Atheism

[Gary Childress]

Here's an idea ... stop talking about each other and simply discuss issues, impersonally.

This is between AJ and I. We will sort it out. However, I appreciate your concern.

Send him a DM.

What does this have to do with atheism or philosophy?

EVERYTHING.

[Harbal]

Here's an idea ... stop talking about each other and simply discuss issues, impersonally.

Do you get a kick out of being a kill joy?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here's an idea ... stop talking about each other and simply discuss issues, impersonally.

The problem with what you suggest, though I agree it is possible, and desirable, is this: many who write here do not have strongly concretized idea-structures, but rather sentimental ‘feelings’ about things to which their personality is bound. Attack the ‘idea’ amounts to ‘attacking the very person’. And that is intolerable.

My view (and I am working on explaining this better since I use this forum for my own purposes) is that with all this, all this inanity, and in fact all this mental unbalance, is an “outcome” of destructive processes begun generations back.

In order to even begin to “arrest” this on-going process of degeneracy, one has first to see it. Thus ‘the untuned string’ that has produced ‘discord’ must be harkened to.

Intellectual, anti-ideational termites — the tremendously over-active mass-man of today — can only do what termites do: consume and undermine.

Drunk (in a manner of speaking) on their ‘power’ they revolt against structures in ideas (and my reference points are both Harbal and his side-kick DontAskMe).

Impersonally, I refer to them, not by personal attack. In my view we must all achieve distance from ourselves so to be able to see ourselves.

[Gary Childress]

Here's an idea ... stop talking about each other and simply discuss issues, impersonally.

The problem with what you suggest, though I agree it is possible, and desirable, is this: AJ who write[s] here do[es] not have strongly concretized idea-structures, but rather sentimental ‘feelings’ about things to which {he} personaly is bound. Attack the ‘idea’ amounts to ‘attacking AJ’. And that is intolerable.

I fixed your post for you AJ. There were errors in it. I hope you will appreciate my grammatical or syntactical help.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some quotes from Revolt of the Masses (Ortega y Gasset):

The characteristic note of our time is the dire truth that, the mediocre soul, the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be mediocre, has the gall to assert its right to mediocrity, and goes on to impose itself where it can.

For there is no doubt that the most radical division that it is possible to make of humanity is that which splits it into two classes of creatures: those who make great demands on themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and those who demand nothing special of themselves, but for whom to live is to be every moment what they already are, without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on the waves.

The mass is all which sets no value on itself──good or ill──based on specific grounds, but which feels itself "just like everything" ... The mass crushes beneath it everything which is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.

We feel that we actual men have suddenly been left alone on the earth; that the dead did not die in appearance only but effectively; that they can no longer help us. Any remains of the traditional spirit have evaporated. Models, norms, standards are no use to us. We have to solve our problems without any active collaboration of the past, in full actuality, be they problems of art, science, or politics. (...) It is not easy to formulate the impression that our epoch has of itself; it believes itself more than all the rest, and at the same time feels that it is a beginning. What expression shall we find for it? Perhaps this one: superior to other times, inferior to itself. Strong, indeed, and at the same time uncertain of its destiny; proud of its strength and at the same time fearing it.

These are ideas that motivate me. And I work on these ideas relationally to what I observe going on here.

The belching of diseased intellects. (Except a few of course and you know who you are and why you are).

[Gary Childress]

Some quotes from Revolt of the Masses (Ortega y Gasset):

The characteristic note of our time is the dire truth that, the mediocre soul, the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be mediocre, has the gall to assert its right to mediocrity, and goes on to impose itself where it can.

For there is no doubt that the most radical division that it is possible to make of humanity is that which splits it into two classes of creatures: those who make great demands on themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and those who demand nothing special of themselves, but for whom to live is to be every moment what they already are, without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on the waves.

The mass is all which sets no value on itself──good or ill──based on specific grounds, but which feels itself "just like everything" ... The mass crushes beneath it everything which is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.

We feel that we actual men have suddenly been left alone on the earth; that the dead did not die in appearance only but effectively; that they can no longer help us. Any remains of the traditional spirit have evaporated. Models, norms, standards are no use to us. We have to solve our problems without any active collaboration of the past, in full actuality, be they problems of art, science, or politics. (...) It is not easy to formulate the impression that our epoch has of itself; it believes itself more than all the rest, and at the same time feels that it is a beginning. What expression shall we find for it? Perhaps this one: superior to other times, inferior to itself. Strong, indeed, and at the same time uncertain of its destiny; proud of its strength and at the same time fearing it.

These are ideas that motivate YOU. And AJ works on these ideas relationally to what YOU observe going on here.

The belching of diseased intellects. (Except a few of course and you know who I am and why I am).

[Sculptor]

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?

Fucking hell. Keep your hair on.
Do you understand the idea of perspective? That some people see things differently from their own POV?
Some Catholics call Protestants atheists; some call Muslims atheists; Christians would call Hindus heathen atheists.

Literally an atheist is a person who has no belief in god. "A-" theists, means "Not".
It is in the same class of grammatical constructions as. ahistorical
achronological
apathetic
asynchronous
amorphous
amoral

And that is the only thing that all atheists have in common; not believing in "god" whatever the F that might be.

PS Enjoy this brief respite - I normally have you on ignore with Dontaskme

[Alexis Jacobi]

Hey! I’ve got it! Let’s do a sing-along!

[Harbal]

Drunk (in a manner of speaking) on their ‘power’ they revolt against structures in ideas (and my reference points are both Harbal and his side-kick DontAskMe).

We're thinking about having matching costumes made.

[Harbal]

These are ideas that motivate me. And I work on these ideas relationally to what I observe going on here.

I think calling it work is a bit of a stretch.

[henry quirk]

Can that which is SEEING... be seen?

Yes, obviously. I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

[Dontaskme]

We're thinking about having matching costumes made.

I'm thinking they can be made out of skin. Oh wait!

[Alexis Jacobi]

A to the muthafuckin J: if i had to commit to an 'ideal' on a philosophy forum it would have to be fundamentally marxist. I know I know. by 'ideal' I'm assuming that should mean 'what's best for everyone', and i absolutely believe an entirely new economic model along the lines of what marx and Engels and Lenin and Co. described would be workable, especially now in the digital age.

An interesting couple of post Promethean, thank you. Presently I don't have must response just because I am busy with other things. I'll leave you with this.

[Harbal]

Yes, obviously. I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

Not much escapes you, does it, henry?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...