Atheism

[Dontaskme]

Yes, I understand, we are all each here making assumptions about what it is we are trying to say to each, until we think we have understood.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying he is disabled, it's just that there is something about his writing style that suggests he might not be fully able bodied. There doesn't seem much wrong with his mind, apart from the rubbish he fills it with, but a good clear out would soon fix that. I sometimes think he is treated unfairly, and I have no time for those malicious rumours of his Nazi sympathies, and his covert racism, and those who say he is an egotistic show off with an inflated view of his own importance should really examine their own shortcomings, rather than attack a disabled (possibly) man who is just innocently trying to manipulate everyone into adopting his way of thinking.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting emotional now.

For me personally, when two philosophers choose to engage in a philosophical discussion about the nature of ATHEISM...There is either a connection there or not between the two philosophers. With AJ, I personally have zero connection. It's like I'm talking to a dead person to be honest. How people express their world views to others, is either met with a true genuine connection with what is being expressed, in the sense of deep resonance, or it is totally dismissed as being gobbledegook.


We do not even have to experience realtime body language or realtime facial expression that never gives away one's true identity or intention to know instinctively who we are making real and true connections with.
Some people we just simply cannot connect with, and writing styles do help when discerning who is genuine and who is not, the dots are very easy to connect when one is intelligent enough to be able to read between the lines.

Sorry, me too is getting a bit emotional now.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, and as I regard it as very important not to mock the afflicted I have put him, together with Dontaskme on ignore, because they both represent a massive temptation for ridicule.
Sometimes we have to hold back and say nothing to let them have their spleen vented..

However, you had to say that just in case it wasn't heard. And you'd hate being ignored, wouldn't you.

The feeling is mutual regarding you and I, and I think it is highly childish and petty to put people on ignore, only an ignoramous would do something like that.

I will add that I have absolutely zero connection with you as a philosopher, therefore, there is nothing lost or gained when communicating with someone like you. Personally, I would rather eat broken glass for the rest of my life than be mentored by someone like yourself, that's how much your 'being' means to me.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, and as I regard it as very important not to mock the afflicted I have put him, together with Dontaskme on ignore, because they both represent a massive temptation for ridicule.
Sometimes we have to hold back and say nothing to let them have their spleen vented..

So why even bother telling anyone else, you have certain people on ignore, knowing the person you have on ignore will read. It's almost like an attempt to be heard by the person you just want to ignore.

Why don't you just ignore people without having to make a big hoo hoo song and dance about it, making it known to all who are reading.

Isn't that a covert way of ridiculing and mocking someone. Like I've put this person on ignore, because they do not deserve a voice in my personal opinion, or rather, they do not deserve to be heard by me personally. What a twatish immature attitude.

So yeah, shout it from the rooftops, so that everyone knows. Because it's always better to be heard, than say nothing at all. It's hard to be ignored.

Idiot!

[Age]

I don't have any beliefs about God's existence or none existence.

WHAT?

What does the word 'atheist' even mean or refer to, to 'you', "harbal"?

"Atheist", to me, means one who does not participate in any belief systems centered around the idea of deities and such like.

Well this explains some 'things'.

I don't say there isn't a God, just as I don't say there are no goblins and elves, and I treat them all with equal disregard. People do tend to try and force you into a particular position when you say you are an atheist, but I always keep it in my mind that I don't have to go where they are trying to put me. I hope you don't turn out to be one of those people, Age.

Well I CERTAINLY DO NOT 'force' absolutely ANY one into ANY particular position NOR into doing ANY particular 'thing'. But, let us NOT that it was 'you', "harbal" who TOLD and INFORMED us that 'you' are an 'atheist'. Which, if I am NOT mistaken, to most of the posters here an 'atheist' is the OPPOSITE of a 'theist', in that an 'atheist' DISBELIEVES in God's existence, while, OBVIOUSLY, a 'theist' BELIEVES in God's existence. Which, in turn, MEANS that 'you', "harbal", as an 'atheist' would BELIEVE that God does NOT exist, and as such would be just ANOTHER 'BELIEVER'. So, by your very OWN words "others" are NOT necessarily 'forcing' 'you' into ANY particular position, "others" are just TAKING what 'you' have SAID, and have LOOKED AT those words WITH the definitions that they HAVE and USE for 'those words'.

