Who Really is an Atheist?

[Nick_A]

Walker wrote:

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

This summarizes Nick's point about blind deniers and blind believers.

Thanks for posting this Walker. Why is it that only a few are open to contemplate the significance of this observation? How is it that a young woman in her twenties can understand this perfectly and why it is so. Yet older people who have more degrees than a thermometer continue to pursue blind battles with their weapons of ridicule? Sometimes it startles me to read posts here concerning belief and denial and how it invariably centers around some form of idolatry. While so many in philosophy praise the open mind, they also have closed minds. Figure that one out.

[Lacewing]

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti is simply saying that all is unknown. Anything we add on top of that is made up. When he refers to non-belief, he is not talking about the non-belief in something that others have made up. But rather that our openness to the unknown does not place limits... and clog it up with stories.

[sthitapragya]

Walker wrote:

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

This summarizes Nick's point about blind deniers and blind believers.

Thanks for posting this Walker. Why is it that only a few are open to contemplate the significance of this observation? How is it that a young woman in her twenties can understand this perfectly and why it is so. Yet older people who have more degrees than a thermometer continue to pursue blind battles with their weapons of ridicule? Sometimes it startles me to read posts here concerning belief and denial and how it invariably centers around some form of idolatry. While so many in philosophy praise the open mind, they also have closed minds. Figure that one out.

See what I mean? He didn't even read my post. The psychological need and extreme denial will not allow anything that negates his father figure to register in his mind. I find it fascinating.

I also find it fascinating how he loves the fact that someone acknowledges him. Your approval of his opinion has made his day. All this insecurity is connected to the need for God.

[sthitapragya]

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti is simply saying that all is unknown. Anything we add on top of that is made up. When he refers to non-belief, he is not talking about the non-belief in something that others have made up. But rather that our openness to the unknown does not place limits... and clog it up with stories.

Actually krishnamurthi is grandstanding as all these religious figures tend to do. One the one hand he says reality is unknown, on the other he obliquely opines that God exists. How the hell does he know that if reality is unknown? It's just a load of crap. And it works. He finds followers. There is a sucker born every minute and two Simone Weils to take him.

[Lacewing]

Sometimes it startles me to read posts here concerning belief and denial and how it invariably centers around some form of idolatry.

Nick, aren't we all typically making things up in order to say that we "know" them? And then one person denies what another has made up -- how is that wrong or blind? People don't KNOW.

When you say "blind deniers", I think you are referring to people who reject the idea of a god without giving it consideration. Is this not what you mean?

People who reject the idea of a god are simply rejecting someone else's creation/fantasy. It does not mean that they are closed to the unknown truth -- they just haven't turned it into a story, nor defined it.

[Walker]

Walker wrote:

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

This summarizes Nick's point about blind deniers and blind believers.

Thanks for posting this Walker. Why is it that only a few are open to contemplate the significance of this observation? How is it that a young woman in her twenties can understand this perfectly and why it is so. Yet older people who have more degrees than a thermometer continue to pursue blind battles with their weapons of ridicule? Sometimes it startles me to read posts here concerning belief and denial and how it invariably centers around some form of idolatry. While so many in philosophy praise the open mind, they also have closed minds. Figure that one out.

See what I mean? He didn't even read my post. The psychological need and extreme denial will not allow anything that negates his father figure to register in his mind. I find it fascinating.

I also find it fascinating how he loves the fact that someone acknowledges him. Your approval of his opinion has made his day. All this insecurity is connected to the need for God.

Awww, give a smooch. He does hear an incessant sort of noise, sort of like a buzzing. Tinnitus? There are explanations for that you simply would not believe, thus conservation of energy kicks in … never-the-less it is empirically proven to be true.

[sthitapragya]

Awww, give a smooch. He does hear an incessant sort of noise, sort of like a buzzing. Tinnitus? There are explanations for that you simply would not believe, thus conservation of energy kicks in … never-the-less it is empirically proven to be true.

there you go making statements you cannot back up. Give me the emprically proven evidence.

[Nick_A]

uwot wrote:

Nick_A wrote:
My personal concern is both for the truth necessary to unite science and religion...

The point about science is that it it us trying to work out how the universe works, and what we can do about it, without relying on prayers and sacrifices. It has nothing to do with religion, which is why Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Rastafarians can all do the same science with people who have no religious belief at all. It's is this collaborative effort that has told us what we know about the universe, rather than any individual belief

Science draws associations in its quest to determine HOW the universe works. the essence of religion seeks to understand WHY? What is the purpose of our universe and our purpose within it?

The objective unification of how and why. Have you ever read of something so insulting. Who could have the nerve to think such a thing? As everyone know the state and its government tells you why. There is no more question of why. Your government has responded so get back to your remotes. Trouble makers like Simone Weil will be dealt with in due time. But for now forget about the question of why. Your government is your god and knows why. There is no other.

[Walker]

Awww, give a smooch. He does hear an incessant sort of noise, sort of like a buzzing. Tinnitus? There are explanations for that you simply would not believe, thus conservation of energy kicks in … never-the-less it is empirically proven to be true.

there you go making statements you cannot back up. Give me the emprically proven evidence.

C’est vous! Buzz buzz. Haw haw.

[sthitapragya]

uwot wrote:

Nick_A wrote:
My personal concern is both for the truth necessary to unite science and religion...

The point about science is that it it us trying to work out how the universe works, and what we can do about it, without relying on prayers and sacrifices. It has nothing to do with religion, which is why Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Rastafarians can all do the same science with people who have no religious belief at all. It's is this collaborative effort that has told us what we know about the universe, rather than any individual belief

Science draws associations in its quest to determine HOW the universe works. the essence of religion seeks to understand WHY? What is the purpose of our universe and our purpose within it?

The objective unification of how and why. Have you ever read of something so insulting. Who could have the nerve to think such a thing? As everyone know the state and its government tells you why. There is no more question of why. Your government has responded so get back to your remotes. Trouble makers like Simone Weil will be dealt with in due time. But for now forget about the question of why. Your government is your god and knows why. There is no other.

I don't have a problem with the why. It is a good question for when you have nothing better to do. My problem is with the already concluded answer and the attempts to try and somehow prove it. God is a foregone conclusion. Now everything seems to be an attempt to just prove it. How about, "I don't know?" No God. No nothing. Simply, "I don't know, but I will accept whatever the evidence suggests it is."?

the rest of what you say seems to suggest some paranoia. You need to understand that most of the world is theist. IF anyone is out to get anyone, it is the theists out to get the atheists. But the irony is, we don't suffer from the paranoia you do. I don't think theists are persecuting atheists. Why do you feel the government which is made up of a majority of theists are out to persecute another theist?

[sthitapragya]

Awww, give a smooch. He does hear an incessant sort of noise, sort of like a buzzing. Tinnitus? There are explanations for that you simply would not believe, thus conservation of energy kicks in … never-the-less it is empirically proven to be true.

there you go making statements you cannot back up. Give me the emprically proven evidence.

C’est vous! Buzz buzz. Haw haw.

Screw the french. Where is the emperically proven evidence?

[Lacewing]

One the one hand he says reality is unknown, on the other he obliquely opines that God exists.

I think if you change the word god to Santa (gosh this works well for so many examples!), then the word Santa just becomes a SYMBOL of that which people search for. That's how I read it -- not that Krishnamurti is claiming that god exists -- rather he's making the point that God is what people search for, and turn into something they can claim to "know" -- but it is NOT THAT -- because all is unknown. Does that makes sense?

[Walker]

Screw the french. Where is the emperically proven evidence?

Of what?

Just what the hell are you talking about?

[sthitapragya]

One the one hand he says reality is unknown, on the other he obliquely opines that God exists.

I think if you change the word god to Santa (gosh this works well for so many examples!), then the word Santa just becomes a SYMBOL of that which people search for. That's how I read it -- not that Krishnamurti is claiming that god exists -- rather he's making the point that God is what people search for, and turn into something they can claim to "know" -- but it is NOT THAT -- because all is unknown. Does that makes sense?

no. Krishnamuthi was literally obliquely trying to say that God exists while maintaining that reality is unknown. That is how these Godmen work. make grandiose statements that no one understands and get the public to give you money. just carefully read what Walker put up. it is excellently and subtly done.

[sthitapragya]

Screw the french. Where is the emperically proven evidence?

Of what?

Just what the hell are you talking about?

I think you are pretty much like krishnamurthy. you seem to have suggested that you have empirically proven evidence of the existence of God. If that is not what you meant, then I must say, well played, because that is what I understood. You are really good at this. You just said empirically proven evidence and I jumped at the bait. Well done. You got me fair and square. Walker -1, Sthit - 0. Now I don't even know what we were arguing about. hehehe. So what were you talking about when you referred to the empirically proven evidence?