The Strange Case of the Atheist Believer

[Neithan]

And so on, and so on . . . it’s a huge subject.

Indeed, thank you for the explanation. Since the first Christians were all Jews, I don’t think we can accurately describe it as foreign, unless you believe it was some kind of Gentile ‘trick’? But I don’t want to de-rail the OP’s focus on atheism.

 

[Salibi]

OP, with all due respect and with no attempt at offence, do try to be more to the point in your posts. One does tend to get impatient reading through all those blocks of text, and this is an interesting discussion, if would be a shame to miss your point, couched as it is in all those walls of text.

Thank you, and kind regards.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Agnosticism is the Nihilistic indifference of meaninglessness and nothingness. Leaving the soul neutral to about anything, and everything.

There is Optimistic Nihilism. God created out of nothing. From the absence (void) of nothing, God created, and found them all good.

But those who refer to nihilism think of it rather other than God. Thus, meaningless. Would meaningless existence and creation be optimistic?

There is the problem. When someone commits suicide. They are not exactly being optimistic about their life. But rather finding their non-existence the only happiness where they will suffer pain no more. Thinking this is the cure for whatever bothers them, that they should seek suicide in the first place.

In brief:

(A) Subject/Person is having cancer, and a series of suffering. The (B) option of suicide is offered to them. The (A) person has reasoned through life there is no God. And, (A) person would be better off to end their existence, and no longer carry on suffering. Thus, they settle for option (B) suicide.

But what the person is suffering tells them, out of the nihilism, that they exist. For if they weren’t, then they would not suffer. Thus, they are not a non-existence (or nihil, nor an absence.)

They may reason themselves, however, as ultimately not having to go through pain anymore by suicide. Further, suppose their reason deepens that they are a tired existence of biological pieces all put and bound together. And when the person dies, they will no longer exist. And the pain goes away. Perhaps they reason insofar as when they fall asleep. They have no memory of any dreams. They reason, when they die, it will be a perpetual sleep (where they have no conscious life forever.)

But what is optimistic about that? Is it they will feel good not to suffer anymore? But that feeling will never succeed. Because, to feel relieved of that pain. You must exist, in order to be satisfied what you will. If (A) person ceases to be, and are no longer in existence as the composite biological pieces fall apart. He or she will never know the satisfaction of that pain going away. Rather, they will cease maybe in bliss, maybe in happiness. But they will never consciously perceive when the pain goes away, because they will die from suicide, to feel freed of suffering. Instead, they will have succumbed to suffering, making them no more.

I’m not optimistic when someone dies. I’m never optimistic when someone is gone. That’s a tragedy. Not an optimism. The only real optimism I can see would be that the person is not gone completely. But rather, in a Judeo-Christian view. The soul is immortal. Even Buddhist’s believe in some immortal thought of a soul. Thus, a soul having a life after this, a continued existence, is the only optimism. Which is not nihil. But the presence of God Who made the existence of the soul to be, rather than not.

Thus, nothing really optimistic of non-existence, or the absence of.

 

[GKMotley]

At first I was only going to post the inevitable “decree of nullity” but this mess would require far more to render it coherent.

So…carry on. I have my bag of popcorn.

 

[GKMotley]

St. John is more succinct.

 

[Pattylt]

The Strange case is the Atheist wants to believe

Atheist I know (quite a lot) want to know. Then they’ll decide if they will believe and/or worship.

I did say there are agnostics who try to believe, but are unsure.

I’m agnostic and am sure of being agnostic. I am not sure if God really exists…I waver on that…but I am not unsure. I spent many years coming to my position.

I agree with the poster that said you are defining these ideas to help yourself, not reflecting the reality of agnostics or atheists. If it helps you in some way then go for it but it isn’t the reality of their views.

 

[FiveLinden]

Hey! OP! Thanks for your interest in what we think but I don’t think the way you suggest and I have never met an unbeliever who does. The closest I have come is the odd unbeliever who would like to be sure of immortal bliss, but even those would be quite happy were there to be no god involved. But now we are here - ask me anything!

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

OP, with all due respect and with no attempt at offence, do try to be more to the point in your posts. One does tend to get impatient reading through all those blocks of text, and this is an interesting discussion, if would be a shame to miss your point, couched as it is in all those walls of text.

Thank you, and kind regards.

Sometimes a discussion is to frame a point. Or if it is not completely clear. The work is to make it come to an end. Like the end of a sword, or a pen.

You can even say you are arriving to a point. For, would it not be likewise when someone says they are trying to get from point A to point B. Thus, a journey.

The blocks of text, like the Lord of the Rings, or Old Testament. Is a Journey of Salvation History.

My point sometimes is not clear. But, I know the purpose of what I’m trying to say.

There are always going to be things which a point must contend with. Much like a journey. Storms, landscape, and enemies. And every point has this.

My point to which I’m arriving to, is that agnosticism in the usage of saying indifferent to. A person may be agnostic to something. Meaning, he or she may not care. And that is a peculiar agnosticism. Since that is why there were abuses of children by priests. And, this had to do with a culture that did not care about morals: the sex revolution.

Without much difficult, I can say that the thread of moral relativism is built that way.

This absence of caring actually led to the Imperialist rule of Japan. And the Great War which poured out. One Japanese woman, who was Buddhist, had become, later on in life, a Catholic Nun. Because, the Japanese did not care whatever the emperor of Japan did. And hence, in the privation thinking of only themselves. I guess, in truth, they were not totally agnostic. As they cared mostly about themselves. Or the dictates of their own wants and fancies. And hence, the War broke out. The bombing of Pearl Harbor.

It makes one think carefully as we’re in a newer century than of ages past. We’re not bound to repeating our errors as yesterday. And though we’re much opined to not make the same mistake or error, or tragedy again.

For instance, we’re not going to follow the genocide of Jewish people as in Germany. But genocide still continues. It even has a newer title and purpose, under form and framework of something called Eugenics. Or aptly put, population control. That means, which it has taken place: abortion.

Hence, one should not be agnostic to it. Because it could had been very well anyone’s life. I for one would not be here right now if I was aborted.

That therefore takes issue. And importance. Killing innocent life is wrong, period. Anyone who debates that it’s okay because of the smallness of the life is following the same mishaps and missteps as Hitler’s Germany.

Which no one should ever appeal to, nor for. Even under one of his colleagues Margaret Sanger.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

Hey! OP! Thanks for your interest in what we think but I don’t think the way you suggest and I have never met an unbeliever who does. The closest I have come is the odd unbeliever who would like to be sure of immortal bliss, but even those would be quite happy were there to be no god involved. But now we are here - ask me anything!

Hmm… You say “we” think. But is that because you think, as well as all men do? Or, is it to say that you think because all think the same? Thus, no variance in appeal to the particular person who comes to such an arrival becoming an atheist. Or all the same, of the same opinion, and of the same mind?

I’d have to disagree. On Catholic Radio, I’ve heard callers describing themselves as atheists for reasons they cannot trust nor believe in God. Or a God. Primarily from the event of suffering and evil. Which seems to be illustrated as a common reason among many Atheists (I’ve heard.)

Also, I have read here or there, a comment on maybe some random discussion heard or read. That there are Atheists who want to believe, but they cannot. Because something is lacking. Like a sign. But something to prove God exists. Not necessarily reason alone. But something remarkably that of a miracle. Which then they would believe.

But, one good thing about well reasoned and sound Atheists is this. They are skeptical, not gullible, and not fickle. As the blindman, they want to see. But they cannot confuse the blindness with actual sight, nor for their other sense. Thus, they implore when hearing of God. Or hearing Him speak from the followers as they claim of His Son. Do they reason if God is real, and He is there. He will take their blindness away. Meaning, not they are blind and dumb. Not because they are ignorant. Because, they want to truly see Him.

Christ placed this aptly to the point. The beatific vision. The Beatitudes.

But that is in humility. The Atheist who is humble, is not a servile man or woman. But, with dignity, and respect. To believe. But to truly ask the Lord of Hosts to show His splendor. That no other can show. In other words, no fakes, no false messiah’s, no false prophets, and neither the antichrist. In other words, Atheists want the Truth that God exists.

Atheists have a valid reason for not believing in as much as the blindman had valid reasons asking for help to the portico in the temple, where the spring of water was. Because he cannot see. Thus, the Atheist asks in a way, in passing comments, that he or she would love to see God. To know He exists, that they may believe.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

I doubt they feel this way if their house is on fire. Or if their child is missing. The idea of that a religion brings fear is baseless.

#1
How is He advertised?

If I can place a view on punishment and Hell:

Suppose an atheist has a child. Their small child is kidnapped. Maybe horrific torture to the child is done by the crazed and sick lunatic. Thus, the child dies.

The Atheist continues his life (say it is the father of the child.) Something happens, he finally comes to rest.

Now this can play two ways:
First, what he believed as an atheist would not matter much, except for what momentary pain endured of his child’s suffering. But knowing that his child died. His child was just a moment of expression in creation. And that was it. He would never have to really be angry at the criminal. Because, his child was just a moment and expression of creation. Therefore, nothing beyond the body. Not a soul.

