Favorite topic: how non-atheists misunderstand or misstate the philosophical position of most atheists.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a > *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Too broad. Most adults, atheists or theists have evolved their perspective on the religious beliefs they were brought up with as children. I had already rejected the Catholic version of God while still being an enthusiastic theist in the movement. So this is not something only atheists do and is not relevant to their philosophical position. > > Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. Here you betray your own emotional bias against atheists. The "strutting about" is an overplayed fantasy projection on people with different beliefs than you hold. Atheists may just be as committed to their own world view as you are of your own. So their expressing it may be no more "strutting about" than your own descriptions of your beliefs. The second sentence is the reason I was compelled to write. I can't imagine how many times I have tried to correct this bizarre misstatement of the atheist's philosophical position here. It is a straw man and a pernicious one. Robin played wack-a-mole with me using this fallacious position for months. But I believe that correcting it again on this thread is my divinely appointed duty, so I will press the same keys again. Atheists do NOT proclaim "no existence of God". Atheists don't know if there is a God, and believe that neither do theists. What they reject are the reasons theists propose that their beliefs have substance. Curiously these same reasons are rejected between the different categories of theists for the same reasons atheists reject them. For example it is almost universally held that the Moonies reasons for believing that Sun Yung was God on earth are not good ones by all non-Moonies. You don't buy their reasons for believing he was God on earth do you? But to a Moonie all you would have to do is open yourself to his reality and you could believe as they do. The issue you have with atheists is that they also don't buy your own proposed reasons for your belief which you reveal below. < All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. Here you express your own confidence in subjective mystical experience as a basis of knowledge. Most atheists don't share this confidence. It seems more likely to atheists that people really suck at being able to evaluate the meaning of profound ineffable subjective experience, and are unduly shaped by whatever theology they buy into for their interpretation. Since perception is always constructed internally by conception beyond our conscious minds, atheists believe that this confidence is unfounded. And if you examine your rejection of the mystical "reality" experienced by Moonies of his divinity, you might understand why your own subjective confidence carries so little weight outside your own skull. > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > to adulthood. > The people who do not believe as you do, have poopy pants? Duly noted. I don't feel the need to return a similar insult toward theists because I believe they have what they believe are good reasons for believing as they do. I know i sure did when I was a theist. I just think they are wrong in their conclusions about God, although in every other way might be more or less intelligent and thoughtful than I am, and just as sincere in their convictions. My own path of belief and non belief went like this: Born atheist. We all are. Conditioned into believing in Catholicism's theistic views before I had any philosophical tools necessary to evaluate such claims. Began getting a bit snarky about their confidence about all non Catholics burning in hell at age 10, which increased and generalized into more distrust for the next 6 years. First 16 years. Rejected the external church's view in favor of Maharishi's subjective state-based belief system. I "experienced" what I believed was the reality of God beyond belief. Next 15 years Began to question that I had an ability to reliably evaluate my own subjective confidence in my experiences. Rejected subjective mystical experiences as a reliable basis for belief. Rejected mystical subjective experiences as a class of valued experience for about 18 years. Began to experiment again with meditation states as related to creative trance states. I now believe that subjective states cultivated by meditation have a value, but am still evaluating what that is. Now I am more interested in the altered states brought about during the performance of art as opposed to passive meditation as a creativity enhancer. I am particularly interested in the altered states reached during live musical performance as well as the quieter states reached by drawing alone. I am very curious how performing a visual art would be mind altered by being in front of an audience while creating, but don't have the skills yet to test these ideas. Stay tuned. Thanks for the writing prompt Jim. I always enjoy agreeing to disagree with you on this topic. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" <seekliberation@> > wrote: > > > > I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the > > 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief > > system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, > > should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we > > have or don't have. It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. > > > > seekliberation > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > > existence of a God. > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > > > > >
