Atheism

[Gary Childress]

When you post here you are addressing a bunch of misfits, not a gathering of world leaders.

You may be right in what you say but when it comes to a gathering of world leaders you're referring to the biggest bunch of misfits on the planet.

Perhaps they are, but at least they are in a position to do something about something.

It's precisely the "something about something" one worries about.

I can only imagine Putin sitting in his bunker somewhere conducting the war, watching it on a video screen as though it were some kind of interactive video game, with no clue or care about the people dying and suffering at his hands. It must be utterly unreal to him. He obviously doesn't care about those he inflicts horrible suffering on.

I have often thought I just wanted to end my life rather than be any kind of burden on humanity. Then someone like Putin comes along and seems to do the unthinkable without a second thought whatsoever. It's the very reason I didn't have children or the desire to pursue life beyond being a homebody. All I can imagine is that I'm saving any children I would have had from pure horror.

I believe it's said that Putin has a child with some woman out there. It's kind of paradoxical that someone who would bring such untold suffering to others should bring a child of his into the world while someone who is largely a pacifist abstains from it. In that alone I feel as though one can get a pretty clear characterization of just how "good" life is. It isn't. It's little more than the survival of the fittest and most brutal. Life is inherently evil to a human being.

[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'.

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

Okay.

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.

So you NEED to be 'forced' to become OPEN, right?

If yes, then this would sort of GO AGAINST your claim that you 'always keep it in your mind (or in thought) that you do NOT HAVE TO GO where "others" are trying to put you', would it not?

[Harbal]

So you NEED to be 'forced' to become OPEN, right?

I'm not aware of ever having any communication with God, but if you have anything to say on the matter, please just say it.

[henry quirk]

I'm wrong.

Yes. No worries, though...

[Gary Childress]

I'm wrong.

Yes. No worries, though...

Sounds good, Henry.

On a note concerning your question a while back to Harbal regarding getting him to say that cannibalism is evil. From what I glean from reading Harbal's responses and what I can say of being an agnostic (which I see as not much different than atheism in terms of "grounding" anything) is that I can say of myself that unless extreme hunger produces a state of mind that would make someone involuntarily do what is otherwise unthinkable, then I will never kill another human being for food. As far as saying it is "evil", I couldn't say one way or the other. It certainly seems evil enough and revolting enough to not want to do it. That alone seems to speak of a natural inclination against it (at least in me, though I can't speak for everyone, including other people who have purportedly actually been cannibals). Also, I wouldn't want to wake up someday and find myself on someone's dinner table, therefore I have no desire to give anyone else any revolting ideas about what I may be to them, which they might decide to copy or return in kind as a favor.

I see that as the best possible assurance I can give anyone that I will never, ever eat them. Whether or not there is a "law" out there or even a divine being who punishes people for transgressing it, I cannot say.

[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?

Fucking hell. Keep your hair on.
Do you understand the idea of perspective?

Yes.

That some people see things differently from their own POV?

I thought that it was ALREADY OBVIOUSLY KNOWN that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY, and 'you' SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE 'you' ALL HAVE DIFFERENT points of views, which have ALL come BECAUSE 'you' have ALL have just HAD DIFFERENT 'past experiences'. But maybe in the days when this is being written 'this' is NOT ALREADY KNOWN, by some.

By the way, was NOT previously AWARE that there were some people like 'you', "sculptor" who thought or BELIEVED that ONLY SOME people SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE OF and FROM thier OWN points of view. I thought that it OBVIOUS that ALL people have DIFFERENT views and DIFFERENT points of views.

Some Catholics call Protestants atheists; some call Muslims atheists; Christians would call Hindus heathen atheists.

And some, like 'you', give names to individual human beings, which they are ACTUALLY NOT. See there are people like 'you' that call "others" names like 'catholics", 'protestants", "muslims", "christians", "atheists", and/or"theists", which are ALL False, Wrong, AND Incorrect names and terms for WHAT 'you', human beings, REALLY ARE.

BUT, they are the 'points of views' that you 'now' HAVE.

Literally an atheist is a person who has no belief in god. "A-" theists, means "Not".

So, if "a-theist' means 'NOT', and those so-called "theists" BELIEVE (in) God AND BELIEVE God exists, then these so-called "atheists" do NOT BELIEVE (in) God and do NOT BELIEVE God exists, right?

If no, then WHAT IS 'right' here?

ALSO, what you CLAIM to be 'right' here just your OWN 'point of view', which IS DIFFERENT FROM "other's" 'points of views", or, is what you CLAIM to be 'right' here what EVERY one should AGREE WITH, ADHERE TO, and FOLLOW?

Now, and furthermore, if these so-called "atheists" have NO BELIEF in 'God', then what IS this 'God' 'Thing', EXACTLY, which 'they', supposedly, have NO BELIEF AT ALL 'in'?

It is in the same class of grammatical constructions as. ahistorical
achronological
apathetic
asynchronous
amorphous
amoral

ALREADY KNOWN.

What you appear to be COMPLETELY MISSING or MISUNDERSTANDING is that so-called "atheists" can ALSO BELIEVE that God does NOT exist and/or DISBELIEVE that God does or even could exist.

See, as I EXPLAINED BEFORE, it ALL depends on the ACTUAL views, or points of views, one HAS.

you "pigeon holing" ALL types of people INTO one PARTICULAR ' ame' and CLAIMING that ALL the people in that, Wrongly named anyway, 'group' are going to think, LOOK AT and SEE 'things' the EXACT Same is NEVER going TO WORK.

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

So, to you, ALL of these human beings, who have been 'grouped' together as one and who have been labelled "atheists", ALL 'not believe' IN some 'thing', which they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to WHO NOR WHAT that 'Thing' even IS, EXACTLY, correct?

