Why I am not an atheist

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;170997 wrote:

See, what worries me most about this forum, and this is not solely directed to you by any means, is that when I ask for further clarification, people consider me being hostile. People think I'm actually being aggressive towards them when I ask for them to explain what they mean. That scares me.

To jump in on this point---I love when someone sincerely asks for clarification, because it's a pleasure to share one's favorite concepts. But perhaps you have seen others indulge in the insincere rhetorical questions that don't manifest curiosity but only mockery and negation?

It's tricky, all of this, because voice tone is absent, and voice tone means so much in the real world.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;170997 wrote:

See, what worries me most about this forum, and this is not solely directed to you by any means, is that when I ask for further clarification, people consider me being hostile. People think I'm actually being aggressive towards them when I ask them to explain what they mean. That scares me.

I didn't see your request as hostile. In fact I am glad you requested it because it was very vague. I would have asked myself but I took it to be that he was being vague to avoid giving examples that would derail his point. So I went with his vague notion as his over all point. The point I got out of it was this:

Atheists simply have no way to place value on themselves or others without a concept of god.

It is a fallacy but that is what I got out of his statements. If I am wrong or misinterpreted his meaning, it is not my fault, it is his for being so vague with his post.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

Reconstructo wrote:

It's tricky, all of this, because voice tone is absent, and voice tone means so much in the real world.

Yes, I think you are right here. Blunt, concise written language is often misinterpreted as sarcastic or aggressive.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171005 wrote:

Yes, I think you are right here. Blunt, concise written language is often misinterpreted as sarcastic or aggressive.

Right! Good style is sometimes mistaken for bad manners. Oh, the choices one is forced to make. That's why I like the little happy face cartoons. A little ridiculous visual art to communicate tone. Smile

And I'm not denying that I have sometimes had bad style. Sobriety helps with that. And a more sincere desire to be understood....

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

Krumple wrote:

Atheists simply have no way to place value on themselves or others without a concept of god.

He thinks that atheists cannot have morals, you mean? Without believing in a God, I cannot hold any ethical values? I simply cannot tell what is right from wrong? But that is demonstrably false.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171008 wrote:

He thinks that atheists cannot have morals, you mean? Without believing in a God, I cannot hold any ethical values? I simply cannot tell what is right from wrong? But that is demonstrably false.

Yes but I think he means it is even more than that. It is like forced chaos. That one person will have a certain value, but it is not universal where as with in religion it always is universal. Another mistaken belief but that is what I got out of it.

Atheists don't just invent their morality like many theists try to claim that they do.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

I don't think Twirlip could mean that. I think it's something else. It's something about emotional release and myth, perhaps? I think the myth potency of God is seperate from the explanatory concept of God. "God" is a lyric poem, even, for some. And it is a powerful word. Anyone seen Dune by Lynch? He taps heavy into "mystical" emotion. It makes for good art. All those old great paintings, pagan and Christian.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

Krumple wrote:

Atheists don't just invent their morality like many theists try to claim that they do.

There's great intersubjectivity when it comes to morality. It doesn't matter what supernatural man you do or don't believe in. My atheist and theist friends alike would not only turn in disgust, but rush to help, if they saw a man forcing himself on a young girl. There's so much commonality, even though we like to believe otherwise.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171015 wrote:

There's so much commonality, even though we like to believe otherwise.

Very well said! That's why all these spooks are not really necessary, as far as ethics go. It's either a dodge of death or a lyricism in regards to certain emotions. And maybe something I am leaving out.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;171017 wrote:

Very well said! That's why all these spooks are not really necessary, as far as ethics go. It's either a dodge of death or a lyricism in regards to certain emotions. And maybe something I am leaving out.

Well, I suppose people like to abide by set dogmas so that they don't have to think for themselves in regards to what things are right or wrong. Or, you know, think for themselves period. I'm just kidding, theists, I love you. Well, I don't really, but God does! Very Happy

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

(1)

Zetherin;170968 wrote:

You're kidding me, right? What in the world are you doing on a philosophy forum if this is what you believe? I don't mean that offensively. If you don't want to strain your brain (think), then why are you here?

