No Such Thing as Atheism.

[Ana the Ist]

Lol I laughed so much harder than I should have at this.

Well, with sentences like this...

"We each have a dual honesty and within limits it is permitted as our falseness
which the mind must balance with sincerity in being human with all the complexities of humanity. "

He's got all the familiar symptoms.

 

[Freodin]

Don't think you quite get my drifts here.

1. Think it is ok to serially classify atheists according to their reasons for
believing the stuff they do about themselves and the universe.
Look at all the different types of Christianity, each having a point of
difference yet in the same boat. That's how the mind works in
social circles and atheism is no different. People like to fit in but add
a twist of their personality on the subject matter.


Also maybe a way through to a real persons mind who can't stop
repeating No means No (when it comes to gods)

2. Think it is definitely OK to link Causation, cosmology and Gods
in the same sentences without semantics.

look at all previous religions I can think of
e.g. the Abrahamic big 3 have the Torah heading up the first books
of scripture with a detailed causation account.
Why should the atheist religion be any different or treated specially?

e.g2 In Maori creation accounts the North Island of NZ was snagged
when a Maori anthropocentric god went fishing in his canoe.

3 All I am doing is finishing off the atheists' thought train where it has
come to a halt for no reason, and bringing this to your attention, if you
don't mind? It is only words on a page.

The disclosure of nature is the greatest clue to our cosmology,
(our cause of everything).

Science and new science has given us a cosmology
that is very detailed and verified. A wonderful achievement.
So we have a modern atheist with a very rich cosmology which points to
some genuine causation options.

So we have the causation (options) and the cosmology but WHOOPS
someone stole the God of it all and the atheist God has not been seen since.

But the God of that causation did not go anywhere, just the mind
of the atheist came to a standstill.
The atheist knows he/she has had causation
eg our higher elements were made in nebulas and alike,
but denies it in the same
breath. (by saying there is no cause for causes period).

So what is the atheist God by default when you take this thought
forward (though atheists will avoid this step).

Well, the God would be the forces of nature acting together
to produce the complexity we see. But without any intervention or help
on an omnipotent plane.

Matter is designed to gain complexity by simply bumping into each other is
possible and helped along by all the other forces of nature.

The God becomes the random god of probability driven by the asymmetry
of matter and the universe by default. This is the god, atheists think
they do not (or refuse to) believe in.

Not believing in it does not make it go away.

Who says we do not "believe" in it?

But the "drift" that you don't seem to be getting: this is not "the god atheist think they no not believe in".
The god we do not believe in is the god that we are presented with by the theists, the one that I described in my last post.

And because we know this concept of god that we are presented with, we know how to distinguish between like concepts and different concepts. We do not call these different concepts "god"... and neither does the vast majority of theists.

So why do you?

 

[quatona]

Well, with sentences like this...

"We each have a dual honesty and within limits it is permitted as our falseness
which the mind must balance with sincerity in being human with all the complexities of humanity. "

He's got all the familiar symptoms.

No, Gottservant uses plenty of redundant commas.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, Gottservant uses plenty of redundant commas.

Fair enough, but I'm still going to contend that they suffer the same malady....or at least a similar one.

"We each have a dual honesty and within limits it is permitted as our falseness
which the mind must balance with sincerity in being human with all the complexities of humanity. "

A dual honesty... that permits as our falseness.

Does anyone not think this man's mind is in some way badly fractured?

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree that I have beliefs relating to God. But I'd say they make me ant-theist, rather than atheist. You can be somewhat anti-theist AND atheist.

Atheists either are:
1. Remaining ignorant about themselves and their true position in the cosmos.
These believers fall under the accommodating wings of 2 below since they
donot really understand science for themselves.

What might they not understand about science?

2. Who are scientific and can understand and accept the limitations of an
absolute materialism philosophy.
The God of Absolute materialism becomes the god since that is the
mechanism of causation.

A philosophy isn't a God. A God must be a being.

Not threatened by atheist or adherent.
Call it a survey, What really really makes you tick the atheist box on census night? Please do not say.. I have no attitude about god

I don't believe in God, and I'm not unsure of my thought on this. I said I was agnostic for a few months, until I realized I was being insincere.

 

[Davian]

Hi,

It takes big nuts to wander in and call all atheists that they are
mistaken about themselves and the universe.

