I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy

[Chas]

(18-08-2013 04:55 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  

(17-08-2013 10:30 PM)Dark Light 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

You are confusing two things: belief and knowledge of belief.

What other people believe about gods has nothing to do with your belief in gods. You persist in mixing these together.

[nach_in]

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

Oh, I think I finally got it

The weak definition is worded like that because otherwise it implies a belief that gods don't exist, which would require absolute evidence of that absence.
That's why "lack of belief" is more suited. It only implies there's no faith in gods in any way, but leaves the question about the actual existence of gods open for lack of evidence.

But there are, of course, gods in the sense of ideas, people have ideas of gods and they believe those ideas equate to a real thing. That's how gods are made (oversimplified), and pretty much every atheist think that way.

Atheism is a really broad word, it's like saying I'm human, that doesn't say almost anything about me, but it's correct.

We all add complements and perspectives to our beliefs (or lack thereof), but we identify on the very broad and general term "atheism"

[Freethinker2]

(18-08-2013 09:56 AM)nach_in Wrote:  

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

Oh, I think I finally got it

The weak definition is worded like that because otherwise it implies a belief that gods don't exist, which would require absolute evidence of that absence.
That's why "lack of belief" is more suited. It only implies there's no faith in gods in any way, but leaves the question about the actual existence of gods open for lack of evidence.

But there are, of course, gods in the sense of ideas, people have ideas of gods and they believe those ideas equate to a real thing. That's how gods are made (oversimplified), and pretty much every atheist think that way.

Atheism is a really broad word, it's like saying I'm human, that doesn't say almost anything about me, but it's correct.

We all add complements and perspectives to our beliefs (or lack thereof), but we identify on the very broad and general term "atheism"

Wow that was a breakthrough. Sad that I have not a brain being able
to express it that clearly. I most likely will borrow that text from you in the future.

So my 1 year of daily 4 to 8 hour ordeal with active atheists
could have ended the first day if I had had that command over words
and expressed it that way.

Now I feel so bruised by them so I will not return to these forums
and share your view there because I can not stand them to dismiss your view too that would most likely kill all hope that is left for my survival.

But reading you now it sounds like you are the only atheist that grasp what I have tried to stand up for all this time and countless exchanges.

I will test your view on other forums and hope it will work there.
Do you have some blog or personal page one can link to and
you put you understanding there? Or else they tell me that I made it all up.

Atheists can be extremely suspicious. One guy totally failed to trust that I actually wrote for 4 to 8 hours a day for one year he found that not a true story. Unless they deleted all those texts it is still there but I don't want link to it it makes me too sad to know that atheists just laugh at me and dismiss my efforts to get understood.

So thanks for understanding me. Much appreciated.

[Freethinker2]

chas if you read post 112 there nach_in seems to get what I fail to express.
Hope your skepticism to me does not spill over now to him.

So unless anybody come with serious criticism of what Nach wrote
then maybe we can see this thread solved?

I trust that I now at least have found one atheist that understood me.

[Chas]

(18-08-2013 11:41 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  chas if you read post 112 there nach_in seems to get what I fail to express.
Hope your skepticism to me does not spill over now to him.

So unless anybody come with serious criticism of what Nach wrote
then maybe we can see this thread solved?

I trust that I now at least have found one atheist that understood me.

I regret that you have not understood what I have said.

Can you please explain this statement:

"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. "

[evenheathen]

(18-08-2013 09:56 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Atheism is a really broad word, it's like saying I'm human, that doesn't say almost anything about me, but it's correct.

We all add complements and perspectives to our beliefs (or lack thereof), but we identify on the very broad and general term "atheism"

I hate to take another swing at this dead horse, but technically this is wrong. You are talking about "descriptions" of the word atheism, not the definition.

Because the word "atheism" has such a succinct definition, it is easily applied to a very broad spectrum of worldviews. However, the very definition of the word is what it is, irregardless of how you choose to use it in describing your worldview.

[Dark Light]

nach, can you explain his/her position more clearly?

[nach_in]

(18-08-2013 11:53 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  

(18-08-2013 09:56 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Atheism is a really broad word, it's like saying I'm human, that doesn't say almost anything about me, but it's correct.

We all add complements and perspectives to our beliefs (or lack thereof), but we identify on the very broad and general term "atheism"

I hate to take another swing at this dead horse, but technically this is wrong. You are talking about "descriptions" of the word atheism, not the definition.

Because the word "atheism" has such a succinct definition, it is easily applied to a very broad spectrum of worldviews. However, the very definition of the word is what it is, irregardless of how you choose to use it in describing your worldview.

I know, that's the problem, the definition is so succinct it barely says anything about someone's beliefs. That's why some other clarification is needed for freethinker

(18-08-2013 12:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  nach, can you explain his/her position more clearly?

The thing is that he feels that atheism has a negative definition (as in something that is not). That's why he needs to include other stuff to describe his beliefs in an affirmative manner. That's why he says he believes gods are man made, that puts some actual content into the "belief" box, instead of just leaving it empty.

His definition is actually quite good for that question theist always throw at us: "If you don't believe in god then what do you believe in?"

[evenheathen]

(18-08-2013 04:29 PM)nach_in Wrote:  

(18-08-2013 11:53 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  I hate to take another swing at this dead horse, but technically this is wrong. You are talking about "descriptions" of the word atheism, not the definition.

Because the word "atheism" has such a succinct definition, it is easily applied to a very broad spectrum of worldviews. However, the very definition of the word is what it is, irregardless of how you choose to use it in describing your worldview.

I know, that's the problem, the definition is so succinct it barely says anything about someone's beliefs. That's why some other clarification is needed for freethinker

(18-08-2013 12:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  nach, can you explain his/her position more clearly?

The thing is that he feels that atheism has a negative definition (as in something that is not). That's why he needs to include other stuff to describe his beliefs in an affirmative manner. That's why he says he believes gods are man made, that puts some actual content into the "belief" box, instead of just leaving it empty.

His definition is actually quite good for that question theist always throw at us: "If you don't believe in god then what do you believe in?"

Ah. That actually clarifies a bit.

[Dark Light]

(18-08-2013 04:29 PM)nach_in Wrote:  

(18-08-2013 12:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  nach, can you explain his/her position more clearly?

The thing is that he feels that atheism has a negative definition (as in something that is not). That's why he needs to include other stuff to describe his beliefs in an affirmative manner. That's why he says he believes gods are man made, that puts some actual content into the "belief" box, instead of just leaving it empty.

His definition is actually quite good for that question theist always throw at us: "If you don't believe in god then what do you believe in?"

Okey Dokey Smokey! I don't know that it really adds anything like you believe, but I understand it now. Perhaps he is an Igtheist, like me? That's the vibe I'm getting. He wouldn't like that the label is a philosophical one though.