(2)

Zetherin;170985 wrote:

I mean, don't you care if people understand what you mean by your posts? I would hope you do.

(3)

Twirlip;170990 wrote:

[...] I get hostile reactions - often vastly more hostile than anything in this thread, which I hasten to say has never been worse than merely critical and/or uncomprehending - as everybody has a perfect right to be if I have written something which seems meaningless. Abuse and scorn are commonplace. I have to try to be grateful for small mercies! Merely not being understood is very familiar, and just about bearable.

Zetherin;170997 wrote:

See, what worries me most about this forum, and this is not solely directed to you by any means, is that when I ask for further clarification, people consider me being hostile. People think I'm actually being aggressive towards them when I ask them to explain what they mean. That scares me.

In (3) above, I already said how mild I have found the reactions to my OP in this thread to be. I have sensed no hostility whatsoever in anyone else's responses, and only mild hostility in your responses (1) and (2), quoted above.

On the other hand, so far, no-one has understood what I am getting at, and this is disappointing, which probably makes me sensitive to every small slight.

Zetherin;170997 wrote:

If you're content with not being understood, that also scares me.

(1) The 'if' part of that sentence betrays a severe misunderstanding of my feelings about being understood or misunderstood, which I have already tried once to correct. (2) Please believe me: your fear of me is also entirely unrealistic, just as unrealistic as you believe me to be in my [mis]attribution to you of mild hostility towards me. I'm almost certain we can easily overcome this small misunderstanding. I repeat, just because I am criticising atheism in some way, that does not mean that I am some ranting, raving religious fundamentalist with no understanding of what reason is. (How to define reason - now that's another matter!) I have many severe faults (I mean it), but unreasonableness is not one of them.

I belong to no religion. I have never belonged to any religion. My 'faith', such as it is, is weak. I mostly live in despair.

Zetherin;170997 wrote:

So, are you going to explain what it is you mean by your opening post?

It would seem that you imagine that if person A writes something, and person B does not understand it, and person A has some difficulty in explaining his meaning in exact terms, then person B has some sort of right to demand an explanation, as if somehow every human being has a right to understand every other human being's deepest thoughts.

(Don't get me wrong: I love the idea of mutual understanding, I long for it.)

It is possible (if I'm not already wildly misunderstanding you) that this idea of yours comes from the fact that this is a philosophical forum, and you have some idea of philosophy as containing [for kennethamy's benefit, in case he is reading this: of course I mean ideally or properly containing!] only pellucidly clear and unambiguous prose, approximating that of a scientific or mathematical paper.

Is that even roughly correct, even in the right ballpark?

If so, may I add that almost absolutely nothing in the world would please me more than to be able to write about my deepest intuitions on psychology, ethics, and so on with the same kind of clarity as I associate with mathematical definition and proof, which I am well capable of manifesting when appropriate.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

Twirlip wrote:

If so, may I add that almost absolutely nothing in the world would please me more than to be able to write about my deepest intuitions on psychology, ethics, and so on with the same kind of clarity as I associate with mathematical definition and proof, which I am well capable of manifesting when appropriate.

But we can try. Instead of using that vague, ambiguous language, we can opt for simpler, everyday words that everyone can understand. And when those simpler words don't sufficiently convey those highly complicated, deep thoughts, we can use tools like analogies to clarify. Yes, this may be hard work. It may take some time. But the process not only benefits others, it benefits ourselves; not only does it allow others to understand what we mean (and consequently allow for intelligent responses), but it also allows us to clarify our own thoughts. And sometimes that's exactly what we need. To clarify our own thoughts.

If we don't try at all, if we write everything as though we were writing a piece for the local poetry contest, who is benefiting? (unless, of course, poetry is what was intended. and if it was what was intended, well, I think we can both see that what I just typed went in one ear and out the other!)

1 Reply

@Twirlip,

So twirlip you are not even going to take another stab at it? (pun intended)

Surely you can try to refine your points? Use other words, break them down one by one. Give examples? Use analogies? Something can help you to refine your comments so that we can comprehend your point. If not you leave us no choice but to guess and assume your meanings.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;170989 wrote:

so yeah, i am piping up for option 4,

Good for you. I respect that.

Reconstructo;170989 wrote:

the non-trans-un-theist what-not. positronic reverse theology ++ A fart at the funeral. A disco for mice on the tail of a tiger. :flowers:

Clear as mud! Serves me right. Poetic justice.

Sorry, I mean: "Explain yourself, man!!!"

Very Happy

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 12:36 AM ----------

Krumple;171004 wrote:

Atheists simply have no way to place value on themselves or others without a concept of god.

It is a fallacy but that is what I got out of his statements. If I am wrong or misinterpreted his meaning, it is not my fault, it is his for being so vague with his post.

That is perfectly fair, and quite accurate.

If I have a concept of theology at all, it is that theology is rational self-belief. Indeed, I cannot think of any atheistic way to place a value on myself, on anyone else, or on anything human. If I could, I might well still be an atheist. (I don't know; I obviously don't know all my motivations, or all the reasons that the heart knows but reason doesn't.) But I've said before, and I'll say again, that I tend to think of atheists as being more moral people than theists; on the whole, I probably prefer the company of atheists (insofar as I can rub along with human beings at all, which is not much!); it's just that I'm unaware of any coherent account of their morality, and in trying to make sense of my own morality (and other things), I seem to be led towards theism.

I don't think I'm being merely silly, or trying to evade refutation of some religious dogma or other.

What religious dogma might I be supposed to be defending? I have none.

I am struggling to grasp something I don't understand; I'm gingerly trying out the name 'God' for it to see if it fits (sometimes it seems to, sometimes it doesn't); and generally I'm struggling to find words, for what seems at first to be ineffable. (But, as I quipped once in response to somebody's signature quote from the sainted Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot remain silent, thereof must one learn to speak." That sums me up pretty well.)

My intuition is far in advance of my reason, but even if reason can never catch up, it has a duty to stay in the race.

[I nearly forgot what I was going to write. It's past my bedtime, and I'll probably soon have to withdraw from the conversation for the time being, even if it has reached no kind of resolution.]

---

P.S. Once again, the forum software has amalgamated two separate posts.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

Twirlip wrote:

Indeed, I cannot think of any atheistic way to place a value on myself, on anyone else, or on anything human. If I could, I might well still be an atheist

You mean that you can't think of a way that an atheist could have ethical values? What would make you think this? What does a belief in a supernatural being have to do with having ethical values?

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171018 wrote:

Well, I suppose people like to abide by set dogmas so that they don't have to think for themselves in regards to what things are right or wrong. Or, you know, think for themselves period.

What the **** do you think that this caricature has to do with anything I have written here? You know nothing about me! And you could not be more wrong about my attitude to (a) religion, (b) morality, (c) freedom of thought, if you deliberately set out to be as wrong as possible. This is getting to be such a ****ing waste of time.

1 Reply

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;171058 wrote:

What the **** do you think that this caricature has to do with anything I have written here? You know nothing about me! And you could not be more wrong about my attitude to (a) religion, (b) morality, (c) freedom of thought, if you deliberately set out to be as wrong as possible. This is getting to be such a ****ing waste of time.

I wasn't referring to you. I was speaking about theists in general. And it was a joke.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171031 wrote:

Twirlip;171021 wrote:
If so, may I add that almost absolutely nothing in the world would please me more than to be able to write about my deepest intuitions on psychology, ethics, and so on with the same kind of clarity as I associate with mathematical definition and proof, which I am well capable of manifesting when appropriate.

But we can try. Instead of using that vague, ambiguous language, we can opt for simpler, everyday words that everyone can understand.

No, we can't. At the end, after a vast amount of work, perhaps, if we're lucky. But how do we get to that end? To some extent, by talking to people. Before it's all tidy and cut-and-dried. And then what we say will not be intelligible to all. That does not mean it is nonsense, it does not mean it is mindless dogma, and it does not mean it is unphilosophical.

Zetherin;171031 wrote:

And when those simpler words don't sufficiently convey those highly complicated, deep thoughts, we can use tools like analogies to clarify. Yes, this may be hard work. It may take some time. But the process not only benefits others, it benefits ourselves; not only does it allow others to understand what we mean (and consequently allow for intelligent responses), but it also allows us to clarify our own thoughts. And sometimes that's exactly what we need. To clarify our own thoughts.

If we don't try at all, if we write everything as though we were writing a piece for the local poetry contest, who is benefiting? (unless, of course, poetry is what was intended. and if it was what was intended, well, I think we can both see that what I just typed went in one ear and out the other!)

(I have not posted my initial furious response to this pompously condescending irrelevance.)

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 01:31 AM ----------

Zetherin;171053 wrote:

You mean that you can't think of a way that an atheist could have ethical values? What would make you think this? What does a belief in a supernatural being have to do with having ethical values?

Oh, for ***'s sake! Have you honestly no idea what a hackneyed irrelevance this is? Please try to reflect more before posting.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

Twirlip wrote:

(I have not posted my initial furious response to this pompously condescending irrelevance.)

I have absolutely no clue why you are so furious. How was I being condescending? I am just saying I advocate straightforward language. What is condescending about that? You're taking this way too personally.

Let's get back on topic:

Zetherin wrote:

You mean that you can't think of a way that an atheist could have ethical values? What would make you think this? What does a belief in a supernatural being have to do with having ethical values?

But if you really can't just talk about this without getting offended (for what reason, I still don't know), then I'll take my leave. No need to upset you.

Twirlip wrote:

Oh, for ***'s sake! Have you honestly no idea what a hackneyed irrelevance this is? Please try to reflect more before posting.

Man are you outraged. How is what I said irrelevant? I think what I said was a fair interpretation of what you said. And, from the looks of things, others agree. If you disagree, can you explain why, and also explain what it is you did mean? I'm not sure if reflection will help me, or anyone, here.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;171034 wrote:

So twirlip you are not even going to take another stab at it? (pun intended)

I'm not sure I understand. Post #20 was another stab, expressed in quite different language, coming from a quite different direction. (But it was, as I said at the time, very much a second-best option.) Did I not succeed in adding anything? That's a worse outcome than I feared.

Krumple;171034 wrote:

Surely you can try to refine your points? Use other words, break them down one by one. Give examples? Use analogies? Something can help you to refine your comments so that we can comprehend your point. If not you leave us no choice but to guess and assume your meanings.

You seem to be assuming that I'm addressing a completely general audience. But I knew from the start that what I wrote would strike a chord with few, if any, readers. I expected that either (a) there would be some sympathetic readers, in which case there would be comparisons and clarifications, or else (b) the thread would lead a short life, and die a natural death, which would be sad, but no tragedy. I did not expect to have to waste most of my time and energy fending off somebody (Zetherin) who persistently addresses me as if I were an ignorant bigoted fundie hick.

I have no complaints about anything anybody else has said, even though no-one liked or understood what I wrote - that really is OK by me. It's sad and painful and tough, but I have tolerate that. (How galling that Zetherin wilfully misinterpreted this rational tolerance as a liking for not being understood! If I want to seem obscure or clever I'll spout some mathematics!) But you must understand that, in the absence of a sympathetic response, it is simply impossible for me to continue. Deckard put it well in an earlier thread (post #16):
http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7428-depression-2.html

Quote:

However, in this day and age it may be best to keep some of your most precious hopes secret where the rabble can't pick away at them or until a time and place when you are strong enough to defend them.

This was not meant as a thread for scoring cheap debating points.

What I'm happiest about is the possibility of continuing the argument with Reconstructo, who is far more willing than I am to post in a free and 'poetic' manner, so that even if we disagree (as we do over this issue), and even if each of us is baffled by what the other is saying, we can argue at the same level, and not despise that level as being one of idiocy, rigid dogma, or complacent obscurantism. Some things just are hard to put in words. That doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying, or that you should stay silent until you have worked out everything on your own (which is my usual habit!) - what if others have something to contribute? Even if it's criticism. But if it's criticism, it has to take seriously the spirit in which words are being used, instead of demanding a quite different style, appropriate for a quite different stage of development of an idea. I would dearly love to be able to set it all out as if it were mathematics. But to get where I am going, I have to start from where I am now.

0 Replies

Why I am not an atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know