S obzirom da se opetovano javlja nesporazum oko samog pojma ateizma, te ako ostavimo po strani naše povremeno uživanje u diskusijama i prepiskama just for the sake of it (ko ne voli dobru filozofsku raspravu), dosta nesporazuma ima svoj korijen u vjerničkom nerazumijevanju ili pogrešnoj interpretaciji pojma ateizam/ateista (Mr. Gojeni, wink at you, you're my man).
Što bi Guy Harrison (ako zaboravimo njegovu "vanzemaljsku fazu") to bolje od mene sažeo:
Believers are correct about what atheism fails to give. It offers no philosophy of life or sense of purpose. But they point to this as if it is a strike against atheism. Clearly they have misunderstood atheism to be a religion or some codified way of life.”
Kada se posmatra ovako, ateisti zapravo i nisu "prijetnja" religiji, jer ne dolazi do opozicije, sukoba različitih religijskih/ideoloških uvjerenja.
Ako religija nudi životnu filozofiju ili osjećaj svrhe, ateizam to ne nudi. Punina naspram praznine. Jedan smisao naspram ničega. Zašto bi punina bila ugrožena prazninom?
Ateisti mogu biti i:
In a traditional Christian or Islamic society, people are expected to proclaim faith in God, with a strong commitment to a well-defined belief system. Under such circumstances, an Atheist may merely be someone who harbours serious doubt. Arguably, in a polytheistic society an Atheist may be someone who does not believe in enough gods, such that a monotheist could be accused of Atheism.”
William Sims Bainbridge
In coming to understand what is meant by “God” in such discourses, it must be understood that God, whatever else he is, is a being that could not possibly be seen or be in any way else observed. He could not be anything material or empirical, and he is said by believers to be an intractable mystery. A nonmysterious God would not be the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism Neke osnove za teiste/vjernike, skrećem pažnju na Tilicha i njegovu filozofiju.
S obzirom da teme na PF Religija često dovode u situaciju gdje je većina učesnika zauzela poziciju Rusoa, dok je Smrčak d'Holbach sa slikovnicama, a takve situacije nikada neće rezultirati nikakvim zaključkom iz prostog razloga što vjeri ne trebaju dokazi jer bi dokazi uništili srž vjere.
Iako sam Smrčku više puta pokušala ukazati na nesvrsishodnost njegovih postova koji se tiču brojčanih čuda i nanobota i čega sve ne, on i dalje osjeća potrebu da na sebe preuzme teret dokazivanja u filozofskom smislu.
...man was qualified to know the truth, since what is constructed by reason can be verified by experiment - al-Arsuzi
This, in effect, makes it a mistake to claim that the existence of God can rightly be treated as a hypothesis and makes it a mistake to claim that, by the use of the experimental method or some other determinate empirical method, the existence of God can be confirmed or disconfirmed as can the existence of an empirical reality. The retort made by some atheists, who also like pragmatists remain thoroughgoing fallibilists, is that such a proposed way of coming to know, or failing to come to know, God makes no sense for anyone who understands what kind of reality God is supposed to be. Anything whose existence could be so verified would not be the God of Judeo-Christianity. God could not be a reality whose presence is even faintly adumbrated in experience, for anything that could even count as the God of Judeo-Christianity must be transcendent to the world. Anything that could actually be encountered or experienced could not be God.
Upornim "dekodiranjem" Objava i pojava u našem tijelu i u svijetu oko nas, radi se demistifikacija božanstva. Bog ne traži da bude objašnjen (naravno moje skromno ateističko mišljenje), niti prezentiran na mirakulan način. Ako uzmemo u obzir rečenicu iz gornjeg posta da Bog je biće koje ni na koji način ne može biti observiran ili viđen, smatram da se to proteže i na njegove možebitne "manifestacije" u prirodnim procesima, nanobotima et cetera. Bog od vjernika traži samo vjeru. Od ateista ne traži ništa, te je apsurdno čitavo ovo ubjeđivanje da su tuđa, a suprostavljena stanovišta pogrešna. Osim u cilju neke dobre filozofske rasprave, da tu i tamo odradimo koju mentalnu gimnastiku. Jer suštinski, ničiji svjetonazor se neće promijeniti, jer postojanje boga se ne može potvrditi ili opovrgnutii poput postojanja empirijske stvarnosti. Stoga su besmislena i apsolutno nečasna po nas kao inteligentna bića spuštanja na nivo odnosa koji u sebi uključuju vrijeđanja po ovom osnovu.
Ili možda, meni jedna od omiljeni epizoda Dylan Doga "Tri puta nula", sažme naše "bitisanje na ovoj temi, uz donekle masakrirani citat Ibn al-Hathamija u nadi da će se možda jednog dana naći common ground umjesto versus, te zajedno poraditi na bitnijim stvarima koje trenutno more svijet od pretpostavljenog sukoba, te koristeći dolje navedenu Hathamijevu metodu doći do zajedničke istine koja god to ona bila, ako za krajnji cilj ima oplemenjivanje suživota i ulaganje zajedničkih napora da se kreira jedan bolji svijet za sve nas:
....
our aim in all that we make subject to inspection and review being to employ justice, not to follow prejudice, and to take care in all that we judge and criticize that we seek the truth and not to be swayed by opinion. We may in this way eventually come to the truth that gratifies the heart and gradually and carefully reach the end at which certainty appears; while through criticism and caution we may seize the truth that dispels disagreement and resolves doubtful matters. For all that, we are not free from that human turbidity which is in the nature of man; but we must do our best with what we possess of human power.
