Who Really is an Atheist?

[Skip]

all you’re doing is repeating your assertions and conclusions, sans authority, sans reasoning, sans empiricism ... all stuff heard before.

Plato talked a lot of silly platitudes, as well.

[Walker]

all you’re doing is repeating your assertions and conclusions, sans authority, sans reasoning, sans empiricism ... all stuff heard before.

Plato talked a lot of silly platitudes, as well.

A pale imitation in humble hommage to the bard. (last line.)

[uwot]

You’ve got a Creator-denial fixation that prevents you from admitting that you’re surrounded by creation.

Like Nick_A, and many others, you mythologise. You have invented a psychological syndrome to explain behaviour and beliefs other than your own.

Though it may seem terrible and dangerous when reality doesn’t fit into the box you’ve been taught, it really isn’t so bad.

The issue is not what people have been taught, rather what they have learnt. The argument from design is something anyone who has read any philosophy of religion will be familiar with.

Once you accept what is, that you’re surrounded by creation...

The problem you have is that because you call everything 'you're surrounded by' creation you think you are justified in assuming a creator. Who taught you to call the universe creation?

[Walker]

You’ve got a Creator-denial fixation that prevents you from admitting that you’re surrounded by creation.

Like Nick_A, and many others, you mythologise. You have invented a psychological syndrome to explain behaviour and beliefs other than your own.

Though it may seem terrible and dangerous when reality doesn’t fit into the box you’ve been taught, it really isn’t so bad.

The issue is not what people have been taught, rather what they have learnt. The argument from design is something anyone who has read any philosophy of religion will be familiar with.

Once you accept what is, that you’re surrounded by creation...

The problem you have is that because you call everything 'you're surrounded by' creation you think you are justified in assuming a creator. Who taught you to call the universe creation?

Yet another who insists that duality exists apart from mind.

[FlashDangerpants]

See? Now your formerly non-existent next posting exists because it has been created, though your next posting has not yet been created. Remember to observe what happens in the transition.

By keeping up this simple activity of noticing such causal relationships you may begin to accept by osmosis what is, which is creation, since your denial obviously ain’t gettin it done in terms of rational discourse.

You’ve got a Creator-denial fixation that prevents you from admitting that you’re surrounded by creation. You’re walking around with your hands in front of your eyes.

The existence of some things which are created by me, and others which are recognisably created by others, does not imply that all things are created. No amount of pointing at an object and declaring it to be created is going to change this.

Though it may seem terrible and dangerous when reality doesn’t fit into the box you’ve been taught, it really isn’t so bad.

Once you accept what is, that you’re surrounded by creation, you can address your hangup about how creation and your human tendency towards duality (e.g., conceptually dividing your existence and the existence of anything else into creator and creation) comes into being and interfaces. Then you can start working on that fixation with the tools of rationality that God gave you via evolution, natural law, whatever. (OMG look he used that word he’s one of them, activate the rote litany.)

"comes into being and interfaces"? what is that supposed to mean? You are a terrible pseud.

Until then all you’re doing is repeating your assertions and conclusions, sans authority, sans reasoning, sans empiricism ... all stuff heard before.

I am simply holding you to some standards of logic. Blandly waving in the direction of Plato won't get you where you are trying to go.

[Walker]

See? Now your formerly non-existent next posting exists because it has been created, though your next posting has not yet been created. Remember to observe what happens in the transition.

By keeping up this simple activity of noticing such causal relationships you may begin to accept by osmosis what is, which is creation, since your denial obviously ain’t gettin it done in terms of rational discourse.

You’ve got a Creator-denial fixation that prevents you from admitting that you’re surrounded by creation. You’re walking around with your hands in front of your eyes.

The existence of some things which are created by me, and others which are recognisably created by others, does not imply that all things are created. No amount of pointing at an object and declaring it to be created is going to change this.

Though it may seem terrible and dangerous when reality doesn’t fit into the box you’ve been taught, it really isn’t so bad.

Once you accept what is, that you’re surrounded by creation, you can address your hangup about how creation and your human tendency towards duality (e.g., conceptually dividing your existence and the existence of anything else into creator and creation) comes into being and interfaces. Then you can start working on that fixation with the tools of rationality that God gave you via evolution, natural law, whatever. (OMG look he used that word he’s one of them, activate the rote litany.)

"comes into being and interfaces"? what is that supposed to mean? You are a terrible pseud.

Until then all you’re doing is repeating your assertions and conclusions, sans authority, sans reasoning, sans empiricism ... all stuff heard before.

I am simply holding you to some standards of logic. Blandly waving in the direction of Plato won't get you where you are trying to go.

The existence of some things which are created by me, and others which are recognisably created by others, does not imply that all things are created. No amount of pointing at an object and declaring it to be created is going to change this.

Perpetually backtracking. This is old material. The alternative to creation is to be ever-existent. You don’t yet understand the material, and don't particularly want to, being into assertions, conclusions, and all that.

[Walker]

The problem you have is that because you call everything 'you're surrounded by' creation you think you are justified in assuming a creator. Who taught you to call the universe creation?

In similar irrelevant spirit, who is the problem who taught you the approved and disapproved tribal code words?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbFux7_RQpA

[uwot]

Yet another who insists that duality exists apart from mind.

I presume, given the syntax, that this is not addressed to me. What is your purpose, Walker? And who do you think is listening?
For my own edification, I would like to know what you mean.

[uwot]

...who is the problem who taught you the approved and disapproved tribal code words.

On the other hand, this clearly is. 'Tribal code words' is not a term I would use. Who taught you them?

[Walker]

Oh you know how it goes. One thing leads to another and the next thing you know here you are, observing that things are pretty much the same all over.

The sequence of words derives from observation but not the meaning of the words.

[Nick_A]

Walker let me ask you what the best way to approach the question of God for the young. We can see that it is usually hopeless for adult blind deniers whose feet are stuck in the ground like a dogs feet when led to the bath. Read this page and tell me how to encourage the first breath in the young. Everything around them in secular dominated society seems to be designed to prevent it. Yet I believe opening to the question is a natural human tendency. What is the antidote for spirit killing in the young?

https://books.google.com/books?id=YbvAg ... th&f=false

To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.

I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God—that may or may not come later. I say to think about God. I clearly remember the moment something deep inside me started breathing for the first time………………………………..

[FlashDangerpants]

These two are really no better than Bob.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes wrote: What do you mean "God"?

The conscious source of creation within which the process of existence takes place.

Existence does not take place within something else. Existence is the ground of our experience.

Or if you insist; what is the ground of existence for this mythical conscious source of creation you propose?

[Nick_A]

Hobbes wrote:

Or if you insist; what is the ground of existence for this mythical conscious source of creation you propose?

God doesn't exist so needs no grounds for existence. God IS. Existence is a process always in change. IS refers to the initial state of being; the eternal unchanging beyond the limitations of time and space. Blind denial keeps you from opening to these deeper ideas. Fortunately not everyone has to suffer the same fate.

[Arising_uk]

Walker let me ask you what the best way to approach the question of God for the young. ...

Don't tell them about 'it'. Let them see if they can get to 'it' on their own.

... What is the antidote for spirit killing in the young?

Telling them there's a 'God'.