WHEN 'you' have the 'thought of God' what is 'it' that 'you' are ACTUALLY 'thinking about', EXACTLY?

I'm not sure, but I don't think it's anything definite.

Also, what you SAY and CLAIM here does NOT mean that 'you' AND 'God' have NOT been communicating, AT ALL.

Neither does it mean that we have.

Well this would ALL DEPEND.

And nor does anything you might say.

So, 'you' are NOT OPEN to the Fact that 'you' might have been communicating WITH God, after all?

By the way, THANK YOU for ANSWERING, and CLARIFYING. This was GREAT, and VERY REFRESHING.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What have you got

That the ideas you work with, that dominate you, and your contribution, are gobbledegook.

I do have ideas as to why this is. I.e. what current produces you. It is similar to my views about Harbal as a social and intellectual exemplar.

However, you say that nothing that I write do you understand — though you read it a billion times.

You are involved in anti-idea. It is oddly a move that involves a use of power. But a distorted use IMO.

There, that some of what I’ve got.

[Dontaskme]

What have you got

That the ideas you work with, that dominate you, and your contribution, are gobbledegook.

I do have ideas as to why this is. I.e. what current produces you. It is similar to my views about Harbal as a social and intellectual exemplar.

However, you say that nothing that I write do you understand — though you read it a billion times.

You are involved in anti-idea. It is oddly a move that involves a use of power. But a distorted use IMO.

There, that some of what I’ve got.

Why don't you just concentrate on what I have written.

If you don't like what I've written, of course it will read as gobbledegook to you.

That's all.

I have no other agenda here, but to write what I write, as a philosopher, as I see my personal world view and how I express it with the only tools available, aka words.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A philatelist is a person who studies stamps

Very good. And an idiot is someone who compares theology, religious philosophy and philosophy (born of metaphysics) to stamp collecting.

The statements you make, Harbal, reveal you.

[Age]

Religious people only understand religious people, so they tar "atheists" with the same brush as themselves; and pretend they are part of a religion.

SO, WHY do 'you' NOT TELL ALL of 'us' here what 'atheists' ARE, EXACTLY?

THEN 'we' can SEE what 'you' 'tar' 'atheists' WITH, EXACTLY.

They subconsciously know the inadequacy of faith and belief and so claim that atheists "believe" there is no god, and worst still that they have faith that there is no god, because having faith is a belief that there is not god does not make sense.

HOW ABOUT 'you' DEFINE 'atheist' here for 'us' 'now'. So, then EVERY one who READS what 'you' WRITE WILL KNOW, FOR SURE, what an 'atheist' IS, EXACTLY, correct?

Then they ignore the fact that having faith in a belief that there IS a god also makes no sense too.
There are a couple of things wrong with this. THe first is to ask what the hell do you mean by "god" in the first place?

VERY, VERY GOOD QUESTION "sculptor". So, WHAT DO 'you' MEAN when 'you' USE the 'god' word, AND when and if 'you' USE the 'God' word?

What is it that an atheist is suppose to have faith in that he does not believe in it.

Can you POINT us to WHERE ANY one HAS ACTUALLY SAID or IMPLIED that a so-called "atheist" has 'faith'?

If yes, then WILL 'you'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

THe second problem is that all theists, actually do have a belief that there is no other gods, and have faith that these gods do not also exist.

Will you name ANY one who CLAIMS 'this' here?

I suppose I feel sorry for them. They claim that the "atheist religion" is useless and based on nothing; because we all know that belonging to a religion which is groundless in terms of evidence and reason is stupid.
But there is no symmetry. here. Yes having a groundless religion is like having a lead balloon, but in the case of atheism it does not lead to belief it is about not believing.

EXACTLY. Now, 'this' ALL DEPENDS on IF and WHEN one is 'NOT BELIEVING' whether they are 'DISBELIEVING' or NOT, AS WELL.

And it is ONLY through Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSIONS 'we' can FIND OUT, and thus KNOW, 'WHO', EXACTLY, IS 'DIS/BELIEVING' and (in) WHAT, EXACTLY.

For example, do 'you', "sculptor", BELIEVE 'god' and/or 'God' does NOT exist, or, DISBELIEVE that 'god' and/or 'God' does exist?

Or, are 'you', "sculptor", OPEN to the Fact that God could EXIST?

Atheism implies an absence.

How about INSTEAD of TELLING 'us' what the word 'atheism' IMPLIES 'you' TELL 'us' what the word 'atheism' ACTUALLY MEANS and/or REFERS TO, to you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have no other agenda here, but to write what I write, as a philosopher, as I see my personal world view and how I express it with the only tools available, aka words.

Philosophy you say? What is your philosophy? Let’s just say as a general focus. How could you describe that ‘in words’?

[Age]

I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

Really? That's surprising cuz I'm talkin' about man's soul and natural rights.

LOL 'you are talking about 'man's soul'. So, what IS so-called 'man's soul', EXACTLY?

Here, read it again with that in mind...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

Which is surprising, especially in a philosophy forum.

Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

If you recognize man as ensouled with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, then I think you can be a moral atheist. The challenge, of course, is where did the soul and the natural rights affixed to it come from? If not the Maker, then...?

[Dontaskme]

I have no other agenda here, but to write what I write, as a philosopher, as I see my personal world view and how I express it with the only tools available, aka words.

Philosophy you say? What is your philosophy? Let’s just say as a general focus. How could you describe that ‘in words’?

My philosophy is the philosophy of nothing, nondual nature of existence and the dropping of belief to clarity of mind.

If you do not wish to explain to me why you think my philosophy is gobbledegook then that's fine by me, if you do, I'll be here to listen and respond.

[Harbal]

Well I CERTAINLY DO NOT 'force' absolutely ANY one into ANY particular position NOR into doing ANY particular 'thing'. But, let us NOT that it was 'you', "harbal" who TOLD and INFORMED us that 'you' are an 'atheist'. Which, if I am NOT mistaken, to most of the posters here an 'atheist' is the OPPOSITE of a 'theist', in that an 'atheist' DISBELIEVES in God's existence, while, OBVIOUSLY, a 'theist' BELIEVES in God's existence. Which, in turn, MEANS that 'you', "harbal", as an 'atheist' would BELIEVE that God does NOT exist, and as such would be just ANOTHER 'BELIEVER'. So, by your very OWN words "others" are NOT necessarily 'forcing' 'you' into ANY particular position, "others" are just TAKING what 'you' have SAID, and have LOOKED AT those words WITH the definitions that they HAVE and USE for 'those words'.

I know I went on about it a bit, but it doesn't really matter.

So, 'you' are NOT OPEN to the Fact that 'you' might have been communicating WITH God, after all?

Not unless something happens to force me to realise I have.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How people express their world views to others, is either met with a true genuine connection with what is being expressed, in the sense of deep resonance, or it is totally dismissed as being gobbledegook.

This is not philosophy, its sentimentality. Personal communion is distinct from concordance of ideas.

True genuine connection — you’ll have to explain more.

[Harbal]

A philatelist is a person who studies stamps

Very good. And an idiot is someone who compares theology, religious philosophy and philosophy (born of metaphysics) to stamp collecting.

The statements you make, Harbal, reveal you.

Okay, I admit, there is probably more to stamps than I realise.

[Dontaskme]

A philatelist is a person who studies stamps

Very good. And an idiot is someone who compares theology, religious philosophy and philosophy (born of metaphysics) to stamp collecting.

The statements you make, Harbal, reveal you.

But stamp collecting is an actual event, it's actually something tangible that can be studied.

Metaphysics is pure woo, it's abstact in idea, not tangible. It's a mental construction. Not a physical experience.

No one alive can experience a non-physical experience, they can only experience a physical experience, because their very identity relies on a concept known, and that concept is this conception, the conception of someone who knows from experience.


That is the reality of duality...on the flip side, there is no such reality as duality, since reality is nondual, then again flip it over again there is no such thing as nonduality because nonduality is not a thing, there is only duality.

See how all this nonsense makes perfect sense. ?