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
18-08-2013, 07:59 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(18-08-2013 06:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(18-08-2013 04:29 PM)nach_in Wrote:  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.

No, not okey-dokey; smokey or otherwise.
The lack of belief in gods does not need beliefs added to it. The fellow is creating a confusion.

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
18-08-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(18-08-2013 07:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-08-2013 06:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.

No, not okey-dokey; smokey or otherwise.
The lack of belief in gods does not need beliefs added to it. The fellow is creating a confusion.

Of course IT doesn't, he needs it though. He feels is not enough for him just the basic "lack of belief" atheism, that's why he adds the anthropological thing.
He doesn't complain about the definition of atheism, he just feels is not enough for him...

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 10:41 PM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2013 10:45 PM by Freethinker2.)
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Nach_in, Dark Light, chas, all of you thanks for kind words.

Now that I got so far through kind help from nach_in
I feel not polite if I would start to complain about details.

I am a very stubborn grumpy old man so expect the worse.

Anyway I trust that I did test Igtheist as you suggest here
Dark Light, I also tested Ignotheist and Apatheist all these
part of wikipedia so accepted by the atheists that edit that one.

Not so on the most aggressive forum. To them only two words
where accepted theist and atheist.


Well surprise I have been atheist for 55 years why would that not be enough? I was a very proud atheist. I loved to be atheist. I defended
being atheist to the best of my ability while my atheism lasted.

why was that not enough. Because to these atheist at that forum
the only thing that did matter to them was my current status.

All the atheism I had for 55 years was worth nothing to them
if I did not have it now. Only they could decide what label I should had.

So nach_in is right about me wanting a positive box instead of the empty negative box of lacking faith in gods.

So Anthropology of religion definition place me in a long tradition since 1841 doing a positive claim about religion and indirectly about that religion and it's gods.


Feuerbach suggest that gods are projection of human aspirations. Human idealizing itself and projecting it on a supernatural live God.

A kind if illusion or delusion and when Richard Dawkins gave his book
that title "The God Delusion" that most likely had that source in the text from 1841.

So 55 years ago I had a positive view I where a strong atheist
a strong atheist makes a claim. There are no gods.
Humans makes them up. Gods are made by human not the other way.

That is what Feuerbach wrote 1841.
Quote:that every religion is created by the human community that worships it
Clifford Geertz making his definition on religion 1966 only try to find abstract words for to say almost the same thing but what he adds is how the believers try to use rhetoric tricks to make their God as realistically factual as possible.

So that is where Igtheist comes in. An Igheist would say
that the believers fail to explain what God really is.
the word is not well defined.

So when the negative atheism got popular around 1995
through Internet I kind of got lost due to me strong atheist
and that kind of fall out of fashion to be because making a claim
gives you the duty to give evidence for that claim.

That is what happens now with Anthropology of religion
which is a positive claim and not a negative claim.

It says "that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it"

One tough guy asked me to give personal evidence without referring to anybody else for that this is true.

This is why I don't like philosophy. It has this requirement built in.

That seems to not be the case in Anthropology of religion
they don't stop referring to definition from Guthrie or Geertz
just because none of those referring to them lack evidence.


They have peer review consensus on that this is where it stands now.
The science has not had any progress since 1966 on definition on religion. the topic is too broad and ambiguous and not easy to put in words that cover all circumstances.

Sorry me using this many words but I fail to be shorter.
So in principle nach_in had an insight that is very close
to who I am. A person with a need for a positive claim
that has abandon the strong atheist claim there are no gods
and instead adopted the Anthropology of religion claim


that all gods are man made.
is a positive claim and
not a negative claim
which the lack of belief is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_an...ve_atheism
"Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist."

I had that positive view and it worked very well until I had a crisis
and I have tried and tried to find another claim that work as well
and

this claim "All gods are man made" is a positive claim that I can accept.
I find it 100% most likely and I don't care if I fail to defend it. I believe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 10:51 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Nach_in is it okay if I borrow your explanation of that I want to be
making a positive claim like strong atheism but from Anthropology
of religion instead of philosophy and is it okay if I use my own words
inspired by your take on me or do I need to make a link to this thread?

I can not expect people to want to read 13 pages of my fruitless struggle?

Anyway much appreciated that you shared your insight it helped a lot.

