I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2013, 10:33 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(16-08-2013 10:15 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  nach I disagree but will not argue about it now.
my view is in this thread and others on this forum.

I've looked at philosophy since 1980 and see no progress
from them on explaining religion.

Clifford Geertz does explain in his definition how the religious communities
does make their gods. I find the words he use very abstract but they are not
beyond reach so if you disagree with him you should be able to explain where he goes wrong.

He wrote that definition 1966 and it has stood the test of time. Unchallenged still AFAIK.

I am very disappointed he used such abstract words because I barely get it
and can not retell it with my own words but he do explain how gods are made in that text.

According to Geertz, religion is "
(1) a system of symbols which acts to
(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966).

As i get it (4) and (5) explain how the believers make god real to them.

formally you are right that they express their faith in an external "real" god
but that is explained why and how they have to do it that way in Geertz text.

It is logic that make that necessary or else they would not believe in God.

One have to really get what he says and then one realize that the ontology philosophy
is missing the point entirely. A made up god is a made up god even if it point to a supposed
real god outside of that culture.

They believer have no such knowledge and only wild guess such god to exist.
by playing along with the construct the philosophers give the believers credit
instead of pointing out that it is a social construct and not real knowledge about a real god.

Which has precisely nothing to do with the definition of atheism.

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
16-08-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(16-08-2013 10:15 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  nach I disagree but will not argue about it now.

Ok, if you don't want to be understood, and instead you insist on going on and on about the same thing and repeating the same stuff many of us have told you we don't understand. Then why are you asking for our kind help?

Is there a point to all of this?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
I've done my best to explain my view the way I see it.

I fail to get why you and chas fail to get such simple explanations.

You say I give the same answer again and again.

I do repeat it because it is the best words that I have fount for it
during one year of daily exchanges with atheists for 4 to 8 hours a day.

Had I found easier words then I would have used them instead.

Maybe the whole topic with Clifford Geertz is too abstract.
I am disappointed he used such abstract words but his students
and fellow scientists studying Anthropology seems to get what he says.

Maybe you could ask somebody good at such definitions what it means?

If you find an Anthropologist or Social Psypoligists that you think say it better
then I would appreciate you shared that. I can try to find quotes from Pascal Boyer
or Paul Bloom or Scott Atran if you feel more at home with how they express themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 11:40 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
chas wrote "Which has precisely nothing to do with the definition of atheism. "

Clifford Geertz definition has to do with Anthropology of religion.
if you can find better definitions than that one that would be a good thing.

Maybe you prefer Social Psychology? Chose which scientist you think
say it best?

It sure has to do with the description of what an atheist is.
because it describe what a theist is and atheist is theist without God.

I can agree it is not a philosophical definition that is why it is named
Anthropology of religion.

I don't like that Anthropology of religion. is a soft science but it is the best
we have so far they have not gone deeper than that unfortunately.

My personal view is that philosophy knows nothing about what it is to be a believer
and thus nothing about what it is to be a non-believer or dis-believer.

I am a non-philosophy atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 11:44 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(17-08-2013 11:34 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  I've done my best to explain my view the way I see it.

I fail to get why you and chas fail to get such simple explanations.

You say I give the same answer again and again.

I do repeat it because it is the best words that I have fount for it
during one year of daily exchanges with atheists for 4 to 8 hours a day.

Had I found easier words then I would have used them instead.

Maybe the whole topic with Clifford Geertz is too abstract.
I am disappointed he used such abstract words but his students
and fellow scientists studying Anthropology seems to get what he says.

Maybe you could ask somebody good at such definitions what it means?

If you find an Anthropologist or Social Psypoligists that you think say it better
then I would appreciate you shared that. I can try to find quotes from Pascal Boyer
or Paul Bloom or Scott Atran if you feel more at home with how they express themselves.

I understand them - I don't understand you.

It doesn't matter how others conceive of God - it only matters how you do.

Do you believe a supernatural God exists? If not, you are 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
17-08-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(17-08-2013 11:40 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  chas wrote "Which has precisely nothing to do with the definition of atheism. "

Clifford Geertz definition has to do with Anthropology of religion.
if you can find better definitions than that one that would be a good thing.

Maybe you prefer Social Psychology? Chose which scientist you think
say it best?

It sure has to do with the description of what an atheist is.
because it describe what a theist is and atheist is theist without God.

I can agree it is not a philosophical definition that is why it is named
Anthropology of religion.

I don't like that Anthropology of religion. is a soft science but it is the best
we have so far they have not gone deeper than that unfortunately.

My personal view is that philosophy knows nothing about what it is to be a believer
and thus nothing about what it is to be a non-believer or dis-believer.

I am a non-philosophy atheist.

No, atheist is 'without God', definitely not 'theist without God'. In fact, that definition doesn't even make sense.

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
17-08-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(17-08-2013 11:34 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  I've done my best to explain my view the way I see it.

I fail to get why you and chas fail to get such simple explanations.

I'm not asking you what you believe anymore, I got that. I'm asking a completely different question: What's you problem with atheism as a concept?

I'm NOT asking what you believe or why you believe that. My problem is that I fail to see any difference with what you say and atheism, and you keep saying the same thing. So I got one part of the dichotomy: your beliefs. The other part (what you understand for atheism) is in the dark for me. I see no difference between the two things or anything that could cause distress of any kind...

I'm not asking for hard abstract concepts or ideas, or weird theories or quotes from great minds. I just want to know why are you so upset about something so apparently trivial...

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 10:22 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(17-08-2013 12:03 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(17-08-2013 11:34 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  I've done my best to explain my view the way I see it.

I fail to get why you and chas fail to get such simple explanations.

I'm not asking you what you believe anymore, I got that. I'm asking a completely different question: What's you problem with atheism as a concept?

I'm NOT asking what you believe or why you believe that. My problem is that I fail to see any difference with what you say and atheism, and you keep saying the same thing. So I got one part of the dichotomy: your beliefs. The other part (what you understand for atheism) is in the dark for me. I see no difference between the two things or anything that could cause distress of any kind...

I'm not asking for hard abstract concepts or ideas, or weird theories or quotes from great minds. I just want to know why are you so upset about something so apparently trivial...

I don't even understand what you write there.

Do you get me better if I say that

I am not a phil minded atheist
I am a science minded person.
I rather search for an answer from science
than from philosophy!


I trust that is my last word on this topic.
Thanks to everybody that has participated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 10:30 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(17-08-2013 10:22 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  
(17-08-2013 12:03 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I'm not asking you what you believe anymore, I got that. I'm asking a completely different question: What's you problem with atheism as a concept?

I'm NOT asking what you believe or why you believe that. My problem is that I fail to see any difference with what you say and atheism, and you keep saying the same thing. So I got one part of the dichotomy: your beliefs. The other part (what you understand for atheism) is in the dark for me. I see no difference between the two things or anything that could cause distress of any kind...

I'm not asking for hard abstract concepts or ideas, or weird theories or quotes from great minds. I just want to know why are you so upset about something so apparently trivial...

I don't even understand what you write there.

Do you get me better if I say that

I am not a phil minded atheist
I am a science minded person.
I rather search for an answer from science
than from philosophy!


I trust that is my last word on this topic.
Thanks to everybody that has participated.

The two fields aren't mutually exclusive, and both impact each other quite a bit. I think you are confused as to what philosophy is.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
18-08-2013, 04:55 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2013 05:00 AM by Freethinker2.)
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(17-08-2013 10:30 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(17-08-2013 10:22 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  ...

The two fields aren't mutually exclusive, and both impact each other quite a bit. I think you are confused as to what philosophy is.

I think you are confused as to what philosophy is.

I trust it is even worse than that. I more likely don't have the means
to get what it is .Take the weak atheist definition that use the word lack.
I heard about it first time say 1995 and I still now don't get it. it seems very wrong to me.

It has a few different ways to say it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Quote: Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Other definitions use the word have a lack of belief that gods exists.

some use the word "without belief" that gods exists.

But that is not what I am. That is why I am skeptical to see me as an atheist.

I have no absence or being without or lack of or any such.

I positively believe that Clifford Geertz and Feuerbach and
Guthrie give a much better description and definition of religion
than what the weak atheist definition gives.

I belief that every religion and it's gods are cultural products of
the religious community that practice that belief.
That is how they make their gods.

I don't lack belief in gods. I trust that I know how the believer makes their gods.


So I don't lack belief in gods. I trust that Anthropology has described how gods are made.
Clifford Geertz describe how in his definition of religion already 1966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropolog...f_religion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: