Atheism

[Dontaskme]

It's part of looking at, fairly or not, the psychology of atheists.

The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial.

Thank you for that. It's a very interesting point.

I have often marvelled that, for being those at such pains to deny the existence of something, Atheists are so obsessed with it. It is, indeed, as if nothing else matters so much to them, as that the denial of God's existence should stand -- and should be prostelytized for, to the ends of the Earth.

But there are no comparable factions devoted to the denial of any other beings. There are no Antifairyists or Antiunicornists. There aren't really any factions passionate about the denial of anything -- except for God.

But why would there be a faction for the passionate denial of that which simply could not and does not exist, as they insist is true of God? The thought makes no sense. And yet, there they are, the Atheists, passionate to convince us all that no rational, scientific, moral or modern person could possibly believe in God. They are continually fighting a battle they insist is already won: reality, truth, science, facts, history, certainty -- all are on their side, they think, and inevitably, belief in God must perish like any belief in a myth. And yet, there they are, fighting the battle again.

Where is their Enemy? Is He not already vanquished, the fact of the defeat only remaining to reach the ears of the still-believing? Why not, then, sit back and relax. Time and "progress" will achieve total victory for the cause, you would think they would think.

But no. For them the battle is very much alive. The ramparts must continually be reinforced against the incursions of faith. The message of our cosmic orphanship must still be broadcasted, and urgently so, so that all may disbelieve. And the reason, they'll tell you, is simple: belief in God is a scourge, a blight, an inhibitor on the greatness of mankind, they'll say; the urgency comes from the need to expunge it from human thought altogether. But again, it's very hard to believe that's the reason; for the very belief they claim to want to expunge is also the greatest source of mankind's greatest art, music, educational endeavours, science, literature, invention, law, welfare and other social improvement, and a great boost to things like exploration, medicine and above all, to morality. Their characterization of what "religion" does is, itself, so onesided that again, one cannot miss that they are disproportionately passionate against it, and so fanatical about getting rid of God that they are quite happy to eliminate all the good that belief in God has done, and even to deny that any of it has been done at all. Something unbalanced, if not outright deranged, is involved, clearly.

Theirs is clearly a posture of "defiance," just as Chesterton says. The very passion with which they engage in it shows it is much more than mere "denial." Atheism has an urgency that mere denial lacks. But I love Chesterton's phrase, "shuddering theism." It's quite right. The Atheist knows God exists; he just hates Him. He wants to "pay God back" so to speak, by refusing to allow himself and others even to acknowledge God's existence. But his revenge-motive betrays his duplicity; he hates, because he believes. He senses, in the deepest recesses of his heart, that God does exist, and so he makes God the object of his revolt rather than a mere matter-of-no-consequence. He says that belief in God will perish naturally, with time; but he does not believe it, for he feels quite urgently that without his contribution, such belief will not fade at all. Indeed, he fears it may actually grow, unless he renews his efforts to defeat it. Perhaps he even suspects it would grow in himself, if he did not, by vigorous exertion, keep up the effort to disbelieve, to fortify his cynicism against the creeping suspicion that he is simply wrong about all he thinks about that.

That's too much effort for something that is a done deal. Atheists don't really believe their own Atheism. Rather, like the Bible says of demons, they "believe and shudder."

God is still a belief that has zero proof. Even a theist doesn't believe their own thesism. All they do is believe a belief, they cannot know their belief is an absolute truth when there is no image of the thing they believe exists.

No one is anti-fairy like you say...even though a fairy has an image, something that can be known to exist simply by knowing the image alone. So no one that has seen the image of a fairy can deny or be anti-fairy, because it exists as an image known. But what about God's image?
If God had an image the way a fairy does then no one would be anti-God. God would simply be known in it's image alone. God would be self-evident.

This is not about defiance.

Or else you can say that a theist is defiant in their deep knowing that not-knowing is all they have. They do not really believe in their indoctrinated belief there is a God, they only think they do. Because life would seem meaningless and pointless and lawless without their belief in God.

To know there is a God, or to advise and council someone else to seek relationship with God is a pretense from the start. Because the alternative is just too bleak and depressing. So lets invent a cure for this aching longing to know, and just pretend our not-knowing is a lie, by pretending we do know.

