Philosophy Now Forum

Ironic that someone could have such an active imagination and still no imagination at all.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:18 am Ironic that someone could have such an active imagination and still no imagination at all.

Imagine that!

He's being misquoted, slightly, but further it's not an argument for the existence of God. It's part of looking at, fairly or not, the psychology of atheists.

Atheism is, I suppose, the supreme example of a simple faith. The man says there is no God; if he really says it in his heart, he is a certain sort of man so designated in Scripture [i. e. a fool, Ps 53:2]. But, anyhow, when he has said it, he has said it; and there seems to be no more to be said. The conversation seems likely to languish. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. Irreverence is a very servile parasite of reverence; and has starved with its starving lord. After this first fuss about the merely aesthetic effect of blasphemy, the whole thing vanishes into its own void. If there were not God, there would be no atheists.

I feel like the picture in the op is ripe for adding a caption underneath that says "checkmate atheists "

Sounds like you are taking it too personally

It takes a hunchback of Notre Dame typa person to figure stuff like this out. Me, no, I'm not that lucky! The million dollar question is, are you? Hmmmm? Hmmmm?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 12:06 pm Sounds like you are taking it too personally

Me? The person that made a joke about checkmate atheists? Nah it's good fun.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:51 am I feel like the picture in the op is ripe for adding a caption underneath that says "checkmate atheists "

Checkmate is a good analogy. I'm intelligent because I know I know nothing. And when nothing is known, everything is known, because everything is nothing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:39 am it's not an argument for the existence of God.

Nothing exists, if God is any thing at all, then God is nothing.

Dreams happen, but nothing ever happens in a dream. Life is like that, denial is just a distraction away from this unpalatable realisation.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:39 am It's part of looking at, fairly or not, the psychology of atheists.

The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial.

Thank you for that. It's a very interesting point.

I have often marvelled that, for being those at such pains to deny the existence of something, Atheists are so obsessed with it. It is, indeed, as if nothing else matters so much to them, as that the denial of God's existence should stand -- and should be prostelytized for, to the ends of the Earth.

But there are no comparable factions devoted to the denial of any other beings. There are no Antifairyists or Antiunicornists. There aren't really any factions passionate about the denial of anything -- except for God.

But why would there be a faction for the passionate denial of that which simply could not and does not exist, as they insist is true of God? The thought makes no sense. And yet, there they are, the Atheists, passionate to convince us all that no rational, scientific, moral or modern person could possibly believe in God. They are continually fighting a battle they insist is already won: reality, truth, science, facts, history, certainty -- all are on their side, they think, and inevitably, belief in God must perish like any belief in a myth. And yet, there they are, fighting the battle again.

Where is their Enemy? Is He not already vanquished, the fact of the defeat only remaining to reach the ears of the still-believing? Why not, then, sit back and relax. Time and "progress" will achieve total victory for the cause, you would think they would think.

But no. For them the battle is very much alive. The ramparts must continually be reinforced against the incursions of faith. The message of our cosmic orphanship must still be broadcasted, and urgently so, so that all may disbelieve. And the reason, they'll tell you, is simple: belief in God is a scourge, a blight, an inhibitor on the greatness of mankind, they'll say; the urgency comes from the need to expunge it from human thought altogether. But again, it's very hard to believe that's the reason; for the very belief they claim to want to expunge is also the greatest source of mankind's greatest art, music, educational endeavours, science, literature, invention, law, welfare and other social improvement, and a great boost to things like exploration, medicine and above all, to morality. Their characterization of what "religion" does is, itself, so onesided that again, one cannot miss that they are disproportionately passionate against it, and so fanatical about getting rid of God that they are quite happy to eliminate all the good that belief in God has done, and even to deny that any of it has been done at all. Something unbalanced, if not outright deranged, is involved, clearly.

Theirs is clearly a posture of "defiance," just as Chesterton says. The very passion with which they engage in it shows it is much more than mere "denial." Atheism has an urgency that mere denial lacks. But I love Chesterton's phrase, "shuddering theism." It's quite right. The Atheist knows God exists; he just hates Him. He wants to "pay God back" so to speak, by refusing to allow himself and others even to acknowledge God's existence. But his revenge-motive betrays his duplicity; he hates, because he believes. He senses, in the deepest recesses of his heart, that God does exist, and so he makes God the object of his revolt rather than a mere matter-of-no-consequence. He says that belief in God will perish naturally, with time; but he does not believe it, for he feels quite urgently that without his contribution, such belief will not fade at all. Indeed, he fears it may actually grow, unless he renews his efforts to defeat it. Perhaps he even suspects it would grow in himself, if he did not, by vigorous exertion, keep up the effort to disbelieve, to fortify his cynicism against the creeping suspicion that he is simply wrong about all he thinks about that.

