Who Really is an Atheist?

[sthitapragya]

Lacewing wrote:

It seems that theist arguments don't go head-to-head very often because then the inconsistencies and variances would be on display, and there would be more to call into question. It's easier for theists to rail against non-theists from the "knowing platform" they've set up for themselves, if there are no other theists confusing their claims and arguments.

Out of curiousity, why do you believe atheists feel compelled to argue? Is calm discussion centered around a mutual interest in human meaning and purpose our species as a whole has become oblivious to really so offensive that they have to argue? Theists argue and atheists argue. Discussion is an expression of intelligence while arguing is an expression of ignorance. Is it really necessary to wear ignorance as a badge o honor?

Oh come on. Are you trying to say that you discuss and we argue? How old are you? Do you actually believe everything you do is right and everything we do is wrong?

Look at the thread. You actually claim that you know what we think. What grown up with a mature mind claims something like that? You have to realize that your thread itself is offensive and insults the intelligence of atheists as a general rule. So we hit back in kind. Some of the things I have said here were in the hope that you would understand what it feels like to have your intelligence insulted. But you don't seem to get that.

If you want mature discussions, first act like a grown up. Stop with these insulting assumptions and generalised sweeping statements about atheists in general. Not all atheists are alike just as not all Theists are alike. I have Theists friends who I respect enormously. I know religious beliefs play no part in a person's intelligence or integrity and decency.

Can you make the same statement about atheists? If yes, we can have discussions. If not, we will argue and we will insult each other. The choice is yours because the thread is yours.

[Lacewing]

Out of curiousity, why do you believe atheists feel compelled to argue? Is calm discussion centered around a mutual interest in human meaning and purpose our species as a whole has become oblivious to really so offensive that they have to argue? Theists argue and atheists argue. Discussion is an expression of intelligence while arguing is an expression of ignorance. Is it really necessary to wear ignorance as a badge o honor?

You tell me... as you've proudly said ignorant things (whether you call it discussion or arguing). And you're distorting this in a way that suits (and glorifies) yourself and your platform. Somehow you don't seem to realize how obvious that is to those who don't think like you do. I'm guessing that's because you're really convinced of the unbalanced, skewed way you view things. It's as if you're wearing a big funny hat, and insisting that you look impressive -- and that's bound to draw snickers and challenges as you strut around with it. Fortunately, fashion always cycles out of style. So this is all temporary and doesn't really mean very much.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Lacewing wrote:

It seems that theist arguments don't go head-to-head very often because then the inconsistencies and variances would be on display, and there would be more to call into question. It's easier for theists to rail against non-theists from the "knowing platform" they've set up for themselves, if there are no other theists confusing their claims and arguments.

Out of curiousity, why do you believe atheists feel compelled to argue? Is calm discussion centered around a mutual interest in human meaning and purpose our species as a whole has become oblivious to really so offensive that they have to argue? Theists argue and atheists argue. Discussion is an expression of intelligence while arguing is an expression of ignorance. Is it really necessary to wear ignorance as a badge o honor?

You should ask Immanuel Can, who lurks on the Forum.

[Nick_A]

sthit wrote:

Oh come on. Are you trying to say that you discuss and we argue? How old are you? Do you actually believe everything you do is right and everything we do is wrong?

This is where you make your mistake. It isn't a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of negativity, or the attitude of denial, in your presentation. This attitude requires argument.

Look at the thread. You actually claim that you know what we think. What grown up with a mature mind claims something like that? You have to realize that your thread itself is offensive and insults the intelligence of atheists as a general rule. So we hit back in kind. Some of the things I have said here were in the hope that you would understand what it feels like to have your intelligence insulted. But you don't seem to get that.

Look at the OP. There is nothing offensive about it. It provides the observations of a famous atheist who became a Christian mystic. She questions if she was an atheist since she believed in the "good." It is a legitimate question and I cannot see how anyone could consider it offensive. There are blind believers and blind deniers. This is a fact of life. How can anyone be offended. I don't see it.

Can you make the same statement about atheists? If yes, we can have discussions. If not, we will argue and we will insult each other. The choice is yours because the thread is yours.

