Who Really is an Atheist?

[sthitapragya]

Nothing like unsolicited advice of what another should do, though mindless echoes are similar.

There’s surely no shortage of folks feeling special about themselves and assuming the literary mantel of authority via shithouse psychology, that’s for dang sure, how bout it, haw haw.

Would you agree that Simone Weil’s observation is accurate? If it is, do you agree that the atheist may be far more balanced in society but missing something necessary for those in the quest for "human meaning and purpose.”

“Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.”
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY

Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened,...

Obviously supernatural in Weil's context merely refers to the unknown.

Reality check for atheism:

Using the societal definition that reality is, "something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily", we can then say that,

Because atheism is derived from theism, therefore atheism exists necessarily but is not reality; not for lack of evidence but because atheism is derivative, atheism is dependent upon, atheism is (whisper) reactionary. The question is, can this mean anything other than atheists are walking, talking delusions and if so, what?

Just read what you have written. My lack of belief in your belief is a derivative of your belief.therefore my lack of belief is not reality.

Tell your friends that you came up with that and then just observe how they look at you.

Do you realize a child could use the same argument against you for your lack of belief in Santa?

[yiostheoy]

What does it mean if both belief and denial are expressions of idolatry? What does it mean to believe and what does it mean to deny if both are based on idolatry? An atheist may be denying God but perhaps they may only be denying an idol. As usual Simone Weil supplies food for thought.

"In order to obey God, one must receive his commands.
How did it happen that I received them in adolescence, while I was professing atheism?
To believe that the desire for good is always fulfilled--that is faith, and whoever has it is not an atheist."
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 137

"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 worshiping the true God or an idol. Every atheist is an idolater--unless he is worshiping 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

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Within the realm of Religious Philosophy, wherein the tools of Philosophy are used to examine the topic of Religion, I would have to say starting with definitions is the first step.

So it is possible to divide the whole world of people living on the Earth into two groups -- religious and non-religious.

Among the religious there are about a dozen major organized groups in addition to the unorganized "other" theists.

Among the non-religious it is now current to divide these into 3 groups:

- Agnostics (mostly scientists professionally trained in skepticism)

- Atheists (mostly disaffected anti-God nonbelievers)

- Uninterested's.

In the past "atheist" was incorrectly applied to all 3 of the non-religious. However that notion is disappearing.

Regarding the comment above regarding those in dire straits who feel compelled to call out to some Superior Power, one of my chief observations about agnostics and atheists is that in generally they have led easy lives and have never felt such a need. An atheist has normally gone the additional step however and blamed the external Universe for some thing that happened to them and thereby dismissed the possibility of the existence of any kind of God. The fallacy in this of course is the proof of a negative, which we humans currently do not have the ability to do, as it would require searching every square inch of the Universe, which we do not have the space craft to accomplish.

[sthitapragya]

What does it mean if both belief and denial are expressions of idolatry? What does it mean to believe and what does it mean to deny if both are based on idolatry? An atheist may be denying God but perhaps they may only be denying an idol. As usual Simone Weil supplies food for thought.

"In order to obey God, one must receive his commands.
How did it happen that I received them in adolescence, while I was professing atheism?
To believe that the desire for good is always fulfilled--that is faith, and whoever has it is not an atheist."
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 137

"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 worshiping the true God or an idol. Every atheist is an idolater--unless he is worshiping 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

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Within the realm of Religious Philosophy, wherein the tools of Philosophy are used to examine the topic of Religion, I would have to say starting with definitions is the first step.

So it is possible to divide the whole world of people living on the Earth into two groups -- religious and non-religious.

Among the religious there are about a dozen major organized groups in addition to the unorganized "other" theists.

Among the non-religious it is now current to divide these into 3 groups:

- Agnostics (mostly scientists professionally trained in skepticism)

- Atheists (mostly disaffected anti-God nonbelievers)
.

I think you need to take another look at your data. The atheists are mostly scientists professionally trained in skepticism.

Also., most respectable scientists would rather stick with "I don't know" rather than go with the assumption that God exists and try to work their way around trying to fit the facts into their assumption. No scientist worth is salt will start with God exists therefore.....

Also, don't try and assume what atheists are. I have already said this before. Most atheists have been Theists. They just grew out of it. You as a theist have not reached an atheists level of disbelief. You just have no clue what we think. Get there first. Then we will talk about it.

Just as you grew out of Santa, we grew out of Santa. Now, just as your grew out of Santa, we grew out of God too. Now till you grow out of God, you have no idea what we are. We are not disenchanted. We just grew out of God. You might believe we are disenchanted, or scared or any such crap. The fact is we grew out of God. You didn't. And till you do grow out of God, you will never EVER know how we think. You are just not there yet.

