Atheism and Its Disinformation

from JoeUser Forums
Except for the a posteriori contingencies of facts and fantasies, attributed to the works of God, it is ludicrous for one to announce his atheism and even then its posture has no meaning. The so-called atheist himself is subject to the same existential litter that all of us are exposed to. He may rightfully denounce them but he cannot logically renounce the underpinnings of what we experience; for, they did not — contrary to the Bible’s postulate that in the beginning there was nothing — develop out of a pure vacuum free of , however seemingly erratic, becoming élan vital which has always subsisted and always will.

The “atheist” and deist alike presuppose an existence of time; thereby they base their views on a procession that entails cause and effect. The atheist assumes that folding back time will reveal nothing or radical chance; the deist folds back to a most perfect being directing the drama from opening to closing the curtain on existence and gives way to pure spirit but wrongly immersed in time. Both are wrong as the underlayment of the universe is without time, which is the pure meaning of eternity. Even pedestrian eternal time would entail contingencies that would ineluctably eventuate the end of time. Pure eternity entertains no such fallacy; it is, simply, is. Moses got it right when asking for God’s identity the reply was “He Who is.”

The “atheist”, in addition, is on shaky ground when he denies a god of absolute being; for this renegade himself would not have the audacity to proclaim “I am that I am,” thus responsible, as it were, for the creation of himself. Of course, in the realm of existential contingencies — dealing with chop logic of daily living — he is free, though under a pretended label, to assault the false gods, cults and idols at will but in reality he is not negating a supreme power, but rather the frills and hopes of traditional religion, and its spin-offs, that have created anthropomorphic god and gods meddling with destiny.

“Atheism,” then — implying the non-existence of a timeless subsistence — is itself non-existent. It is simply an iconoclastic assault on sanctities invented by the variable cultures in history and therefore must be limited and relegated to the pejorative that only divine contingencies of this world are false gods — and the atheist is one of them.

 

  

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 10, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

philosophy
16,459 views 40 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow, steven...a piece where we can both agree 100%...lol

I have always held with the view that (as some philosopher unbeknownst to me first stated, but without my added qualifier), the only intellectually defensible position absent faith is agnosticism (italicized words added). Whether your faith is in existence or nonexistence of God, you cannot absolutely defend any position but agnosticism without first adding the component of faith.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, yes, safe to sit on the fence, though hard on the ass.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
So Atheism is self contradictory?  INteresting.  That could be why they are so afraid of the mention of God.  Even tho they scream there is none.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
They deny the existence of what'cha 'm call it. 
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting. I won't be a troll, but aren't you making some a priori assumptions about time?

I was listening the other day to a theoretical physicist talk about branes and how gravity as an exception to the usual rules of force can be explained because it originates "elsewhere", i.e. is an interdimensional force that weakens as it is outside our usual dimension and is a force that exerts itself from a distance.

Pondering this, I was forced to wonder if there is any such thing as time at all, frankly. We are stuck in this "time as a river" philosophy because we are inside it. Someone of limited perception, floating down a river, might percieve reality as the land moving past them.

It seems at least ponderable that we, being immersed in the dimension itself, might be suffering from our own limited perceptions of it. Like Plato's poor souls forced to stare at a wall all the time, one has to wonder if we aren't just making assumptions about forces we are seeing that originate outside our awareness.

Couldn't we, floating along in time, be making a false assumption that reality is a one-way affair? "Eternity" might just be the absence of linear time, mightn't it? Given that, I don't think we can really do much but note the effects and make an educated guess. After all, our perceptions of the shape of the earth and the orbit of the planets and stars changed as we were able to shift our vantage point. We have a pretty a priori vantage point regarding time, too, don't we?

Or I could be full of crap. Or both.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Couldn't we, floating along in time, be making a false assumption that reality is a one-way affair? "Eternity" might just be the absence of linear time, mightn't it? Given that, I don't think we can really do much but note the effects and make an educated guess. After all, our perceptions of the shape of the earth and the orbit of the planets and stars changed as we were able to shift our vantage point.


You’re right, our perceptions change depending on our vantage point. There should be at least one vantage point, somewhere in eternity, from where we can see the full picture, (or at least where we can see a large glimpse of the full picture.) Our present physical realm isn't the best place to get a reasonable picture, because we're confined in a human body, looking out through the barred cage of an earthly personality.

But it's our consciousness that ultimately sees, comprehends, experiences, and understands. So imagine the seat of our consciousness, or our soul, existing in another dimension, clothed in a different kind of body, where we can see through enlightened eyes. In this eternal Creation we will be closer to God, and this is what I believe, (no, I know), awaits us beyond the veil of death. We’re in this present physical realm for a sacred purpose, and death is just a big, fat illusion.

“For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.
For what is it to cease breathing but to free the breath from its restless tides,
That it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered?
For when you have reached the mountaintop, then you shall begin to climb.”

- Kahlil Gibran, ‘The Prophet’
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
So Atheism is self contradictory? INteresting. That could be why they are so afraid of the mention of God. Even tho they scream there is none.


