Who Really is an Atheist?

[uwot]

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.

Like this?

God is NOW. God IS.

Once again (I'm doing this from memory):

Common sense in the most equiptably distributed thing in the world, for no man, be he otherwise hard to please, thinks he has less than his fair share.

Mr A, just because it makes sense to you, doesn't mean it is anymore or less the product of blind belief.

[Arising_uk]

That is a major stumbling block for those afflicted with blind denial. They only give themselves two choices: affirm or deny. ...

Er, you were the one affirming?

The third choice of impartial pondering has been lost to them. ...

So you are impartial are you?

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.

So you don't affirm or deny this 'God' then?

I'm impartial, I don't think about this 'God' or 'God's' at all unless in response to someone telling me that they know it exists. No-one telling me this then no thought about 'it' at all. To paraphrase HQ, if other folks want to bother 'God' that's fine with me just don't bother me or mine with 'it'. As Kant most reasonably pointed out there's nothing to say.

[bobevenson]

When it comes to spiritual salvation, Kim (supposedly not related to Novak) is lost.

[uwot]

When it comes to spiritual salvation, Kim (supposedly not related to Novak) is lost.

Reverend Bob, I know you're a prophet and that, but even you must know that it is not generally one's forename that suggests relationship.

[Nick_A]

Arising_uk wrote: So you don't affirm or deny this 'God' then?

“Man is a being in search of meaning.” – Plato

Arising, you must know the difference in science between a hypothesis and a conclusion. Affirming God is a conclusion we are incapable of. I can however agree with Plato since I have verified that this quality exists in me as well.

My hypothesis is that God is NOW and the ultimate source of meaning for EXISTENCE which takes place within NOW.

Meaning is a relative concept. People differ in what responds to their need for meaning. Most seek meaning from earthly efforts that could provide fame, fortune, sex, and a host of other goals. A person’s god can be money for example. They believe in money so believe in their god.

However, for whatever reason, there is a minority who in the depth of their being seek to experience meaning not arising from society or the earth from which it originated. They seek the experience of meaning that the essence of both philosophy and religion responds to. Of course in the majority of cases both philosophy and the essence of religion have so devolved into secularism that they no longer satisfy the deeper need for the experience of meaning. I use Simone Weil as the perfect example of such a person with this need willing to devote their lives as a seeker of truth so as to experience this deeper need for meaning..

My hypothesis concerning God as NOW and god as meaning is not my own idea. Others far greater than me have delved into these things. But for me to believe in the God hypothesis it has to make logical sense. Blind belief for me is as naive as blind denial. Can I become conscious enough to verify it as a conclusion is speculative. I know that the hypothesis is reasonable and answers questions I have concerning the human condition in the context of universal purpose.

Blind denial begins with the emotional hypothesis that there is no god, no source of ultimate meaning or creation. There is no way to proceed. No method. No way to answer the questions of the heart other than to deny them. Nothing to open the mind.

"The danger is not lest the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but lest, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry." - Simone Weil

Institutions of child abuse called schools and universities specializing in the art of spiritual killing have often had the effect on students Simone refers to. If I can eventually help in preventing some premature deaths I will consider it worthwhile

[Arising_uk]

When it comes to spiritual salvation, Kim (supposedly not related to Novak) is lost.

Thank 'God'!

'Novak'! Time to leave the 50's boob.

[uwot]

...for me to believe in the God hypothesis it has to make logical sense.

And there you have it. You need to understand that the primary discipline of philosophy is logic. If you can't create a coherent story from a given set of premises, you can't do philosophy. Once you have read a few of the great philosophers, you learn that their logic is generally watertight, but in every case* the initial premises are theory laden.
To put it bluntly, you cannot believe the god hypothesis unless it is your wish to do so. The fact that you then create a logically valid story out of that hypothesis has no retroactive influence on the truth of the hypothesis.

"The danger is not lest the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but lest, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry." - Simone Weil

Sorry mate; how hungry you are has fuck all to do with what's in the fridge.

*Usual exceptions: Parmenides and Descartes.

[Hobbes' Choice]

V wrote: What exactly do you mean by 'blind denial'? Do you 'blindly deny' the existence of leprechauns? ALL belief in the supernatural is blind, because there's simply no evidence for it. And if there was evidence, it wouldn't be 'supernatural' any more.

Blind denial is the attitude of emotional skepticism. Intellectual skepticism is healthy and the essence of questions. Emotional skepticism is poison for the human psyche. It is a blind conditioned emotional reaction based on the fear of being vulnerable which the open mind requires. Emotional skepticsm protects our ego by closing the potential open mind.

Atheism is not blind. it is not a denial. It can be two things. Simply an absence of a belief or the considered rejection.

Faith is blind. Fatih takes no part in the rejection of "god". Faith is self delusion, that thinks belief is enough.

[Walker]

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?

Ever notice when the crickets get quiet? Everyone gets tapped. Some get tapped twice. The first tap is by grace. Why go looking for taps since the tap changes everything and who needs problems like that. God talkers have been known to overflow about that first tap out of generosity to say, better sooner than later since no man knows later for sure so enjoy the changes wrought by the first tap. Kind of the same outlook.

'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.

Exactly. Nothing subtle about it, and I think with powerful egos nothing gradual about it except in the evolutionary buildup, but that's only based on limited knowledge.

[uwot]

Everyone gets tapped.

What do you base that on?

[Dalek Prime]

V wrote: What exactly do you mean by 'blind denial'? Do you 'blindly deny' the existence of leprechauns? ALL belief in the supernatural is blind, because there's simply no evidence for it. And if there was evidence, it wouldn't be 'supernatural' any more.

