Who Really is an Atheist?

[uwot]

As I've said, the young are inflicted with the negativity of both blind believers and blind deniers.

And as I have said, you are mythologizing. You have created a narrative to fit you own poor grasp of reality (and English: you mean 'afflicted'). Have you actually looked at the curriculum of any 'institute of child abuse called school' lately, or seen any teaching? You can only believe your own nonsense because you are either too lazy or too stupid to do any research. If you actually took a peek at the real world, you would see that it is very different to your dystopian phantasm.

You can tell an eight year old boy about orgasms and explain scientifically what they are but it is all meaningless until he has one. Metanoia or the change of inner direction towards the light is the same thing.

Exactly the same is true of psychotic episodes. What did you experience that could persuade an eight year old that it was one rather than the other?

Until a person experiences it and what it invites, the struggle between blind belief and blind denial will interpret it into oblivion...

This is gibberish; until a person experiences it, there is no it to interpret.

...for themselves and others they draw into this meaningless battle.

It is your thread. If it is meaningless, why did you start it?

[uwot]

The quote speaks of intent and I'll just leave it at that, to give your transmission the silence and time that it deserves.

If it's all the same to you, I would rather you defend, or qualify, your assertion that "Atheists are destroyers".

[Arising_uk]

But unlike atheism which turns outward and relies on theists for existence, ....

You keep thinking that atheism exists as a constant thought? Now it might for the ex-theists but for atheists like me it's just no thought of 'God or God's', Hindu or not.

[Nick_A]

Uwot wrote Nick_A wrote:Until a person experiences it and what it invites, the struggle between blind belief and blind denial will interpret it into oblivion...

This is gibberish; until a person experiences it, there is no it to interpret.

Nick_A wrote:...for themselves and others they draw into this meaningless battle.

It is your thread. If it is meaningless, why did you start it?

This is what I mean by blind denial. How do you know there is no “it” to interpret? All you can say is that you haven’t experienced it. Only blind denial allows you to say you are the final authority.

Why must the young suffer from a meaningless battle? An open minded person will have that question and be open to contemplate it. A blind denier will just ridicule the question and the possibility that both blind believers and blind deniers are missing the mark.

No human being escapes the necessity of conceiving some good outside himself towards which his thought turns in a movement of desire, supplication, and hope. consequently, the only choice is between worshipping the true God or an idol. Evey atheist is an idolater--unless he is worshipping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters.
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 308

Blind believers and blind deniers will openly reject Simone’s profound observation. Yet the young who have not yet been spiritually killed may be open to it. Who supports them; surely not the blind believers and blind deniers.

[sthitapragya]

Nope. Just telling you that everything you think you know and atheists don't, we already know. We grew out of it. You still need to know more. Only then will you be able to rid yourselves of your grown up's Santa Clause. Till you need the crutches, you will remained tied to Santa.

Quite often those wearing the been-there-done-that-T-shirt (sometimes over their reactionary Che shirt) start calling folks their son when there is no actual blood relation, at least not since Noah got to know Mrs. Noah, if you kinda knowa that story. Got that label up your sleeve, wise one?

Oh, the chihuahua is back.

[sthitapragya]

Uwot wrote Nick_A wrote:Until a person experiences it and what it invites, the struggle between blind belief and blind denial will interpret it into oblivion...

This is gibberish; until a person experiences it, there is no it to interpret.

Nick_A wrote:...for themselves and others they draw into this meaningless battle.

It is your thread. If it is meaningless, why did you start it?

This is what I mean by blind denial. How do you know there is no “it” to interpret? All you can say is that you haven’t experienced it. Only blind denial allows you to say you are the final authority.

Why must the young suffer from a meaningless battle? An open minded person will have that question and be open to contemplate it. A blind denier will just ridicule the question and the possibility that both blind believers and blind deniers are missing the mark.

No human being escapes the necessity of conceiving some good outside himself towards which his thought turns in a movement of desire, supplication, and hope. consequently, the only choice is between worshipping the true God or an idol. Evey atheist is an idolater--unless he is worshipping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters.
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 308

Blind believers and blind deniers will openly reject Simone’s profound observation. Yet the young who have not yet been spiritually killed may be open to it. Who supports them; surely not the blind believers and blind deniers.

Would you be considered a blind denier of Santa Claus? And you still have to explain how you know God is beyond space and time.

[Nick_A]

sthit wrote: Would you be considered a blind denier of Santa Claus? And you still have to explain how you know God is beyond space and time.

Blind denial is an emotional reaction as opposed to intellectual denial in which emotion plays a minority role. A person cannot intellectually deny a source for creation yet they can emotionally deny it. Denying Santa is not an emotional reaction but an intellectual one easy to verify.

God or the Source cannot be within Time and Space since it would equate God with created things subject to the laws of time and space.

[sthitapragya]

sthit wrote: Would you be considered a blind denier of Santa Claus? And you still have to explain how you know God is beyond space and time.

Blind denial is an emotional reaction as opposed to intellectual denial in which emotion plays a minority role. A person cannot intellectually deny a source for creation yet they can emotionally deny it. Denying Santa is not an emotional reaction but an intellectual one easy to verify.

God or the Source cannot be within Time and Space since it would equate God with created things subject to the laws of time and space.

How is it easy to verify that Santa does not exist? What is intellectual about your theory that God cannot be within time and space so He has to be beyond it? If God cannot be within time and space, intellectually you can only conclude that he cannot exist. Your emotional need for him to exist makes you come up with the theory that He exists beyond it even if you intellectually know that such a thing as existing beyond time and space is not possible. Essentially you are attributing God with magic, which is a childish and emotional response. In your own words, it is blind belief.

And one can easily deny a source of creation. If God does not need to be created, neither does the universe. If creation is essential, then the question always remains, who created God? Remove the need for creation and God becomes redundant.

[uwot]

This is what I mean by blind denial. How do you know there is no “it” to interpret?

Don't be silly, 'it' is the experience. What is there to interpret if there is no experience?

All you can say is that you haven’t experienced it. Only blind denial allows you to say you are the final authority.

Who else is better qualified to say what I have experienced?

Why must the young suffer from a meaningless battle?

Who here is of school age? Again, what practise have you witnessed that concerns you? With what authority do you speak? You are mythologising; making up a reality that you could easily falsify by actually looking.

An open minded person will have that question and be open to contemplate it.

As I have said, atheism is nothing to do with the openness of one's mind, it is simply the conclusion that anything presented as evidence for god has a much more plausible, natural, explanation.

[Walker]

The quote speaks of intent and I'll just leave it at that, to give your transmission the silence and time that it deserves.

If it's all the same to you, I would rather you defend, or qualify, your assertion that "Atheists are destroyers".

It’s a simple observation. An atheist can only self-identify as such when God is not. Remove God from language and sight when possible. Disallow words and symbols when possible through activism. If God talk appears in debate, take the negative position and destroy the validity of the positive position. This “destructive mentality” applied to the actions of others can be likened to an interpretation of jihad that says what must be destroyed is external, not internal.

Don't be offended. Cynics and skeptics are also destroyers.

[Walker]

Nope. Just telling you that everything you think you know and atheists don't, we already know. We grew out of it. You still need to know more. Only then will you be able to rid yourselves of your grown up's Santa Clause. Till you need the crutches, you will remained tied to Santa.

Quite often those wearing the been-there-done-that-T-shirt (sometimes over their reactionary Che shirt) start calling folks their son when there is no actual blood relation, at least not since Noah got to know Mrs. Noah, if you kinda knowa that story. Got that label up your sleeve, wise one?

Oh, the chihuahua is back.

You got no game. You can bank on the fact that indulgences in your ass-sniffing proclivity that you must project onto others will soon evolve into fewer.

[Walker]

sthit wrote: Would you be considered a blind denier of Santa Claus? And you still have to explain how you know God is beyond space and time.

