Who Really is an Atheist?

[Nick_A]

FDP wrote:

You opened this thread with nothing but insulting disdain for anyone who doesn't share your prejudices, so you cannot reasonably complain at the negativity reflected back towards you without demonstrating excruciating hypocrisy. You have nothing else to offer so that is to be expected.

You are the agent of all your own failures, and by additionally failing to recognise your own part in the worthlessness of this sorry thread, you are revealed to be in a state of blind denial.

Now here is the question of 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.

Where is this insulting disdain for anyone who doesn't share my prejudices? It is a basic philosophical question.This is just blind denial taking the place of the desire to read a question without preconception created by, you guessed it, "blind denial."

[Hobbes' Choice]

Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..

Are you feeling it yet?

[Arising_uk]

Do you think NickA is also a radical Marxist like Simone was?

[Nick_A]

Hobbes wrote: Nick_A wrote:

Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..Blind Denial..

Hobbes have you considered taking up chanting? You write this with such dedication that if you chant this at least twice a day and especially before posting you may receive a revelation.

[sthitapragya]

Do you think NickA is also a radical Marxist like Simone was?

Reminds me more of a parrot. I don't think he has any ideas of his own. He just says what Simone Says. Sometimes I think he played too much "Simon says" as a child. Also, I think he is Fanman returned in a different form. He also has a great obsession for the dangers to children in school quite like what Fanman had.

[sthitapragya]

Do you think NickA is also a radical Marxist like Simone was?

Reminds me more of a parrot. I don't think he has any ideas of his own. He just says what Simone Says. Sometimes I think he played too much "Simon says" as a child. Also, I think he is Fanman returned in a different form. He also has a great obsession for the dangers to children in school quite like what Fanman had.

Oh, and I am having a discussion with Immanuel Can in "What is the purpose of God?" and the discussion has shifted to logic. If I remember correctly, you are good at that. Could you take that discussion up if you are interested? I have not studied logic formally so I am at a loss there.

[uwot]

Since this topic has only attracted positive atheists, We are met with blind denial making any form of interaction other than the exchange of insults impossible. The negativity which accompanies blind denial excludes it. Reasonable discussion is only possible with negative atheists who unfortunately are not here. Just so you know what I mean by positive and negative atheists:

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

Negative atheist 'uwot' reporting for duty, Sah! What the fuck can I do for you?
In the meantime, can you show me the quotes by which you judge every atheist here to be positive?
Answer: No.
Reason: You are a blind believer in your own myth.

[Nick_A]

Uwot wrote: Negative atheist 'uwot' reporting for duty, Sah! What the fuck can I do for you?
In the meantime, can you show me the quotes by which you judge every atheist here to be positive?
Answer: No.
Reason: You are a blind believer in your own myth.

Typical blind denial normal for a positive atheist. No substance; just attack.

A negative atheist for example could discuss Einstein’s observation in a substantial manner. Positive atheists are reduced to negative expressions of blind denial. It would be nice if there were some members who were calm negative atheists. If they are here I haven’t read them yet.

Einstein is referring to intelligent design. Positive atheists are repulsed by it and can only reject it through blind denial.

1. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

2. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Uwot wrote: Negative atheist 'uwot' reporting for duty, Sah! What the fuck can I do for you?
In the meantime, can you show me the quotes by which you judge every atheist here to be positive?
Answer: No.
Reason: You are a blind believer in your own myth.

Typical blind denial .

[/quote]
.....

Boring

[uwot]

Typical blind denial normal for a positive atheist. No substance; just attack.

You obviously do not understand your own quote. I have never insisted that there is no god, I have repeatedly said that I do not believe there is one, which exactly matches the definition of a negative atheist you provided:

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

If you could understand and respect the person you are talking to, they are more likely to respect you.

[FlashDangerpants]

FDP wrote:

You opened this thread with nothing but insulting disdain for anyone who doesn't share your prejudices, so you cannot reasonably complain at the negativity reflected back towards you without demonstrating excruciating hypocrisy. You have nothing else to offer so that is to be expected.

You are the agent of all your own failures, and by additionally failing to recognise your own part in the worthlessness of this sorry thread, you are revealed to be in a state of blind denial.

Now here is the question of 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.

Where is this insulting disdain for anyone who doesn't share my prejudices? It is a basic philosophical question.This is just blind denial taking the place of the desire to read a question without preconception created by, you guessed it, "blind denial."

You never meant that IF bit at all. You came into this expressly to call us all idolaters.
You pay no attention to the fact that few among of us meets your criteria for "positive atheism"
You started with abuse. Just because you pathetically masked it with "what does it mean if" does not excuse that.
Unless you were willing and able to contemplate the possibility that we don't worship any idols, you were just dishonestly passing a judgment off as if it were a harmless enquiry.
If you were able to do this though, then you wouldn't have bluntly defined us all as idolaters, and you wouldn't dismiss every criticism of your ill conceived argument as nothing but "blind denial".

If you haven't got the intellectual honesty to consider the naked aggression contained in your multiple annoying threads lambasting us for not meeting the standards you insist on but cannot justify, then you are not a lover of wisdom, nor anything in that general range. You are a pretentious little man with a collection of empty insults and nothing much else.

[Nick_A]

FDP wrote:

If you haven't got the intellectual honesty to consider the naked aggression contained in your multiple annoying threads lambasting us for not meeting the standards you insist on but cannot justify, then you are not a lover of wisdom, nor anything in that general range. You are a pretentious little man with a collection of empty insults and nothing much else.

The OP asks who really is an atheist? It doesn't proclaim that "Atheists are idolaters and should be Burned at the Stake." Th OP includes observations by Simone Weil who was a negative atheist. There are no standards to meet. The question of the OP is basic. It invites you to tell me what an atheist is and make the distinction between positive and negative atheism if you are aware of it. But your blind denial saw it as a red flag and you charged it like a bull rather than considering the question.

[Walker]

You never meant that IF bit at all. You came into this expressly to call us all idolaters.
You pay no attention to the fact that few among of us meets your criteria for "positive atheism"
You started with abuse. Just because you pathetically masked it with "what does it mean if" does not excuse that.
Unless you were willing and able to contemplate the possibility that we don't worship any idols, you were just dishonestly passing a judgment off as if it were a harmless enquiry.
If you were able to do this though, then you wouldn't have bluntly defined us all as idolaters, and you wouldn't dismiss every criticism of your ill conceived argument as nothing but "blind denial".

If you haven't got the intellectual honesty to consider the naked aggression contained in your multiple annoying threads lambasting us for not meeting the standards you insist on but cannot justify, then you are not a lover of wisdom, nor anything in that general range. You are a pretentious little man with a collection of empty insults and nothing much else.

Yeah bub, how dare you violate the safe zone and shock poor innocent minds. I don’t know how I’ll sleep tonight. Bad Nick!

[FlashDangerpants]

FDP wrote:

If you haven't got the intellectual honesty to consider the naked aggression contained in your multiple annoying threads lambasting us for not meeting the standards you insist on but cannot justify, then you are not a lover of wisdom, nor anything in that general range. You are a pretentious little man with a collection of empty insults and nothing much else.

The OP asks who really is an atheist? It doesn't proclaim that "Atheists are idolaters and should be Burned at the Stake." Th OP includes observations by Simone Weil who was a negative atheist. There are no standards to meet. The question of the OP is basic. It invites you to tell me what an atheist is and make the distinction between positive and negative atheism if you are aware of it. But your blind denial saw it as a red flag and you charged it like a bull rather than considering the question.

1. Multiple annoying threads lambasting us for not meeting the standards you insist on but cannot justify.
2. You introduced calling us idolaters in the OP. I must admit you didn't bring in dismissing everyone as "deniers" until the second.
3. You never provide the rationale for any of the SW stuff you keep quoting without context so there is no way for anyone to address any of your shit as a serious question.

But most importantly. Are you so totally shit that you cannot see how you personally contributed to the rancour of this discussion? Are you such a terrible blind denier a that?

[Walker]

The OP asks who really is an atheist? It doesn't proclaim that "Atheists are idolaters and should be Burned at the Stake." Th OP includes observations by Simone Weil who was a negative atheist. There are no standards to meet. The question of the OP is basic. It invites you to tell me what an atheist is and make the distinction between positive and negative atheism if you are aware of it. But your blind denial saw it as a red flag and you charged it like a bull rather than considering the question.

A lot of that blind denial stuff is likely habitual pettiness, like bored louts hanging around a street corner. Academic analysis may be over-thinking human nature.

The one you write to exists in your mind.
The one who writes to you does not.