Second, what he believed as an atheist may come to a rude awakening. Or better, surprise and surge of joy to realize. Not only was his soul still intact. Immortal (not invincible. Not omnipotent.) But this surprise comes to him. He see’s this curious being. God. His heart though having held in the deepest convictions of atheism. Is more relieved his life did not stop. Because, all his suffering, all his torments in life are not only gone! But, he still exists without them! Then something in his heart dwells. Yearning to see his child (say his daughter.) He inquires of this God. “Is she here?” And yes, lo and behold. He is re-united with his child. He could have all the cause to be angry and upset with this God. Asking, “Why?” But over elated with joy his daughter is still alive, and not carried by the sickness and disorder of a psychotic man. Is more joyful to him than anything else.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

At first I was only going to post the inevitable “decree of nullity” but this mess would require far more to render it coherent.

So…carry on. I have my bag of popcorn.

You have a bag of popcorn (proverbial.) In that sense, is open? Does the fresh scent of butter instill in the mind and imagination to eat it? Is it entertaining? Is it pretty enhancing to eat the proverbial popcorn, and watch?

But, alas! You call it a mess. Thus, you would be entertained by a mess. Garbage heaps do this everyday. I’ve never heard anyone taking a bag of popcorn, with fresh scent of butter, and at the same time the repulsive scent and odor of a garbage dump. But your choice.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

I doubt they feel this way if their house is on fire. Or if their child is missing. The idea of that a religion brings fear is baseless.

#2
Now what of the criminal when he dies? Suppose, this man was so severely set in his disordered ways. That upon his own deathbed, he would not ever regret one moment of his sick despotic quest. Should he also live in this moment of bliss and eternal life as the father and daughter? In other words, would it be great for the criminal to continue to torment children after he dies in this immortal afterlife? I’d say not! Thus, due justice to the immortal soul of the criminal who never let up from his crimes. There’s a place for him. it’s called Hell.

Here is the other part. What you may believe about God. The Lord of which set down a Covenant of Mercy, and of Justice. Does will that Justice is done. But by the road of Mercy. The God of the Christians. Revealed in Three Person’s: The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This Triunity (Trinity.) Is formed in the expression of the relationship as the father and daughter who were re-united in the afterlife. But, The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit act in One Accord, One Love. That is God. Each One is the same nature, same fidelity.

There is mercy, there is hope, there is Salvation. Hence, the Son of the Living God. Who suffered and endured the Cross even to the point of Death. This Savior. The God Who saves is not a God without Mercy. For it was for Mercy, He suffered.

Now, what God do you intend to refer in your comments?

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

I did say there are agnostics who try to believe, but are unsure.

Misunderstood. The “unsure” was the reality of God. Or unsure of what God. To believe. Which is a common notion of agnostic. Meaning, uncertain. Should he or she believe in the Hindu gods. The Allah of Islam. The God(s) of Mormonism. Or the Jehova Witness God. Or the God of Protestant Christians. Or the God of Israel. Or the God revealed in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Or those of the ancients.

Thus, as an agnostic, being unsure which path to follow.

But, the word agnostic can be used and illustrated this way: Indifference.

A person can say he or she is agnostic to the situation. Thus, they do not care either way. Or it doesn’t really matter.

That’s the agnosticism I have made a point. This kind is not the desire for the truth. But absolutely nothing. Meaning, indifference to meaning. Which follows the plight of nihilism. Meaning, nothing.

This kind of agnosticism was the German indifference to Jews being killed. It did not really matter. If the Germans were Christians, as they proclaimed. It did not matter Jews were being killed. Or, it only mattered insofar as the dictate of the National Socialist commanded.

This agnosticism is also the view of those who do not care if the unborn child is being murdered through abortion. Do you see many atheists protesting in front of an abortion clinic? Do you see many protesting against the murder of unborn? Or, maybe, they simply observe the Chromosomes and DNA at conception, do not necessarily mean life begins in the womb. Or that maybe the life doesn’t matter. That, for that is considered and said. The life in the womb forming is just an expression of creation. No meaning, no purpose. A nothing. Hence, this agnosticism sets further void between the atheist and the life of the child in the womb. Either they care, or they don’t.

Agnosticism. uncertainty, is really not an uncertainty in science. DNA/Chromosomes are at the point of conception. Thus, there’s not question. Unless the agnostic would then be skeptical of science. Meaning, they cannot even “believe” in the science. And even the “atheist” succumbs to the same conclusion. They just don’t believe that the DNA and Chromosomes unique to the child forming the womb give it unique life as a human person. But just a momentary expression in creation. Because of the smallness of this child’s life.

That means, the littleness (or little one - Fetus) is as much as an inconsequence to German’s felt about Jews during the Great War.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

The Strange case is the Atheist wants to believe

“Many” would be a Democracy of the pool of Atheists you know. But what about the minority of atheists, who could be summed up this way. Is there no inclusive part for them as to also be rendered the title that should Atheist impart to them?

But, here you refer to “want to know.” And, departing knowing from “believe” and/or worship.

Let’s take the specimen of believe. It could mean: trust. Like putting one’s faith and trust.

Suppose, you were a small young child. And your father says: “don’t cross the street with cars. For if you get hit, you will hurt, and possibly die! It’s dangerous.”

This warning is knowledge. As a child you could reason and say, to yourself in no articulate way I describe, but just the basis of the idea, saying to yourself: “Cars hit. I cold get killed. Or terribly hurt.”

As a child you would believe what your father is saying is true. And therefore have faith and trust in that he is telling the truth.

If the Atheist “knows” God exists. What stops him or her from believing? Or, maybe the Atheist has to have a “reason” to believe. Thus not just knowledge alone.

What is the reason to have faith, belief, and trust (even hope.) Thus, depicts the Strange Case of the Atheist to Believe.

He or she obviously wants reasons. Thus, they do want to believe. But there has to be a reason. Something that persuades them.

Okay, take it from me. As a guy. A girl must have a reason to marry this guy. Maybe it’s just for love. Or if she is like a princess. Who holds her own. She has respectability and dignity. To hold up to more than just falling in love. She must have reason to the man who proposes to her. To marry him. Thus, hopefully, she gained a lot of insight dating and courting him.

A smart girl would carefully look at him among her other suitors. In the sense like the royalty at a banquet hall.

This is how the Atheist observes. He or she wants something persuading that is well worth their thought, intelligence, and mind, will, act, and character. That does not lower their dignity as a human person, who nonetheless has free-will to decide.

But, in truth, the girl who observes her many suitors, does want someone among them to be well worth her will, mind, intelligence, and character to marry.

This is the Strange Case of the Atheist Believer.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

You seem to make no allowance for thoughtful atheists. We’re just blind men who wish we were theists.

I wouldn’t say atheists wish they were theists. But do want to believe. Does that mean all Atheists? Perhaps not. But, I think down deep in the heart and soul, they really do want to believe. Because it is so ordinarily. As a child is hungry and wants to eat. Out of necessity.

But, as for thoughtful atheists. What is your thought?

 

[GKMotley]

Coherency and historical knowledge are good.

And books. Books are good.

Popcorn is so-so. No butter.

Garbage dumps and some threads are similar, in some respects.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

You seem to make no allowance for thoughtful atheists. We’re just blind men who wish we were theists.

I wouldn’t say atheists wish they were theists. But do want to believe. Does that mean all Atheists? Perhaps not. But, I think down deep in the heart and soul, they really do want to believe. Because it is so ordinarily. As a child is hungry and wants to eat. Out of necessity.

But, as for thoughtful atheists. What is your thought?

I think it’s a foolish thing to attempt to divine the inner working’s of an entire group’s world view. This does seem to be more about you either being unwilling or unable to accept people at their word. Perhaps your world view is so black and white that you simply cannot imagine anyone feeling differently than you do.

I think every atheist’s journey, like every theist’s, is unique. Doubtless there are people who claim to be atheists who are in fact angry at God, or perhaps they want to, but some intellectual or emotional aspect of their journey makes it difficult or impossible to bridge the divide between belief and disbelief. But I think there are also atheists who are fundamentally sincere, that your judgment of them is wholly inaccurate. You may disagree with them, you may even be unable to understand them, but that does not mean they are lying, either to themselves or to you.

 

[laylow]

If you converse with an educated atheist you will likely find out that they have considered the arguments you are presenting to them. Therefore, they may come off as impervious to suggestions, but in reality they are not really that interested in being preached the same things they have already dismissed through honest intellectual thought.

However, if you have something new to bring to the table, it will probably be met with an open mind.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m agnostic and am sure of being agnostic. I am not sure if God really exists…I waver on that…but I am not unsure. I spent many years coming to my position.

Ha! I was completely unintelligible there. I meant I am sure of my agnosticism.

When I lost my faith, I did desperately want to believe again. I spent seven years trying to regain my belief…actually, any belief. I achieved peace and happiness when I finally gave it up. I seem completely unable to believe in anything supernatural. I’m at the point where it WOULD take a miracle or some personal experience from God to believe again. But, I’m not going to go out of my way to look for God, now. It was too painful and exhausting. So, if you want to consider me indifferent, fine! I’m intellectually honest with myself and will not elevate wishful thinking over reason and evidence.

Please consider shortening your posts. Most of the stories and comparisons get lost in too much verbiage. Thanks.

 

[Anrakyr]

You over wordified a point and missed it completely.

Optimistic nihilism is the belief that despite life having no meaning you have the power to ascribe it meaning.