Blind denial is the attitude of emotional skepticism. Intellectual skepticism is healthy and the essence of questions. Emotional skepticism is poison for the human psyche. It is a blind conditioned emotional reaction based on the fear of being vulnerable which the open mind requires. Emotional skepticsm protects our ego by closing the potential open mind.

No, it accepts the emotion, but does not allow it to skew or detract from reasoning, which would otherwise become what we want to see, not what is. If a conclusion is unpalatable to me, I do not dismiss it because of my emotional attachments to a preferred conclusion.

[Nick_A]

D P wrote: No, it accepts the emotion, but does not allow it to skew or detract from reasoning, which would otherwise become what we want to see, not what is. If a conclusion is unpalatable to me, I do not dismiss it because of my emotional attachments to a preferred conclusion.

This sounds nice but as a victim of blind denial you don’t see how far you are from such emotional freedom. You cannot see how your reasoning in matters of God serve blind denial. Simone Weil describes emotional freedom as detachment. The East warns us of the emotional power of attachment to destroy human potential. Conscious detachment is freedom from attachment and only a few are capable of it. Those supporting blind belief and blind denial are by definition incapable of conscious detachment since they are mutually exclusive by definition. Simone brings us back down to earth.

Simone Weil wrote: “Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached”
“There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too.”

Arising wrote: Time to leave the 50's boob.

To the contrary it is far more beneficial for victims of blind denial to avoid comments about God and discuss instead the various aesthetic qualities of boobs regardless of the decade. Denial will then be limited to harmless personal opinion. Who can deny this advantage?

[Arising_uk]

Arising, you must know the difference in science between a hypothesis and a conclusion. Affirming God is a conclusion we are incapable of. ...

And yet you believe this 'God' exists, if this is not and affirmation what is it?

My hypothesis is that God is NOW and the ultimate source of meaning for EXISTENCE which takes place within NOW.

So you've already decided there is only one 'God' then?

Why do you keep thinking that any of what we call existence has to necessarily be connected to whatever purpose the noumena may or may not have or even have a mening or purpose? Hubris I think.

Meaning is a relative concept. People differ in what responds to their need for meaning. Most seek meaning from earthly efforts that could provide fame, fortune, sex, and a host of other goals. A person’s god can be money for example. They believe in money so believe in their god.

If meaning is a relative concept then how is there an ultimate source of meaning?

However, for whatever reason, there is a minority who in the depth of their being seek to experience meaning not arising from society or the earth from which it originated. They seek the experience of meaning that the essence of both philosophy and religion responds to. Of course in the majority of cases both philosophy and the essence of religion have so devolved into secularism that they no longer satisfy the deeper need for the experience of meaning. I use Simone Weil as the perfect example of such a person with this need willing to devote their lives as a seeker of truth so as to experience this deeper need for meaning..

Just sounds like you want something to make a meaning for you'd consider your life meaningless otherwise.

My hypothesis concerning God as NOW and god as meaning is not my own idea. Others far greater than me have delved into these things. But for me to believe in the God hypothesis it has to make logical sense. Blind belief for me is as naive as blind denial. Can I become conscious enough to verify it as a conclusion is speculative. I know that the hypothesis is reasonable and answers questions I have concerning the human condition in the context of universal purpose.

What questions? Why are we here and why is there suffering and evil and all that?

Blind denial begins with the emotional hypothesis that there is no god, no source of ultimate meaning or creation. ...

I'd call it a reasonable conclusion based upon no-one ever being able to produce this 'God' of yours, add to that that the history of the human race so far has had innumerable 'God's' and I wonder why you think yours is any more a fable than the others?

There is no way to proceed. No method. ...

Of course there is, conscious choice to make a meaning for oneself, in your case it's to abdicate the meaning to something else. Another method, one that Weil took, is to involve oneself with others.

No way to answer the questions of the heart other than to deny them. ...

What 'questions of the heart'?

Nothing to open the mind.

Try Philosophy or the Sciences or the Arts.

"The danger is not lest the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but lest, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry." - Simone Weil

What 'soul'?

Institutions of child abuse called schools and universities specializing in the art of spiritual killing have often had the effect on students Simone refers to. If I can eventually help in preventing some premature deaths I will consider it worthwhile

Hyperbole, still you should be happy as the religious nuts are getting control of the schools and universities again and promoting their 'spirituality' so all is gonna go down the shithole again.

[Walker]

Everyone gets tapped.

What do you base that on?

It's in the part that you left out.

- The tap changes everything and everyone has everything change at least once.

- When there’s more than one tap, the tapped one knows the first tap is God tapping.

- No one can say for sure that the last tap is God tapping for everyone or anyone. Could be de debble.

- The tapped one knows who’s saying hi.

“When I was a child I understood as a child.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8FaDaTD_hA

[Nick_A]

Arising wrote: Of course there is, conscious choice to make a meaning for oneself, in your case it's to abdicate the meaning to something else. Another method, one that Weil took, is to involve oneself with others.

This of course is the essence of the division between blind belief and blind denial. Blind believers have faith in the preachings of one of many secularized religious philosophies professing to reveal the will of our creator. Blind denial denies any sort of objective universal meaning choosing to believe the universe is purposeless and Man creates his own meaning.

Those beginning to consciously awaken to reality know that both blind believers and blind deniers inhabit the darkness of Plato’s cave condemned to battle over meaningless conflicting opinions. So their question is how a person with the need for experiential truth can free themselves from the dominant attractions of imagination long enough to make progress towards reality human "being" is called to. Of course they will be condemned as Socrates describes in Plato’s cave analogy so one must be veeeerry careful in public if you want to protect your you know whats:

[Socrates] “And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.”

Thanks to the powers that be, atheists here cannot jump through the computer screen or I would be in serious trouble. Blind deniers do not care for those who have begun to see in a new way. Their righteous indignation is often worse than that of the proverbial woman scorned.