Dear Atheists...

[Mr. Pedantic]

The gods were never invented. They exist even now.



I would convict them of an inadequate world-view.



Every position contains baggage. Atheism is non-exempt. When one does not look to love and transcendence, one looks to lower sources of happiness. Materialistic life is the result.

Yeah, it's funny you accuse atheists of this, because your world-view seems completely closed to the possibility that deities don't exist.

 

[madaz]

The gods were never invented. They exist even now.

The evidence suggests Gods/Goddesses were indeed invented, along with religion. Deities exist only in the minds of believers.

I would convict them of an inadequate world-view.

There is no such thing as an Atheist world-view, the truth is you would convict Atheists because they do not fit into your perception of reality.

Every position contains baggage. Atheism is non-exempt.

Some Atheists contain baggage I agree, but tell us what baggage does Atheism contain?

When one does not look to love and transcendence, one looks to lower sources of happiness. Materialistic life is the result.

Where did you get the idea that Atheists do not look to love and transcendence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

When one does not look to love and transcendence, one looks to lower sources of happiness. Materialistic life is the result.

Atheists are not opposed to love, and are not opposed to transcendence. Philosophical atheists may have elevated sources of happiness, and not be particularly materialistic.

Your prejudice against atheists has blinded you to their possibilities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

Wonderbeat-Either your ideology seems to be blinding you from the facts regarding Atheism or you are simply just deliberately ignoring them.

It appears that you are intolerantly or obstinately devoted to your own beliefs, opinions and prejudices.

Some Atheists on this thread have educated you about certain points regarding Atheism yet it appears you have dismissed those critical points entirely.

If you had educated yourself about Atheism beforehand you may not have started this offensive smear campaign.

Surely ones integrity is worth more than that.

Your words reflect an inner hatred and intolerance, but I still love you Wonderbeat.

 

[WonderBeat]

Atheists are not opposed to love, and are not opposed to transcendence. Philosophical atheists may have elevated sources of happiness, and not be particularly materialistic.

As long as you are enthralled by the critical mind love is impossible. As long as you cling to man-made notions of logic and attempt to figure things out using "your own understanding" the true sources of satisfaction will be a mystery to you.

Your prejudice against atheists has blinded you to their possibilities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Not at all. Au contraire, I see things all too clearly.

 

[WonderBeat]

Wonderbeat-Either your ideology seems to be blinding you from the facts regarding Atheism or you are simply just deliberately ignoring them.

Actually, there is a third option. I am utterly convinced of the truth of my position, which is also the position of many others.

It appears that you are intolerantly or obstinately devoted to your own beliefs, opinions and prejudices.

I could say the same of many atheists on this board.

Some Atheists on this thread have educated you about certain points regarding Atheism yet it appears you have dismissed those critical points entirely.

Simply put they are wrong.

If you had educated yourself about Atheism beforehand you may not have started this offensive smear campaign.

I know everything there is to know about atheism in the modern sense. I still would describe it as demoniac. Not as a smear-level tactic, but as I genuinely still see it. An absence of love; sat-cit-ananda.

Surely ones integrity is worth more than that.

Integrity is listening to what the other side presents, and not getting all critical.

Your words reflect an inner hatred and intolerance, but I still love you Wonderbeat.

Your words reflect a critical attitude of caring for the truth, but I still distrust you and every atheist on here madaz!

 

[Eudaimonist]

As long as you are enthralled by the critical mind love is impossible.

Wonderbeat, you don't know me. Let that point sink in.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

Wonderbeat, you don't know me. Let that point sink in.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Who said anything about who knowing who? I am simply stating the facts as I see them. Take 'em or leave 'em.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Who said anything about who knowing who? I am simply stating the facts as I see them. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Your use of the word "you" suggested a personal observation. If you meant the generic "you", that's different.

I don't mind you expressing your views. However, I do object to your prejudice regarding atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

Your use of the word "you" suggested a personal observation. If you meant the generic "you", that's different.

I don't mind you expressing your views. However, I do object to your prejudice regarding atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Pre-judice is the wrong word. In the sense that I "pre-judge" them. Atheism as an ideology, a thought-system, is something wrong in-and-of-itself. That said, I must condemn it as a matter of personal integrity. However, you are right that I do not know atheists on the inside thoroughly besides for the fact that they must suffer from this malady of a diseased mind somehow or other. (Otherwise, they would be atheists in name only). I have to call a spade a spade. And when someone adopts a necessarily foolish position, I have to call that out, as well as the detriment which it causes.