[Nick_A]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html
Simone Weil

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.
Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations………………………………….

Simone Weil offers this perspective of God:

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

She is not professing a personal god but rather a source for our recognition of higher “values”

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good……………………………………………..

Science cannot explain why we feel the good like why we feel beauty. It is not necessary for animal life on earth so there is no need for it to be a product of evolution. Science deals with facts and the essence of religion is concerned with opening to the influences from what Plato called the “Good” in service to the heart felt need to experience objective meaning

There simply is no reason why a scientist cannot feel the influence of the Good or for those feeling the influence of the Good to have an interest in science. It is only because of blind belief and blind denial that this absurd division and denial of their relationship has been accepted by so many. Consequently an atheist opposing idolatry may indeed recognize the Good far better than a conditioned blind believer who hasn’t felt anything

[Hobbes' Choice]

Nothing like unsolicited advice of what another should do, though mindless echoes are similar.

Two thousand years plus of Theism can tell you all about that.

Because atheism is derived from theism, therefore atheism exists necessarily but is not reality; not for lack of evidence but because atheism is derivative, atheism is dependent upon, atheism is (whisper) reactionary. The question is, can this mean anything other than atheists are walking, talking delusions and if so, what? Derivatives what of does not exist?

Most illogical.

Most illogical is the only thing you got right here. Atheism is contentless, we are all happy with that as far as I can tell. The label ceases to exist when you get smart and reject god, but we live don't.
One day you might be smart enough to figure all this out.

[yiostheoy]

I think you need to take another look at your data. The atheists are mostly scientists professionally trained in skepticism.

Also., most respectable scientists would rather stick with "I don't know" rather than go with the assumption that God exists and try to work their way around trying to fit the facts into their assumption. No scientist worth is salt will start with God exists therefore.....

Also, don't try and assume what atheists are. I have already said this before. Most atheists have been Theists. They just grew out of it. You as a theist have not reached an atheists level of disbelief. You just have no clue what we think. Get there first. Then we will talk about it.

Just as you grew out of Santa, we grew out of Santa. Now, just as your grew out of Santa, we grew out of God too. Now till you grow out of God, you have no idea what we are. We are not disenchanted. We just grew out of God. You might believe we are disenchanted, or scared or any such crap. The fact is we grew out of God. You didn't. And till you do grow out of God, you will never EVER know how we think. You are just not there yet.

Like I said, you are confusing agnostics with atheists.

How many times to I need to repeat myself until you get it ???

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think you need to take another look at your data. The atheists are mostly scientists professionally trained in skepticism.

Also., most respectable scientists would rather stick with "I don't know" rather than go with the assumption that God exists and try to work their way around trying to fit the facts into their assumption. No scientist worth is salt will start with God exists therefore.....

Also, don't try and assume what atheists are. I have already said this before. Most atheists have been Theists. They just grew out of it. You as a theist have not reached an atheists level of disbelief. You just have no clue what we think. Get there first. Then we will talk about it.

Just as you grew out of Santa, we grew out of Santa. Now, just as your grew out of Santa, we grew out of God too. Now till you grow out of God, you have no idea what we are. We are not disenchanted. We just grew out of God. You might believe we are disenchanted, or scared or any such crap. The fact is we grew out of God. You didn't. And till you do grow out of God, you will never EVER know how we think. You are just not there yet.

Like I said, you are confusing agnostics with atheists.

How many times to I need to repeat myself until you get it ???

Seriously I think the problem lies with you.
First you are confusing the label with the people that the label is used to describe.
Sthitapragya is not confusing the two things. This is an artifact of your obsession with the labels, rather than the positions of real people.
To my way of thinking nearly all agnostics are atheists. It would be a really weird person that declared himself unable to know god, and yet believe in it at the same time. So Agnosticism is a subset of atheists.
sthitapragya is right to say that most atheists used to be theists but simply grew up. As babies we all start atheistic and get theism thrust down our throats , with Santa and the tooth fairy. Most of us live long enough to abandon all three. Some persist with Theism accepting blindly a set of rules, which break down if examined.
In most European countries free-thinking has won over and the non-religious are now entering into the majority. I understand you are from the US, where things has gone backwards since Reagan and Bush.

But the point that you are missing is that "atheism" is most generally requires no belief. And that is exactly why most declare themselves that way - because belief in NOT ENOUGH. When you figure that out you will be free.

[yiostheoy]

Hobbes' Choice, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

[sthitapragya]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html
Simone Weil

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.
Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations………………………………….

Simone Weil offers this perspective of God:

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

She is not professing a personal god but rather a source for our recognition of higher “values”

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good……………………………………………..

