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, 11:53 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 11:21 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  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.

The inherent problem is that simple words have simple definitions. If, through no fault of your own, your worldview matches the simple definition of this word then this word is applicable to you.

It's only when you attach a more complex idea to the word that it becomes a problem, which is what you seem to have done. Perhaps rather than trying to detach yourself from atheism, you should instead try to detach the extraneous definitions from the word.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
11-08-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Ok, so then you are a Mythotheist.

So what's the trouble there?

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 12:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  Ok, so then you are a Mythotheist.

So what's the trouble there?

I believe it's actually anthromythotheist. But either way, I see no problem.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 04:39 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Haha thanks Dom. The problem is that atheists tells me
that it does not matter that you and I accept that I am one.

To them I am an atheist whatever you and I accept to see me as.

Thanks evenheathen. that mouthful term was to get a word
that gave the right connotation in right order. Human made god.
But maybe mythotheist is less hard to guess what it means

The fact is that I am not much of a Campbell mythologist
I don't like mythologies much. I drown in all the details to remember.

So anthro before mytho kind of tells that humans as such make gods
not that I am one of the myth makers personally knowing all the myths.

Maybe it just confuses.

here is a too long do not read text TLDR

I guess I have to treat atheist as a similar category as
tall or slim or Caucasian or male that it does not help what one think
about it the others chose on my behalf.

I don't see myself as tall I've people who are tall I am not
but it does not help I am tall in the average guy length.

I am slim compared to most guys. Lack muscles no body building
so to them I am slim. Too slim.

I am not tanned and I am Caucasian to the Americans because
that is how they set it up. I don't remember we ever thought of such
categories. Nordic or Scandinavian in culture seems more correct.

Caucasians don't have the typical Law of Jante that we have in Scandinavia.
Caucasians don't have the consensus agreement we almost always try to arrive at.

I am not a typical male I am more of a Sissy without wanting to be one.
But male is the general term they give me.

So atheist is somethign other tell me that I am even if me don't want to be one.

But I have been atheist for more than 55 years so I feel sick and tired of being one.

I feel too religious to be an atheist. Not even religious atheist accept my religiosity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 04:44 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 04:39 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  I feel too religious to be an atheist. Not even religious atheist accept my religiosity.

What is a "religious atheist"?

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, 06:09 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 04:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-08-2013 04:39 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  I feel too religious to be an atheist. Not even religious atheist accept my religiosity.

What is a "religious atheist"?

these existed around 1995 an Elder of a Tribe in Canada
came up with it. He had a site with that term defined.

Some Buddhists use it to refer to Buddhist schools
that they disagree with. they see Jodo Shinshu as religious atheism.

it was just a test I made to see if it got accepted by the atheists.
as your reaction indicate it did not hit home among many.

What about this one that came up today.

Would it not be utterly correct to describe me as a

Anti-philosophy atheist. Definition of Anti-philosophy atheist.

a person that are forced to be an atheist by the weak atheist
definition and that person don't self identify as atheist
but the active atheists tell him there is no escape due to logic.

So I am decidedly an Anti-philosophy atheist.

how can that not be logically consistent and compatible with
weak atheism? And very true to my behavior true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2013 07:01 PM by Chas.)
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 06:09 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  
(11-08-2013 04:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  What is a "religious atheist"?

these existed around 1995 an Elder of a Tribe in Canada
came up with it. He had a site with that term defined.

Some Buddhists use it to refer to Buddhist schools
that they disagree with. they see Jodo Shinshu as religious atheism.

it was just a test I made to see if it got accepted by the atheists.
as your reaction indicate it did not hit home among many.

What about this one that came up today.

Would it not be utterly correct to describe me as a

Anti-philosophy atheist. Definition of Anti-philosophy atheist.

a person that are forced to be an atheist by the weak atheist
definition and that person don't self identify as atheist
but the active atheists tell him there is no escape due to logic.

So I am decidedly an Anti-philosophy atheist.

how can that not be logically consistent and compatible with
weak atheism? And very true to my behavior true.

Call yourself whatever you want. I still don't understand what your problem with the word 'atheist' is.

You don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. What is the problem?

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, 06:53 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 06:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Call yourself whatever you want. I still don't understand what your problem with the word 'atheist' is.

Yo don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. What is the problem?

That's a very good question.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2013 08:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 08:12 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Anthropology is a soft science and there is a cultural war going on
since before the WWII maybe earlier and the hatred towards hard science
is so strong that one can not really trust the soft science as I get it.

But suppose is a good word for atheist it is like the

There is probably no God
so ... the bus campaign.

so suppose anthropology do get it right.
what does that mean practically?

A huge difference to the atheists if they care about science.

Most likely they don't care because they are totally obsessed
with water tight philosophic definitions. Smile They just love such!

Baloney. You must live in a very backward region. There was and is no "war against hard science since before WWII". What evidence do you have for that ? Einstein and his friends were celebrated, and every time medicine or physics or chemistry comes up with something new, it's celebrated. Maybe in some backwards area(s) there might be. It's a false generalization.

The whole business of what category of label to put on oneself is irrelevant. The only reason it's even discussed is because theism (supposedly) is still strong. If that was not a fact, no one would even discuss the question. Do we need to establish what we call ourselves with respect to the teapot that isn't orbiting the sun ?
Why, I must be an ateapotist 3.874523.

BTW, the best thing written lateley about the Anthropology, (actually he's a Sociologist) of Religion was "Religion in Human Evolution", by Robert N. Bellah. No one can assail his science. Give it a go if you like.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-08-2013, 12:36 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
bucky Ball thanks for referring to Bellah, you are not the first
so I shall take a look at his texts then.

Chas I think your reaction does show there is a huge problem.
Your reaction is typical atheistsic but it is not something I feel at home with.

And it is not true as you say.

"Call yourself whatever you want. I still don't understand what your problem with the word 'atheist' is.

You don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. What is the problem? "

I certainly do believe that all gods where made by humans that is something very different
to what you say.

so you guys being this logical. There exist gnostic atheists and agnotic atheists
and implicit atheists and soft atheists and hard atheists and explicit and ...

There sure must exist reluctant atheists and unwilling atheists

I am one of the reluctant and unwilling atheists showing my resistance openly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: