Futile Atheism

To underscore the pervasiveness of God, the Spirituality forum is chock full of them and their many, many inquiries. Though armed with a belief system specifically based on a rejection of Him, they persist in their efforts to find Him.

In torment, the most-asked question: Where in hell is God?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To underscore the pervasiveness of God, the Spirituality forum is chock full of them and their many, many inquiries. Though armed with a belief system specifically based on a rejection of Him, they persist in their efforts to find Him.

In torment, the most-asked question: Where in hell is God?

So where are all these atheists you speak of? I am yet to actually speak to anyone on this forum who claims to simultaneously be atheist and have a belief system, let alone one based on a rejection of Him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So where are all these atheists you speak of? I am yet to actually speak to anyone on this forum who claims to simultaneously be atheist and have a belief system, let alone one based on a rejection of Him.

I'm not sure where they all are, but their posts are here, every day. By its very nature, the term 'atheism' necessarily relies on the idea of God. It's existence requires a thought about God, in addition to a conclusion (belief) that He doesn't exist. Not too hard to figure out, really. I should get paid for this stuff.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not sure where they all are, but their posts are here, every day. By its very nature, the term 'atheism' necessarily relies on the idea of God. It's existence requires a thought about God, in addition to a conclusion (belief) that He doesn't exist. Not too hard to figure out, really. I should get paid for this stuff.

I'm not sure [i]where they all are, but their posts are [somewhere], every day. By its very nature, the [notion: non believer of red things that are wholly green] necessarily relies on the idea of [red things that are wholly green]. It's existence requires a thought about [red things that are wholly green], in addition to a conclusion (belief) that [such things] don't exist. Not too hard to figure out, really. I should get paid for this stuff[/i]

Just changd the object of discussion whilst retaining the logic...I think your request for some fee might be a tad premature

🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To underscore the pervasiveness of God, the Spirituality forum is chock full of them and their many, many inquiries. Though armed with a belief system specifically based on a rejection of Him, they persist in their efforts to find Him.

In torment, the most-asked question: Where in hell is God?

To underscore the pervasiveness of [belief in God], the Spirituality forum is chock full of them and their many, many inquiries. Though armed with a [non-]belief system specifically based on a rejection of [the dubious premises or conclusions which for some reason justify belief in an entity a collection of theists refer to as "Him"], they persist in their efforts to [tease out a working definition of what they mean by the term "God" so to expose the fallacies and logical contractions induced by some particular belief].

In [the spirit of rational inquiry], the most-asked question: [Where and why do we need to invoke "God"?]

Did you perhaps mean the above?

🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
To underscore the pervasiveness of [belief in God], the Spirituality forum is chock full of them and their many, many inquiries. Though armed with a [non-]belief system specifically based on a rejection of [the dubious premises or conclusions which for some reason justify belief in an entity a collection of theists refer to as "Him"], they persist in their : [Where and why do we need to invoke "God"?]

Did you perhaps mean the above?

🙂

Agerg, I think you wrote:

=================================
the most-asked question: [Where and why do we need to invoke "God"?]
================================

Note that under your tag you have written "Wonderer ... Nomad". And below that you have written "Wherever I may roam"

You know, not knowing God personally, intimately, does lead to a deep sense of not belonging anywhere, like a fugitive or nomad.

Serioulsy. In Genesis when Cain went out from the presence of God he feared that he would be a fugitive and stranger to "the face of the ground".

"When you till the ground, it will no longer yeild its strength to youy. You will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.

And Cain said to Jehovah, My punishment is greater then I can bear. Now You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground, and from Your face I will be hidden; and I will be a fugative and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.

And Jehovah said to him, Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengence will be taken on him sevenfold ..." (See Genesis 4:12-15)

The point I make here is only that to be away from the face of God is to also be a stranger to the face of the ground. Alienation from God is reflected in a sense of alienation from the earth.

We need to be reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus, for forgiveness of our sins, that we may be restored to the presence of God and feel at home in the creation.

When I met Christ, the trees seemed greener, the grass seemed greener, the sky seemed bluer. I realized deep within that this was my Father's world and I no longer felt lost and wondering where I belonged.

We need to be reconciled to the Heavenly Father so that we feel no longer lost on the earth.

Today, the modern man feels he is an insignificant accident as a spec of dust in an accidental cosmos. He feels he is lost on a second rate planet circling around a second rate star, purposeless and a vanity. We need to commune with the heavenly Father through Jesus Christ to eliminate this deep sense of vanity and futility.

Then we can "come home" and feel at home with God and in His creation.

