Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?

[seeds]

You too, seeds? Don't you think there are enough people on this forum who cannot construct a reasoned argument and resort to 'Well we may be dumb, but you're even dumber'?

Setting aside the fact that we are all indeed quite ignorant (in the dark) when it comes to the deepest philosophical mysteries of how and why we are here...

You're quite right, we are all in the dark about how we are here, but that is no reason to stop looking.

Who said anything about not looking?

Furthermore, the irony of your statement is that the materialists/atheists who are incased within their own rigid and self-imposed boundaries of inquiry, have completely walled themselves off from areas where the answers may actually exist.

Why is a loaded question that may simply not have an answer.

Of course it has an answer. What kind of silly defeatist attitude is that?

But again, no harm looking; well, unless you conclude that it is to please some god who wants us to insult or even kill unbelievers.

Based on statements such as that, you are demonstrating to me that we are not even standing in the same arena when it comes to our contrasting view of what God is all about.

Without using math or measuring devices, is there any way I can impart to you an understanding of the speculative possibility that the Creator of this universe ascends above us in a way that is similar to how we ascend above flies - as is depicted in another of my fanciful illustrations...



(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image - http://theultimateseeds.com/Images/6%20 ... e%2085.jpg)

Now I am not suggesting that you must accept my ideas, however, until you understand my perspective of what I believe are the “levels of consciousness” that make up this universe...



...and thus rise above your “beardy bloke in the clouds” mentality, then I’m afraid we will forever be talking past each other.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

uwot, I asked you to...

...please point out what aspect of my argument demonstrates a failure in reasoning.

To which you attempted to use my own words against me...

An atheist is someone who - through intelligence and sound reasoning - has managed to dismiss the ridiculous visions of God handed down to us from ancient minds (especially those of the Abrahamic religions),...

...only to find himself/herself in the awkward position of worshiping at the altar of a god who is infinitely more preposterous than those alluded to above.

...of which you interpreted as meaning...

In other words theists may be dumb, but atheists are even dumber.

Not dumber, just vastly more closed-minded.

And that is due to the foolish assumption that just because they have ruled-out some of the obvious nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds, they (the atheists) have therefore eliminated any and all reasons to consider that the answers to our ultimate questions may reside in a more transcendent (“super-natural”) context.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

In other words, an atheist...
...by reason of his/her lack of belief in something conscious and intelligent presiding over the creation of the universe...
...is someone who (by default) must therefore believe in a god called “CHANCE.”
Indeed, the atheist’s deep and reverential faith in their invisible and bumbling god of serendipitous processes would put to shame the most devout theist.

As I have said before, atheism does not imply any commitment to believing that one or other god does not exist. There is a difference between:
I don't believe that god exists.
and
I believe that god doesn't exist.
While some might assert the latter, which is foolish, because you cannot prove a negative, it is the former that defines atheism. Not understanding the difference is a failure in reasoning, but to invent and then ridicule a non-exist "deep and reverential faith" should embarrass you. I don't believe you are so cheap.

Firstly, I wish you would stop implying that your particular brand of “soft” atheism is the “go-to” definition of atheism. I mean most of the philosophy forums I have participated on are teeming with the “hard” variety.

Secondly, I didn’t invent the idea that atheists hold a “deep and reverential faith” in the creative powers of CHANCE, I simply extrapolated it from the evidence.

Thirdly, whatever ridicule you think I am dishing out, it is a mere trifling compared to the snarling and mean-spirited ridicule that atheists heap on theists.

And lastly, I’m not just “cheap,” I am totally free of charge.

Look, uwot, either you believe that the creation of the universe is due to some form of guiding intelligence - (or) – it is a product of blind and mindless processes.

Without equivocating or being wishy-washy in your response, would you please tell us which of those two alternatives you stand by?
_______

[Greta]

The sneering contempt of atheists endured by theists over millennia utterly dwarfs the relatively tiny and comparatively civilised contempt shown towards theists by a small percentage of committed atheists.

There is no comparison. Throughout history atheists (and agnostics) have been defamed, murdered, tortured and executed by theists (and this is still happening to some extent). Atheists have been spoken of and treated as subhuman by theists over this time.

There are some very short theist memories. If a bully strikes then you are usually posited to be ethically permitted to hit back. If the bully has kept his foot on your throat for a long time, then the reaction will obviously be stronger, and that would be understandable. That atheist reactions are so mild, given the long and brutal history of theistic oppression and abuse of atheists, shows just how far society has come since reducing the corrupting and nepotistic influence of religion on governance.

Look, uwot, either you believe that the creation of the universe is due to some form of guiding intelligence - (or) – it is a product of blind and mindless processes.

Without equivocating or being wishy-washy in your response, would you please tell us which of those two alternatives you stand by?

Why should we stand by any view when there is no way of knowing? It's not a team sport or a war. Well, this schism probably is root of an upcoming war. Still, truth is said to be the first casualty of war; if we are not going to aim to speak as honestly as possible on philosophy forums we might as well hang it up and just join the propaganda choruses of each "side". At that point I'll go away because that's common and a bore.

I don't believe in God but I am not an atheist. My doubt is based on the likelihood that this is not the first or only universe and, given the possibilities of evolution over spans far longer than our young universe's age, there may be remnants (maybe cumulative?) of prior universes that might fit the description of God. Then again, there might not.

[osgart]

Perhaps atheism is the cause against God believing and God thinking. Atheists are passionate about debunking God arguments. While many believe no god exists to the point of absolute certainty, they dont wear it as a cause. Thats why Harris and Tyson dont like the label. Yet Tyson went 50/50 on the simulation hypothesis. Harris in a few videos went so far as to say 'i dont know' when it comes to there being an intelligent cause in nature. They simply say there is no compelling evidence for it as of yet. And they are not compelled by it.

[Necromancer]

I think an extreme point is whether belief in God or not makes people worse or better in relating to reality.

I can't see that Atheists are supposed to be superior at all. Actually, I regard Atheists to be inferior by far in their general disregard for morality by common ethics so to cause in themselves all these schizophrenic delusions and other stupidity which I also suspect is a passion of theirs!

You need to understand the plain messages... Atheism is going nowhere... Dead in... x years?

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote

Behold the wise man, the man who has gained enlightenment through his connection with God that raises him above us mere mortals.

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

I would like to become human and support the efforts of those wanting to do so regardless of the objections of the Great Beast.

Yet, notice how easily he ignores personal criticism and continues with the main thread issues.

Yes, sometimes it is better to ignore ad hom attacks for the sake of the main topic. It is an old fashioned idea but still has merit.

Notice that he questions appearances of others while ignoring others questioning his posturing and display behaviours.

I asked E7 a series of questions but did not criticize his appearance.

He suggests that he does not criticise you. According to Nick, attacking the intelligence, awareness and morality of "secularists" non-stop, post after post, year after year, is not a criticism of those who are not religious. Imagine the response of theists if I said in hundred of posts that theists are stupid, mindless, superstitious idiots who are destroying the world. Might they feel criticised? (BTW, I don't believe that - it's only an example).

Yes, I support the contention that we live in imagination attached to the shadows on the wall in Plato’s cave. As such we cannot answer the basic human questions such as who am I and what is God. This isn’t an attack but a statement of a philosophical position a person can verify. If people want to criticize God concepts it is naïve if it is based upon acquired preconceptions and limited to a personal God

Humans have advanced in no small part due to social pressure. Nick has taken on this role for himself as our auditors, telling us where we all go wrong but he is incapable of taking any feedback given to him seriously. As noted before, he is closed and has not interest in discussion, only teaching, preaching and hassling and insulting "secularists" on forums, the latter he believes to be duty for God.

The ideas I profess are hated since they question the supremacy of the state as the source of human meaning. That is why Jesus and Socrates had to be killed. I am not closed to discussing it. I welcome it. But these ideas are repulsive to you and secularism in general as they must be with your attitude so discussion become virtually impossible.