When in reality, nothing can ever know itself. And that's the only intelligence here, that is the only real intelligence at work, when the consciousness fully understands and realises that it cannot see or know itself. No one or thing who is conscious can know what consciousness is IC...just as a fish does not know the water in which it swims, so what hope of knowing what God is.

The atheist does not know God, nor does the atheist hate a god it does not know. Atheists simply get caught up in the fictional mythical character that is God, wanting to play along with it just like the theist does, it's the human nature to invent characters, just as your parents invented you by giving you a christian name. You were nobody before you were given a title.

This authoring the unknowable is an unavoidable human behaviour to believe in an author.
In reality, no created thing can ever know it's author. Even a theist can accept that.

It's the theists that think atheists hate and reject a God because the theist hates the idea of no God.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But no. For them the battle is very much alive. The ramparts must continually be reinforced against the incursions of faith. The message of our cosmic orphanship must still be broadcasted, and urgently so, so that all may disbelieve. And the reason, they'll tell you, is simple: belief in God is a scourge, a blight, an inhibitor on the greatness of mankind, they'll say; the urgency comes from the need to expunge it from human thought altogether. But again, it's very hard to believe that's the reason; for the very belief they claim to want to expunge is also the greatest source of mankind's greatest art, music, educational endeavours, science, literature, invention, law, welfare and other social improvement, and a great boost to things like exploration, medicine and above all, to morality. Their characterization of what "religion" does is, itself, so onesided that again, one cannot miss that they are disproportionately passionate against it, and so fanatical about getting rid of God that they are quite happy to eliminate all the good that belief in God has done, and even to deny that any of it has been done at all. Something unbalanced, if not outright deranged, is involved, clearly.

The reason all your discourse is messed up can be found through examination of this paragraph. You are convinced that those who do not, or cannot, believe as you proscribe are the devil's children. Your theology also involves a demonology, and anyone who opposes your formulations is, by definition, on the devil's team. You are the godly one and surely god's light, protection and grace fall upon you.

It is you who, also, construct ramparts, except you could not ever have anything critical to say about your own efforts since, as I say, you see yourself as doing only god's work. The devil, the wrong-thinkers -- they are always *out there* and certainly not *in you*.

It is very true however that among thorough and well-prepared thinkers that whatever 'god' is, and what the Occident was, is understood and taken into consideration. But the fact remains, and it is wise to consider and remember it: No one knows how to define or explain god. You have to put "god" in quotations.

[Immanuel Can]

No one knows how to define or explain god.

You don't. I don't. God does. So we'd be wise to listen to Him.

[Alexis Jacobi]

On additional example of your slipperiness. I made an extensive critique with numerous important points that all, or most, who write here notice and think about.

You step over all of that completely as if nothing had been said.

And move back into your base assertion: god has revealed himself. If you do not get it, to eternal punishment you will go.

It is an argument with one moving part Immanuel.

[Dontaskme]

No one knows how to define or explain god.

You don't. I don't. God does. So we'd be wise to listen to Him.

You don’t know that god knows.

You only say that because you really don’t know and cannot handle this not knowing. But any knower will do to assuage the frustration of this unknowable you.

[Immanuel Can]

You step over all of that completely as if nothing had been said.

Very little was. It was all so...conventional, so expected, in fact, that my original message had already predicted the reaction and dispatched it. Like all detractors, you didn't even note all the good that faith has done; you only hope to saddle it with the baggage of other religions or even of Atheism itself. And you're just as indifferent to the monumentallly bad history of Atheism itself...orders of magnitude worse than the story of all religions, both false and true ones, combined.

And move back into your base assertion: god has revealed himself. If you do not get it, to eternal punishment you will go.

Were it "my" assertion, it would mean nothing. I cannot make God reveal Himself, just as you cannot prevent Him doing so. The question is not what I have spoken. It's the postulate that God has.

Ignoring me will prove unproblematic...unless what I'm telling you is also what God has already said. And I encourage you to ignore all that does not fit that criterion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Very little was. It was all so...conventional, so expected, in fact, that my original message had already predicted the reaction and dispatched it. Like all detractors, you didn't even note all the good that faith has done; you only hope to saddle it with the baggage of other religions or even of Atheism itself. And you're just as indifferent to the monumentallly bad history of Atheism itself...orders of magnitude worse than the story of all religions, both false and true ones, combined.

It would not matter if it were conventional or eccentric. The issues are real. Not to you nor for you, that I understand, but to all who have participated in the long discussion here.

Your original message did not encompass my perspective, not by a long shot. It is your comprehension error that you cannot understand what I say, nor why. Religious fanaticism, of your unique sort, has you in its grip. I understand and I accept that. But I write so that the exchange can be viewed, and thought about, by others.

I certainly understand how the faith-focus of former times has enabled so much that is valid and worthy. I have written extensively about this. Yet all that you can *hear* is what you want and need to hear. You are in a battle with a monolith.

You are also wrong once again with your statement about being "indifferent to the monumentallly bad history of Atheism itself". You have a binary mind, ruled by fanaticism, and the only way that you can see my critique is through a binary lens. Because I critique you (and people who wield their theology like you do) you assume, you can do nothing else but assume, that I am an 'enemy of god' and aligned with the devil.

That is how your binary metaphysics function. You have no other alternative.

Were it "my" assertion, it would mean nothing. I cannot make God reveal Himself, just as you cannot prevent Him doing so. The question is not what I have spoken. It's the postulate that God has.

Ignoring me will prove unproblematic...unless what I'm telling you is also what God has already said. And I encourage you to ignore all that does not fit that criterion.

It is the same thing all over again!

The issue is what has happened that has made the atheistic posture a sensible one -- given the lunacy of people who reason and carry on as you do. Theological arguments do not seem to be working. And cursing people with hell's damnation does not look like it is working so well either.

As I have said many times: I find you extremely useful Immanuel. But in ways that are precisely different from what you imagine to be the case.

[Gary Childress]

It's part of looking at, fairly or not, the psychology of atheists.

The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial.

Thank you for that. It's a very interesting point.

I have often marvelled that, for being those at such pains to deny the existence of something, Atheists are so obsessed with it. It is, indeed, as if nothing else matters so much to them, as that the denial of God's existence should stand -- and should be prostelytized for, to the ends of the Earth.

Has it ever occurred to you that an "atheist" is perhaps trying to do God a favor? If there's no God, then any unjustifiable terrible shit that happens in the world isn't God's fault. If there is a God, then unjustifiable terrible shit that happens in the world is ultimately his fault. The buck stops with the creator. If a construction company builds a crappy house and it falls apart, then fault is ultimately on the construction company. Of course, the construction company might say, "well, we didn't have enough funding to build a sturdier structure." If God didn't have the ability to make a better world, then fine. God is off the hook, though perhaps limited in his alleged "omnipotent" abilities. I'll just endure the crap that happens in the less-than-perfect world he had to build given his limitations.

However, I don't see much reason to particularly commend God under those circumstances. If you'll say that God is just some "poor slob"/ imperfect divine being that did his or her best in making a world full of cracks, deficiencies, catch 22s, and problems, then fine. I'll put up with the crap. I'll give God a pat on the back for trying and then do my best to endure the rest of this shit hole without complaint.

[Immanuel Can]

Very little was. It was all so...conventional, so expected, in fact, that my original message had already predicted the reaction and dispatched it. Like all detractors, you didn't even note all the good that faith has done; you only hope to saddle it with the baggage of other religions or even of Atheism itself. And you're just as indifferent to the monumentallly bad history of Atheism itself...orders of magnitude worse than the story of all religions, both false and true ones, combined.

It would not matter if it were conventional or eccentric. The issues are real.

No, they're just conventional. Very ho hum. They're the old canards, never well-thought through, and as always, totally oblivious to what Christianity really is.

They get all the response they require, really.

[Immanuel Can]

It's part of looking at, fairly or not, the psychology of atheists.

Thank you for that. It's a very interesting point.

I have often marvelled that, for being those at such pains to deny the existence of something, Atheists are so obsessed with it. It is, indeed, as if nothing else matters so much to them, as that the denial of God's existence should stand -- and should be prostelytized for, to the ends of the Earth.