'NOT BELIEVING' 'in' 'things' in which one has absolutely NO idea NOR CLUE ABOUT, to me, seems like a rather FOOLISH and Truly ABSURD and STUPID 'thing' TO DO. But as I have said before, EACH to their OWN.

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

HOW do you KNOW WHEN to take me OFF 'ignore'?

And, WHY would 'you' even take 'me' OFF 'ignore'?

Oh, and by the way, that is: if 'I' am NOT on 'ignore' 'now', are 'you', "sculptor", one of these so-called "atheist" 'things'?

[henry quirk]

On a note concerning your question a while back to Harbal regarding getting him to say that cannibalism is evil.

a quick review

I posted...

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute's website First Principles 1st Web Journal declares:

If there is no God, no hell, no right and wrong, no moral responsibility, no meaning or significance beyond your pleasure, then existence is meaningless. Nothing you do matters, others do not matter, and what you do with them—and to them—does not matter. Nihilism liberates. For the Sadean egotist, then, everything is permitted. Sade incessantly rationalized the most depraved and libertine sexuality, and every crime including cannibalism and murder.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_cannibalism

My question: What grounding does the atheist have for declarin' cannibalism (or anything) evil or wrong?

I can say of myself that unless extreme hunger produces a state of mind that would make someone involuntarily do what is otherwise unthinkable, then I will never kill another human being for food. As far as saying it is "evil", I couldn't say one way or the other. It certainly seems evil enough and revolting enough to not want to do it. That alone seems to speak of a natural inclination against it (at least in me, though I can't speak for everyone, including other people who have purportedly actually been cannibals). Also, I wouldn't want to wake up someday and find myself on someone's dinner table, therefore I have no desire to give anyone else any revolting ideas about what I may be to them, which they might decide to copy or return in kind as a favor.

In other words, you have a personal code against, and/or a personal distaste for, cannibalism, but you cannot say it's wrong for any man to kill and eat any other man (becuz your code, or distaste, applies only to you).

Is that an accurate summation of your view, or have I missed the mark?

[Gary Childress]

On a note concerning your question a while back to Harbal regarding getting him to say that cannibalism is evil.

a quick review

I posted...

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute's website First Principles 1st Web Journal declares:

If there is no God, no hell, no right and wrong, no moral responsibility, no meaning or significance beyond your pleasure, then existence is meaningless. Nothing you do matters, others do not matter, and what you do with them—and to them—does not matter. Nihilism liberates. For the Sadean egotist, then, everything is permitted. Sade incessantly rationalized the most depraved and libertine sexuality, and every crime including cannibalism and murder.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_cannibalism

My question: What grounding does the atheist have for declarin' cannibalism (or anything) evil or wrong?

I can say of myself that unless extreme hunger produces a state of mind that would make someone involuntarily do what is otherwise unthinkable, then I will never kill another human being for food. As far as saying it is "evil", I couldn't say one way or the other. It certainly seems evil enough and revolting enough to not want to do it. That alone seems to speak of a natural inclination against it (at least in me, though I can't speak for everyone, including other people who have purportedly actually been cannibals). Also, I wouldn't want to wake up someday and find myself on someone's dinner table, therefore I have no desire to give anyone else any revolting ideas about what I may be to them, which they might decide to copy or return in kind as a favor.

In other words, you have a personal code against, and/or a personal distaste for, cannibalism, but you cannot say it's wrong for any man to kill and eat any other man (becuz your code, or distaste, applies only to you).

Is that an accurate summation of your view, or have I missed the mark?

I don't know if this helps in understanding or not, however, I have no "code", I only know what I will never willingly, freely or knowingly do to another human being. Usually, it involves not doing something to another that I would never want to be done to myself. I can only hope that others have the same inhibition. Otherwise, what am I supposed to do? I can't force anyone to abstain from what I consider evil. Plenty of people have done evil. Whether there's a "code" against evil or even a divine judge who will hold the evil accountable if no one else does, then I couldn't say. Does it make a difference to others what I personally think? If they're going to do what I consider evil, then they're going to do evil. I choose not to.

[Alexis Jacobi]

HOW do you KNOW WHEN to take me OFF 'ignore'?

I don’t know about Sculptor but I base my decision on the Mayan calendar which I’ve synchronized with the phases of the moon.

My Magic 8-Ball broke!

(I refuse to use the on-line version.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

I see that as the best possible assurance I can give anyone that I will never, ever eat them.

But you’re crazy and things could change by tomorrow.

[Age]

So you NEED to be 'forced' to become OPEN, right?

I'm not aware of ever having any communication with God, but if you have anything to say on the matter, please just say it.

Okay, WHEN you LEARN and UNDERSTAND WHAT and WHO the God word refers to, EXACTLY, then, and ONLY THEN you WILL FIND OUT and SEE that 'God' AND 'you' have ACTUALLY BEEN COMMUNICATING, all along.

[Age]

HOW do you KNOW WHEN to take me OFF 'ignore'?

I don’t know about Sculptor but I base my decision on the Mayan calendar which I’ve synchronized with the phases of the moon.

Well, very coincidently, 'that calendar and your method' just happened TO ALIGN with 'my post here'.

My Magic 8-Ball broke!

(I refuse to use the on-line version.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh dear. I guess we all make mistakes!

[Dontaskme]

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.

I think there is a lot of truth in that.

You's are giving your nohead's way too much 'power'.
The answer to every question is the space between the question and the answer. The distance is pure illusion.



The ''SEER'' has never been seen. Seeing is not a person, a person is a known concept, and concepts know nothing.

Personage is an illusion. Seeing is not.

There is here only Unknowing. Not-Knowing.

[Dontaskme]

If you say you know God.... you don't.