Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About science4ever

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    musicology, biology, psychology
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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/Anthropo
  4. 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 dema
  5. 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.
  6. 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 acti
  7. 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.
  8. 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 go
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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 cyli
  12. 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 immun
  13. 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 on
  14. 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
  15. 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 tradi
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.