Constructive gadfly
Published on July 24, 2004 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

Human nature from time immemorial has questioned the substance of its existence. What is consciousness and why can it not satisfy the curiosity of what is one’s inner being? No matter the degree of philosophic intentionality of the self there is always a haunting reflection of another. Because of this human nature invariably turns to what seems the invisible within, an incomprehensible mysterious phenomenon that seems an integral element of whole being.

There are three epistemological paths to this mystery. First, is the popular tentative philosophic solution by ascribing this inexplicable phenomenon to God or an intelligent substratum. Second, is to sustain an endless inquiry agnostically and that at best doubt will still persist in the end Third, is to dismiss it outright atheistically as a mere haunting feedback of a lonely vacuum within being but nonetheless existential.

Nether of these warrant a value judgment since each is the unique psychological property of one’s makeup and should not be violated. An atheist, for instance, has an individual right to deny the existence of God within his own psyche, but has no right to overlay this denial to others who disagree and therefore cannot logically interpret his dismissive attitude that it become a socially universal reality. Nor can a theist extend judgment beyond his own individuated psyche, though he may engage in dialogue with a kindred sect to modify the public concept but must be careful not to impose it on others even though it is widely accepted. The agnostic, on the other hand, might logically induce practicum of the other two in order to probe their validity unless, of course, he is disinterested and lets the chips fall.

This is not to say that atheists among their kind are not permitted the privilege of believers who proselytize their faith without denigrating those of another faith or philosophic bias. Nevertheless, an atheist has a unique character in that it is in the quagmire of existential veracity that runs contrary to human nature’s tendency to wish a spark of divinity to render full meaning to its existence. Even the agnostic tilts in this direction, though he confesses he could be wrong or indifferent to the outcome.

The atheist, then, has to soft-shoe his bias because of its defiance of the course of human history, but is free to proclaim philosophically that the empty feedback within is a reflection of the emptiness of divine purpose in the universe. Within this framework, he cannot compete with faith since his is a philosophy, prohibiting him from comparing apples with oranges. Yet as a philosopher he is free to criticize annoyances such as “under God” or “In God we trust” but cannot claim the right to efface traditional symbols from society as long as they do not violate society’s laws; only those who believe and begin to question ecclesiastic proclamations and relics are in a position to delete them.

More important is that believers should not tread on atheism either, as if it were a competitor out to crush them. If as some believers perceive an atheist is godless, then those of faith run the risk of self-entrapment by precluding the grace of God in other humans.

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 24, 2004.


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Aug 13, 2004
Isnt advancing ones argument the whole point of forum participation? Perhaps sycophantic agreement and adoration is preferable?


No, they are not prefferable, what is prefferable is civil discussion rather than blatant attacks and insults, not to mention spending two pages to pick apart someone's opinion word-for-word looking for any instance of misused vocabulary. You know this was my point, so why quote that one line ignoring the one right after it: Out of all the responses I've seen you give to people's posts, 95% are simply attacks on their thoughts or the way said thoughts were stated.
on Aug 14, 2004
Anyway, arguing that someones arguing style is argumentative is a useless argument in itself, dont ya think?


In general, of course it is, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the posts I have seen Pearl make have argued with both sides of an argument, while flaming the speaker, and stressing their lack of intelligence in regards to the unreasonable standard that is "Pearlcaster". Perhaps he, or she, or whatnot, simply enjoys playing devil's advocate and disagreeing with all sides to show off her wit, but it's hardly productive, I think.
on Aug 15, 2004
but it's hardly productive, I think.


So you don't think my approach to blogging is productive. And?
on Aug 15, 2004
I'm sorry but I fail to see the distinction. If you're saying that Atheists believe that God exists but is inconsequential... well that goes against the very definition, so that can't be what you're saying... right?


Right. So re-read what I actually wrote - and while you're doing it exercise a little intelligence.
on Aug 15, 2004
Plato, more or less poet than philosopher


that's like describing Homer as 'more or less a historian', or Thucydides as 'more or less a political theorist'. Yes, Plato incorporated mythic and poetic elements into his philosophy (as in the allegory of the cave). Does this make him more or less of a philosopher? Bear in mind that before Socrates (who did not consider himself a philosopher but a conversationalist) and Plato, 'philosophy' did not exist.

Socrates brought philosophy to the birth - but Plato, through the Dialogues, was its midwife.
on Aug 16, 2004
Right. So re-read what I actually wrote - and while you're doing it exercise a little intelligence.


I have re-read the rest, the rest makes perfect sense, but that line does not, so I'd like you to explain it, since you're so quick to latch on when someone else makes a statement that does not make sense semantically.

Atheists do not deny the existence of God.


a·the·ist ( P )
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary.com disagrees.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

So does Merriam-Webster

They deny that God is anything but void.


adj.
Containing no matter; empty.
Not occupied; unfilled.
Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
Ineffective; useless.
Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
Games. Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

n.

An empty space.
A vacuum.
An open space or a break in continuity; a gap.
A feeling or state of emptiness, loneliness, or loss.
Games. Absence of cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand: a void in hearts.

Now you could be using "void" as either an adjective or a noun there, it's impossible to tell from context, so either an Atheist believes that God is empty/emptiness, which is a roundabout way of saying he does not exist, and you're contradicting yourself with your earlier statement. Or you're saying that he is useless or ineffectual, which is all good and fine, but an Atheist can hardly think God is useless or ineffectual when, by definition, he does not believe in said god.

Now you said yourself that one must follow definitions when writing, heaven forbid using word in a way not sanctioned by the literal definition, so would you mind explaining your statement that Atheists do not deny the existence of gods? They just think that gods are void?

If that's true, I guess Christians don't believe that a God exists, they just think he's omnipotent, right?
on Aug 16, 2004
To Shitzu (and no, I most certainly will not address you as 'lord'):

Atheists do not deny the existence of God. They deny that God is anything but void. That God is void is the centre of the atheist's moral and psychological world. The atheist affirms the negative, the theist affirms the positive. It's still an affirmation of faith.


Sighs.... for the intellectually inept among us here is an expansion of the point I made.

I will defer to your dictionaries of choice and not quibble over definitions.

The atheist is a man of faith. His faith is in the non-existence of God. But non-existence, conceptually, is not the reverse or opposite of existence, it is it's negative image. The role of the non-existence of God in the atheist's life is exactly the same as that which the existence of God plays in the theist's life. It is, as I said (and said for the very good reason that I wished not to put myself to the labor of explaining the obvious)

the centre of the atheist's moral and psychological world.


In words of somewhat fewer syllables, the non-existence of God fulfills for the atheist the same role and function as the existence of God does for the theist. And a negative image of God is still an image of God. Since there is an image of God at the centre of the atheist's moral and psychological world, the atheist does not deny that God exists. He instead affirms the presence of God in his thinking by denying that God is anything but void, empty, not-full, non-existent. Properly expressed, the atheist is a theist who finds God in his thought, but manifested as absence rather than presence.

And now, dear, having put myself to this tedious labor to help you overcome your confusion, I will ask you a question: how is it that you are able to read words but not comprehend their sense?

~~DivasRule~~


on Aug 17, 2004
And now, dear, having put myself to this tedious labor to help you overcome your confusion, I will ask you a question: how is it that you are able to read words but not comprehend their sense?


I am perfectly capable of comprehending their sense, and what you explain was more or less what I thought you meant the first time you stated it, except you were being roundabout with it, and I didn't want to think your meaning was as simple, because I assumed you had some deeper point you make, rather than using the tired old argument that through active denial Atheists are "inverted theists" so to speak.

It's a tiresome argument that I see come up sometimes, and frankly, by definition, it's a load a shit. It implies that the reason Atheists make themselves vocal to preach their disbelief as a theist would preach his belief, but as an atheist, I can tell you this is simply not the case. Atheists aren't vocal to spread their "inverted image" of God, they are vocal because they are easily annoyed by all the attention a fictional (in their view) deity gets, and the exposure and influence His supporters command. They mostly don't consider "God" worth their time, because he does not exist, he is indeed nothingness, a comforting thought for those who believe in him, and an annoying anachronism for those who don't.

I don't actively think about "God" unless someone else brings him up. By your argument, I should be over here rellishing "the freedom given me by my disbelief in God" or some such nonsense, patting myself on the back for how little I believe in God, or what a non-conformist I am. I can assure you I don't waste my time doing that.

Atheism is a way of thinking, not a religion. There is some "faith" or some belief involved, but it is faith in myself. Faith that my rational thinking process has come to the right conclusion, just like I could have faith in an answer I put on a math exam. It is not faith in anyone or anything else, they can make their own conclusions.
on Aug 17, 2004
There is some "faith" or some belief involved, but it is faith in myself.


Then you are not an atheist at all shitzu. You are your own god. As I said, how is it that you can read without comprehending sense? To which I will add another question: how is it you can write without comprehending import?

~~DivasRule~~
on Aug 17, 2004
Then you are not an atheist at all shitzu. You are your own god.


I disagree, I am merely human, the very idea of divinity is foreign to me. I happen to believe in my thinking process, in my opinion this just means I have a healthy amount of self-esteem in that aspect of my life.

I can comprehend what I read just fine, what conclusions I draw depends on my viewpoint. I write attempting to get a point across, that you interpret it differently is perhaps a flaw of my writing, but more accurately I think it is the result of your viewpoint.

For whatever reason I am attempting to convince you that your view of atheism is skewed by your beliefs, but my own writing is skewed by my beliefs. Nonetheless, I maintain that from the standpoint of a literal definition, you are misrepresenting atheism. If I am not an atheist then what must one do to be an atheist? Disbelieve a divine presence, which I already do, but also have no faith in oneself? Why? I don't see the connection between atheism and uncertainty, that is the realm of the agnostic, to say they do not know, or rather that they cannot know, the veracity of divine presence.
on Aug 17, 2004
Pearly, I don’t think many atheists would agree with your definition of atheism. It’s not a standard definition, and maybe it's causing this lack of focus.

Here’s a good definition by George H. Smith, author of ‘Atheism: The Case Against God’:

“The prefix “a” usually means “without”, so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism”, or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.”

PearlCaster, would you describe yourself as a theist, agnostic, or atheist? (I apologise, but I haven’t been able to make it out through all the vocabulary). Also, are you male or female, just out of interest?

LordShitzu, I think you're on the ball with your atheism. You seem very at peace with it, and have a good definition of it. That's more than I can say than a lot of atheists I've debated with in the past. (Not that I'm going to start a debate now. We've had enough of that by the looks of this thread.)
on Aug 17, 2004
PearlCaster, would you describe yourself as a theist, agnostic, or atheist? (I apologise, but I haven’t been able to make it out through all the vocabulary). Also, are you male or female, just out of interest?


I'm also curious about this, from what I've seen, I had assumed you have your own unique form of theism, Pearl, but I shouldn't assume, so I'd rather hear your own explanation.

LordShitzu, I think you're on the ball with your atheism. You seem very at peace with it, and have a good definition of it. That's more than I can say than a lot of atheists I've debated with in the past. (Not that I'm going to start a debate now. We've had enough of that by the looks of this thread.)


Thank you, Andy. I'm sorry if you've had to deal with incoherent or irrational atheists, I've dealt with plenty of incoherent or irrational theists, and neither would seem to be particularly pleasant. JU seems to have a lot of well-spoken and opinionated people, by contrast, and I like that. I also rather tire of debate as concerns this thread.
on Sep 01, 2004
Socrates brought philosophy to the birth - but Plato, through the Dialogues, was its midwife.
This is a given; yet you cannot deny Plato was poetic and analogous in his philosophical development or, if you will, his midwifery of Ideas.
on Sep 01, 2004
However, I'll grant that you hide your ignorance quite succesfully (due no doubt to your large vocabulary) since its taken two experiences of your 'thinking' on the matter to demonstrate this to me.
My reaction was in truth a courtesy, since you took the space and time to lay out my fallacies. It is not my temperament to dismiss the opinions of others.  
3 Pages1 2 3