We are not afraid to metion or the mention of God at all. Watch this: God, God, God, God, God...etc. See? No problem. The problem is, in an atheist's frame of reference, God does not exist. How are we to sincerely discuss something that does not exist? It's impossible for me as an atheist to debate something that isn't there.


BTW. God, God, God, God, God, God, God,...God. I can still do it. You try it, I bet I won't be afraid of it at all.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

BTW. God, God, God, God, God, God, God,...God. I can still do it. You try it, I bet I won't be afraid of it at all.

Clarification: Militant Atheists.  The ones that want to banish the word from the language.  Sorry I did not make that clarification better in my original post.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
We’re in this present physical realm for a sacred purpose, and death is just a big, fat illusion.
So, too, could your hopes and faith, I humbly and respectfully submit.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Or I could be full of crap. Or both." spoken like a true James Joycian Catholic.
Given that, I don't think we can really do much but note the effects and make an educated guess.
Damn, the fate of a priori !
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

How are we to sincerely discuss something that does not exist? It's impossible for me as an atheist to debate something that isn't there.
Precisely, and why atheism is a non-entity in itself.

We are not afraid to metion or the mention of God at all. Watch this: God, God, God, God, God...etc. See? No problem.
Except that you spell it backwards.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
We’re in this present physical realm for a sacred purpose, and death is just a big, fat illusion.


So, too, could your hopes and faith, I humbly and respectfully submit.


You're completely right Steven. I trust that they're not. (I was speaking from within the context of my own subjective stance. In the face of eternity, or 'the Infinite', all our suggestions about life's larger questions are subjective. However, some of our suggestions may be more aligned with 'what is so' than others. I believe that it's possible to get in touch with inner wisdom and intution in order to determine whether our ladder is against the right wall.)
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe that it's possible to get in touch with inner wisdom and intution in order to determine whether our ladder is against the right wall


I'll add here that if people attempt to get in touch with their "inner wisdom and intution", then different people will naturally come to different conclusions, (hence the existence of atheism.) But why is this so? I believe that it's simply a question of spiritual growth. We're all at different points in our spiritual development, and therefore we all have different points of view regarding life's deeper questions and the existence of God.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Damn, the fate of a priori !"


I dunno, is an educated guess worthy enough to declare everyone else "wrong", though? Since we're speaking philosophically, it seems like you are just introducing a third stolid perspective, equally blinded by "certainty"...
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

We're all at different points in our spiritual development, and therefore we all have different points of view regarding life's deeper questions and the existence of God.
unfortunately, televangelists wouldn't agree, when set in concrete there is no growth. 

I believe that it's possible to get in touch with inner wisdom and intution in order to determine whether our ladder is against the right wall.)
I like the imagery.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
dunno, is an educated guess worthy enough to declare everyone else "wrong", though? Since we're speaking philosophically, it seems like you are just introducing a third stolid perspective, equally blinded by "certainty"...
Stolid indeed but not to offend but to postulate a concept whether a priori or educated certainty is never the intent as the others claim.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wanted to comment to give you points and let you know that I attempted to read this but it's too out there for my wee little brain. I tried though!

Your Santa one was more my level!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wanted to comment to give you points and let you know that I attempted to read this but it's too out there for my wee little brain. I tried though!

Your Santa one was more my level!


A child-like faith is a real blessing. Spiritual simplicity, humble trust, and a warm heart is a true virtue, in my view.

We're all at different points in our spiritual development, and therefore we all have different points of view regarding life's deeper questions and the existence of God.


unfortunately, televangelists wouldn't agree, when set in concrete there is no growth.


You're right. Many people would disagree with it, because we all have different points of view. From my own point of view, religious fundamenalists (the narrow minded ones with no tolerance), are the youngest of the lot. Just because a person believes in God doesn't mean that their faith is mature or their concept of Ultimate Reality is sound.

is an educated guess worthy enough to declare everyone else "wrong


I don't think that anything is worthy of declaring a person "wrong", (especially when talking about deeper issues of existence or the purpose / non-purpose of life.) Whatever people believe, from their own model of their world they are "right". It's just that people who believe that there is no intrinsic purpose to life have room for growth, in my view. Those who believe in a God of unconditional love and who are able to exercise unconditional love are are on the ball.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, yes, safe to sit on the fence, though hard on the ass.


. No fence sitting here. I believe very firmly in God, but that belief is reinforced by my FAITH, not supported or refuted by "facts" which can be twisted easily.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clarification: Militant Atheists. The ones that want to banish the word from the language.


or, my preferred term, Antitheists.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

or, my preferred term, Antitheists.

You do come up with some of the best terms!

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. Sit and brew on that one a bit.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wanted to comment to give you points and let you know that I attempted to read this but it's too out there for my wee little brain. I tried though!


Thanks for the effort; don't feel bad I tend to get too heavy.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some of us just go one god further.
like the Tai, Nirvana and the One? But I guess you mean the one and only, eh?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Antitheists.
Nope, doesn't work; just as militant as Guy's, I'd prefer the more tranquil approach of nonsense-theists.