Originally posted by jaywill
Agerg, I think you wrote:

[b]=================================
the most-asked question: [Where and why do we need to invoke "God"?]
================================

Note that under your tag you have written "Wonderer ... Nomad". And below that you have written "Wherever I may roam"

You know, not knowing God personall utility.

Then we can "come home" and feel at home with God and in His creation.[/b]

Ah...that tagline is a reference to what was once one of my favourite metallica songs "Wherever I may Roam"...my pic was a black spider. That reminds me, I ought to resubscribe at some point and change my tag (have to wait if I can get funding for my studies next year first though).

I don't have the position (nor do I think I ever will) that my sense of grounding and direction in life will be consolidated by arbitrarily choosing one out of a vast array of mutually exclusive religions, and abandoning the thought processes which compel me to reason (amongst other things) that the properties attached to these gods are in various ways untenable.

In short, I need not attribute any part of the universe to some supernatural being or place (that is not so say I believe such a thing does not exist, more, the concept is meaningless to me). I see no place and no situation that necessitates the invokation of "God"

Originally posted by Agerg
Ah...that tagline is a reference to what was once one of my favourite metallica songs "Wherever I may Roam"...my pic was a black spider. That reminds me, I ought to resubscribe at some point and change my tag (have to wait if I can get funding for my studies next year first though).

I don't have the position (nor do I think I ever will) that my sense of gro ...[text shortened]... ongst other things) that the properties attached to these gods are in various ways untenable.

===============================
don't have the position (nor do I think I ever will) that my sense of grounding and direction in life will be consolidated by arbitrarily choosing one out of a vast array of mutually exclusive religions, and abandoning the thought processes which compel me to reason (amongst other things) that the properties attached to these gods are in various ways untenable.
==================================

My bible instructs me to be "sober minded". I didn't read anything about abandoning my thought processes. I just include the Person, possibility and power of God in my reasoning processes.

I think it beats believing that a slimy muddy "soup" was your great forefather. It beats believing that an chimp or something that looks like a chimp, was your forebearer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not sure where they all are, but their posts are here, every day. By its very nature, the term 'atheism' necessarily relies on the idea of God. It's existence requires a thought about God, in addition to a conclusion (belief) that He doesn't exist. Not too hard to figure out, really. I should get paid for this stuff.

Yikes, you should keep your day job. That is some sloppy reasoning. The term 'atheism' may well rely on some idea of god(s) in the sense that it can be defined as an absence of theism, which in turn can be defined in terms of belief in god(s). It certainly does not follow from this that for atheism to be instantiated it "requires a thought about God, in addition to a conclusion (belief) that He doesn't exist." To lack belief in God, the atheist need not have so much as even a concept of God, let alone a belief that God doesn't exist. This is one reason why one can make distinction between implicit/explict atheism or passive/active atheism or etc. You should probably clarify your discussion so that it is more clear what type of atheist you have in your sights.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To underscore the pervasiveness of God, the Spirituality forum is chock full of them and their many, many inquiries. Though armed with a belief system specifically based on a rejection of Him, they persist in their efforts to find Him.

In torment, the most-asked question: Where in hell is God?

According to some fundamentalists the definition of an atheist is: "Someone who doesn't believe as I do."

When you write "pervasiveness of God" and "rejection of Him", then who is He, who is your God? Define it or fail! Or does your "God" include every god there is?

When you non-atheists have so many mutually exlusive opinions of what and who god is, then I must say that atheists are more stringent in their belief. "Futile Atheism", as you called this thread, is therefore not a good way to describe atheism.

Originally posted by jaywill
===============================
don't have the position (nor do I think I ever will) that my sense of grounding and direction in life will be consolidated by arbitrarily choosing one out of a vast array of mutually exclusive religions, and abandoning the thought processes which compel me to reason (amongst other things) that the properties attached t beats believing that an chimp or something that looks like a chimp, was your forebearer.

But 'which is best' in regards to what what one would like to be true has no bearing on what may or may not be true.

I think if I was to play the 'which is best' game in other areas of my life I'd conclude that not having alopecia universalis (complete lack of hair) is better than instead having alopecia. The reality of the situation however is that this actually being true is not the case...I'm still as bald as a billiard ball.

As regards to your disdain for the origins of the first micro-organsisms which gave rise to a succession of more complicated creatures (over a massive period of time (much longer than 6000 years)); I'd like to recast your statement slightly

I think it beats believing that a [slimy "soup" of smelly sperm originating from your father's nether regions producing a winner inside your mother's nether regions in one of perhaps many 'happy times' leading to your expulsion from her womb through her lower orifice 9 months later was the cause of your being]. It beats...

Not a pleasant thought if one dwells on the finer details but it is true non-the less.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not sure where they all are, but their posts are here, every day. By its very nature, the term 'atheism' necessarily relies on the idea of God. It's existence requires a thought about God, in addition to a conclusion (belief) that He doesn't exist. Not too hard to figure out, really. I should get paid for this stuff.

And you as a non-Muslim must necessarily do a whole lot of thinking about the Qu'ran and Allah I am sure. Though armed with your non-Muslim belief system specifically based on a rejection of Him, you persist in your efforts to find Him.
I could say the same about your attitude to a whole range of gods. You must be one busy person with all those belief systems that require you to think of hundreds if not thousands of gods whilst simultaneously pursuing them despite your professed lack of belief.

Originally posted by Agerg
But 'which is best' in regards to what what one would like to be true has no bearing on what may or may not be true.

I think if I was to play the 'which is best' game in other areas of my life I'd conclude that not having alopecia universalis (complete lack of hair) is better than instead having alopecia. The reality of the situation however is that a pleasant thought if one dwells on the finer details but it is true non-the less.

=====================================
But 'which is best' in regards to what what one would like to be true has no bearing on what may or may not be true.
======================================

Exactly. What may be the TRUTH one may LIKE to be true. Thier liking it is not the determining factor. I agree.


================================
I think if I was to play the 'which is best' game in other areas of my life I'd conclude that not having alopecia universalis (complete lack of hair) is better than instead having alopecia. The reality of the situation however is that this actually being true is not the case...I'm still as bald as a billiard ball.
========================================

Hey, Yul Brenner looked good bald.

=================================
As regards to your disdain for the origins of the first micro-organsisms which gave rise to a succession of more complicated creatures (over a massive period of time (much longer than 6000 years)); I'd like to recast your statement slightly

I think it beats believing that a [slimy "soup" of smelly sperm originating from your father's nether regions producing a winner inside your mother's nether regions in one of perhaps many 'happy times' leading to your expulsion from her womb through her lower orifice 9 months later was the cause of your being]. It beats...
==================================

At least there is great love involved usually, from the mom to her child.

Where's the love in this amino acid accident scenario ?

You mean my origin was just from "A Mean Old Acid"? Get it? - amino acid ??

============================
Not a pleasant thought if one dwells on the finer details but it is true non-the less.
===============================

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yikes, you should keep your day job. That is some sloppy reasoning. The term 'atheism' may well rely on some idea of god(s) in the sense that it can be defined as an absence of theism, which in turn can be defined in terms of belief in god(s). It certainly does not follow from this that for atheism to be instantiated it "requires a thought about God, i ...[text shortened]... ify your discussion so that it is more clear what type of atheist you have in your sights.

I forget: was your post supposed to be an example of sloppy reasoning, or was it mine?

The term 'atheism' may well rely on some idea of god(s) in the sense that it can be defined as an absence of theism, which in turn can be defined in terms of belief in god(s).
"May?" There is no "may" to the proposition. Atheism is a rejection of any form of deity.

It certainly does not follow from this that for atheism to be instantiated it "requires a thought about God, in addition to a conclusion (belief) that He doesn't exist."
Wut? The very nature of atheism is its statement regarding any deity. Are you trying to say that a comment can be made about [blank] without reference to [blank]? You cannot support atheism without touching its subject matter.

To lack belief in God, the atheist need not have so much as even a concept of God, let alone a belief that God doesn't exist.
Not even in an imaginary vacuum could such a scenario exist. Once the topic is broached, the subject necessarily makes a determination regarding their acceptance or rejection on the matter. As has been previously posted (using red-rejectors or non-Muslims), a label can be attached to any person as it relates to their position on sundry topics.

Not sure if there are any champions of the cause, but I, for one, have never heard of any affiliations specifically designed to offer succor for the red-rejectors in the world. You?

Yikes, you should keep your day job.
I guess I'll have to remain Phlabby's roadie for the time being...

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you as a non-Muslim must necessarily do a whole lot of thinking about the Qu'ran and Allah I am sure. Though armed with your non-Muslim belief system specifically based on a rejection of Him, you persist in your efforts to find Him.
I could say the same about your attitude to a whole range of gods. You must be one busy person with all those belief s ...[text shortened]... ot thousands of gods whilst simultaneously pursuing them despite your professed lack of belief.

As above, the only folks labeled non-Muslims are those outside the religion--- by those within the religion. I can think of no one who has ever represented or introduced themselves by what they are not...

...except for atheists, or any number of anti-whatevers.