Blind denial is an emotional reaction as opposed to intellectual denial in which emotion plays a minority role. A person cannot intellectually deny a source for creation yet they can emotionally deny it. Denying Santa is not an emotional reaction but an intellectual one easy to verify.

God or the Source cannot be within Time and Space since it would equate God with created things subject to the laws of time and space.

The syllogism of the blind denier.
All theists are delusional.
Atheists are not theists.
Atheists are not delusional.

A blind denier can glimpse errors in the integrity of his/her (PC her/his) thinking through the intellectual detachment of switching debate positions without taking a dive. (Ever notice how bowing to PC is dancing in shit-kicker shoes like a farmer?(figuratively speaking)).

This method of "walking in another's shoes" also has the potential to disrupt the atheist's tired-old reality filter that insists Philosophy is an assertion of personal belief, and the method can/has the potential to break away some encrusted calcification blocking the view, a blockage that makes one's personal view the absolute of the universe.

Einstein was right. To be a plumber is preferable. Thus to be a better liver, one should be a plumber and apply the skills internally, not externally as would a fundamentalist interpreting metaphor literally. (This last paragraph is to entertain any lingering ass-sniffers who whine of confusion).

[Walker]

After pausing in silence, we read again.

sthit wrote: Would you be considered a blind denier of Santa Claus? And you still have to explain how you know God is beyond space and time.

Blind denial is an emotional reaction as opposed to intellectual denial in which emotion plays a minority role. A person cannot intellectually deny a source for creation yet they can emotionally deny it. Denying Santa is not an emotional reaction but an intellectual one easy to verify.

God or the Source cannot be within Time and Space since it would equate God with created things subject to the laws of time and space.

The syllogism of the blind denier.
All theists are delusional.
Atheists are not theists.
Atheists are not delusional.

A blind denier can glimpse errors in the integrity of his/her (PC her/his) thinking through the intellectual detachment of switching debate positions without taking a dive. (Ever notice how bowing to PC is dancing in shit-kicker shoes like a farmer?(figuratively speaking)).

This method of "walking in another's shoes" also has the potential to disrupt the atheist's tired-old reality filter that insists Philosophy is an assertion of personal belief, and the method can/has the potential to break away some encrusted calcification blocking that view, a blockage that makes one's personal view the absolute of the universe.

Einstein was right. To be a plumber is preferable. Thus to be a better liver, one should be a plumber and apply the skills internally, not externally as would a fundamentalist interpreting metaphor literally. (This last paragraph is to entertain any lingering ass-sniffers who whine of confusion).

[sthitapragya]

The syllogism of the blind denier.
All theists are delusional.
Atheists are not theists.
Atheists are not delusional.

A blind denier can glimpse errors in the integrity of his/her (PC her/his) thinking through the intellectual detachment of switching debate positions without taking a dive. (Ever notice how bowing to PC is dancing in shit-kicker shoes like a farmer?(figuratively speaking)).

This method of "walking in another's shoes" also has the potential to disrupt the atheist's tired-old reality filter that insists philosophy is an assertion of personal belief, and the method can/has the potential to break away some encrusted calcification blocking that view, a blockage that makes one's personal view the absolute of the universe.

Einstein was right. To be a plumber is preferable. Thus to be a better liver, one should be a plumber and apply the skills internally, not externally as would a fundamentalist interpreting metaphor literally. (This last paragraph is to entertain any lingering ass-sniffers who whine of confusion).

I see the brain disease has gotten worse. Poor chihuahua.

Theists are not delusional. Their need for God is psychological just like a child needs santa. Atheists do not need santa. Atheists have no psychological need for mythical beings.

Theists are not delusional. They do not claim they saw God. Here's the irony. If a theist claimed he saw God, even other Theists would think he was delusional.

Also, atheists are not Theists. If they were Theists, they would be, well, Theists.

[Arising_uk]

...

This method of "walking in another's shoes" ...

So have you walked in the atheist''s shoes then?

What did you discover?