science4ever

Thanks for caring words about my Cancer treatment. I fear the worse the prognose is bad. At most two years left if I take the strongest doses and maybe 6 month to 1 years if I don't want the Chemo treatment. Way too short for an impatient person like myself I want at least 5 years and no treatment. So if God give me that then I will pretend I believe in him "it's easy to show why all the religions that exist can't be true." Yes and even if God does exist. Logically there is no way to know anything about God So I see two options. 1. To see God as a social construct, a kind of group tool for cooperation. Very similar to Political Correctness. A group tool for how to behave. Social norms. Very similar in being extremely moral and righteous and supporting the good side. If you have God on your side or Political Correctness on your side how can you be wrong 2. To see God as a ridiculous concept and do ones best to ridicule it. Many atheists seems to go that route and I did that for many decades too but my hatred felt bad I did not like that I hated the ridiculous believers. I could have been one of them. I actually believed in UFO/Alien reports so who am I to condemn crazy faith? I see God as a kind of Group Placebo Construct that works to a certain degree. An old version of the more modern Political Correctness. Same kind of righteousness. I leave this thread now. Continue if you find it interesting. Good bye!

I trust my thinking and the way I express my thoughts are too confusing. But I stand up for what I wrote there. But I will not defend or explain it further. since I wrote it I have had a cancer operation and will be totally absorbed in surviving. So take it for what it is. one atheists way to try to understand the logic of god. I obviously fail to get it. Your explanation did not help me eitehr So Good bye

DoG wrote I think it is my poor command of words and English that makes it looks like that. I don't want fence sitting at all. Like what the title of the thread indicate. "anti-philosophy atheist?" that is a bit too harsh or too strong but in the right direction. I question the whole set up and I find it likely that the Church due to competition from Philosophers wanted to be best at doing philosophy so they came up with more and more fancy defence of their claims. If one really study how religion works then it is more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion Anthropology of religion These are scientists and claim this that means that everything within religion is a cultural product. The way they refer to God is part of their culture. Each religious tradition has their own particular culture about God. That God is supernatural and that God exists is one such claim within these cultures. It is part of how they set it up logically. The believers are given no choice other than to believe that God is supernatural and that God exist or else they are not accepted as believers. So the whole philosophy thing is part of the rhetoric to defend that culture. It is a kind of logical trap set up by the religious culture to keep the members. Now I am no supporter of Anthropology of religion but they do get that part right. from same wikipedia text they quote on of the most famous guy in the field Clifford Geertz. Sadly he uses an abstract way to define his view on religion but hopefully your Egnlish is on par? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion#Definition_of_religion This part is most important I guess " (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" That is what I refer to as the rhetoric trick that the Church has set up. Factuality. God has to be told about in a way that makes God look very factual. They need to "cloth" the words so God seems uniquely realistic. It is a rhetoric trap they force the believer to follow their logical set up or else they are seen as dissenters and apostates and heretics and as atheists. What the Church do is politics. Keep people in line. I fail to find good words for this but to me it is very embarrassing that atheists play along with this logical trap and make the same forced situation instead of trying to at least see religion from a scientific perspective.

DoG thanks for caring about my confusing text. I only tried to retell one year of daily discussions with atheists So my confusing text shows how utterly bad I am at logic and to structure words. I agree with what you wrote there. But the atheists that I talked to narrowed it down to only two positions. you are either theist or atheist. They most likely knew what you told me here too but they found that irrelevant because they wanted to force me to chose So the whole gnostic and agnostic part was a distraction to them. Let us first get if you are theist or atheist they demanded of me. My position is that there is something very odd about that demand. The believers have no choice at all. Logically they can only claim that God exist or it looks like if they have no faith in God. Their fellow believers would tell them but if you don't believe that God exist then you are atheist and not one of us believers. Do you see how it is set up? The only logical choice a believer can make is to claim that God exist or else they are seen as atheistic towards God. By both theists and atheists. If you read my post above I try to make that claim with many confusing words. what they maybe can do is to say they are De facto theist following Dawkins suggestion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation Most atheists seems very disappointed with Dawkins saying he fail to get philosophy. That is one of my main points. If atheist philosophy is so difficult that one of the most known atheist fails at it then it is something odd about it? He is an educated man and he has advisors and friends and they should have been able to explain the extreme simple atheist definition that online active atheists make use of. So why does he fail? I suggest it is because there is something very odd about atheist philosophy. My naive point of view is that believers have no logical choice but to make the claim that God exists. If they don't make it then their fellow believers would ask them if the are atheist and atheists would say these believers are atheists in disguise. The logic of theism is set up that way. Church most likely wanted it that way. Philosophy was seen as the most advanced of the sciences at that time. Church wanted to force the doubting believer to chose faith in God and thus they logically set it up so there where only two choices. Then atheists kind of found that easy to adopt and atheists also force the atheists to chose that there is no God. That is why political Gods are of no significance to atheist philosophy. That the political Gods have political power over millions is irrelevant the atheists tells me. The atheists told me that the only thing relevant is if you believe that God exists or not. You are either with us or against us. The same forced situation. Maybe Dawkins wanted to find a solution to that forced situation. Unfortunately he is not a good philosopher and seems to not read online discussions about atheists or else he would know he would get ridiculed for doing such crazy thing as trying to better a perfect set up? Formally if one can use his suggestion then I am De facto atheist. "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." I don't like the word agnostic it fails to work among atheists. But my main take on gods if one go outside the formality of definitions is this: 1. Even if a god existed there would be no way for theists or atheists to know that God. 2. There is no evidence for a supernatural God to exist. 3. The only gods that atheists accept as real gods are faith in an existing supernatural God. 4. But even if such a god would exist there would be no way for anybody to know that God. Do you see he it is set up? By definition there is no way to know a supernatural god. By definition such a god can not be known. We are natural beings and can only know about things that are natural. The supernatural we can know nothing about logically by definition. So the whole thing is a kind of rhetoric logical trap set up by Church way back in time when they realized they had to find the best rhetoric availabe at that time and it worked for some thousand of years until Holbach and the other atheists started to see through the logical flaws. Sadly I am very bad at rhetoric and at logical structured text but this trap set up by Church is being reused by atheists to force people to chose an impossible thing. Logically there is no way to know if there exists a god or not. But many cultures have gods and that shows that politically gods can be a kind of social tool. Why would that be irrelevant to atheists? Is that not very odd?

I am extremely bad at logic but active atheists have told me that only philosophy can say anything about the existence of a god and what one can know about such a god. So Ontology what exists and Epistemology what we can know. 1. My fuzzy logic then tells me that there is no way to know if God exists or not? 2. There is logically know way to get any evidence for an existing god or evidence for a non existing god either. the way they have defined god makes God beyond such evidence? 3. So if there exist a god then neither believers nor atheists can know that it exists at all. I wild guess that some theologians have tried to solve this by saying that the Concept God point to a theoretically possible god that may exist so if there is one then the word God point to that real God even if there is no evidence for such a god. I see that as a kind of cheating. Would be more honest if they admited that they are desperate to at all cost postulate the existence of a possible god. Now if my confused brain get's it right then the whole fight between theists and atheists seems rather futile. There is no way to know if a god exists or not. so to ask if somebody believe that god exist seems to be about personal preferences on supporting an old tradition more than about any real God. I mean the believers have no way to know if a god exists or not. So what is the point asking them? Maybe it is more about sorting people into categories. 1. You are a believer in superstitions about gods so I will be skeptical to anything you say. 2. You lack the believe in gods so now we only have thrillions of other superstitious belief to sort out It is pointless is it not? What is not pointless is the political power of religious traditions. The political power of religion is strong enough to make several countries to have restrictions on sexual education and easy to get contraceptices so a lot of woman get more children than they want. Abortion is forbidden or heavily restricted. Seen from politics God is very much in power but the logical atheists tells me that such realities are totally irrelevant to the question on God. To them politically powerful gods are irrelevant. They are only imagined and the logical atheist only care about an "existing" god. Is that not extremely odd? What is the logical answer that we can have any knowledge for an existing god. the only evidence for a god that de facto have impact on our lives are the imagined gods.