That's too much effort for something that is a done deal. Atheists don't really believe their own Atheism. Rather, like the Bible says of demons, they "believe and shudder."

Well, if you think someone repeatedly brings back a dangerous lie, then you have to keep fighting against it.

Should this thread not just fuck off to the religion sub?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:07 pm Well, if you think someone repeatedly brings back a dangerous lie, then you have to keep fighting against it.

Yeah, it feels a bit silly when people are like "why do atheists care so much? Shouldn't they just not believe quietly?"

It's like they forget that religion has been used as a tool to bludgeon people with for millennia... It's as if they forget they live in a country where many of the major political powers are religious in nature.

Some proposed answers to complex questions...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 07, 2023 3:00 pm But why would there be a faction for the passionate denial of that which simply could not and does not exist, as they insist is true of God?

Where is their Enemy?

How the turn against faith in metaphysical power (or entity if you wish), and the focus on material life and this-worldliness developed out of Medieval concerns, is a long, complex but super interesting question. To even begin to answer the question requires a great deal of backgrounding and careful, thoughtful consideration. We must note, and I say fairly, that not many who have participated in the long thread Christianity had enough of the preparation to carry out their critique fairly.

However, we must also be clear and remain clear: You showed yourself as the enemy. And I continue to remain committed to the understanding I gained from long interchange with you that you are in no sense helping to maintain or recover respect or allegiance to 'higher metaphysical authority', but that you are an active, belligerent, destructive agent.

You embody 'the enemy'. Yet I would not say it is because you are malicious. It is because you have not, not really and not enough, thought things through. Religious fanaticism does this every time.

There is a faction involved in the passionate struggle against deviously dishonest people such as yourself, and people, such as yourself, who fail to look into their actions and activities in the theological arena. As everyone who has read you knows: when the argument slips away from you you move, directly, to the actual base of your argument:

"You will either believe as I define belief or you will suffer interminably in god's hell-chamber. One of us will soon find out if I am right or wrong!"

But let us try to imagine a rational god with at least the thoughtfulness of any one of us: Such a god would see and understand the sound reasons for the abandonment of *faith* when people like you are the flag-bearers of it (with your eternal curse as the starting, and the ending point of your argument).

You got yourself involved, deeply, on this forum and certainly in that thread. You are not off the hook m'boy. Despite every weaselly effort!

Theirs is clearly a posture of "defiance," just as Chesterton says. The very passion with which they engage in it shows it is much more than mere "denial." Atheism has an urgency that mere denial lacks. But I love Chesterton's phrase, "shuddering theism." It's quite right. The Atheist knows God exists; he just hates Him. He wants to "pay God back" so to speak, by refusing to allow himself and others even to acknowledge God's existence. But his revenge-motive betrays his duplicity; he hates, because he believes. He senses, in the deepest recesses of his heart, that God does exist, and so he makes God the object of his revolt rather than a mere matter-of-no-consequence. He says that belief in God will perish naturally, with time; but he does not believe it, for he feels quite urgently that without his contribution, such belief will not fade at all. Indeed, he fears it may actually grow, unless he renews his efforts to defeat it. Perhaps he even suspects it would grow in himself, if he did not, by vigorous exertion, keep up the effort to disbelieve, to fortify his cynicism against the creeping suspicion that he is simply wrong about all he thinks about that.

I do not have that 'denial' nor defiance -- and yet I am duty-bound to oppose your posturing. I certainly do not 'hate god' -- since we really have no clear sense of how even to define god -- but what I detest is your use of the god-concept in your personalized war against people who grew sick of your shenanigans. No, the atheist does not 'know' that god exists, the atheist actually believes in their heart that belief in the god you define is potentially a step backward. They witness your tactics, tricks, evasions and your ridiculous cleaving to romantic mythologies and your confounding of them as 'realities', and they turn away from that frame of mind.

You have presented a finely crafted paragraph of 'apologetics' except you have left out all of the most important parts. And you have done nothing at all that would help someone who is firmly ensconced in an atheistic position to conceive of another alternative. You are also flatly unaware of the vantage that an atheistic posture offers. That is, to be able (or to be thrust into) having to think things through independently, as a natural man.