Could you discuss Plato’s sun metaphor? No. To do so introduces the Good which is beyond being. This is of no interest to the secularist attached to arguing problems in the world.

He sees us all as "lesser" and that is why he does not listen to what others have to say.

As we are we are all idiots. What good is one idiot calling another idiot an idiot? I listen to all your ad homs. The question is why you have such animosity against anything questioning your secular God concept of the Great Beast which you are completely devoted to. It will eventually venture out into space to spread its poison if it doesn’t destroy itself first and take humanity with it. What is so wonderful about such a future?

[Dubious]

Atheism is going nowhere... Dead in... x years?

We could ALL be dead in X years including theists. The universe is a dangerous place after all! In the meantime we're all going somewhere until there's nowhere left to go to...did I mention theists included?

[Reflex]

Atheism is necessary like a refiner’s fire is necessary.

[Dubious]

Without theism having preceded it by millennia atheism wouldn't be necessary or even understood as a concept. Theism is the cause of atheism being its negation.

[Greta]

Greta wrote

Behold the wise man, the man who has gained enlightenment through his connection with God that raises him above us mere mortals.

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

I would like to become human and support the efforts of those wanting to do so regardless of the objections of the Great Beast.

Drivel. Not human? We are all humans. Even you.

You are deluded to believe you have anything whatsoever to do with the potential of humans with your current approach (one cannot discount, and indeed hope for, future growth in you, unlikely as that seems). Your mediocrity shines out with a crassness as unmistakeable as your shameless use of clichés. Humanity's potential is probably not going to stem from the trivial burblings of trolls like you.

Modern humans, thanks to the efforts and experienced gained by our ancestors, have become much more ethically and morally refined, more knowledgeable, intelligent and capable. However, not "all boats are lifted" because humanity is pluralistic and specialised. So there will always be the simple, the clueless, the mindless and the viciously atavistic, just as microbes, plants and other animals have remained (thus far), underpinning human existence (and making it possible). By the same token, without the vast numbers of "foot soldiers" those at the "pointy end" would not be able to do what they do. The mistake is in solipsist judgement of those different to oneself.

Still, for many in the world, prayer is perhaps their best option in the dangerous future. However, some of us are lucky enough to have lives that can be faced directly without filtering through emotionally inoculating Abrahamic myths. Once one opens their eyes to reality they can't close them again and return to the myths any more than we can re-believe in Santa.

[Reflex]

Without theism having preceded it by millennia atheism wouldn't be necessary or even understood as a concept. Theism is the cause of atheism being its negation.

My point exactly. Religion must ever be it’s own critic and judge, but failing in that, outside forces come to bear that compels religion to look at itself in a mirror. So although atheism is not a bad thing, it serves no useful purpose inasmuch religion takes responsibility for itself.

[Reflex]

Greta wrote
Not human? We are all humans.

Drivel. To be truly human is to be more than human.

[uwot]

Firstly, I wish you would stop implying that your particular brand of “soft” atheism is the “go-to” definition of atheism.

That's what it means.

I mean most of the philosophy forums I have participated on are teeming with the “hard” variety.

So you meet a Welshman who fucked a sheep and suddenly all Welshmen are sheep-shaggers.

Secondly, I didn’t invent the idea that atheists hold a “deep and reverential faith” in the creative powers of CHANCE, I simply extrapolated it from the evidence.

Is there a term for someone who tars all atheists with the same brush? Atheistist is a bit unwieldy.

Thirdly, whatever ridicule you think I am dishing out, it is a mere trifling compared to the snarling and mean-spirited ridicule that atheists heap on theists.

You're doing it again: 'Theists might be snarling and mean spirited, but atheists are even more snarling and mean spirited.'

Look, uwot, either you believe that the creation of the universe is due to some form of guiding intelligence - (or) – it is a product of blind and mindless processes.

I don't believe either.

Without equivocating or being wishy-washy in your response, would you please tell us which of those two alternatives you stand by?

Sorry: I don't fucking believe either.

[Reflex]

I wonder why atheists have such a propensity to be vulgar.