Thanks Bill, I've that category before and most likely I did buy that book too. How many of the most active online in forum atheists are aware of it and use it? Now that you remind me then I do remember that I have read it before but I had no spontaneous access to it. I had to be reminded that I have known but then forgotten about it. And Richard wrote that book very long time ago? It confirms my experience that the online active atheists only care about their own preferred definitions and see no value in suggestion neither from Dawkins not you nor from me. To the most active on forum atheists there are statistically only two options. you are either atheist or theist. They don't accept that one can be agnostic only to them one are only agnostic atheist and that is same as atheist. One can be agnostic theist but that is theist to them they have only two categories. I've been an aggressive Anti-theist all my life and that is acknowledge by wikipedia but the on forum active atheists only saw that as another way to say atheist to them there are no separate category anti-theists there are only atheists or theists. So I trust that Richard Dawkins either have no time to read through atheist forums so he was not aware of that nothing he write will have any impact on the active atheists. I go do a google on this definition now De Facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." if the result is very defferent from what I thought I get back and give links. cool that Dawkins De facto atheist is mention in one of the wiki though. Usually the on forum active atheists don't have high opinion on wiki AFAIK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism I feel rather sure of that the on forum active atheists would complain that Dawkins is no philosopher. Facebook has an automatic entry on De facto atheism how many million atheist are active on Facebook. 56 likes is extremely few is it not? Here is a gerenal Student forum with all kinds of topics it is not an exclusive atheist forum they wrote about 2011 http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1708418 and next in line is from 2010. The Happy Atheist Forum http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5560.0 Just a former Catholic that introduce himself it created no comment on his use of De facto atheists. My wild guess is that the term is only known to those how care about what Dawkins writes and they seems not to be very active in the most known atheist forums? Am I wrong? did a search on http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/ People know about it through Dawkins but very few seems to support it? Believers admit that if God does not exist then the rest of their Religious culture is built on a land slide. So atheists seems to concentrate on that fact that they make a claim. "I believe that God exists" and then ask for evidence and the believers fail to give evidence that the atheists can accept. My take then is that the claim that God exist is part of the religious tradition. it is a kind of test for to get approved of for to be part of that religious tradition as a believer. If you chose another way to see God than the official view then you are seen as a dissenter a heretic and way back in time that mean you had to be killed and maybe that exist still in some traditions? So to me there is something very odd about the extreme instrumental question. "Do you believe that God exist? " Logically they have no choice. They have to believe to be part of the religious culture. If they chose to not believe they are seen as atheist or as a betrayal of the family tradition. To claim that God exist is required of them they have no choice to not believe. "You are either with us or against us" kind of dichotomy and the "cute" thing is that atheists buy into this dichotomy instead of realising that there are numerous options to chose among one of them is what Dawkins suggested. Not once did any of the active on forum atheists suggest that I made use of Dawkibs definition to them there where only two categories. You either believe in god are are the enemy or you lack believe and are atheist.

I hereby happily ignore you. your answers confirmed how hopelessly far out the philosophy atheists are. I am no supporter of Anthropology because being soft science I don't trust them to have done much experiment but the wikipedia has not been challenged for years so most likely very few see any wrong with the fact side so I make use of it until some new info arrive. If I ever forgot that I ignore you do remind me.

Lightburst I disagree look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism So logically one can be a non-philosophical atheist. the only reason they don't mention it is that these atheists love philosophy and can not understand that one can be anti-philosophy. I trust they lack the imagnitation that one can be skeptical to philosophy. when I read what the Anthropology of religion writes then it is clear as sky that humans make up their gods. look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion and Clifford Geertz definition further down describe how they create their religion with their God. (4) and (5) describe how they do it. That is how their God appear live and existing to them. Philosophy does not even realize this and are so literal in it's reading that takes religious tradition as if some real god existed outside of their community culture. If one ask philosophy minded atheists about it then they say. "but that is what the believer claim. That their God is existing" That is why Clifford Geertz explain how the believers do it in practice. " (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966)." I wish Geertz had used less abstract language there but it is clear as sky if one get it. Even my poor and confusing English get what Geertz really say.

deductive? Yes I have heard the word before But I don't trust I can live up to being deductive. I maybe is reductive Haha nope I am not deductive maybe would be cool to have that talent or skill but that is not me.

If there exists all these kind of atheists apatheistic atheists, igtheistic atheists agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists then logically there can exist anti-philosophy atheist Or do I do some kind of philosophy error there? Maybe the word anti-philosophy is too strong? What about unwilling atheist, reluctant atheist, don't feel at home with the label atheist? An adjective is a word that describe how the substantive is? Agnostic atheist is adjective plus substantive. Same with reluctant as adjective so how can it be wrong? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reluctant sounds very logical to me. agnostic atheist describe an atheist that care about epistemology and reluctant describe and atheist that unwillingly has to accept the lable against their personal self identity. [from Latin reluctārī to resist; Have you heard of the Borg? We are the Borg. Resistance is futile! that is how I feel against the philosophical definition that force me to be an atheist agaibst my conscious will. I resist I am unwilling I feel reluctant to accept it. adjective explained like this 1. The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying and ... So I am a reluctant atheist or unwilling atheist.