I know atheists as well who serve the purpose of the purification of religion. They are very nice and intelligent people who do many good things. Unfortunately I also know of blind deniers who serve as spirit killers in the schools systems. That is why the OP asks who really is an atheist. I don't see what is offensive about it but I'm a NY Mets fan so you can't expect too much.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing wrote:

You tell me... as you've proudly said ignorant things (whether you call it discussion or arguing). And you're distorting this in a way that suits (and glorifies) yourself and your platform. Somehow you don't seem to realize how obvious that is to those who don't think like you do. I'm guessing that's because you're really convinced of the unbalanced, skewed way you view things. It's as if you're wearing a big funny hat, and insisting that you look impressive -- and that's bound to draw snickers and challenges as you strut around with it. Fortunately, fashion always cycles out of style. So this is all temporary and doesn't really mean very much.

What is so unbalanced and skewed about the following observation. How am I glorified by contemplating it without the need for emoting?

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

[Lacewing]

What is so unbalanced and skewed about the following observation. How am I glorified by contemplating it without the need for emoting?

I wasn't referring to the "following observation".

I'm speaking of your ongoing tone of (put simply) "atheists = ignorantly arguing blind deniers" vs. "theists = intelligent discussion of the truth". Such a platform is clearly skewed and ignorant, and glorifies your own position.

If that's not your platform, please clarify.

[sthitapragya]

This is where you make your mistake. It isn't a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of negativity, or the attitude of denial, in your presentation. This attitude requires argument.

You really are a child. Don't you understand that I could think the same think of your attitude? To me, your attitude is negative and you are in denial. I don't keep telling you that. It is understood.

Look at the OP. There is nothing offensive about it. It provides the observations of a famous atheist who became a Christian mystic. She questions if she was an atheist since she believed in the "good." It is a legitimate question and I cannot see how anyone could consider it offensive. There are blind believers and blind deniers. This is a fact of life. How can anyone be offended. I don't see it.

This habit of thinking what others think seem to have taken away your ability to think. I just told you it is offensive. It is offensive to atheists when you, who has no ability to think on your own, tell us how we think. It is an insult to our intellect. Your saying it is not offensive does not change the fact that it offends us. And she believed in something. So she is not an atheist and cannot think like one. Neither can you. You just dont seem to have the ability to comprehend this simple premise.

I know atheists as well who serve the purpose of the purification of religion. They are very nice and intelligent people who do many good things. Unfortunately I also know of blind deniers who serve as spirit killers in the schools systems. That is why the OP asks who really is an atheist. I don't see what is offensive about it but I'm a NY Mets fan so you can't expect too much.

Well, I know of fundamentalists who destroy things by the thousands too. And the OP is not asking who an atheist is. It is saying what you think an atheist is. If you were asking who an atheist is, you would ask and I would tell you. You have instead made an arrogant declaration of what Simone thinks an atheist is. I am still telling you. Stop insulting us and try having a discussion. It can be good. Otherwise, keep the insults coming. I can guarantee that you will get tired before I do. I love arguing. I will tire you out.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing wrote:

I wasn't referring to the "following observation".

I'm speaking of your ongoing tone of (put simply) "atheists = ignorantly arguing blind deniers" vs. "theists = intelligent discussion of the truth". Such a platform is clearly skewed and ignorant, and glorifies your own position.

If that's not your platform, please clarify.

I have written over and over of both blind believers and blind deniers. How can this possibly be misunderstood as:

"atheists = ignorantly arguing blind deniers" vs. "theists = intelligent discussion of the truth".

Both blind believers and blind deniers remain psychological prisoners in Plato's cave. My concern is for the young who intuitively sense they are surrounded by absurdity and seek a way out from this blindness Plato referred to as attachments to the shadows on the wall. You are helping me to understand the power of attachments which enchant and captivate both blind believers and blind deniers .

[Nick_A]

Sthit wrote: Well, I know of fundamentalists who destroy things by the thousands too. And the OP is not asking who an atheist is. It is saying what you think an atheist is. If you were asking who an atheist is, you would ask and I would tell you.

No, the OP asks what it means if both blind belief and blind denial are based on idolatry. You can deny you are a blind denier but the OP still asks what blind belief and blind denial means psychologically and theoretically. From the OP

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.