On a virtually anonymous internet discussion board? No, all you need are little tiny ones.

Atheists either are:
1. Remaining ignorant about themselves and their true position in the cosmos.
These believers fall under the accommodating wings of 2 below since they
donot really understand science for themselves.

But you understand this science, do you? Care to elucidate?

2. Who are scientific and can understand and accept the limitations of an
absolute materialism philosophy.

For the purposes of exploring reality, you are free to suggest an alternative.

The God of Absolute materialism becomes the god since that is the
mechanism of causation.

If it does not require faith, worship, or belief, why call it a 'god'?

3 Or who perhaps otherwise are avoiding stuff or are being
insincere for whatever reason.

You think they are lying. Easy for you, then, to declare them wrong.

4.Perhaps you really do believe in the God of no causation but I think we know more than that.

Do you just makes up these gods by yourself?

Not threatened by atheist or adherent.
Call it a survey, What really really makes you tick the atheist box on census night?

I don't self-identify with the term, so I would not tick that box.

Please do not say.. I have no attitude about god

I have learnt atheists do not appreciate the likes of me poking around in their stuff very much. The faster and more vehement the response - the bigger the attitude.

Perhaps you should change the bait you use when you troll.

 

[TillICollapse]

I really don't understand why some people are so set upon showing that atheists don't exist.

I could understand people trying to show why atheists are wrong... but that they don't really hold the position they claim to hold...?

Seriously... do you feel so threatened by the very existence of people who disbelieve if deities that you need to call them liars?

I really don't understand why some people are so set upon "identifying" in what category others may or may not fit into.

Here's what's in my god belief file: The concept "God" is an invalid concept.

What are your reasons ? I'd be interested on you elaborating if you wish.

Is this Gottservant??

Be honest...

There are a couple of posters who will pop up that I suspect are socks of Gotts. I singled one out the other day and never saw a follow up.

 

[KEBO12345]

I can't take that claim seriously. If causation is purely natural, there is nothing there to assume the supernatural or transcendent role of a God. You are really reaching for straws here.


Think your defense is grasping fat straws here.
Why would God need to be limited to the supernatural world?
(when whatever created this disclosure so obviously has at least a foot in this dimension.

Supernatural is a silly word... Show me something supernatural
and I will show you something that is not supernatural anymore.

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

It takes big nuts to wander in and call all atheists that they are
mistaken about themselves and the universe.

Atheists either are:
1. Remaining ignorant about themselves and their true position in the cosmos.
These believers fall under the accommodating wings of 2 below since they
donot really understand science for themselves.
2. Who are scientific and can understand and accept the limitations of an
absolute materialism philosophy.
The God of Absolute materialism becomes the god since that is the
mechanism of causation.
3 Or who perhaps otherwise are avoiding stuff or are being
insincere for whatever reason.
4.Perhaps you really do believe in the God of no causation but I think we know
more than that.


Not threatened by atheist or adherent.
Call it a survey, What really really makes you tick the atheist box on census night? Please do not say.. I have no attitude about god

I have learnt atheists do not appreciate the likes of me poking around in their stuff very much. The faster and more vehement the response - the bigger the attitude.

Poke around all you like, it is entertaining.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hi,

It takes big nuts to wander in and call all atheists that they are
mistaken about themselves and the universe.

Atheists either are:
1. Remaining ignorant about themselves and their true position in the cosmos.
These believers fall under the accommodating wings of 2 below since they
donot really understand science for themselves.
2. Who are scientific and can understand and accept the limitations of an
absolute materialism philosophy.
The God of Absolute materialism becomes the god since that is the
mechanism of causation.
3 Or who perhaps otherwise are avoiding stuff or are being
insincere for whatever reason.
4.Perhaps you really do believe in the God of no causation but I think we know
more than that.


Not threatened by atheist or adherent.
Call it a survey, What really really makes you tick the atheist box on census night? Please do not say.. I have no attitude about god

I have learnt atheists do not appreciate the likes of me poking around in their stuff very much. The faster and more vehement the response - the bigger the attitude.

1. I do not appreciate being called ignorant just because I do not believe that deities exist. And even if they do, it doesn't mean that "our place" in the universe has anything to do with them, let alone that your personal ideal has any merit.
2. Science doesn't cover that which cannot be observed. Gods fall into that category.
3. Why would anyone be insincere in the direction of pretending to be an atheist? We are one of the most hated groups throughout history, there isn't any benefit to pretending to be an atheist.
4. Atheists like myself do not believe in gods, and I certainly don't think that their existence would solve any causation problems.

 

[SuperCloud]

Well... I have encountered atheists bent on promoting Buddhism that have stated "not all religions believe in a God" and then point to Buddhism.

Which depending on what school of Buddhism you are talking about they would be correct.

So, Buddhism is a philosophy and moral philosophy they might argue. Again, very true.

So, yeah, atheists if they have deep convictions, moral views, are religious.

I think each individual creates their own religion.

 

[True Scotsman]

I really don't understand why some people are so set upon "identifying" in what category others may or may not fit into.

What are your reasons ? I'd be interested on you elaborating if you wish.

There are a couple of posters who will pop up that I suspect are socks of Gotts. I singled one out the other day and never saw a follow up.

My reason for calling it invalid? There is no objective reference. It is a floating abstraction.

 

[TillICollapse]

My reason for calling it invalid? There is no objective reference. It is a floating abstraction.

So it needs a referent IOW ?

 

[KEBO12345]

Okay, thanks for the feedback.

Thought I would give you some backdround on this topic.
I spend time in the bath reading cosmology, evolution, quantum
mechanics and modern mysticism.
I was reading away, a book called Radical Nature by De Quincey PhD.
Reading about the world history of philosophy and cosmologies way back to
Pythagoras and before.

Since Des Cartes in the 1600's the default world view for world view has been
dualism and separation. Religion jumped on board and the rest was history.

Then it looked at world view present science and the universe is presented as
Absolute Materialism. Where mechanism can be explained from matter without
spirit resulting in emergence problems.
This is what I would call the default God for atheists, It is the default negative for science
the search for mechanism in matter). By the way it is not sciences fault that it has a default
negative method and this precludes Gods up till lately. Now Q Mechanics has upset the apple cart.

If the atheist community had not stopped thinking, the world atheist view, had it done its homework,
would have moved on by now to a different philosophy - Panpsychism. Where matter has spirit all
the way down.
But the problem with them doing that is that Panpsychism involves a creator.
A god where Absolute materialism never called for a God.

The God of Panpsychism is the subjectivity found in all energy and matter.
It is monism where ultimately there is only one type of thing.
e.g. An orbiting electron has no choice but to have a choice,
(about its orbit or spin).
While this is an example of subjectivity or consciousness is it causation?
Yes!
How? Because the system chooses the events itself.
it 'goes off'similar to a lump of radioactive isotope decaying.
We know when an atom will disintegrate on probability.
But we do not know which atom will disintegrate the matter decides that

And if this new science is correct, then it is direct disproof of every
other religion including atheism, save a couple. End of story?

A light bulb bathtime moment.
Hope this helps to understand this thread

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why would God need to be limited to the supernatural world?

To distinguish God from something as mundane as a rock rolling downhill.

God becomes an entirely superfluous concept if it is simply associated with the natural world. There is no need for the concept anymore.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

To distinguish God from something as mundane as a rock rolling downhill.

God becomes an entirely superfluous concept if it is simply associated with the natural world. There is no need for the concept anymore.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Sometimes I think we atheists take the concept of deities more serious than the theists.

 

[mrjackshagflashback]

atheism is of the devil

 

[Archaeopteryx]

atheism is of the devil

Thanks for contributing.

 

[True Scotsman]

So it needs a referent IOW ?

Yes, the concept is completely subjective, formed by looking inward to the imagination, not outward to reality.

Edit: Also TillICollapse, The concept contains elements that directly contradict facts of reality which also makes it an invalid concept. That fact of reality that the concept contradicts is the primacy of existence, something which is directly observable. It does this by supposing that a god created the universe by an act of conscious will. This claimed attribute is a direct contradiction of the orientation between consciousness and reality that can be observed and validated in every case of a consciousness' relationship to its objects.

 

[Celticflower]

Sometimes I think we atheists take the concept of deities more serious than the theists.

Some so vocally it makes one wonder why they are so afraid of something/one they claim to not believe in.

Other than that, I am content to let atheist be what they are. Arguing with them, trying to convince them etc generally prove fruitless. But my actions and attitudes toward them are no different than towards any other person - I will act in love and let my actions speak for me and my beliefs.