 

[Davian]

The gods were never invented. They exist even now.

As characters in books.

I would convict them of an inadequate world-view.

And it would be thrown out for lack of evidence, lol.

Every position contains baggage. Atheism is non-exempt.

As the neutral position, it is exempt.

What you project on to it is an error on your part.

When one does not look to love and transcendence, one looks to lower sources of happiness.

Are you telling me how I think?

Materialistic life is the result.

Atheism is not materialism. I am not a materialist. I don't even consider myself an atheist.

 

[WonderBeat]

As characters in books.

\

I believe they too exist in other dimensions than our own.

And it would be thrown out for lack of evidence, lol.

I am not an Evidentialist so why should I worry about that? Actually, I believe we should destroy the critical mind as it is a hindrance to the truth.

As the neutral position, it is exempt.

There are no neutral positions.

I project nothing inasmuch as you project.

Are you telling me how I think?

Why do you call yourself an atheist? Is it something in name only? If not, then to some degree, I conclude things about you. Yes.

Atheism is not materialism. I am not a materialist. I don't even consider myself an atheist.

Atheism contains many subconscious factors atheists themselves aren't even well aware of.

 

[Davian]

I believe they too exist in other dimensions than our own.

Why should anyone else believe that gods are more than characters in books?

I am not an Evidentialist so why should I worry about that?

You are the one trying to convict others. For that, you would need evidence.

Actually, I believe we should destroy the critical mind as it is a hindrance to the truth.

By "the truth", you mean "religion"?

There are no neutral positions.

I project nothing inasmuch as you project.

Atheism is a neutral position on the existence of deities. I would lean towards ignosticism, myself.

Why do you call yourself an atheist?

Where did I do that?

Is it something in name only? If not, then to some degree, I conclude things about you. Yes.

Then your conclusions, and the means to which you came to them, are in error.

Atheism contains many subconscious factors atheists themselves aren't even well aware of.

What are these factors, and how would you know this? More projection?

 

[WonderBeat]

Alright guys. You win. How am I supposed engage in discourse without having my views tossed in the crapper with critical points of view that don't give one the benefit of the doubt?

I am going to try to reason with people. That is what I am going to do. All the rest of this before, was just a presagement, a preliminary. I need to voice my opinion in a hard manner before I actually begin speaking my true truth.

 

[Davian]

Alright guys. You win. How am I supposed engage in discourse without having my views tossed in the crapper with critical points of view that don't give one the benefit of the doubt?

So you would like a free lunch? I'm not handing them out.

I am going to try to reason with people. That is what I am going to do. All the rest of this before, was just a presagement, a preliminary. I need to voice my opinion in a hard manner before I actually begin speaking my true truth.

Using the approach of reason? That may put you on new ground. Take it slow.

 

[WonderBeat]

So you would like a free lunch? I'm not handing them out.

But the Truth IS free. That's why it's called The Present.

Using the approach of reason? That may put you on new ground. Take it slow.

Gods are in the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat. How about we begin there?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Alright guys. You win. How am I supposed engage in discourse without having my views tossed in the crapper with critical points of view that don't give one the benefit of the doubt?

You've spent your time in this thread making a deluge of ignorant assertions about atheists and morality. You don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You've bereaved yourself of that privilege.

I am going to try to reason with people.

Let's see about that:

Gods are in the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat.

Nope. Looks to me like more of the same vacuous naked assertions you've already been making. This is the exact opposite of reason.

How about we begin there?

I've got a better idea. How about you start over.

Since you claim to have the 'truth', you can start by laying out the methodology by which you ascertained this 'truth', what the 'truth' is and how it is demonstrable.

When you do so, be sure not to steal any groundwork form evidentialism, which you've categorically written off.

Until then, your 'truth' is indiscernible from make-believe.

 

[WonderBeat]

Since you claim to have the 'truth', you can start by laying out the methodology by which you ascertained this 'truth', what the 'truth' is and how it is demonstrable.

By chanting the names of Hari. Specifically, this mantra: ~ Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare / Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare ~

By vibrating this mantra within the heart continuously, you will realize Krishna, you will realize God. And from there we can move on to authoritative sources, such as the Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, the writings of the six Goswamis, and among others who are FAR more REALIZED than you already are, and who may tell us more things about God and all the interconnected things that flow from God....

For instance, God is a person. This is revealed in shastra. God is not some formless miasma or impersonal ectoplasm. God really is a Lord and wishes for you to be His friend, companion, and ultimately, lover. God is intimate, and this is a verity. I do not know this from deducting things "evidently" but from experience, and making the logical connections both from my experience and how it relates to Scripture. In that sense, I am over and above the sense-perceptible world.

It is hearing about God, chanting God's names and meditating upon them, that one comes to a conviction of God and His reality. This way one overcomes the turbulent sea of birth and death and sails to the Promised Land of GOLOKA.

 

[madaz]

Originally Posted by madaz
Wonderbeat-Either your ideology seems to be blinding you from the facts regarding Atheism or you are simply just deliberately ignoring them.

Actually, there is a third option. I am utterly convinced of the truth of my position, which is also the position of many others.

Actually your "third" option is a blend of the first two.

It's described as being "obstinately devoted or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Originally Posted by madaz
Some Atheists on this thread have educated you about certain points regarding Atheism yet it appears you have dismissed those critical points entirely.

Simply put they are wrong.

Right, so you have re-defined the definition of Atheism.

I know everything there is to know about atheism in the modern sense. I still would describe it as demoniac. Not as a smear-level tactic, but as I genuinely still see it. An absence of love; sat-cit-ananda.

You clearly know nothing about Atheism, you could easily learn everything in a minute if not for the obstinate attitude. Perhaps you may be confusing anti-theism with atheism?

I see your "absence of love " assertion clearly as an example of psychological projection.

Integrity is listening to what the other side presents, and not getting all critical.

No it isn't.

Your words reflect a critical attitude of caring for the truth, but I still distrust you and every atheist on here madaz!

I care very much about truth, and have given you no reason for distrust.


Wonderbeat-

You went from this-

I am going to try to reason with people. That is what I am going to do.

To this...

Gods are in the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat. How about we begin there?

In just two hours......

I have reason to distrust.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

By chanting the names of Hari. Specifically, this mantra: ~ Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare / Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare ~

By vibrating this mantra within the heart continuously, you will realize Krishna, you will realize God.

Naked assertion.

How do you determine that this thing you are 'realizing' is God?

How is it distinguishable from your imagination?

How is it distinguishable from something you've intentionally fabricated?

And from there we can move on to authoritative sources, such as the Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, the writings of the six Goswamis, and among others who are FAR more REALIZED than you already are, and who may tell us more things about God and all the interconnected things that flow from God....

Naked assertion.

How do you determine that these are 'authoritative sources'?

How do you determine God is something one can be an authority on in the first place?

For instance, God is a person.

Naked assertion.

How do you determine that there is a God in the first place, and that this thing is a person?

This is revealed in shastra.

Naked assertion.

How is this distinguishable from something imagined, or fabricated?

God is not some formless miasma or impersonal ectoplasm. God really is a Lord and wishes for you to be His friend, companion, and ultimately, lover.

Naked assertion.

How do you determine any of this?

God is intimate, and this is a verity.

No, actually it's another naked assertion.

I do not know this from deducting things "evidently"

I realize you've written off evidentialism. That doesn't let you off the hook. The burden of proof is still yours.

So far, your alternative to evidentialism has consisted of piling naked assertions on top of each other.

but from experience,

How is your 'experience' determined to be a reflection of reality?

How is it distinguishable from imagination, or fabrication?

and making the logical connections both from my experience and how it relates to Scripture.

Correlation is not causation. Your ability to relate an experience to some piece of writing does not glean any information about reality, and it certainly isn't an exercise in logic.

In that sense, I am over and above the sense-perceptible world.

All you're doing is anthropomorphizing concepts in your imagination. There is nothing verifiably true, by any means apparent, in anything you've said here. You have yet to leave the confines of your skull.

It is hearing about God, chanting God's names and meditating upon them, that one comes to a conviction of God and His reality. This way one overcomes the turbulent sea of birth and death and sails to the Promised Land of GOLOKA.

Naked assertion.

How is any of this determined?

How is it distinguishable from imagination, or fabrication?

Remember not to steal any ground work from evidentialism when you provide your answers, lest you internally contradict yourself.