Yes each instrument seems to be indivdidual so not predictable from case to case so those that have been measured one hope them where good versions and not just a random sample that maybe where not optimal craftmanship. I will need to test many options until it works to get two octaves that sound at least close to being in tune. It is only for the fun of it so no big deal if it fails in the end. that is a way to learn that it was difficult. When visiting the Music shop I tried to play their P-bone Trombone and I had more difficulty with that one than with my one octave only cylindrical "Cylinetto" just made that term up such does not exist and these have no mouth piece one just use the end of the tube as the MP. One is 300mm long and 1/2 Inch about 13 mm inner tube and the other one 400mm 16mm inner tube 20 mm outer and that sound more like a small clarinett 8 fingerholes on both. But one need to get them conical because they sound too muted lacking the overtones harmonics due to being cylindrical.

Thanks imatfaal Yes I agree there can be a real existing god but that the culture of a community still create their interpreation and try their best to get what that real God really is. So one have kind of the real God that maybe is beyond human grasp and one have the cultural norms and tradiitons on how to relate to that God but that these practices has no way to know anything evidential about God. So the religions and their images and stories about god are human creations even if a real god would exist. Yes philosophy being set up as it is have made itself kind of immune that way. it does not have to care about such things they deal with words and their usages and relate to if the usage is consistent with definitions. it makes me highly skeptic of philosophy. I mean Ludwig Feuerbach 1841 wrote almost identical text as Steward Guthries wrote 2000 and both are anthropology minded and despite that I have been atheist since before 1964 I never heard a philosopher refer to that quote by Feuerbach. Philosophers kind of don't have to care about real people and what goes on in our heads Feuerbach cared about us already 1841. He see God as a projection of man idealized but described to be features of God. Man see himself reflected in God. A projection. a created mirror image. Much appreciated that you cared. Anthropology seems to not be very popular

I guess my confused thinking throw everybody off guard? I try to get the logical implications of this claim they make. That is a quote from Steward Guthrie that he wrote year 2000 and he has reused a very similar text by Ludwig Feuerbach that he wrote 1841. So if it had been something very few agree with then the anthropologists would have asked for some better definition to be in wikipedia by now. If one ask atheists about the definitions of atheism they say that the default weak definition makes everybody into an atheist even if that person don't want to be one. The only way to not be an atheist is to really believe that God exists and are supernatural. Now some atheists are not that categorical they allow theists to construct their gods but the most strident atheists say that if the believer know they believe in a constructed faith then they are not true believers. A true believer have to trust that God is real and logically if all gods are as anthropologys says then all gods by definition are created gods by the community that practice that faith. So does that not make all believers into deceived atheists. The weak atheist definition makes everybody born into an atheist. You can only be theist if you truly believe in a real God you have to be in a kind of delusion not knowing that your religious tradition created the god they believe in. Only these theists are true theists the others know there is no real god only the god their tradition created. Compare with the title of the famous book by Richard Dawkins. the God Delusion. that titles show that atheists see God as a delusion. Logically a believer is a delusional atheist deceived to think that they are true theists. I contrast anthroplogy with atheist philosophy. They have to be consistent or one of them get it all wrong? Now somebody may suggest there are real gods. But that is not what Anthropology says. Every religion ... So if there exists real gods then no religion knows about these real gods.

Seems that Guthrie has quoted this old text http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropology+of+religion So Guthrie at most added the words cultural product and changed worship to practice? that every religion is created by the human community that worships it that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practice it so Guthrie build on Feuerbach making the words more modern maybe relating it to Cultural Anthropology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion they say this about religion. They also present a definition on religion by Clifford Geertz but I am not clever enough to get that one So I hope somebody read up on Anthropology can confirm that the quote from year 2000 still holds or if the consensus has changed after 13 years? My own naive definition would be like this Religious traditions are expressions of a particular culture and each such culture have their own particular religions and gods. Features of a particular God is part of the way that culture made up the tradition. That means that if their God has features like being alive and real and existing and supernatural and the creator of all there is all such claims are part of how they made that religious tradition their particular way to express that tradition. Sadly I have no talent for to structure such text so my confusing text only makes a mess out of it. What I try to ask for is a confirmation and a better text than the very short one from Guthrie and the very complex one from Geertz. Some comprimize that is for the lay person and not the academic. Edit I guess I have to add that this is Anthropology and not philosophy like ontology or epistemology. I know that atheists love to change everything to logical questions like Do you believe that these gods really exists? An answer from Anthropology of religion then would be " that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it. Quote from Guthrie 2000 (page 225-6)" the philosophy is part of each particular expression. The religious traditions each of them has their way to deal with the philosophy of their religious tradition one has to ask each one of them. I just believe that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it. I don't deal with the philosophy part that is for philosophers to do if them find it interesting.