I feel hope again and can hopefully relax now having a positive claim to make.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 10:57 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(18-08-2013 10:51 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Nach_in is it okay if I borrow your explanation of that I want to be
making a positive claim like strong atheism but from Anthropology
of religion instead of philosophy and is it okay if I use my own words
inspired by your take on me or do I need to make a link to this thread?

I can not expect people to want to read 13 pages of my fruitless struggle?

Anyway much appreciated that you shared your insight it helped a lot.

I feel hope again and can hopefully relax now having a positive claim to make.

Of course man, use the words, no credit needed. That's what you believe anyway Wink

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
19-08-2013, 12:11 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2013 12:28 AM by Freethinker2.)
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(18-08-2013 10:57 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(18-08-2013 10:51 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Nach_in is it okay if I borrow your explanation of that I want to be
making a positive claim like strong atheism but from Anthropology
of religion instead of philosophy and is it okay if I use my own words
inspired by your take on me or do I need to make a link to this thread?

I can not expect people to want to read 13 pages of my fruitless struggle?

Anyway much appreciated that you shared your insight it helped a lot.

I feel hope again and can hopefully relax now having a positive claim to make.

Of course man, use the words, no credit needed. That's what you believe anyway Wink

You are very generous. Much appreciated.

Guys I apology for 13 pages of my confusing thoughts.

Without the brilliant breakthrough that nach_in made
neither you nor I would have get what I tried to say.

I feel hope now that within some year or so I will be able
to use nach_in understanding of my confusing thoughts
and find a way to present it so it is genuinely me and still comprehensible.

So thanks for all the efforts and wish you all the best.

PS
chas yes I know I have not answered many of you questions
this one is one of them

Can you please explain this statement:

Freethinker2 wrote:
"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 don't remember the context but I trust it is my confusing way
to say that even if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion
does not even mention theism and atheism it only mention monotheism
to explain a particular thing not important for our discussion here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion is what I do believe in
and it includes philosophy by being science because science is based on philosophy
as one of my many critics told me.

Reminds me of It is Turtles all the way down. Science is philosophy
there is nothing that is not philosophy. you can not say almost nothign
without doing a philosophic claim about something.

But the cool thing is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion
already includes all the needed philosophy without even referring to neither that term or to theism atheism.

it is included

So when I make this positive claim

All gods are made by the cultures that refer to their particular God or gods.

then it sure is philosophy seen from an atheist perspective
but if you see it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion
then they don't even mention atheism or philosophy so somehow they
have already included these so they don't have to answer such questions as

Do you believe in God? The cultural tradition has already decided. Sweden is a Christian nation.
Our King is Evagelical Lutheran that is what Sweden is to the culture. Sure we protested but it took
some 50 years before that they let us become atheists. For a long time it was forbidden to be Baptist in Sweden

Or else philosophy and atheism would be there in the wikipedia text
as a criticism from the critics of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

not sure why they anthropology is let off the hook that way maybe some academic quirk
we have to ask some academic philosopher. Why these don't tell the Anthropologists they are very wrong Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 12:29 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
So Guys unless there is something very important I leave you now.

Bye!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 12:35 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(19-08-2013 12:29 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  So Guys unless there is something very important I leave you now.

Bye!

Well it was an interesting conversation. Thanks! Come back and chat anytime!

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
19-08-2013, 06:52 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(18-08-2013 10:41 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  this claim "All gods are man made" is a positive claim that I can accept.
I find it 100% most likely and I don't care if I fail to defend it. I believe it.

That is a problem. It is the same problem theists have. It is a faith claim.

You say you need a positive claim, that you were a 'strong atheist'. This seems to
be at the root of your angst and confusion, and seems to be leading you into
'atheist apologetics', if I may coin a phrase.

Cultural anthropologists have lots of evidence for their claim that religions are
created by their cultures. Even more, that religions infuse their cultures; that the
religion and culture are often inseparable.

However, this has nothing directly to do with the actual existence of gods, nor of
one's belief or lack of belief in gods.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I am not making any claim with
that statement other than applying a label. I am also a-unicornist, a-faeriest, and
so on. It doesn't matter what beliefs others have or how they got them for my
being atheist.

I don't think you have sorted out the difference between belief and knowledge, claim and 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
19-08-2013, 07:24 AM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Prove it! Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: