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

[uwot]

An atheist is someone who - through intelligence and sound reasoning - has managed to dismiss the ridiculous visions of God handed down to us from ancient minds (especially those of the Abrahamic religions),...

...only to find himself/herself in the awkward position of worshiping at the altar of a god who is infinitely more preposterous than those alluded to above.

In other words, an atheist...

...by reason of his/her lack of belief in something conscious and intelligent presiding over the creation of the universe...

...is someone who (by default) must therefore believe in a god called “CHANCE.”

Indeed, the atheist’s deep and reverential faith in their invisible and bumbling god of serendipitous processes would put to shame the most devout theist.

You too, seeds? Don't you think there are enough people on this forum who cannot construct a reasoned argument and resort to 'Well we may be dumb, but you're even dumber'?

[Walker]

The Good Book appears to be a “secular version” of The Bible (KJV).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Book_(book)

That's pretty good.


Since it's secular, is it suitable for use in the government schools that confuse promoting religion with repressing religion?

[seeds]

I just have one question for the theists in this forum:

Why build a mansion to house a bacteria?

When you consider the vastness of space, and our tiny little planet, it seems rediculous to think it plays the lead role, doesn't it?

Clearly, you have not given much consideration to the vastness of the human mind.

Here's a picture that shows 200 light years (extend of human radio broadcast) in our galaxy.
Remember, there are billions of galaxies, this is just one:

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com/RDM2011 ... axyBig.jpg

Of course that's not “our” galaxy in the picture you linked to, but it’s a good visualization tool for getting your point across.

It seems I’ve had this conversation with Dubious a while back...

...Nevertheless, name just one single purpose that the billions of galaxies would have if you were to remove all traces of life and consciousness from the universe.
_______

Would it even exist?

I was responding to QuantumT’s incredulousness in wondering how there could be any significance to our existence when, compared to all of the billions of galaxies of the universe, we appear to be nothing more than “bacteria.”

So I was hoping (seeing how he imparts upon them such a great deal of importance) that he could provide us with some sort of logical reason for the existence of untold trillions of solar systems if indeed life and consciousness did not exist.

In the meantime, to address your relevant and observant question of...

“would it...” (the universe) “...even exist?” (sans life)

...I suggest that the answer is no.
_______

[seeds]

You too, seeds? Don't you think there are enough people on this forum who cannot construct a reasoned argument and resort to 'Well we may be dumb, but you're even dumber'?

Setting aside the fact that we are all indeed quite ignorant (in the dark) when it comes to the deepest philosophical mysteries of how and why we are here...

...please point out what aspect of my argument demonstrates a failure in reasoning.
_______

[Eodnhoj7]

Atheism's logic of negation, is dependent upon a continual redefinition of God in the respect negation only occurs if something exists. Atheism inevitably results in religion as it acts as a negative boundary which paradoxically forms it. To say God does not exist because of "x" requires a continual chain of arguments claiming God does not exist because of "x1,x2,x3 ad-infinitum" which in effect continually redefines God.

I agree with your premise. The very act of negating is creating. Nothing can be ruled out. Reality cannot experience it's own absence.

Which in effect means God cannot be defined. God being a pet name for 'Source'

All conceptual ideas regarding 'Source' can be negated and refuted except ''Source Itself'' which is the source of all conceptual ideas, so has to be and IS without doubt or error. For Source is self evident.

It seems Source has given itself the pet name ''God''. Source being the ultimate original Father from which all offspring are sired as desire. From Source to Source an endless spring. There is no 'thing' that is not Source.

Conceptual labels are metaphors for describing and giving structure to this ineffable unknown Reality that is life living itself, therefore the story imposed upon Reality via conceptual ideas is a fiction running through it appearing in it, as phenomena impossible to separate from the noumenon.

To deny Source is impossible for that which would be denying Source is Sourced in Source itself. And so any denial would defeat the object.

All I know is I don't know.I don't even know what doesn't know.Just all this,happening by itself.

Just THIS...nothing to refute, negate, understand, or get. Just THIS. Being.

The more added to infinity is just more paint on the screen of awareness being. Infinity is an endless spring.

We know it's endless, because there is no knowledge of beginnings.



.

God may not be able to be "defined", but saying what "God cannot be" automatically gives a form of definition in itself. This is called apophatic theology, where cataphatic would be observe positive definitions. Ideally the synthesis between the two would result in the definition of God strictly as...well...God, for as simple as this may sound.