Has it ever occurred to you that an "atheist" is perhaps trying to do God a favor?

That's funny. It asks if the guy who doesn't believe God is real is trying to do the God he doesn't believe in a favour.

So I'm going to say, "No, such a thing would never occur to me...or to any actual Atheist, either."

[Gary Childress]

Thank you for that. It's a very interesting point.

I have often marvelled that, for being those at such pains to deny the existence of something, Atheists are so obsessed with it. It is, indeed, as if nothing else matters so much to them, as that the denial of God's existence should stand -- and should be prostelytized for, to the ends of the Earth.

Has it ever occurred to you that an "atheist" is perhaps trying to do God a favor?

That's funny. It asks if the guy who doesn't believe God is real is trying to do the God he doesn't believe in a favour.

So I'm going to say, "No, such a thing would never occur to me...or to any actual Atheist, either."

Considering that none of us probably has any irrefutable proof one way or the other concerning things having to do with whether or not a creator exists, it basically comes down to choice. When I was an atheist I looked at the world and decided that all the terrible shit that happens wasn't the work of a creator. So I chose atheism rather than choose to believe that God is a worthless sack of shit. So now what's your excuse for believing in a God who is pretty clearly a worthless sack of shit (given terrible things that clearly happen to others--though maybe not you.)?

[Immanuel Can]

Considering that none of us probably has any irrefutable proof one way or the other concerning things having to do with whether or not a creator exists...

What actual evidence convinces you that you know what other people can or cannot know?

Never mind. I know the answer: none. Typical Atheist reasoning: "If I haven't experienced it, nobody else is allowed to, either."

[Gary Childress]

Considering that none of us probably has any irrefutable proof one way or the other concerning things having to do with whether or not a creator exists...

What actual evidence convinces you that you know what other people can or cannot know?

Never mind. I know the answer: none. Typical Atheist reasoning: "If I haven't experienced it, nobody else is allowed to, either."

Fair enough. I'm currently looking at a lack of evidence to come to any decision one way or the other, so I'm agnostic. That's my honest appraisal given what I understand and experience.

However, I can also understand Atheists without denouncing or belittling their views. You don't seem to be able to understand why anyone would be atheist, therefore I was sharing part of the reasoning I used to make that conclusion myself once upon a time. I can't speak for all atheists but I can give you part of my reasoning when I was.

God (or else some magical being that chose to present itself to you and claim to be the creator of everything) has chosen to reveal himself (or itself) to you. Aren't you special? You look at what you were presented with and conclude it's God.

Looking at the picture I'm presented with honestly and rationally I see no reason to go either way, simply because, at this point (unlike my days as an atheist), I'm willing to at least entertain the possibility now that God is perhaps either malicious or otherwise could care less about the creatures that sprang up on its creation. However, my experience says a "benevolent" God is out of the equation. There's no benevolent God in my universe, IC. Perhaps for you, there is, in which case good on you. Congrats. Enjoy.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't seem to be able to understand why anyone would be atheist,

On the contrary, it seems obvious to me why some people choose that. But rationality, logic, evidence...these things do not give them any slack on that. The very things they claim to appeal to are exactly what condemn their view as contradictory.

God (or else some magical being that chose to present itself to you and claim to be the creator of everything) has chosen to reveal himself (or itself) to you. Aren't you special?

Me? No.

But He is.

Look at what you're doing right now, Gary...arguing stridently with a Theist. Arguing without evidence, proof or logic, as well. It's almost like there's a thing you are just determined not to believe...

But if what I have told you is true, then you've been told. And one thing you can never say to God is, "You never tried to reach me."

...my experience says a "benevolent" God is out of the equation.

Ironic. He's very much in mine. Happy Easter, by the way...what is this weekend about, again? A benevolent God is impossible, you say: and yet He sent His Son to die to save you, and on Easter, raised Him to prove the way to God is wide open to you.

I wonder, then, how much benevolence God would have to show in order to vouchsafe his good intentions toward you. I really have to think that, given your disposition, there would never be any evidence sufficient to change your mind. So if it's to change, you'll have to change it yourself, I guess.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If there were no fairies then there would be no people who don't believe in fairies.