Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?

[uwot]

All of them?

[Walker]

I wonder why atheists have such a propensity to be vulgar.

The existence of atheism is premised on negation.
Atheism negates theism.
Atheism only exists to negate theism.
No theism, no atheism.

Vulgarity drops the pretense of non-negation.

[uwot]

The existence of atheism is premised on negation.
Atheism negates theism.
Atheism only exists to negate theism.

No it doesn't. I have no idea whether your god exists, but like the majority of people on the planet, I don't believe it. But like you, I don't believe anyone else's god exists.

[Walker]

The existence of atheism is premised on negation.
Atheism negates theism.
Atheism only exists to negate theism.

No it doesn't. I have no idea whether your god exists, but like the majority of people on the planet, I don't believe it. But like you, I don't believe anyone else's god exists.

Sure it does. *
This is denoted by the –a- that precedes theism.

Same for ahimsa.
It exists to negate himsa.

Silly wabbit.
Folks don't own god.


* This is why atheists talk about God so much.

[Dubious]

Without theism having preceded it by millennia atheism wouldn't be necessary or even understood as a concept. Theism is the cause of atheism being its negation.

My point exactly. Religion must ever be it’s own critic and judge, but failing in that, outside forces come to bear that compels religion to look at itself in a mirror. So although atheism is not a bad thing, it serves no useful purpose inasmuch religion takes responsibility for itself.

By "serving no useful purpose" based on its indifference it, at the very least, causes no harm to society; yet there still remains a residual amount of theism in atheism since one must consciously and purposely renounce millennial beliefs which is not the same as never having considered any such in the first place. A long bout of theism doesn't disappear after just one hangover.

Also, religion seldom takes responsibility for itself by its own initiative. It's usually due to outside pressures not unlike politics - which in great measure religion is about - anchored by a very secular type of bureaucracy. Secularism actually necessitates looking in the mirror since the secular is controlled by humans and not by any self-proclaimed infallibility which rarely recognizes the need to do so until it compromises credibility.

[uwot]

Atheism only exists to negate theism.

No it doesn't.

Sure it does. *
* This is why atheists talk about God so much.

No it isn't. The reason atheists talk about god so much is that some theists believe that their god demands that we behave in a particular way. I have no problem with people believing what they will, but if they believe that gives them the right take away my freedom to think for myself, they need to demonstrate that their god actually exists.

[Walker]

The dichotomy of Enlightenment and Sharia.

[uwot]

The dichotomy of Enlightenment and Sharia.

I take it you are not referring to this Enlightenment:
"The Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason; in French: le Siècle des Lumières, lit. '"the Century of Lights"' in German: Aufklärung, "Enlightenment" and in Italian: L’Illuminismo, “Enlightenment”) was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 18th century, "The Century of Philosophy".
The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centred on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

[Walker]

Don't know why you would take it the wrong way, since it's capitalized.

[Nick_A]

Greta

You are deluded to believe you have anything whatsoever to do with the potential of humans with your current approach (one cannot discount, and indeed hope for, future growth in you, unlikely as that seems). Your mediocrity shines out with a crassness as unmistakeable as your shameless use of clichés. Humanity's potential is probably not going to stem from the trivial burblings of trolls like you.

I have been discovered. The lunacy of my trivial burblings has been revealed. My love for freedom can only be attributed to mediocrity. Who am I to say two plus two make four? It isn’t my decision to make. Only the God of the Great Beast has the intelligence to deal with these matters.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell, 1984

I am as slow learner. The experts try. Greta frowns. Oprah cries, but somehow I am opposed to the indoctrination of progressive education even though it is for my own good. A sure sign of selfish insanity. Greta claims there is still hope for me. I don’t know. I’m a tough sell.

“You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[Nick_A]

Greta

Still, for many in the world, prayer is perhaps their best option in the dangerous future. However, some of us are lucky enough to have lives that can be faced directly without filtering through emotionally inoculating Abrahamic myths. Once one opens their eyes to reality they can't close them again and return to the myths any more than we can re-believe in Santa.

But you are incapable of witnessing external life objectively without filtering and have no idea why. You even openly support the collective denial of this potential in favor of imaginary beliefs glorifying the fallen human condition. Denial of objective human meaning and purpose requires the void to be filled with arguments over subjective meaning and purpose and the eventual supremacy of your God of the Great Beast which I don't believe in.

[uwot]

Don't know why you would take it the wrong way, since it's capitalized.

Well, since you claim it is a dichotomy, I gather from what you write that you are a conservative theist, that you have a very low opinion of people who disagree with you, and don't that you feel any that there is any value using reason, rather than someone who subscribes to "ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state." In other words, since there are only two options, you favour Sharia over Enlightenment.

[Walker]

Don't know why you would take it the wrong way, since it's capitalized.

Well, since you claim it is a dichotomy, I gather from what you write that you are a conservative theist, that you have a very low opinion of people who disagree with you, and don't that you feel any that there is any value using reason, rather than someone who subscribes to "ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state." In other words, since there are only two options, you favour Sharia over Enlightenment.

Hardly.
Don't confuse words with reality and then dump the resulting slime on me.

The intolerance of modern liberalism* has much more in common with Sharia than it does with The Enlightenment.

Examples: Those in academia and the media mostly identify as liberal. Academia and media are notoriously intolerant, for no good (rational) reason.


* Much of the liberal’s intolerance is based on hypocrisy, supported by the ends justifies the means. Just look at all the high-profile media liberals falling under the Me-Too sword. They attacked Trump because he said the word “pussy,” and all the while these folks were walking the talk they attacked.

[uwot]

Don't confuse words with reality and then dump the resulting slime on me.

Well, if you have no intention of being understood, you can remove words from reality as far as you please.

The intolerance of modern liberalism* has much more in common with Sharia than it does with The Enlightenment.
Examples: Those in academia and the media mostly identify as liberal. Academia and media are notoriously intolerant, for no good (rational) reason.

Just saying so is not an example. Can you provide some actual evidence? It is true that there have been some cases of students refusing to allow some speakers onto campus. It is also true that some staff have been cowardly in not standing up to an assault on freedom of speech, but to infer that all of academia has more in common with Sharia than the Enlightenment is absurd. As for the media, where exactly did you get the information that the media is biased, if not from the media?

* Much of the liberal’s intolerance is based on hypocrisy, supported by the ends justifies the means. Just look at all the high-profile media liberals falling under the Me-Too sword.

Again; can you back this up with evidence?

They attacked Trump because he said the word “pussy,” and all the while these folks were walking the talk they attacked.

That kind of stuff happens. You attacked me, for instance, and in fact all atheists for being 'vulgar'. Shouldn't you also attack Trump?

[Nick_A]

Enlightenment - the secular progressive mind - hypocrisy.

"Anyone attempting to deceive the public by equating these three variables into one undeniable truth will be convicted of disturbing the peace and shot on sight."

This proclamation has been authorized and signed by the Chairman of the Dept. of Peace and Love.