Who Really is an Atheist?

[uwot]

There's probably lots of them lurking about.

Probably? So you don't know of any and you are basing your assertions on your own unsupported opinion.

Do you own research, yes you can, apostrophe.

That's why I'm asking.

[Walker]

There's probably lots of them lurking about.

Probably? So you don't know of any and you are basing your assertions on your own unsupported opinion.

Do you own research, yes you can, apostrophe.

That's why I'm asking.

No, probably is a logical assertion on the order of, there’s probably lots of stars in the universe. Anything that is has been created, and anything created has been touched by God. Ergo, look around.

You probably know a little or a lot about stars. Know any personally?

[uwot]

No, probably is a logical assertion on the order of, there’s probably lots of stars in the universe.

Good grief. Which idiot taught you logic?

Anything that is has been created, and anything created has been touched by God.

You are making an invalid logic leap from 'There is stuff.' to 'Therefore it has been created.' It doesn't follow.

You probably know a little or a lot about stars.

A fair bit.

Know any personally?

No, but I can see them.

[Nick_A]

From the OP:

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Unfortunately this thread only includes blind deniers incapable of the quality of reason and emotion that could serve as a purification of the notion of God. I can see why. Healthy atheism would be scorned on by both the blind deniers and blind believers. They are in a tough position.

[thedoc]

From the OP:

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Unfortunately this thread only includes blind deniers incapable of the quality of reason and emotion that could serve as a purification of the notion of God. I can see why. Healthy atheism would be scorned on by both the blind deniers and blind believers. They are in a tough position.

Perhaps you would tell us what you mean by a "healthy Atheism"? I once heard that any person who follows one religion is an atheist to all other religions, because they deny that the other religion's God exists.

[Walker]

No, probably is a logical assertion on the order of, there’s probably lots of stars in the universe.

Good grief. Which idiot taught you logic?

Anything that is has been created, and anything created has been touched by God.

You are making an invalid logic leap from 'There is stuff.' to 'Therefore it has been created.' It doesn't follow.

You probably know a little or a lot about stars.

A fair bit.

Know any personally?

No, but I can see them.

A species is and if before it is, it is not, then it has been created, though if you don’t know for sure that the species ever was not, then you can’t say for sure that it was created. Same for stars.

If the word creation is as a bugaboo-hangup on the order of God, then substitute the word formed in its place. Or, formed in increments. Or, formed whole and complete.

[Walker]

This is how atheists and agnostic closet atheists view Christians.

Has anyone on the planet not heard this line of reasoning from this powerful work of art?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8

[Nick_A]

thedoc wrote: Perhaps you would tell us what you mean by a "healthy Atheism"? I once heard that any person who follows one religion is an atheist to all other religions, because they deny that the other religion's God exists.

Healthy atheism is intellectual atheism in search of the Good as revealed through truth. It is impartial and is only concerned with truth as opposed to being "right."

Unhealthy atheism is emotional denial. Its goal isn't truth but rather denial of particular concepts relating to god. Truth is secondary to denial. The intellectual atheist serves as a purification of God by revealing obvious absurdities of blind believers in their own search for truth. Unhealthy atheists condemn without any regard for truth or the questions of the heart which inspire religious and philosophical searches. Unhealthy atheism is empty. Denial can only satisfy until the need of the essence of Man can free itself from defensive ego domination and openly need something more than denial which is not found within society or the mechanics of science.

[sthitapragya]

What does it mean if both belief and denial are expressions of idolatry? What does it mean to believe and what does it mean to deny if both are based on idolatry? An atheist may be denying God but perhaps they may only be denying an idol. As usual Simone Weil supplies food for thought.

"In order to obey God, one must receive his commands.
How did it happen that I received them in adolescence, while I was professing atheism?
To believe that the desire for good is always fulfilled--that is faith, and whoever has it is not an atheist."
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 137

"No human being escapes the necessity of conceiving some good outside himself towards which his thought turns in a movement of desire, supplication, and hope. consequently, the only choice is between worshiping the true God or an idol. Every atheist is an idolater--unless he is worshiping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters."
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 308

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Actually you need to address your psychological need to believe that atheists are believers. That might be more helpful.

