Will Wordy fit in here? A cautious Hello!

[wordy]

Will I fit in here?

As the Mission Statement says, the Secular Cafè is for "people who want to socialize, share support, and debate or discuss intellectual subjects such as religion, science or politics in a relatively civil and friendly environment." This is our target community. If you agree with the Mission Statement intent, as well as the forum users' agreement, then you should not have a problem fitting in.

Formally I maybe fit in and a friendly member invited me so I say a Hello and see what happens after that. I guess some of you blow a lot of secular smoke in my eyes. :D

Wordy

[Oolon Colluphid]

Wordy! Great to see you! :yay:

[Ray Moscow]

Hi, Wordy.

[DMB]

A big welcome to the Secular Café, wordy! :wave:

[wordy]

Thanks guys, I felt so scared so I almost fainted. Hahahah.

What a relief I am approved of. Thanks to all.

[DMB]

We're still a very small, quiet board, so you can help to shape it.

[Eudaimonist]

Great to see you, Wordy. :)


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Febble]

:)

[wordy]

We're still a very small, quiet board, so you can help to shape it.

I am rather skeptical to that I would have anything to contribute in such matters cause I am a poor thinker and even less skilled in organization and worst of all. I am rather "prejudiced" about woo woo and post modernism and usually such is allowed while me don't want it to be allowed.

[Cath B]

Good to see you wordy :)

[Brother Daniel]

Hiya wordy. :wave:

[Christina]

Hi Wordy. It's nice to see you again : )

[David B]

Good to see you here, Wordy:)

David

[Brianna]

Word. :)

[Jobar]

Hello, wordy. :)

I don't believe you're a poor thinker; it appears more that you've been trying to express highly complex ideas in a language not your original one. Sometimes I have difficulty following your reasoning, but IMO it has more to do with the communication of that reasoning, and not the reasoning itself.

[RBH]

Welcome, Wordy. It's very good to see you here.

[Garrett]

Hi wordy. Critical thinking is important, but we aren't logic machines. :)

[reddhedd]

Hi there. I rarely contribute to the threads you post in because they are above my intellect, but I like to read them, and learn. I agree with Jobar; I don't think it's your thinking ability but a language issue, although you do much better expressing yourself with another language than I can!

redd

[diana]

It's a pleasure to have you aboard, wordy!

d

[sohy]

Hi wordy. Nice to see you but please stop saying you're not a good thinker. I am impressed by anyone that is fluent in a language other than their native tongue.

You may know this old joke, but just in case, here goes.

If a person that speaks more than two languages is called multilingual and a person that speaks two languages is called bilingual, what do you call a person that speaks one language?



An American. :D

So you see wordy, you're already impressing most Americans. Stop worrying.

[Lugubert]

I'm a slightly late arrival, but can I say Välkommen as well?

[Ray Moscow]

The Swedes are here! The Swedes are here!

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9980/swedesoilbig.jpg

[wordy]

Thanks for all welcoming smiles.

So there are more than one then. Well hope the others can help me with grammar in English cause I lack such manners :D

[Ray Moscow]

Lugubert just earned yet another degree in linguistics, so he can probably help all of us on that front.

[Ronin]

Hi wordy!

Good to see you here and hope you are well.

...I don't smoke.

:cool:

[wordy]

degree in linguistics, that sounds interesting.

Ronin, so you don't smoke. You have a big gun though. :D

[Ronin]

degree in linguistics, that sounds interesting.

Ronin, so you don't smoke. You have a big gun though. :D

Wow, I didn't know word got as far as Stockholm!

:cool:

Hey, I still have your postcard up by my monitor. Every so often, when I need a smile, I like to read it and appreciate the international friend I've never actually met.

:notworthy:

[VoxRat]

Hey, Hi Wordy.

[wordy]

Wow guys and girls. Heheheh in USA the girls name each other "Guys" nevermind.

Which forum should I use for to take up very personal issues like my crazy dilemma

That formally I am an intellectually very anti-religious atheist but that my body emotionally are a very religious and anti-spiritualistic person.

I have tried to take it up in other known forums and it totally fails.

Am I that unique? Okay I am most likely one of the most anti-religious religious one I know but I know rather few persons well enough to ask them about their religious feelings.

It is much easier to ask an intellectual question like "Do you believer there are factual gods and not only a god concept in a tradition?"

I've asked three males where I live and to my luck these three are atheists but to my bad luck is that none of them feel religious.

So we have nothing to talk about or to feel together.

Had they felt religious then one could have set up a local chapter of The Church for the Un-churched Atheists.

I have no where to go. There are no UU in Sweden. And the Humanists here don't support that one have religious feelings and wants to have a The Church for the Un-churched Atheists.

So where can I friendly talk about these very personal things here in SC without getting Bullied for feeling religious?

[DMB]

In the Religion forum?

[hecaterin]

Maybe you could look into your local Buddhists or pagans? Those seem to suit quite a few atheists.

[Anne]

Hey Wordy!

[wordy]

Hahahah, my brain seems to work overtime to solve my personal dilemma.

I woke up several times this night and remembered me pondering the word faith as in "religious faith in a particular god, their God." and the difference to, compared to "the philosophical lack of belief that gods exists" as atheists claim to be the correct way to describe an atheist.

Believers thus "have faith in a particular god, their God" while the atheists lack a belief that any kind of gods exists.

Looking up faith in a Dictionary gives:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

end of quote

There is a breach of consistency or they address different things.

Believers address the trust in a particular person albeit that person are supernatural.
While atheists as a kind of disbelievers reformulate the issue to be about if the personal God does exists, or even more remote if "one lack belief that gods exists", they kind of evade the issue of the particular personal God of a culture and claim to speak for all people of all times and all cultures and all kind of gods.

One cute consequence seems to be that "philosophically minded atheists" tend to repeat the formula in one liners like this.

"Atheism" means the lack of belief in God or gods.

The consistent way to describe an atheist would rather be that one distrust the personal God of the believer, that one disbelieve that particular personal God that the believer has faith in.

Disbeliever would be a more accurate way to describe an atheist. The "philosophical" perspective miss the psychological, social, cultural part. What happens to the personal psychology of trust in a person that is supernatural in the atheist. What happens with the social trust and the cultural trust. The philosophical atheists seems to ignore or evade or avoid to answer these questions.

What is going on here. I mean these "atheists" are supposed to be more logical and more skillful in using reason than I am and that is true, they beat me any time and still they completely miss even easy things that even I manage to grasp despite me lacking social skills and lacking needed empathy.

Something is going on that is beyond me. A kind of political agenda or something.

A kind of implicit rhetoric that is not discussed. A silent agreement to ignore important parts of what it is like to be a believer in a particular God of a religious tradition that one belong to by choice or by heritage or habit.

I looked at these links.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelieve
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unbelief

And came to this interesting view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief#Coleridge.27s_original_for mulation

"The willing suspension of disbelief" which is a short time version of faith in a particular personal God. For as long as the "show" goes on one willingly suspend ones disbelief on the details of the story for to gain the entertainment of the "show".

As an atheist if I go to a Church to get to know how they relate to their particular faith in God I must suspend my disbelief because if I kept it then I would loudly protest and get thrown out of the church and I would not have anything to report other than the first words they said that I disbelieved in. Or if I kept my big mouth shut I would feel so bad that I would throw up on them or have to run out of the Church due to body fail to stomach all the BS they say.

So "suspension of disbelief" is essential to not get on bad terms with those who believe in extraordinary things.

A related concept is "Quid pro quo" or Tit for Tat or If you kindly scratch my back, then I promise to scratch yours back in kindly return. Reciprocal altruism is related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

And if one look at how religions are constructed then the Reciprocal altruism is built in and even the altruistic punishment too. "Jesus forgives all sins except the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit"

Now what sin might that be??? My guess is that it is "willing disbelief". To consciously chose to disbelief seems to be the unforgivable sin against the spirit of faith.

Interestingly enough this is even present in the "faith" in Amida's vow to save all sentient beings from ignorance if they chose to disbelieve in the vows.

what is required is "entrusting" faith. Or willing unconditional faith. So even Shin Buddhism has this requirement of faith.

If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name, even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offenses and abuse the right Dharma.

Another interesting thing about philosophical atheists are that they sometimes use words that almost don't exists.

such a word is "nonbelief". Like here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief#Drange.27s_argument_from_n onbelief

Try to find it in the many dictionaries on the internet. Very many say there is no such word. Would be cool to know why Drange and the others preferred the word nonbelief instead of unbelief or disbelief?

My conclusion is that philosophical atheism seems to miss out too much of what it is like to be a believer and that I have to abandon the word atheist and say instead that I disbelieve the claims the particular religious traditions makes about their personal God.

Another important thing. Atheism is not rejecting PSI or Woo woo. Which is kind of odd because Christian faith does reject Woo woo to be superstition.

Disbeliever in everything supernatural or Disbeliever in everything Woo woo, would be a better description of me than to say that I am an atheist.

Some tells me that one could say one are a Freethinker. That doesn't work well at all because even Scientos see themselves as Freethinkers.

Okay, why not say that one are a Naturalist? But that word is already taken to mean the collector of flora and fauna in the 19 century. One need to be a scientist at a University to be a Naturalist. Besides, to be a Naturalist is to support philosophy which I don't do. They miss out on all the psychology and social constructs that is going on and they don't care enough about cultural identity either.

