If atheists would use the word "God" the way the vast majority of theists use it, then the vast majority of atheist threads and posts on boards like these would not exist, for there would be no need to ask the questions they ask, nor try to solve the problems they try to solve, as those questions could not be meaningfully asked, and those problems would not exist.
Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
If atheists would use the word "God" the way the vast majority of theists use it, then the vast majority of atheist threads and posts on boards like these would not exist, for there would be no need to ask the questions they ask, nor try to solve the problems they try to solve, as those questions could not be meaningfully asked, and those problems would not exist.
Humans are the only species that practice religious behavior. Not all humans practice or understand this behavior, with many humans closer to the animals, bugs and virus who lack this behavior. The question might be what differentiates this uniquely human behavior from what animals lack?
If I asked a dog or rat about god they would be as puzzled as an atheist. They could mimic behavior but it is not natural to them. What do atheist lack in terms of the brain's firmware? I sincerely believe that atheist and religious are true to themselves so what is different in terms of atheists never advancing to this human behavior but remaining like the animals base on appetites? Does it have to do with something on the other side of the wall.
A religious person can do anything an atheist can do in terms of logic, education, empiricism and science. But the atheist lacks that extra needed to also do religion. What do they lack that makes it taboo. If you read the posts the religious try to be reasonable offering a bridge, while the atheist burn bridges out of an irrational impulse. Even though the philosophy of science does not work over the bridge they pretend their positron is based on scientific method and proof. Is the goal to remain limited to the animals and avoid having to deal with the extra or is there lack?
If I asked a dog or rat about god they would be as puzzled as an atheist. They could mimic behavior but it is not natural to them. What do atheist lack in terms of the brain's firmware? I sincerely believe that atheist and religious are true to themselves so what is different in terms of atheists never advancing to this human behavior but remaining like the animals base on appetites? Does it have to do with something on the other side of the wall.
A religious person can do anything an atheist can do in terms of logic, education, empiricism and science. But the atheist lacks that extra needed to also do religion. What do they lack that makes it taboo. If you read the posts the religious try to be reasonable offering a bridge, while the atheist burn bridges out of an irrational impulse. Even though the philosophy of science does not work over the bridge they pretend their positron is based on scientific method and proof. Is the goal to remain limited to the animals and avoid having to deal with the extra or is there lack?
Since technically, I am an atheist, I'll reply:
Maybe.
A Calvinist-like outlook, and some views within Hinduism, for example, do hold that people are effectively predestined (forever; or at least for this lifetime) and so there is only so much they can do, in terms of religiosity. And whatever they can do may not be enough to manifest as any kind of recognizable or actionable religiosity.
But if we propose that nobody is born a theist, but that theism is something one learns from other people, then the absence of suitable theistic role-models, teachers and opportunities in a particular person's life so far could completely or in part explain why some people are theists and some aren't.
They do that only sometimes. Other times, they impale people or burn them at the stakes.
Sometimes, it is actually the atheists who are in the position of having to emotionally parent the theist. Sometimes, it is the theists who throw a tantrum, and the atheist then has to be the calm and reasonable one - if there is to be any meaningful communication, that is.
Needless to say, I'm sure your post will upset many posters here. Fortunately, I am old and experienced enough not to get too worked up about such posts as yours.
As noted earlier, your outlook doesn't take into account the possibility that for a person to become a theist, suitable theistic role-models, teachers and opportunities may be necessary, and that without them, a person's religious potential cannot unfold.
I think you are both idealizing theists and theism ("Any theist is a good enough preacher for anyone. If any theist preaches to an atheist, and the atheist doesn't convert, this is solely the atheist's fault"), as well as trivializing theists and theism (as if theism and interactions with theists would be essentially no more than a matter of uttering the right mind-blowing mantras that instantly transform a person upon hearing them).
Maybe.
A Calvinist-like outlook, and some views within Hinduism, for example, do hold that people are effectively predestined (forever; or at least for this lifetime) and so there is only so much they can do, in terms of religiosity. And whatever they can do may not be enough to manifest as any kind of recognizable or actionable religiosity.
But if we propose that nobody is born a theist, but that theism is something one learns from other people, then the absence of suitable theistic role-models, teachers and opportunities in a particular person's life so far could completely or in part explain why some people are theists and some aren't.
They do that only sometimes. Other times, they impale people or burn them at the stakes.
Sometimes, it is actually the atheists who are in the position of having to emotionally parent the theist. Sometimes, it is the theists who throw a tantrum, and the atheist then has to be the calm and reasonable one - if there is to be any meaningful communication, that is.
Needless to say, I'm sure your post will upset many posters here. Fortunately, I am old and experienced enough not to get too worked up about such posts as yours.
As noted earlier, your outlook doesn't take into account the possibility that for a person to become a theist, suitable theistic role-models, teachers and opportunities may be necessary, and that without them, a person's religious potential cannot unfold.
I think you are both idealizing theists and theism ("Any theist is a good enough preacher for anyone. If any theist preaches to an atheist, and the atheist doesn't convert, this is solely the atheist's fault"), as well as trivializing theists and theism (as if theism and interactions with theists would be essentially no more than a matter of uttering the right mind-blowing mantras that instantly transform a person upon hearing them).
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You even quoted where I said it came from. Are you feigning ignorance?
"Nothing like God turns up naturally in our experience. I say naturally because it is a concept that is imposed on us by religion and culture. Like the concepts of Satan, heaven, hell, or sin. All just manmade ideas handed down from a time when stars revolved around the earth and lightning was God's judgement on towers that were built too high."
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Questions asked about God cannot be meaningfully asked when atheists use the word in the exact sense that the vast majority of theists use it? That doesn't even make sense. Ofcourse questions can be asked about God, despite your attempt to derail such threads with refusals to define God.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So again, what's the proper motivation for disbelieving in God?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Depends on what that anger is directed at. If a person is angry at God he still believes in him, and so is not a true atheist. If a person is angry at religion for deluding him and wasting a third of his life with a fairy tale, it isn't motivating him to disbelieve in God. It is only motivating him to oppose and speak out against religion and religious delusion. Just like mothers against drunk driving or MADD are motivated to take action against drunk driving. Anger can be a great motivator for people to fight against injustice and deception. And that anger doesn't invalidate their motives in the least.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Another adhom response. Why is it the case that the God defenders are always the ones that get hostile and insulting in threads? Perhaps this is the inevitable result of rolemodling children. lol!
lightgigantic said:
What about children who haven't learned much language? What about a 2 year old who doesn't know any language?
They still have experiences, so are they able to communicate them in a meaningful way? In what sense does this ability, or lack of it, affect their experience?
I would say it has no effect at all.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Magical Realist said:
I agree.
I'd probably make your 'sense' plural, since there's more than one sense. Theists rarely specify exactly how they are using the word, using it for a whole cloud of associated ideas. And atheists do exactly the same thing. I don't think that there are any big differences in what theists and atheists intend the word 'God' to mean, as vague as that might be.
The big place where theists and atheists disagree, the place that's pretty much definitive of the difference between theists and atheists, is in whether or not people believe that some objectively existing supernatural being corresponds to the word 'God'.
Back in post #88, I put these questions to you:
You danced away without answering, as you habitually do, but the question still stands. Seeing as you are still suggesting that you possess a better and more theistic understanding of the word 'God' than do atheists, perhaps you should reveal what your understanding is.
Nonsense.
Have you considered that maybe you just can't or won't relate to my replies?
You and MR are the only ones suggesting such a thing.
Again:
IOW, I put your questions aside as not being answerable by me, and instead I address what I can - ie. the confusion that arises due to diversity on the matter of "God" for someone who does not already have a firm stance on "God." And I don't have a firm stance on "God", but I have a firm stance on some meta-issues pertaining to the discussion of "God."
There is one thing that I will suggest that I possess better than do atheists: more inner peace about the whole "God" matter.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Which is why pontificating trolls like you are best left ignored..
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Yazata said:
Nevertheless, you wrote:
So what do you think that atheists mean when they use the word 'God'? If atheists' understanding of "the god concept" is crude and inferior, what are the defects? How do you think theists use the word 'God'? How does this theistic usage differ from the atheist usage? Why do you believe that the theistic usage is superior? How would adopting this theistic usage reveal most of the questions that atheists raise to be pseudo-problems that evaporate upon examination?
I don't believe that. But whatever I hypothesize about your inner state, it's really none of my business. I'd rather discuss ideas (that's why I'm here) than critically dissect strangers' personalities.
What makes you think they don't have a language (albeit one that is not very complex and that tends to only be approachable by their mothers or people engaged in the study of their behavior)?
One could say however that the reduced depth of their language parallels the depth of their experience.
I suppose it's reasonable to assume they have body language. How do you suppose a mother 'communicates' with an infant?lightgigiantic said:
You appear to believe that an ability to communicate an experience somehow defines the meaning or "depth" of the experience. What if a person says nothing about their experience? Do they not have one, according to you?
If you see someone walking along the street, smiling beatifically and seemingly unsurprised by anything around them, or looking serious but otherwise unconcerned, how does that fit your belief in "communication"? What are they communicating or not communicating?
not exhaustive but just the first thing that popped up on google
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101028152510.htm
sure
choosing not to communicate is not really valid to the discussion, since, at a very basic level, one is using literacy skills to contextualize an experience to themselves( regardless whether they choose to communicate that assessment to anyone else)
Put them before an experienced and capable tout or police officer or someone else who has professional expertise in assessing people on the street for a good answer.
Would this capable person need to talk to them? If they didn't, would they be using their expertise?lg said:
What if you don't contextualise an experience, or use literacy skills?
Are you still having an experience, or does it necessarily entail some kind of internal dialog which can be written down or spoken?
So if you don't think about what you're doing, you aren't "experiencing"? If that's what you think, I have to say it sounds ridiculous.
not necessarily
feel free to provide an example of an experience that is not contextualized or using any literacy skills
You say "what if you have an experience that doesn't breach any of these issues" but you can't provide an example of one.
:shrug:
Ok. Breathing.lightgigantic said:
How many times a day on average, do you think about this? How often do you contextualise it or use literacy skills to communicate it, either internally (to yourself) or externally (to others)?