Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2013, 10:48 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
It has to do with self identity. I spent one year daily trying to explain that
and totally failed and AFAIK I have no better words today.

it has to do with feeling at home with an identity. To you a no big deal most likely.
Don't worry be happy you are an atheist. Just go with it. You are it.

That is not how it feels for me. Have you heard of females
not feeling at home in their female body. They dress like men do
and they behave like men do and get name changes that make it possible
some would think they are a man. They are by definition female but they
don't feel like being one.

it has to do with self identity. Not directly comparable.
Gender is much more close to heart than what belief is.

Body is most close to heart Smile


Edit forgot to add I've already tested to be atheist for some 55 years
so I have a long experience of what it is like. I am not that atheist anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 10:52 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 10:48 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  It has to do with self identity. I spent one year daily trying to explain that
and totally failed and AFAIK I have no better words today.

it has to do with feeling at home with an identity. To you a no big deal most likely.
Don't worry be happy you are an atheist. Just go with it. You are it.

That is not how it feels for me. Have you heard of females
not feeling at home in their female body. They dress like men do
and they behave like men do and get name changes that make it possible
some would think they are a man. They are by definition female but they
don't feel like being one.

it has to do with self identity. Not directly comparable.
Gender is much more close to heart than what belief is.

Body is most close to heart Smile


Edit forgot to add I've already tested to be atheist for some 55 years
so I have a long experience of what it is like. I am not that atheist anymore.

So you envy believers ability to ignore reality? I am not really following what your saying here.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 10:56 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Nope not envy that seems destructive to do.
Admire I do not neither. Nor do I revere their talent
for deception and deceiving and delusion and mistake.

I believe that all gods are man made. that is my definition.

Maybe one solution is to name that view Atheist 2.0 and
the weak atheist defiition is Atheist 1.0 standard.

that means that I where atheist 1,0 for some 40 years
and atheist 1.5 for some 10 yeas and are now Atheist 2.0

There is a man named Alain deBotton that came up with Atheist 2.0
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 10:56 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Nope not envy that seems destructive to do.
Admire I do not neither. Nor do I revere their talent
for deception and deceiving and delusion and mistake.

I believe that all gods are man made. that is my definition.

Maybe one solution is to name that view Atheist 2.0 and
the weak atheist defiition is Atheist 1.0 standard.

that means that I where atheist 1,0 for some 40 years
and atheist 1.5 for some 10 yeas and are now Atheist 2.0

There is a man named Alain deBotton that came up with Atheist 2.0

TBH I don't see how that distinction is any different from Atheism. God/s are not real. If they are not real then Q.E.D. they are all man made. Zeus, Thor, Lex Luthor, Yahweh, Mithras, Sauron, Swiftus, Gaia, Shiva, and Bhaal all have 1 thing in common, they are fictional characters. The only difference is some living people still mistake some of them as being real. Reality disproves this, Science is the method that we have developed to determine what is true about the physical world.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:15 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 10:56 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Nope not envy that seems destructive to do.
Admire I do not neither. Nor do I revere their talent
for deception and deceiving and delusion and mistake.

I believe that all gods are man made. that is my definition.

Maybe one solution is to name that view Atheist 2.0 and
the weak atheist defiition is Atheist 1.0 standard.

that means that I where atheist 1,0 for some 40 years
and atheist 1.5 for some 10 yeas and are now Atheist 2.0

There is a man named Alain deBotton that came up with Atheist 2.0

You are making a distinction that simply does not exist.

You seem to be reading more into the word 'atheism' than is there.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Yes I hink I agree with most of what you say. Some of the atheists
I got to know during that 1 year daily exchanges of views had a slightly
different way to express it though.

Maybe they mean same as you but they told me that the god has to be real
or else these mistaken theists should be seen as atheist by atheists.

Kind of odd. But it relates to what you wrote

quote
the only difference is some living people still mistake
some of them as being real.
/quote

They expressed that as the only way to be a theist
that one make that honest mistake to trust that God to be real
or else one where an atheist if one understood that the god was made up.

Not sure why they took it that seriously they found me to be
so different as atheist that they almost only had ridicule instead
of friendly sharing atheist to atheist.

Why should I accept to be atheist if some 99% of all active atheists dislike me?
why do they love to force me to be atheist against my will if they don't even like me
and say that I am an idiot for not getting their definitions. I prefer like minded people
and not people that look down upon me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 11:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are making a distinction that simply does not exist.

You seem to be reading more into the word 'atheism' than is there.

then why not accept that I don't even get what it is
to be one and that I don't want to be one don't have
the means to be one and release me from a term that
I don't feel at home with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 11:17 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Yes I hink I agree with most of what you say. Some of the atheists
I got to know during that 1 year daily exchanges of views had a slightly
different way to express it though.

Maybe they mean same as you but they told me that the god has to be real
or else these mistaken theists should be seen as atheist by atheists.

Kind of odd. But it relates to what you wrote

quote
the only difference is some living people still mistake
some of them as being real.
/quote

They expressed that as the only way to be a theist
that one make that honest mistake to trust that God to be real
or else one where an atheist if one understood that the god was made up.

Not sure why they took it that seriously they found me to be
so different as atheist that they almost only had ridicule instead
of friendly sharing atheist to atheist.

Why should I accept to be atheist if some 99% of all active atheists dislike me?
why do they love to force me to be atheist against my will if they don't even like me
and say that I am an idiot for not getting their definitions. I prefer like minded people
and not people that look down upon me.

Thats sounds like the Atheism+ crowd. there are always cliques involved with any movement but just because one person defines their beliefs in a way doesn't change what words mean. Around here we tend to be sticklers for the actual meaning of words so it is your former compatriots that are mistaken not you. You definition is basically what Atheism means if I am reading you correctly. Atheism A-theism A meaning without Theism Belief in god. Once God is not real he is fiction and man made. Some are easier to prove false than others and most theists will jump through hoops to prevent their mental construct from toppling. To date the only god we can not disprove is the Tinkerer/watchmaker non-interventionist that fine tuned the universe and the laws of physics and then left never appearing in the actual universe.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 11:21 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  
(11-08-2013 11:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are making a distinction that simply does not exist.

You seem to be reading more into the word 'atheism' than is there.

then why not accept that I don't even get what it is
to be one and that I don't want to be one don't have
the means to be one and release me from a term that
I don't feel at home with.

I can see that you don't seem to understand this simple definition.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 11:17 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Maybe they mean same as you but they told me that the god has to be real
or else these mistaken theists should be seen as atheist by atheists.

Maybe this is the root of the problem.
I can't believe anyone actually said or meant what you seem to be saying they said.

An atheist believes that all theists are mistaken.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: