. How can anyone deny the potential for a source creating this marvelous structure we cannot comprehend in its totality so call universe? We cannot deny it intellectually yet we can deny it emotionally. Welcome to the world of blind denial.

[thedoc]

the doc wrote: An atheist denies the existence of God, all else is window dressing.

A perfect example of blind denial. How can anyone deny what cannot be comprehended? Suppose we live in a multi dimensional universe. We cannot comprehend the fourth dimension much less the fifth and the sixth even less. How can anyone deny the potential for a source creating this marvelous structure we cannot comprehend in its totality so call universe? We cannot deny it intellectually yet we can deny it emotionally. Welcome to the world of blind denial.

Show me? What cannot be comprehended, or observed, can easily be denied. Introduce me to your God, don't just tell me about God.

[Nick_A]

thedoc wrote: Show me? What cannot be comprehended, or observed, can easily be denied. Introduce me to your God, don't just tell me about God.

God is NOW. God IS. You are a creature within time and space so you EXIST as part of a process within eternal change. God is NOW beyond the limits of time and space while you serve the process of existence within the universal laws of time and space and within NOW. Existence is a process while God IS. The process cannot comprehend NOW. That IMO is why Simone Weil wrote:

It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures."

[thedoc]

thedoc wrote: Show me? What cannot be comprehended, or observed, can easily be denied. Introduce me to your God, don't just tell me about God.

God is NOW. God IS. You are a creature within time and space so you EXIST as part of a process within eternal change. God is NOW beyond the limits of time and space while you serve the process of existence within the universal laws of time and space and within NOW. Existence is a process while God IS. The process cannot comprehend NOW. That IMO is why Simone Weil wrote:

It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures."

Simone Weil was a fool, and subscribed to the God of the gaps, I do not.

The rest is circumstantial nonsense that doesn't prove anything. Show me direct evidence that your God exists, failing that you have nothing. Air exists therefore God exists, is nonsense, claiming the existence of any thing, doesn't prove anything.

[Arising_uk]

... How can anyone deny what cannot be comprehended? ...

How can one affirm what cannot be comprehended?

Suppose we live in a multi dimensional universe. ...

OK.

We cannot comprehend the fourth dimension much less the fifth and the sixth even less. How can anyone deny the potential for a source creating this marvelous structure we cannot comprehend in its totality so call universe? We cannot deny it intellectually yet we can deny it emotionally. Welcome to the world of blind denial.

Kant called it the Noumenon and it means that all your emotionalizing and intellectualizing about 'it' is just hot-air presumably based upon a pre-existing religious upbringing.

[Arising_uk]

It is only the impossible that is possible for God. ...

The impossible is not possible for a 'God' anymore than it is for anything else, as Logic applies to 'it' as it does to everything that exists. Now 'it' may well be able to ignore the laws of Physics as applicable to this universe but it won't be able to ignore the laws of Logic as applicable to its existence, nor can it change those laws as applied to ours.

[Arising_uk]

An atheist denies the existence of God, all else is window dressing.

Nearly but not quite I think, in the main this is the ex-theist atheist. An atheist atheist only denies the existence of a 'God' or 'God's' when the claim is made, otherwise nary a thought is had about 'it' or 'them'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

An atheist denies the existence of God, all else is window dressing.

Nearly but not quite I think, in the main this is the ex-theist atheist. An atheist atheist only denies the existence of a 'God' or 'God's' when the claim is made, otherwise nary a thought is had about 'it' or 'them'.

Good point. Just think of all the gods we don't know about and never give a microsecond of thought to.

[marjoram_blues]

An atheist denies the existence of God, all else is window dressing.

Nearly but not quite I think, in the main this is the ex-theist atheist. An atheist atheist only denies the existence of a 'God' or 'God's' when the claim is made, otherwise nary a thought is had about 'it' or 'them'.

So perhaps a more interesting question would be 'What kind of an 'atheist' are you?'

According to the Guardian, a study shows that ' the proportion of population who identify as having no religion rose from 25% in 2011 to 48.5% in 2014. In England and Wales, those who define themselves as Christian...made up 43.8%...the report drew on data from British Social Attitudes Survey from 1983 to 2014,'

Of course, stats can be questioned. I wonder about the catchment area eg seems to focus more on Christianity. Are Muslims abandoning their faith. Is there bravery in reinterpreting faith, even leaving it behind. Why do some want to say that we don't have an increasing secular society as much as a more agnostic one...

Clearly, there are different degrees of belief and non-belief. And any action taken as a result.

Questions like: what, if anything, replaces the loss of faith...don't we all need some source of strength for the darker moments in life. Would some kind of a philosophy fix(ation) not be also be classed as religious ? But that can be lonely, and one of the benefits of having a faith-based religion can be the sense of a caring community. A regular place and supportive space to hang out in.

On-line philosophy forums and magazines can only go so far. Regular meet-ups...seem to fall by the wayside.
There is perhaps no feeling of belongingness.
I think that is why some see 'atheists' as collectively cold. It sounds uncaring. I don't like the word, far too negative.

[henry quirk]

Poop on all of you folks...'god is'...'god isn't'...poop, poop, and more poop.

What say you, God?

*crickets chirp*

C'mon, God...this is your chance to set the record straight...we just wanna know, 'are' you?

*crickets chirp*

Now, God, all this slilence is not a defense.

*chirp, chirp, chirp*

[henry quirk]

double post damnit

[Nick_A]

the doc wrote: Simone Weil was a fool, and subscribed to the God of the gaps, I do not.

Curious, Albert Camus called Simone the only great mind of the times and T.S. Eliot called her a genius. What then is a fool? God is the conscious source for Simone. The God of the gaps pertains to the mechanics science is yet to explain. Different ideas entirely.

The rest is circumstantial nonsense that doesn't prove anything. Show me direct evidence that your God exists, failing that you have nothing. Air exists therefore God exists, is nonsense, claiming the existence of any thing, doesn't prove anything.

Don't blame me that you are not yet open to the distinction between NOW and the PROCESS of EXISTENCE. God doesn't exist. GOD IS. You have been introduced. You prefer to turn your back in denial.

[Nick_A]

Arising_uk wrote: Nick_A wrote:
... How can anyone deny what cannot be comprehended? ...
How can one affirm what cannot be comprehended?

That is a major stumbling block for those afflicted with blind denial. They only give themselves two choices: affirm or deny. The third choice of impartial pondering has been lost to them. They have preferred to abandon the ancient skill of impartial contemplation in favor of superficial affirmation or denial. This third choice of impartial pondering which can lead to understanding no longer exists for blind denial. Those afflicted are condemned to the immediate choice of affirmation or negation.

[henry quirk]

There's a fourth path: indifference.

I figure if God exists, if it exists in a comprehensible way, and if it gives a flip about being comprehended (by me), then God will tap me on the shoulder and say 'hi'.

Hasn't happened yet...could be God has no interest in me, or, just doesn't exist, or...

Frankly, I got too much shit to attend to in my day-to-day to worry about it, so: I don't.

'But, Henry, maybe God 'is' talking to you...maybe you're just not listening...maybe you need to work harder, pay attention.'

Nerts to that. I'm a limited mayfly, God is Architect, Creator, Sustainer of All, and the burden is on 'me'? Would you lay the blame on the platypus who just can't grasp quantum mechanics, or the doofus human who keeps tryin' to teach a platypus quantum mechanics?

Is God a doofus?

If so: then what good is it?