<>

NOW THERE’S THE TRADEMARK INDICATION OF COMPLETE CEREBREAL VACUUM…! God help us all…!

If the focus of thought considers ‘essential act’ as a quality of private existence, then arrogant self-ness becomes the danger for the theist, atheist, absolutist, or relativist. The grand inquisitor can justify prosecution of the free-think who offends hegemony. The radical existentialist can justify prosecution of all community tradition because the individual is “condemned to be free”.

This is from JPII’s book ‘Crossing the Threshold of Hope”:

“One cannot think adequately about man without reference, which for man is constitutive, to God. Saint Thomas defined this as actus essendi (essential act), in the language of the philosophy of existence. The philosophy of religion expresses this with the categories of anthropological experience. The philosophers of dialogue, such as Martin Buber and the aforementioned Lévinas, have contributed greatly to this experience. And we find ourselves by now very close to Saint Thomas, but the path passes not so much through being and existence as through people and their meeting with each other, through the “I” and the “Thou”. This is a fundamental dimension of man’s existence, which is always a coexistence.”

No, not privatizing exactly. Rather, I am radically applying Jesus’ statement, ‘You shall know them by their fruits. ‘ How one thinks does matter to some degree, but only because it eventually comes out as an action. However, if two people live equally caring and equally kind lives, but their living originates from very different views on metaphysics, then the ‘thought differences probably don’t matter much. … thus, I am a radical Jesus-ian.

Arguing metaphysics seems less useful to me now than discussing what is ‘godly behavior’. Discussing metaphysics is merely interesting. This way of thinking is particularly Jewish, in that, one can chose to follow this rabbi or that rabbi. Either rabbi is trying to teach one how to live properly in the community.

Wise people who pursue peaceful healthy living (Shalom) on our planet are my allies. People who pursue peaceful healthy living but may not agree with me on the specifics of how to do it are not my enemies. My ‘enemies’ are those who strive to seek selfish gain through the destruction of community, human lives, and our living environment. But I have to treat my ‘enemies’ with kindness, but I also have to act wisely to limit their destructive behavior.

Perhaps that puts me in the FT parts of SHAFT.

It seems odd that you would expect unification from a notion of athiesm. You incorrectly label it an athiest faith, when the only unifying notion within athiesm is a lack of faith. It is the default catch all, the end of the case statement when no other option fits. To be athiest in general is not to belong to something, but rather to be defined as NOT belonging to something.

That particular categories within athiesm have arisen is of no surprise, since it is human nature to identify with others that share a particular and specific point of view. The social evolution of various faiths are as much defined by the human need to belong as they are the human need to seek answers and it would be absurd to think that rejection of a supernatural mechanism is similarly a rejection of the compulsions that powered aforementioned social evolution. Given that athiesm itself is simply the lack of belonging to any of the categories of faith, and given the same behavioral urges, it isn’t particularly surprising that specific groups have arisen within athiesm to provide a similar sense of belonging to a particular defined mode of thought.

So yes, within the broad category of “people defined by their lack of faith” are scores of particular perspectives and people who identify with said perspectives. I would find it exceptional if that were not the case, as it would imply that athiests both reject faith and reject similar behavioral urges, which would be far more noteworthy and imply an actual biological rather than psychological component of athiesm.

Atheist 1- I don’t like the term atheist so much. It’s become too negative. That’s why I belong to the Humanist society.

A2 – Oh, to me, humanist is too old. The word smells like a basement in an old building. I prefer to call myself a Scientific Materialist.

A3 – I don’t find anything wrong with humanist, except that I think even spiritual people could be humanists. That’s why I make it clear that I’m a Secular Humanist.

A4 – Bah humbug! Call me a good old Sceptic. That’s what I am.

A5 – Well, I think the third atheist is the most correct. But it’s a little too general to just say that I’m a spiritual person. The fact is, while I am an atheist, I’m specifically a Buddhist. Last fall I even had Buddha rays come out my nose on three consecutive days.

A6 – All of you clowns are a bunch of cowards. We’re all atheists and our biggest enemy is religion. If we don’t show the world a unified front of Anti-Theists like me, then how are we ever supposed to nail down definitions for important things like whether we’re people who deny that god exists, or people who are non believers in god? This is crucial to our cause folks. Somebody get me a drink.

A7 – Yes, there’s truth in what all of you are saying. Of course, I’m not saying that truth actually exists. It’s just that none of those other atheist denominations really express what’s most important to me and that’s that I and people like me are Free Thinkers. If that’s not the part of us that we define clearly for seekers, then people will just think that we are atheists because our parents were atheists. And even though my parents were atheists, denying god’s existence is my own idea. No really! It is! That’s why it’s important to me to show exactly who I am, a free thinker.

A8 – You see, that’s what I can’t stand about those of us who are atheists. I don’t believe in Creator God, as the Christians do. But I can’t rule out the mysterious either. That’s why I’m a Pantheist. And don’t even start with me about how pantheism goes against all that we know scientifically, at least regarding origins. So does all the rest of our atheist dogma. I like to take a little bit from the free thinkers and that means that I’m free to believe what I want about the universe and damn the scientific evidence. As long as I deny that God exists I can come up with anything else that I want to believe in. Give me back my teddy-bear.

A9 – I’d like to know from the second atheist what’s wrong with old. We Marxists had it right way back when. And I say that if something was true then, it’s still true now. That doesn’t count for religious truth, of course, but it sure is correct for Marxist truth.

A10 – I’m sure all you people mean well, but most of you have taken what seems to me to be positions that are too confrontational. The group that I belong to simply identifies ourselves as Non Theists. We aren’t anything regarding religion or God. We’re just, you know, not theists.