Who Really is an Atheist?

[yiostheoy]

What I have noticed about atheists is that they are all fanatical about their irrational belief.

That makes them as dangerous as Islam.

[Walker]

What I have noticed about atheists is that they are all fanatical about their irrational belief.

That makes them as dangerous as Islam.

May be a philosophy. May be a belief. Maybe be a religion.

Using some concepts introduced by Nick_A:

Spirit affirmation is a philosophy of Yes.
Spirit crushing is a philosophy of No.

Life affirmation is a philosophy of Yes.
Life crushing is a philosophy of No.

The concepts bleed out into reality as action guided by intent.

(Call them philosophies to distinguish them from the "No" of "No, don't grab the live wire."

[uwot]

How can a person disbelieve without denying?

And again:
What an atheist says:
There no evidence for god.
What a theist hears:
There is evidence for no god.
And it doesn't matter how many times you tell them.

[yiostheoy]

What I have noticed about atheists is that they are all fanatical about their irrational belief.

That makes them as dangerous as Islam.

May be a philosophy. May be a belief. Maybe be a religion.

Using some concepts introduced by Nick_A:

Spirit affirmation is a philosophy of Yes.
Spirit crushing is a philosophy of No.

Life affirmation is a philosophy of Yes.
Life crushing is a philosophy of No.

The concepts bleed out into reality as action guided by intent.

(Call them philosophies to distinguish them from the "No" of "No, don't grab the live wire."

I read Bertrand Russell's book "History Of Western Philosophy" wherein he points out that Religion, Philosophy, and Science are 3 completely different analytical tools and should always be kept separate.

Russell is an agnostic who sometimes mischaracterizes himself as an atheist. He is also anti-Christian.

His main trauma in his life was WW1 and like many of the WW2 victims later, he was forever jaded by that experience.

Philosophy is most useful to extremely intelligent people who can think independently and come up with their own views of life.

Religion is ancient and wicked and used to pervert a lot of people and nations.

Science is relatively new compared to the other two, having been invented by Galileo in 1610 when he pointed his home made telescope towards the planet Jupiter and then wrote his observations down. Science is a useful academic exercise but it must never be used in place of Religion nor of Philosophy.

[FlashDangerpants]

Atheists worship concepts.

That would be weirdly circular given that "concept" is just a concept.

You are making up specious bullshit.

[Walker]

Atheists worship concepts.

That would be weirdly circular given that "concept" is just a concept.

Thus the conflict of the atheists caused by their own irrationality, which is the essence of the thread.

[yiostheoy]

Atheism is like any other belief system but with the added twist that the proof of a negative is never possible.

So of all the various belief systems it is the most irrational.

[uwot]

Atheism is like any other belief system but with the added twist that the proof of a negative is never possible.

So of all the various belief systems it is the most irrational.

And again:
What an atheist says:
There no evidence for god.
What a theist hears:
There is evidence for no god.
And it doesn't matter how many times you tell them.

D'you know? I think I might really be on his ignore list.

[Arising_uk]

I read Bertrand Russell's book "History Of Western Philosophy" wherein he points out that Religion, Philosophy, and Science are 3 completely different analytical tools and should always be kept separate. ...

A good read but just an introduction to Philosophy.

Russell is an agnostic who sometimes mischaracterizes himself as an atheist. He is also anti-Christian.

That's right because yiostheoy knows him better than he knew himself.

His main trauma in his life was WW1 and like many of the WW2 victims later, he was forever jaded by that experience.

Oo! A subtle ad hominem, naughty.

Philosophy is most useful to extremely intelligent people who can think independently and come up with their own views of life.

Incorrect, the academic study of Philosophy is useful to all walks of life.

Religion is ancient and wicked and used to pervert a lot of people and nations.

So he has a 'God' separate from his religion?

Science is relatively new compared to the other two, having been invented by Galileo in 1610 when he pointed his home made telescope towards the planet Jupiter and then wrote his observations down. ...

He obviously gets his scientific History from the Disney channels.

Science is a useful academic exercise but it must never be used in place of Religion nor of Philosophy.

It's far from an academic exercise and the later exhortation is exactly why the religious should stick to Theology and not Philosophy.

[Lacewing]

Nick, Walker, Yios... you guys are so full of made-up crap about what an atheist is, and what an atheist thinks and does... and you cannot FUCKING know!!! You can only describe yourself to such a degree. But I'm guessing that it will be impossible for you to grasp this and to stop projecting your short-sightedness onto a vast range of people that cannot be defined by your tiny-ass view. You want to judge and invalidate, so much... that you completely ignore what non-theists are saying back to you. You insist that you know better than they know themselves. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance... and it vividly displays why theists get such a bad reputation for intruding on everyone else. You are being too ignorant to even talk to.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If an atheist is defined as one who doesn't believe in God, there is no difference between the atheist and agnostic. This is a standard definition of an atheist:

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

How can a person disbelieve without denying?

So a person could disbelieve idolatry and have an open mind concerning the transcendent God. A person who emotionally denies the idea of God IMO is a blind denier simply because the idea is too broad to intellectually believe or deny. A person needs an open mind and heart which is increasingly rare in a world where attention span has become so diminished.

The idol of atheism is thought.

Atheists worship concepts.

The atheist cannot conceive of God, and so says there is no God.

The atheist cannot conceive of nothing, and so cannot worship that.

What a pickle.


*


Have you noticed this?

Some atheists claim that atheists are not the same, thus laying claim to individualistic thinking.

Simultaneously, the same silliness hides behind the tribe by referencing atheists as, “we.”

It’s like a horse tripping over its own hooves right out of the gate. You can keep attention on its progress but really, why bother.

Why do you bother? You have already got yourself into quite a confused state with all this.

[sthitapragya]

Atheists worship concepts.

That would be weirdly circular given that "concept" is just a concept.

You are making up specious bullshit.

Don't pay attention to little chihuahua. He just wants to pee.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing wrote: Nick, Walker, Yios... you guys are so full of made-up crap about what an atheist is, and what an atheist thinks and does... and you cannot FUCKING know!!! You can only describe yourself to such a degree. But I'm guessing that it will be impossible for you to grasp this and to stop projecting your short-sightedness onto a vast range of people that cannot be defined by your tiny-ass view. You want to judge and invalidate, so much... that you completely ignore what non-theists are saying back to you. You insist that you know better than they know themselves. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance... and it vividly displays why theists get such a bad reputation for intruding on everyone else. You are being too ignorant to even talk to.

The OP and my posts have been questions to better understand blind denial if it exists. Is there an option for anything other than blind belief or blind denial? It seems there is for some atheists but not for others. For example, consider this observation from Simone Weil:

R

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Is it possible that she is right and for many atheists a supernatural part of their psyche has not yet opened but it doesn't interfere with earthly brilliance? An atheist can either say yes, no, or I don't know since I haven't experienced it. I am saying that to say no is not based on proof so is just emotional blind denial. Where am I wrong? Perhaps such humility towards a possibility that there is a source for an objective good means a person isn't really an atheist.

[sthitapragya]

Lacewing wrote: Nick, Walker, Yios... you guys are so full of made-up crap about what an atheist is, and what an atheist thinks and does... and you cannot FUCKING know!!! You can only describe yourself to such a degree. But I'm guessing that it will be impossible for you to grasp this and to stop projecting your short-sightedness onto a vast range of people that cannot be defined by your tiny-ass view. You want to judge and invalidate, so much... that you completely ignore what non-theists are saying back to you. You insist that you know better than they know themselves. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance... and it vividly displays why theists get such a bad reputation for intruding on everyone else. You are being too ignorant to even talk to.

The OP and my posts have been questions to better understand blind denial if it exists. Is there an option for anything other than blind belief or blind denial? It seems there is for some atheists but not for others. For example, consider this observation from Simone Weil:

R

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Is it possible that she is right and for many atheists a supernatural part of their psyche has not yet opened but it doesn't interfere with earthly brilliance? An atheist can either say yes, no, or I don't know since I haven't experienced it. I am saying that to say no is not based on proof so is just emotional blind denial. Where am I wrong? Perhaps such humility towards a possibility that there is a source for an objective good means a person isn't really an atheist.

We don't have such stupidity towards the remotest possibility that there is a source for an objective good. Now will you believe we are atheists or continue to blindly deny that too?

How can I emotionally blindly deny something I don't believe in? Do you emotionally blindly deny santa? What Prof do you have that santa doesn't exist?

It is your stupid emotional need to have everyone believe in God and simone which is driving your question. I cannot emotionally deny unicorns. I cannot emotionally deny magic. I just think they are childish notions just like santa and God. If you can't grow out of the emotional need, that is your problem. Just don't involve us in it. We are quite fine without God.

Also, why are you so obsessed with what atheists think? Have you considered the psychological implications of that?

[Lacewing]

Is it possible that she is right and for many atheists a supernatural part of their psyche has not yet opened but it doesn't interfere with earthly brilliance?

Anything is possible. Yet nothing applies to everyone.

I am saying that to say no is not based on proof so is just emotional blind denial. Where am I wrong?

There are many reasons for saying no. And not everyone is saying no.

Perhaps such humility towards a possibility that there is a source for an objective good means a person isn't really an atheist.

But it may not be perceived and defined as it is for you... therefore, a person may still be what many would consider an atheist.

There are just too many facets, and ways, and frequencies -- to blindly lump people into big stew pots of made-up stuff. We are ALL magnificent spirits (from my perspective)... free to travel all sorts of paths. And the rules and perspectives can vary greatly between paths. I think that's why we have to speak for ourselves about our own experience and perspective, and not have other people telling us what we are... because they can't know! When one cannot understand another's path, they may try to make up a version of it that they can reconcile with their own beliefs, and perhaps even try to elevate themselves with it. That's not truth. These are different languages... and different brain waves (probably).

I can assure you that neither I or anyone close to me are blind deniers or blind believers. Those are not concepts that have use to me. I think things through, and I don't slam the door on anything. At the same time, I don't invite everything into my head that doesn't make enough sense to me based on all of my other experiences and impressions. I have the sense that I am flowing in a giant current that is so much bigger than myself, and I respect being part of that. It is not "a god". To me, it is all of us... and all that is... and there's nothing to worship because it is not separate. Now other non-theists will have as many different views and variations for themselves as there are non-theists. We are not a group. We are simply not theists, by our own definitions and experiences, which should have more weight than the sideline opinions of theists.

If theists really wanted to explore and understand non-theism, they would truly listen and open their minds and hearts. But I'm guessing that such an action would reveal too much to the contrary for maintaining their own theist structure. If non-theists aren't "wrong" and "bad"... then theists would have to find contentment in their own path being simply one "choice" of many. My question is: Why do theists need to demand so much more than that?