We still have not considered emotions and sentiment and belonging.

Emotionally I am more religious than many believers. I only disbelieve the extraordinary claims they make about their particular God.

I doubt that I fit in. Why would you guys be that different from the philosophical atheists? They seems to be dominating any friendly chit chat about belief and disbelief.

I am wordy.

[Alex]

You seem to be saying that while you don't believe in God, you have a religious sensibility which is in conflict with materialism or philosophical atheism. What's the difference between "atheism" and "philosophical atheism"?

Lots of people have a sense of the numinous, but can't give their intellectual assent to a belief in god or gods.

[wordy]

Yes kind of. We are all different so there are maybe as many varieties of atheists as there are believers in Christ Jesus.

Now to one of your questions: "What's the difference between "atheism" and "philosophical atheism"?"

Well a philosophical atheist would say there are only two kinds of atheist.

Those who lack belief that gods exists and those who believe that gods does not exists.

All the other "alleged" atheists are in one of these two groups. It is as simple as that they say.

But if I insist that there are very many different versions of atheism like Nihilism and Objectivsm or Raelians or Marxists or ...

Then the philosophical atheist would repeat that there are only two kinds of atheist.

Those who lack belief that gods exists and those who believe that gods does not exists.

All the other "alleged" atheists are in one of these two groups. It is as simple as that they say.


It is like to talk to a wall or a stone or a mechanic robot repeating the same over again and again.

" philosophical atheist would say there are only two kinds of atheist.

Those who lack belief that gods exists and those who believe that gods does not exists.

All the other "alleged" atheists are in one of these two groups. It is as simple as that they say. "

One feel for screaming "Wake up" what is the matter with you guys. Come to your senses. They would say something that there are only two kinds of atheists ....

There is no way to reach them.

The word religious is misleading. I've been atheist for more than 55 years.

But what I failed to be aware of for some 30 years was my "religious" feelings.

I hated all kinds of religious expressions during these 30 years.

Example. Julie Miller "Broken things" on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ThMAtYb3_s

Logically an atheist should not feel for or resonate with these words and sentiment in that song.

An average atheist would shout BS hearing it? But I love that song.

That is not normal and I did hate such music for thirty years but suddenly one day in 1983 I realized that my hate was eating me up from within. What had happen was that the cognitive dissonance that had made me hate such expression had failed to hide that my body loved being religious.

My heart was religious while my head was still as staunchly atheist as ever.

So it is complicated and the philosophical atheists seems to just say that emotions is irrelevant in philosophy. But I am not into philosophy because I have to deal with real life considerations like my body being deeply religious and the emotions don't go away just because they say them are irrelevant to the issue.

Do you get what I try to say?

I don't want to feel religious but that is how the body is. Most likely my body mirrored the body language of my Mother who felt religious too. So it is a kind of imprinting before three years old most likely.

Can you relate to what I say? I am not so much into what you wrote:

"Lots of people have a sense of the numinous," Too abstract and intellectual for me.

Would you say that Julie Miller text and way of singing is about being numinous?

You can have my heart
Though it isn't new
It's been used and broken
And only comes in blue
It's been down a long road
And it got dirty on the way
If I give it to you will you make it clean
And wash the shame away

Very direct person to person and not much numinious is it? So I am not numinious, my body long for the relation that she obviously are in. She talk to a live person that can fix broken hearts and make them whole again. To heel emotional wounds.

Are you with me?

[Alex]

What I meant by a "sense of the numinous" is an intuition that, as Hamlet declared;

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

(The assumption being that Horatio represents 'rationalism'.)

You are not alone. I guess lots of people might feel this way, but they are not ruled by their intuitions.

[wordy]

I guess we are so far apart from each other that I fail to get what you say.

I am not into theater but I gave you a link to Suspension of disbelief so would not that cover Hamlet situations?

Nothing in what you wrote made me sure of that you got anything of what I wrote.

Was that your friendly way to say that what I wrote was BS or your way of saying it was too advanced or something? I did my best but failed to get through. Very typical.

[wordy]

I guess lots of people might feel this way, they are not ruled by their intuitions.

How do you know that it is an intuition? What is it in my text that gives you the impression that it has to do with intuition? Are there many kinds of intuitions? Could you give a link to research that explains what that means?

Usually words like "ruled by" to be about dependencies? Alcohol rules people. The chemical inner kick from playing Computer Games? They are ruled by such kicks but I would not see that as intuitions?

Maybe you refer to Pascal Boyer who came up with the idea that religions are based on "mildly counter-intuitive" claims. I see them as wildly such claims but to each his own.

[Alex]

OK Wordy: Maybe what you had to say is way above my head. So let's leave it there.