Atheism

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I was expressing wonder and astonishment at the degree of complacent certainty that some here claim to have achieved ... and doing so with a little snear.

Could you be a bit more specific, please? That's rather general.
Which comments about "the degree of complacent certainty that some here claim to have achieved" are you referring to, exactly?
I'd really like to understand what exactly it is you mean.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

God is such a blackmailer!!

I think you mean chain mailer.

Fun pun fact: During the Crusades, people also wore chainmail armor

A
R
T

1 Reply

@msolga,

George and I met a few times, msolga, and we know that each one of us is quite self-complacent..

But George pretends that I'm more self-complacent than him..

Which doesn't change our relationship..

2 Replies

@failures art,

That too!

(Good pun.)

0 Replies

@Francis,

No, I want George to answer for George.
If that's OK.

0 Replies

@Francis,

That's true enough, however it does appear that I haven't yet achieved the degree of certainty that you and msolga claim. You two had a thing going back a page or so that took my breath away ... hence the post. The relentless part was for msolga.

1 Reply

georgeob1 - I feel your jab is a common one, at least in my experience. I've been asked many times to my certainty in no gods existing, to which I say I have great certainty but I've always been honest enough to say that I cannot have absolute certainty. I believe one person referred to this as the "stone of doubt in my stomach." They insisted that because I could continue to believe as I did (in a natural universe) with the stone meant that I, no different than them operated on faith.

As first glance this seems reasonable enough, but it is ultimately equivocation and an inadequate analogy.

If I have a stone in my stomach, the faithful have a boulder in theirs.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

What is "a natural universe"?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

George, I'm sorry but you are being very vague.
It seems that all you have to offer in response to what's been said on this thread is your lofty opinion.
And that's no sort of adequate response to your previous comment at all.

If you read my own comments, about my own particular working definition of aetheism, as meaning I hold some incredible degree of certainty & complacency, you're absolutely wrong in that assessment.
It is not an easy path.
Certainly not the easiest one.

Compared to my upbringing in the Catholic Church, it is a much tougher path. I can't, for example be absolved of my " sins" or misdemeanors as easily as going to confession, then saying four Our Fathers & five Hail Marys ...

1 Reply

@msolga,

What has been said on this, now very long, thread is that, despite the very broad implication of the title, it is a place for atheists to commune among themselves, without disturbing challenges or argument. I have read that and discontinued any untoward interruptions, restricting myself to an occasional look to see how the communing is going. I am accustomed to the fact that most of your commentary focuses on the banalities of the faithful. This time though the self-satisfaction and complacency appeared to reach new heights and I momentarily lost control.

2 Replies

George wrote:

I momentarily lost control.

How saddening, George!

Imagine if it happened in your active duties...

1 Reply

@Francis,

It did, occasionally. Still does ...

I hope you are well.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I'm well, George, just feeling a bit lonely, sometimes...

I hope you are well too..

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

What has been said on this, now very long, thread is that, despite the very broad implication of the title, it is a place for atheists to commune among themselves, without disturbing challenges or argument. I have read that and discontinued any untoward interruptions, restricting myself to an occasional look to see how the communing is going. I am accustomed to the fact that most of your commentary focuses on the banalities of the faithful. This time though the self-satisfaction and complacency appeared to reach new heights and I momentarily lost control.

I didn't think a great deal of exchange about "the banalities of the faithful" was going on here, over the last few pages, George.
And I am still unclear about how "self-satisfaction and complacency appeared to reach new heights". You didn't elaborate when asked to.
But let's leave it here, OK?

Me, I sorely wish that aetheists had just one place here to discuss aetheism amongst themselves, which was littlek's intention when she started this thread.

0 Replies

@Francis,

I'm OK. Thanksgiving is upon us: wife and daughters rushing about; sons and families arriving Tuesday - a little solitude would be nice.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The prim, self-satisfied complacency here is a thing to behold.

Always the atheist police be lurking.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

O'George the Dissembler wrote:

What has been said on this, now very long, thread is that, despite the very broad implication of the title, it is a place for atheists to commune among themselves, without disturbing challenges or argument.

If you're going to belabor someone, it is so useful to start out with a statement of their intent, whether or not it bears any relation to what has actually been said. In fact, the less resemblance, the better. Here is the opening paragraph of this thread, containing the statement of intent of the author:

Quote:

I know there are other threads about atheism, but they tend to be focused somewhat specifically to some argument or subtopic. I'd like this thread to be open for constructive conversation, sharing of ideas and resources, etc.

Oh dear . . . that doesn't quite match up to what O'George is peddling in his sneering post. Poor O'George--but i understand, you can't really get up a good fight unless the pig wants to wrestle in the first place, as O'Geore is obviously so anxious to do. The question is, should we accomodate the pig?

The wonderful thing about this thread is how the god botherers just can't stay away--and how, over time, they just get nastier and nastier. What atheist pissed in your corn flakes, O'George?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

What is "a natural universe"?

A universe that is governed by the laws of nature, as opposed to one governed by a supernatural agent or agents (such as gods).

I think that the long standing description of atheists being defined by what they don't believe in bypasses the fact that we should be defined by what we do believe in. I think the more we simply think of atheists as people who don't believe in god, the longer we perpetuate the wrong intellectual quest. The correct quest is to gain a greater understanding off the universe. At no point has it been established that any gods are requisite to this quest, so talking about any particular ones by name is shallow.

People have no necessity to support/argue/prove what they don't believe, only what they do. There is no such thing as a proof of a negative so why build upon such a false foundation?

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

What is "a natural universe"?

A universe that is governed by the laws of nature, as opposed to one governed by a supernatural agent or agents (such as gods).

Or in other words, a natural universe is the opposite of an artificial universe; an uncreated rather than a created universe.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

even though religion, by and large, is an enemy of reason.

Yeah--Thomas's version of reason. Is his reason for ignoring my post yesterday his reason for carrying on bleating?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know