[uwot]

You too, seeds? Don't you think there are enough people on this forum who cannot construct a reasoned argument and resort to 'Well we may be dumb, but you're even dumber'?

Setting aside the fact that we are all indeed quite ignorant (in the dark) when it comes to the deepest philosophical mysteries of how and why we are here...

You're quite right, we are all in the dark about how we are here, but that is no reason to stop looking. Why is a loaded question that may simply not have an answer. But again, no harm looking; well, unless you conclude that it is to please some god who wants us to insult or even kill unbelievers.

..please point out what aspect of my argument demonstrates a failure in reasoning.

An atheist is someone who - through intelligence and sound reasoning - has managed to dismiss the ridiculous visions of God handed down to us from ancient minds (especially those of the Abrahamic religions),...

...only to find himself/herself in the awkward position of worshiping at the altar of a god who is infinitely more preposterous than those alluded to above.

In other words theists may be dumb, but atheists are even dumber.

In other words, an atheist...
...by reason of his/her lack of belief in something conscious and intelligent presiding over the creation of the universe...
...is someone who (by default) must therefore believe in a god called “CHANCE.”
Indeed, the atheist’s deep and reverential faith in their invisible and bumbling god of serendipitous processes would put to shame the most devout theist.

As I have said before, atheism does not imply any commitment to believing that one or other god does not exist. There is a difference between:
I don't believe that god exists.
and
I believe that god doesn't exist.
While some might assert the latter, which is foolish, because you cannot prove a negative, it is the former that defines atheism. Not understanding the difference is a failure in reasoning, but to invent and then ridicule a non-exist "deep and reverential faith" should embarrass you. I don't believe you are so cheap.

[QuantumT]

I believe that our universe is inside a "different universe". In that universe God could exist.

But in our universe: No way!

So, as an atheist, I do not dismiss Gods existence, I just find "his" presense, in our universe, to be extremely unlikely (close to impossible).

[Nick_A]

I believe that our universe is inside a "different universe". In that universe God could exist.

But in our universe: No way!

So, as an atheist, I do not dismiss Gods existence, I just find "his" presense, in our universe, to be extremely unlikely (close to impossible).

But why must God exist at all? What if God IS? Existence is a process. Isness is a state of being. What if the eternal process of existence bounded by time and space takes place within Isness beyond the limitations of time and space? Then the source is not in the universe. The universe is within NOW - the Source. Gods are within the universe while the Source is beyond its limitations.

There is no reason to intellectually believe or deny it. However there is reason to remain consciously open to a quality of conscious contemplation uniquely human which consciously strives to unite above and below..

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." ~ Simone Weil

The universe is always in the process of becoming while the Source is the eternal unchanging NOW which is impossible for us as part of the process.

[QuantumT]

But why must God exist at all? What if God IS?

IS = To exist

[Nick_A]

But why must God exist at all? What if God IS?

IS = To exist

NOW IS but does it exist?

[QuantumT]

NOW IS but does it exist?

NOW = The current point in space-time. So yes! NOW exists! But it is replaced constantly by a new NOW.

[Nick_A]

NOW IS but does it exist?

NOW = The current point in space-time. So yes! NOW exists!

To know it exists, you must be able to measure it. How big or how small is NOW? Is it the same for all people? Is now experienced by a person a mile away the same as your current point? If not, then this point cannot be said to objectively exist in time and space. Yet somehow we intuitively know it is real.

[QuantumT]

To know it exists, you must be able to measure it. How big or how small is NOW? Is it the same for all people? Is now experienced by a person a mile away the same as your current point? If not, then this point cannot be said to objectively exist in time and space. Yet somehow we intuitively know it is real.

Jeez, you are persistent! NOW = the whole universe!

[Nick_A]

To know it exists, you must be able to measure it. How big or how small is NOW? Is it the same for all people? Is now experienced by a person a mile away the same as your current point? If not, then this point cannot be said to objectively exist in time and space. Yet somehow we intuitively know it is real.

Jeez, you are persistent! NOW = the whole universe!

First you called it a point which apparently has evolved to become the whole universe. If the whole universe is NOW then what is not NOW?

[QuantumT]

First you called it a point which apparently has evolved to become the whole universe. If the whole universe is NOW then what is not NOW?

Time is a part of the universe as a whole. Therefore NOW is the current point in space-time of the whole universe.