Science cannot explain why we feel the good like why we feel beauty. It is not necessary for animal life on earth so there is no need for it to be a product of evolution. Science deals with facts and the essence of religion is concerned with opening to the influences from what Plato called the “Good” in service to the heart felt need to experience objective meaning

There simply is no reason why a scientist cannot feel the influence of the Good or for those feeling the influence of the Good to have an interest in science. It is only because of blind belief and blind denial that this absurd division and denial of their relationship has been accepted by so many. Consequently an atheist opposing idolatry may indeed recognize the Good far better than a conditioned blind believer who hasn’t felt anything

These are all things which pander to your need to feel special, the need to be different from other animals, indeed the abject fear of finding out that you are in fact no better than other animals.

It's the same crap about higher values and ability to see beyond space and time. Simone needs to feel special desperately. You do too. So your absolutely slavish following of her is understandable.

And again, you can't think like an atheist. Don't try. You will need to grow up. I am tired of repeating this.

[uwot]

It's confirmation anxiety I tells yer.

Define that again.

"The sufferer finds it difficult to believe the comforting nonsense they wish were true. People who disagree make it even harder, so the proselytiser bangs on until their victim submits or dies of old age."

[Dalek Prime]

OMG, Nick! Would you please read a second philosopher besides Simone Weil, if for no other reason than sparing the s, i, m, o, n, e, w and l keys all the stress you put upon them?

[uwot]

My personal concern is both for the truth necessary to unite science and religion...

The point about science is that it it us trying to work out how the universe works, and what we can do about it, without relying on prayers and sacrifices. It has nothing to do with religion, which is why Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Rastafarians can all do the same science with people who have no religious belief at all. It's is this collaborative effort that has told us what we know about the universe, rather than any individual belief.

...and also for the personal well being of the young surrounded by spirit killers in schools.

You have offered no evidence that this is happening, it is just your story that you believe.

I don't desire to convert anyone.

No danger of that.

I prefer to learn from the intelligent ones who have also felt the calling.

Yes. Many simple minded people confuse someone who agrees with them and a genius.

[marjoram_blues]

It's confirmation anxiety I tells yer.

Define that again.

"The sufferer finds it difficult to believe the comforting nonsense they wish were true. People who disagree make it even harder, so the proselytiser bangs on until their victim submits or dies of old age."

Thanks - any more where that one came from? How much psychology can philosophy of religion take, before it becomes pure psycho ?

[Walker]

Just read what you have written. My lack of belief in your belief is a derivative of your belief.therefore my lack of belief is not reality.

Tell your friends that you came up with that and then just observe how they look at you.

Do you realize a child could use the same argument against you for your lack of belief in Santa?

Funny what folks hear.

You’re big on belief and projection.

Lay a little Jiddu on you.

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

This summarizes Nick's point about blind deniers and blind believers.

[sthitapragya]

Just read what you have written. My lack of belief in your belief is a derivative of your belief.therefore my lack of belief is not reality.

Tell your friends that you came up with that and then just observe how they look at you.

Do you realize a child could use the same argument against you for your lack of belief in Santa?

Funny what folks hear.

You’re big on belief and projection.

Lay a little Jiddu on you.

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

This summarizes Nick's point about blind deniers and blind believers.

No, it's not. It merely confirms that the unknown is the reality. Although krishnamurthi does cop out at the last minute by implying there is a God, by his own admission reality is unknown. Whether there is or is not a God is also unknown. Just as I cannot say with certainty that there is no God, you cannot say with certainty there is one, forget about a specific one you have in mind. But I can definitely say with a certainty that any God that you can give a name to is not one. Simply because that is a known God and therefore can be said to certainly not exist.

The problem is, everytime you define your God, I can reject him. Keep him unknown, don't talk about him and I won't reject him.

Also krishnamurthi sounds like a pompous ass when he says that the non-believer won't find God. He doesn't seem to understand that the non-believer maybe doesn't want to find God.

I for one think God is redundant. He could exist. He could not. But he has less influence on my reality than a dead mite. His existence or non-existence are purely academic since I find it amazing how people can go so gaga over a completely non-significant thing. And I love to argue. You have no idea how much I love to argue. Otherwise I wouldn't spend a moment talking about something so insignificant.

Also, having been a theist, I know how religion is not a philosophical discussion, but a psychological one. The need for God is purely psychological. There is no philosophy involved in it. But since religious belief is also a case of extreme denial, there is no way to point it out to you, unless you yourself recognise it. I know you actually believe that a god exists. But I also know that you don't recognise that your belief is purely in your mind. A belief in God does not make you stupid. There are Noble prize winners who believe in God so obviously it has nothing to do with intelligence. But only if you recognise the psychological need can you get past it. It is tough. That is why there are so few atheists.

God is the mother of all daddy issues.