4 ms·

the post that is parent to yours explained someone else's psychological and epistemological understanding of atheists, and you answered as "nuh-uh!!" Take off

the post that is parent to yours explained someone else's psychological and epistemological understanding of atheists, and you answered as "nuh-uh!!" Take off your engineer hat for a minute and read it again with your anthropologist hat on. I think you may come away with a better understanding of some people. And yes, in other discussions, part of that may be an explanation of why some theists cannot fathom that atheists do not believe in a god. much of this is definitional. What atheists call "no god," some thesist call "a god of their own definition." And these two just continue to talk past each other. Perhaps they want it that way, they don't need to think on uncomfortable things, then.

msla 5y ago
> What atheists call "no god," some thesist call "a god of their own definition." And that's wrong, just on a basic level, and it's part of those theists being incapable of understanding a worldview without theism. They can't understand my philosophy, so they're compelled to shove me into a box they can understand, and then refuse to listen when I tell them their worldview is making them comprehensively misinterpret what I'm saying. (And, no, a person can't dictate someone else's own philosophy to them. No matter how condescending that dictation is.)
- isityouyesitsme 5y ago
  Do you recognize that you're doing exactly the same thing in reverse? The thing is, you can stomp your foot and throw a fit all you want about others not using your definitions that flow from your worldview, but it doesn't change reality. You're approaching epistemological and psychological differences as though they're a battle of authority. You can claim authority over a lot of things, even legal authority, but you cannot force someone to "understand differently." This is what I mean by theists and atheists talking past each other. They each employ a form of ethnocentrism that frames every conversation as an argument. They do NOT want to understand each other. They want to WIN.
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    It's not about "definitions", nor about "winning". It doesn't even matter which meaning of the word "atheism" will we use. When someone seriously suggests that absence of eternal punishment means no incentive to not be evil, it means it's them who fail to notice all the other incentives that may be there. I already understand their point of view - their incentive is very clear to me and would work on me had I believed it; while for some reason they seem incapable of understanding mine that come from elsewhere. Asserting that lack of religion is just another religion seems very similar - if all you know is religionful life, you may have a hard time trying to think about what being religionless actually look like. I know both, so it's easy for me.
    - isityouyesitsme 5y ago
      I can't disagree with this reply. You've changed the subject, which very much was about definitions of specific words, as held by groups of people.
      - seba_dos1 5y ago
        I have done it deliberately, because it really wasn't ;) The original comment (29952729) was clearly about some religious people not being capable of understanding that one's life doesn't have to be founded on religion. Then the reply that I replied to muddied the waters by adding people who religiously believe that there are no gods into the mix, which may still fit the definition of "atheism" (even though it isn't what "atheism" actually means), but it wasn't what the original poster was talking about at all.
  - msla 5y ago
    When someone says I'm essentially a murderer because I don't believe what they believe, I get a bit annoyed. When someone says I believe in something I don't believe in, and gets condescending about it, I get somewhat annoyed, but I mostly want to know what's going on in their head. I think I have some of it figured out, but you just accuse me of dishonest debating tactics. Why do you think I'm so wrong? Why do you think the people who think I'm a monster necessarily have a point?

msla 5y ago

> What atheists call "no god," some thesist call "a god of their own definition." And that's wrong, just on a basic level, and it's part of those theists being incapable of understanding a worldview without theism. They can't understand my philosophy, so they're compelled to shove me into a box they can understand, and then refuse to listen when I tell them their worldview is making them comprehensively misinterpret what I'm saying. (And, no, a person can't dictate someone else's own philosophy to them. No matter how condescending that dictation is.)

isityouyesitsme 5y ago
Do you recognize that you're doing exactly the same thing in reverse? The thing is, you can stomp your foot and throw a fit all you want about others not using your definitions that flow from your worldview, but it doesn't change reality. You're approaching epistemological and psychological differences as though they're a battle of authority. You can claim authority over a lot of things, even legal authority, but you cannot force someone to "understand differently." This is what I mean by theists and atheists talking past each other. They each employ a form of ethnocentrism that frames every conversation as an argument. They do NOT want to understand each other. They want to WIN.
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  It's not about "definitions", nor about "winning". It doesn't even matter which meaning of the word "atheism" will we use. When someone seriously suggests that absence of eternal punishment means no incentive to not be evil, it means it's them who fail to notice all the other incentives that may be there. I already understand their point of view - their incentive is very clear to me and would work on me had I believed it; while for some reason they seem incapable of understanding mine that come from elsewhere. Asserting that lack of religion is just another religion seems very similar - if all you know is religionful life, you may have a hard time trying to think about what being religionless actually look like. I know both, so it's easy for me.
  - isityouyesitsme 5y ago
    I can't disagree with this reply. You've changed the subject, which very much was about definitions of specific words, as held by groups of people.
    - seba_dos1 5y ago
      I have done it deliberately, because it really wasn't ;) The original comment (29952729) was clearly about some religious people not being capable of understanding that one's life doesn't have to be founded on religion. Then the reply that I replied to muddied the waters by adding people who religiously believe that there are no gods into the mix, which may still fit the definition of "atheism" (even though it isn't what "atheism" actually means), but it wasn't what the original poster was talking about at all.
- msla 5y ago
  When someone says I'm essentially a murderer because I don't believe what they believe, I get a bit annoyed. When someone says I believe in something I don't believe in, and gets condescending about it, I get somewhat annoyed, but I mostly want to know what's going on in their head. I think I have some of it figured out, but you just accuse me of dishonest debating tactics. Why do you think I'm so wrong? Why do you think the people who think I'm a monster necessarily have a point?