[yiostheoy]

This Simone Weil talks a load of hogwash (or as Hex Hammer would say, 'nonsense and babble').
Hobbes is right, 'atheist' is a label for theists to use. Personally I hate it. I don't see why I should have a special label simply for not believing in superstitious rubbish. It's also meaningless. There are plenty of supposed 'atheists' who believe in all kinds of silly things. The word should be abolished.

Society has evolved several labels these days.

A Theist is someone who believes in a traditional religious god. It is not possible to prove this god. It is simply a belief system. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are like this.

A Deist is someone who believes in some kind of god but not traditional according to popular religions. This is also an unprovable belief system. A nonpracticing religionist is like this.

A Polytheist is someone who believe in a plethora of gods. Ditto re unprovable belief system. Hinduism is like this.

An Atheist is someone who believes there is no god. It is not possible to prove this either. It is simply a belief system.

An Agnostic is someone who believes we cannot know about god or gods one way or the other. It is an Empirical belief system that believes in nothing until it can see, hear, and touch a god or gods. This point of view is perfectly scientific. These are often people who have made Science their Religion and they believe every little theory of Science as though it were written in stone.

And there is another group called the Uninterested -- they just don't care one way or the other.

The current split in the USA (which I have googled) is 3% atheist, 3% agnostic, 4% not interested at all, 25% Theist, 1% Hindu polytheist, and the rest are Deists. It's always nice to know the breakdowns.

[Lacewing]

I have written over and over of both blind believers and blind deniers. How can this possibly be misunderstood as:

"atheists = ignorantly arguing blind deniers" vs. "theists = intelligent discussion of the truth".

I'm referring to your presentation style in all sorts of things you talk about. You can say you use lots of words (like Donald Trump says he does), but it's hard to conceal (as he demonstrates) an ongoing undercurrent message. If I've misunderstood what you really think about atheists, maybe you can clarify? Is "ignorantly arguing blind deniers" not at all accurate?

My concern is for the young who intuitively sense they are surrounded by absurdity

What about the old who sense the same thing? Do you think they are any more capable than the young of finding their way through it?

By the way, I don't think you ever answered a question I posed to you awhile back... and I would truly like to hear your answer:

Just curious... what do you think about children being subjected by adults to Pentecostal (or other extreme) religious environments with psychotic wailing and screaming, speaking in tongues, raging preachers, and demons being "cast out". Who protects children from the spirit killers in religion?

You seem to be focused on "spirit killers in schools", and I wonder if you're ignoring all the spirit killing that goes on in religion?

[yiostheoy]

I have written over and over of both blind believers and blind deniers. How can this possibly be misunderstood as:

"atheists = ignorantly arguing blind deniers" vs. "theists = intelligent discussion of the truth".

I'm referring to your presentation style in all sorts of things you talk about. You can say you use lots of words (like Donald Trump says he does), but it's hard to conceal (as he demonstrates) an ongoing undercurrent message. If I've misunderstood what you really think about atheists, maybe you can clarify? Is "ignorantly arguing blind deniers" not at all accurate?

My concern is for the young who intuitively sense they are surrounded by absurdity

What about the old who sense the same thing? Do you think they are any more capable than the young of finding their way through it?

By the way, I don't think you ever answered a question I posed to you awhile back... and I would truly like to hear your answer:

Just curious... what do you think about children being subjected by adults to Pentecostal (or other extreme) religious environments with psychotic wailing and screaming, speaking in tongues, raging preachers, and demons being "cast out". Who protects children from the spirit killers in religion?

You seem to be focused on "spirit killers in schools", and I wonder if you're ignoring all the spirit killing that goes on in religion?

Brainwashing is all the same whether you call it patriotism, religion, indoctrination, training, education, or whatever.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Brainwashing is all the same whether you call it patriotism, religion, indoctrination, training, education, or whatever.

There is one thing all of these have in common; and that is BELIEF.
It is always empty, always lazy , and always a bad choice.

Things we accept as true should never be based on choice. That is the failing of the Theist and the patriot - both aspect of the same delusion.

[yiostheoy]

Hobbes' Choice, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

[Hobbes' Choice]

yiostheoy, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Nice to know you read my post!!