[uwot]

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."

Unfortunately this thread only includes blind deniers incapable of the quality of reason and emotion that could serve as a purification of the notion of God.

You have been mislead by someone who doesn't understand atheism. There are people who insist that there is no god; these might be construed as blinds denies, but their position is as untenable as those who insist there is a god. The simple reason being that you cannot prove any metaphysical claim true or false.
You can't even prove that certain physical claims are false; what proof is there that the sasquatch, yeti or Loch Ness monster don't exist? People who do not believe in such creatures are not 'blinds denies': they simply don't believe that any evidence presented in support is compelling. Substitute yeti for god and you have an atheist.
The different ways of thinking can be summed up like this:
There is evidence that god doesn't exist.
There is no evidence that god exists.
The first is not true, while the second is; unless you believe, like Walker, that everything that exists has to have been 'created', and that therefore, there is a 'creator'.

I can see why. Healthy atheism would be scorned on by both the blind deniers and blind believers. They are in a tough position.

You are mythologizing again; the fact that you "can see why", is sufficient for you to believe it; 'It makes sense, so it is true' is precisely the logic that makes blind believers.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Common sense and reason are finally beating the battle against "Faith".
The sheeple that follow the command of authority are steadily and increasingly rejecting the ties of religion and direct control from the state, and declaring themselves as 'atheists".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/r ... ced862a51d

For my money the statistics are behind the trend. All through my boyhood and teenhood, when The Census came through the door and the household was confronted with the question "Which Religion?"; our response was "What are we supposed to put"
We never attended church, and with the exceptions of one person in the entire extended family; Aunt Christine, none of us every spared a thought for God.
Despite the facts (and in the early part of my life there being no option "atheist"), we would dutifully tick the "Church of England" box.
Now "atheism" is part of our vocabulary as a nation and people do not feel that they are failing in their duty to express the truth that they don't not give a rat's arse about "god".

God botherers are in decline. We are at heart all atheists, its just some are fooling themselves.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/m ... ales-study

[Walker]

The first is not true, while the second is; unless you believe, like Walker, that everything that exists has to have been 'created', and that therefore, there is a 'creator'.

If something does not exist
And then it exists
It has been created
Even if the creation takes a long time by human measure
Obviously this fact interferes with your belief that things have always been.

Thus the questions:
- are you a thing?
- have you always been?
- were you created?

From the viewpoint of “you are not the body,”
- no, you are not a thing
- you are unborn, and therefore
- you are not created
- you exist

Could AI ever say that? (Clarke should have named HAL, AL.)

[Nick_A]

Uwot wrote: The different ways of thinking can be summed up like this:
There is evidence that god doesn't exist.
There is no evidence that god exists.
The first is not true, while the second is; unless you believe, like Walker, that everything that exists has to have been 'created', and that therefore, there is a 'creator'.

What evidence is there that God doesn’t exist? How will you tell Buddhists and Hindus that the Breath of Brahma doesn’t take place. They will say you are ignorant of the eternal world of forms Plato described in which ideas devolve into things.

“Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

Without the force of God's being, what would the force be in compliance with Newton’s Law of Inertia that could sustain these eternal cycles?

So is uwot missing something or is the world filled with naïve Buddhists?

[FlashDangerpants]

Uwot wrote: The different ways of thinking can be summed up like this:
There is evidence that god doesn't exist.
There is no evidence that god exists.
The first is not true, while the second is; unless you believe, like Walker, that everything that exists has to have been 'created', and that therefore, there is a 'creator'.

What evidence is there that God doesn’t exist?

Can you see the words "the first is not true" in Uwot's post?
What do you think they refer to?

[FlashDangerpants]

If something does not exist
And then it exists
It has been created

If something does not exist, and then it exists. It now exists.