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
09-08-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(09-08-2013 03:30 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 03:26 PM)nach_in Wrote:  see, they're important Drinking Beverage

Yes (see the edit to above post) they are. As accuracy in semantics can also be. Big Grin

indeed...

freaking language barriers and semantic nazis... Weeping

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(09-08-2013 03:54 PM)nach_in Wrote:  semantic nazis

Oh, fuck off. I'm usually the offender, this just happens to be an unusual conversation. Tongue

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
09-08-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Philosophy is an interesting subject to pursue. And it even has some value in terms of thought processes and how they relate what we value in life. But you have to understand that philosophies are like assholes! Everyone has one. You will not find truth in anyone's philosophy. You may find interesting ideas. That is all.

My "philosophy" may be that the world would better off if god hadn't created the clitoris. Because those evil things make women temptresses! Let's cut um off!

A persons philosophy, even a cultures philosophy, is basically their view of life. It means nothing.

Interesting? Yes! Thought provoking? Yes! But no philosopher has the answers to your questions. There is no "right" way to live. And we all die!

That's my philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Hey Freethinker2, welcome to the forum.

From what I can gather from your posts you strictly believe that all gods are a construct of human belief and society. I am sure you will find many people here who would empathise with that (myself included)

You mentioned two other forums where I am going to guess that you talked about your beliefs in depth and for some reason people wish to label you as an "atheist" when you yourself wish to be labelled with something that goes beyond this???

Maybe its not that you don't believe in god because there is no evidence but that you don't believe in god because of your understanding of and your studying of Anthropology of religion and Social psychology, that god is a creation of ours and we are not a creation of god. That god does exist but only through us and our beliefs and not through some mysterious happenings.

So you wish for a new label to describe your beliefs (which I translate as being very important to you) which you have coined as.....

anthromythotheist

Definition: Somebody who believes god is a construct of the human condition which can be explained through emotion, psychology and the anthropology of religion!

You say you struggle to understand philosophy? Whos definition are you not understanding as there are many many different interpretations, with many of our current westerns ones all based a lot around Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Which are in their own way, religions of trains of thought.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 06:33 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
I'm much more interested in scepticism than atheism. That is, the kind of scepticism that believes things based on evidence and demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. The James Randi style of scepticism. Disbelief in in a god - atheism - is generally the outcome of applying a sceptical approach to life. Unsceptical atheism is not very interesting or important to me.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 09:40 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Very generous of all of you, very interesting to read all the different views.
Hope it is okay if I concentrate just now on the answer from bemore.

Yes maybe I could accept to be atheist forever due to how language and logic works
if atheists that are active on boards allowed me to self identify as anthromythotheist
and that atheism is part of that term. Theism can be part of that term too if the believer
somehow managage to think there really are a god that exists and that the one we made up
is a metaphor for that existing God and that we have no way to really know the nature of that God.

formally I am an atheist but I don't feel like one because almost no atheist behave like
what I refer to as anthromythotheist.

I agree 100% with you that most or maybe all atheists theoretically but not always
in practice do agree with Anthropology of religion and Social psychology that humans are
very imaginative and have a creative fantasy so most atheists agree that humans made their gods.

the difference seems to be that most atheists find that so trivially true or totally irrelevant
so they dismiss that knowledge as having no value for them while to me it has great explanation value.

the Anthropology of religion and Social psychology view explains why gods has to be real
and that the believer has to be honest to trust that the god really do exist or else they lose faith.

Anthropology of religion and Social psychology explains why believers makes outrageous claims
that there is no evidence for what so ever. it explains why they are so dangerous fundamentalistic.

Atheism as such only say "I lack belief in gods" It does not contain a good explanation
why the believers are locked into a deceptive delusion and have a hard time to get out of it .

AFAIK Anthropology of religion and Social psychology does explain this or at least give possible hints.

So now when strident atheists for one whole year has told there is no way for me to be a my own label

sure I can name myself whatever but I am officially still only an atheist in their eyes.

you ask me "ou say you struggle to understand philosophy? Whos definition are you not understanding as there are many many different interpretations, with many of our current westerns ones all based a lot around Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Which are in their own way, religions of trains of thought. "

I am most likely too dense or stupid or dull or dim or not as bright as needed for to be atheist.
I even fail with the weak atheist definition that George Smith made popular around 1973.

Sure I get each word but not the meaning of whole text. Either me too stupid
or that I am clever enough to get that it is not as simple as they tell me.

I think I prefer that I am stupid. I don't trust that I am more clever because
then I would have been able to find something that made sense during the
12 month of four hours to 8 hours daily exchanges. I am simply too stupid.

But I trust that I do get what the two short quotes from wikipedia says about
Anthropology of religion and Social psychology. And I feel at home in that way
of thinking and it is me, but atheism is not me. It has been me for some 55 years
but it is not me anymore I am fed up with the attitude of atheists being totally dependent
on philosophy and them totally dismissing Anthropology of religion and Social psychology.

Sure they pay lip service to it in principle but in practice they tell me it is totally irrelevant.

To me Anthropology of religion and Social psychology is very important. I wish it was a natural
science instead of soft science. Anthropology of religion and Social psychology are still too ideologically
biased by the political faith of the scientists involved them have a kind of cultural war going on.

I don't support that but I see almost no value in philosophy either.
Bemore thanks for your thoughtful words. We can agree to disagree on Nihilism and such.
I am more into Feuerbach than into Nietzsche. Mostly because I don't get a word of him
while I get much of what Feuerbach says at least I have that delusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Re being a male in a female body or being a female in a man body
I agree that they end up in an even bigger identity crisis that I did.
And sadly some of them do take their life. and the authoritues demand
them sterilize so they can have no biological children a very high price to pay.

But you are aware of that political correctness to support these individuals.
If a female feel she is a male in a female body then PC support that she can change name
and get an official recognition as now being male seen legally too.

Yes it is unfair to compare with my problem but it is a bit similar in that
the female self identifying as male got a support group that want the law to recognize her needs.

Compare now with the strident online atheists. Their political correctness has the opposite view.

They don't accept that I self identify as anthromythotheist. Sure they tell me call yourself anything
we don't care for logically you are still atheist whatever you chose to feel like.

That would be like telling her that sure if you feel like a male that is okay with us
as long as you accept that to us you are a female having mistaken view on who you are.

The fair thing would be that atheists accepted that
apatheists are apatheists and not atheists
agnostics are agnostics and not agnostic atheists or theists.
Ig theists are igtheists and not atheists

unless they want to self identify as atheist then they are atheist but only then.

But what about doing surveys and statistics on populations?
Sure I am most likely atheist from that perspective and accept that
because they don't take away my self identity and they don't ridicule me
and they don't make "LulZ" and do condescending name calling seeing me as idiot.

Statistial surveys do a kind of payed job so they have to use terms that a lot of persons
don't agree with. Their definition of agnostic is very different from the wikipedia text on atheism
where one can either be agnostic theist or agnostic atheists but not the kind of agnostic
that the survey institute set up. agnostic = somebody who don't know what they believe in.

Agnostic know that there is no way to know god and that is a very different definition.
I am not supporter of agnosticism but I want to allow them to make their own definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 10:09 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
(09-08-2013 02:42 PM)nach_in Wrote:  To the OP

... in your particular case, your beliefs (or disbelief) have some particular connotations and contextualizations that aren't implied in that definition.
You said you don't believe in an objective existence of gods, objective meaning external, real, and differentiable of people's minds existence. But you do believe in a SUBJECTIVE existence, as you said, gods exists as social constructs, as ideas formed by a social group, and thus, not objectively existent, but existent as a symbol or group of symbols and meaning in people's minds.

I'd say that every atheist believe that, there's no atheist that can say that gods aren't real ideas, otherwise we'd be saying that religious people are involved in some sort of massive conspiracy to mess with our heads, and that would be silly (or is it Confused )

...
So don't be bothered by being labelled with a broad term, be aware of its meaning and why you're part of that, but also be aware of your particularities and specific beliefs, that what make your beliefs your (and in your case I wouldn't say you "believe" in people making god as a social thing, I'd say you "know" so)

Thanks yes the best solution would be
to not care about the strident atheists
And I have tried that since around 1983
and to rely on my own thinking.

But it fails. I am not a good thinker so
I am dependent on others or else my thoughts
get into a haywire haystack mess and I get confused.

To trust on your own only works if the result is reliable enough.
That is not the case with me. I need friendly supportive feedback
from others that are like minded. A kind of very harmless Tribe. Smile

I guess my obsession with having a self identity is related
to me being ASD diagnosed. some of us can be very stubborn
and self centered and kind of narrow in interests. Sad story really .

Yes I have been active on such forums too and that is even worse
than being active on general forums. ASD people don't express
their empathy in predicable ways so they can come through as harsh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 10:16 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2013 10:23 PM by Freethinker2.)
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
What disturbs me most is how extremely sure some atheists are.
I wrote about my daily struggle on two other boards telling him
that I spent 4 to 8 hours daily talking to atheists and he was 100%
sure of that I made it all up it was logically impossible for him to trust
that this could be a true retelling of my personal experience. I lied he told me.

What makes atheists so 100% sure? Unless they have deleted every trace of me
I have evidence for when I started writing and when I last posted every day of that year.

another example of sureness. Some atheists are 100% sure
that all the other atheists agree with them that a believer is a believer
even if their god is a metaphoric god. That is not so if one listen to other atheists
them are 100% sure of that some gods are not real gods so a believer that knows
that their God is a metaphor these are atheists that pretend to be believers they told me.

so we have two versions of atheism. Both 100% sure that all the other atheists agree
or if they don't agree then they totally wrong and only one of these groups of atheists are right.

I mean which atheist should I believe to be logical? I have no idea because I am not a logical person.

I have nothing to compare with. Why would one view be more logical than the other.

Anthropology of religion and social psychology does have their own problem but not on this level
that logical atheism have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: I sincerely need your kind help. Struggled one year daily with Philosophy
Does any of you personally know user name "SAWells" she has a cool definition of Mythotheism.
"..I’ve decided my atheism is mythotheism: I think gods are fictional characters.

The only place they ever turn up is in people’s imagination.

Asking for convincing evidence of their existence is the wrong question
because it’s like asking for evidence of the real existence of
Eliza Bennett from Pride and Prejudice- we’re talking about an entity
which we know somebody made up. "

That is the kind of anthromythotheism that I like. I have tried to find some way
to ask for her permission to quote her officially but fail to find a way to contact her.

Maybe her shorter term is better than my too long one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: