Constructive gadfly
Published on December 10, 2005 By stevendedalus In Philosophy
Except for the a posteriori contingencies of facts and fantasies, attributed to the works of God, it is ludicrous for one to announce his atheism and even then its posture has no meaning. The so-called atheist himself is subject to the same existential litter that all of us are exposed to. He may rightfully denounce them but he cannot logically renounce the underpinnings of what we experience; for, they did not — contrary to the Bible’s postulate that in the beginning there was nothing — develop out of a pure vacuum free of , however seemingly erratic, becoming élan vital which has always subsisted and always will.

The “atheist” and deist alike presuppose an existence of time; thereby they base their views on a procession that entails cause and effect. The atheist assumes that folding back time will reveal nothing or radical chance; the deist folds back to a most perfect being directing the drama from opening to closing the curtain on existence and gives way to pure spirit but wrongly immersed in time. Both are wrong as the underlayment of the universe is without time, which is the pure meaning of eternity. Even pedestrian eternal time would entail contingencies that would ineluctably eventuate the end of time. Pure eternity entertains no such fallacy; it is, simply, is. Moses got it right when asking for God’s identity the reply was “He Who is.”

The “atheist”, in addition, is on shaky ground when he denies a god of absolute being; for this renegade himself would not have the audacity to proclaim “I am that I am,” thus responsible, as it were, for the creation of himself. Of course, in the realm of existential contingencies — dealing with chop logic of daily living — he is free, though under a pretended label, to assault the false gods, cults and idols at will but in reality he is not negating a supreme power, but rather the frills and hopes of traditional religion, and its spin-offs, that have created anthropomorphic god and gods meddling with destiny.

“Atheism,” then — implying the non-existence of a timeless subsistence — is itself non-existent. It is simply an iconoclastic assault on sanctities invented by the variable cultures in history and therefore must be limited and relegated to the pejorative that only divine contingencies of this world are false gods — and the atheist is one of them.

 

  

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 10, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 13, 2005
dunno, is an educated guess worthy enough to declare everyone else "wrong", though? Since we're speaking philosophically, it seems like you are just introducing a third stolid perspective, equally blinded by "certainty"...
Stolid indeed but not to offend but to postulate a concept whether a priori or educated certainty is never the intent as the others claim.
on Dec 13, 2005
I wanted to comment to give you points and let you know that I attempted to read this but it's too out there for my wee little brain. I tried though!

Your Santa one was more my level!
on Dec 13, 2005
I wanted to comment to give you points and let you know that I attempted to read this but it's too out there for my wee little brain. I tried though!

Your Santa one was more my level!


A child-like faith is a real blessing. Spiritual simplicity, humble trust, and a warm heart is a true virtue, in my view.

We're all at different points in our spiritual development, and therefore we all have different points of view regarding life's deeper questions and the existence of God.


unfortunately, televangelists wouldn't agree, when set in concrete there is no growth.


You're right. Many people would disagree with it, because we all have different points of view. From my own point of view, religious fundamenalists (the narrow minded ones with no tolerance), are the youngest of the lot. Just because a person believes in God doesn't mean that their faith is mature or their concept of Ultimate Reality is sound.

is an educated guess worthy enough to declare everyone else "wrong


I don't think that anything is worthy of declaring a person "wrong", (especially when talking about deeper issues of existence or the purpose / non-purpose of life.) Whatever people believe, from their own model of their world they are "right". It's just that people who believe that there is no intrinsic purpose to life have room for growth, in my view. Those who believe in a God of unconditional love and who are able to exercise unconditional love are are on the ball.
on Dec 13, 2005
Ah, yes, safe to sit on the fence, though hard on the ass.


. No fence sitting here. I believe very firmly in God, but that belief is reinforced by my FAITH, not supported or refuted by "facts" which can be twisted easily.
on Dec 13, 2005
Clarification: Militant Atheists. The ones that want to banish the word from the language.


or, my preferred term, Antitheists.
on Dec 13, 2005

or, my preferred term, Antitheists.

You do come up with some of the best terms!

on Dec 13, 2005
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. Sit and brew on that one a bit.
on Dec 13, 2005
I wanted to comment to give you points and let you know that I attempted to read this but it's too out there for my wee little brain. I tried though!


Thanks for the effort; don't feel bad I tend to get too heavy.
on Dec 13, 2005
Some of us just go one god further.
like the Tai, Nirvana and the One? But I guess you mean the one and only, eh?

on Dec 13, 2005
Antitheists.
Nope, doesn't work; just as militant as Guy's, I'd prefer the more tranquil approach of nonsense-theists.

on Dec 26, 2005

We are not afraid to metion or the mention of God at all. Watch this: God, God, God, God, God...etc. See? No problem


Now say Jesus.....Jesus.....Jesus....that's the hard part. It's more personal. There are many gods out there....but only one Jesus.

The atheist believes in a god...just not THE God. They have replaced the god of the universe with themselves as god.

Reminds me of that cartoon picture of Shirley MacLaine shaking her fist at god saying "I am god" in a tiny squeaky voice. This being said at the edge of the vastness of the ocean. She looked like a tiny grain of sand.

One day all knees will bend and all lips confess that Jesus is Lord....regardless if it's done willingly or not. Only then it's too late.....*getting off my soapbox now*

on Jan 04, 2006
One day all knees will bend and all lips confess that Jesus is Lord....regardless if it's done willingly or not.
In face of the horremdous indifference of the cosmos, it is hard to digest the personal, but I hope you're right and don't wind up in a black hole.

on Jan 04, 2006
Great Article Stevendedalus!

I've always wondered why some self-avowed Atheists expect me to logically defend my spiritual beliefs, but when I turn the table, they simply state, "you can't prove a negative" (or variations thereof).

I can respect agnosticism. I think the words "I don't know" should be a respectable response in our society. Instead, it is seen as a sign of weakness.

All too often, science says "it doesn't exist" when they really mean, "I don't know". What's smaller than quarks? What causes global warming? Who (or what) created the universe. "I don't know" is a much more accurate description of fact than "nothing".

On the other hand, I do know that God exists, but that only works for myself. I can know it within myself, I can tell others about it, but to prove it to someone else is a completely different matter.
on Jan 04, 2006
The problem is, in an atheist's frame of reference, God does not exist. How are we to sincerely discuss something that does not exist? It's impossible for me as an atheist to debate something that isn't there.


Actually, from what I've seen, it's more like a terrified fear of admitting the possibility that you (atheists) could be wrong. Or just a flat arrogant refusal to consider the possibility of being wrong because of the implications. Far easier to mock and refuse to acknowledge the validity of the beliefs of others which, in the end, is very intellectually dishonest.
on Jan 04, 2006
Actually, from what I've seen, it's more like a terrified fear of admitting the possibility that you (atheists) could be wrong. Or just a flat arrogant refusal to consider the possibility of being wrong because of the implications. Far easier to mock and refuse to acknowledge the validity of the beliefs of others which, in the end, is very intellectually dishonest.


Where did I mock anyone? As for the beliefs of others, I completely acknowledge that they considered their beliefs just a valid as I considered mine. And as they have a right to those beliefs, so do I.
But for me there simply is no point in discussing something that isn't there. Once again this is just an uncalled for attempt to cause me to engage in a conversation about which I have absolutely no frame of reference and it is a pointless persuit.

If you feel it's so easy (i.e. intellectually honest) to discuss things that aren't there then ok, let's discuss ooscapo.
3 Pages1 2 3