Atheism and universal loneliness

[spidergoat]

Certainly, in fact the language is quite poetic. Western culture would be unrecognizable without the literary influence of the King James Bible.

[Balerion]

Certainly, in fact the language is quite poetic. Western culture would be unrecognizable without the literary influence of the King James Bible.

And without a knowledge of the King James Bible, much of the language is unintelligible.

[Trippy]

As has been discussed in the thread, there are various atheist discourses: I have contrasted a popular Western one with the Buddhist one.

Really? No! Get out of town! There are different interpretations of a philosophy?

Some posters even agreed that the language of some Western atheists is still distinctively theistic:

Is this an appeal to authority? Or an argumentum ad populum? I can't quite make up my mind.

Your assertion here is what precsiely? Why is one (presumably) atheists opinion of some of their fellow atheists relevant here?

Isn't that strange, though? Wouldn't a true atheist carefully purge his or her language of all theistic references?

Not in the slightest.
How many Atheists are there, do you think, that were formerly theists? More to the point. Are you suggesting that Atheists shouldn't try to understand that which they choose to reject? That their arguments should be based on... Something else? Do you have even the remotest comprehension of how ridiculous that sounds?

As it is, some Western atheists are using a distinctively theistic discourse, but don't believe in God, which, IMO, leads to the conclusions I have posted - about loneliness, unhappiness.

Yes, that's right. Your opinion, which you present as a fact, which attacks a certain philosophy. Do you actually understand what it is you're attacking?

[Grumpy]

wynn

You see, you seem to be working out of the assumption that you fully and correctly understand me and the reasonings I put forward;

Actually, the point is that you are largely incomprehensable and eratic when discussing theism.

and that if you don't understand them, the fault lies with me alone and not perhaps with your premature judgment;

You alone are responsible for the persona you project.

you seem to be working out of the assumption that you have basically figured out all the essential secrets of Life, the Universe and Everything, and that now, as a wise elder, you merely watch as others trudge along behind you ...

No one has yet even articulated the "secrets of life, the Universe and everything" or demonstrated their essential nature. As to any wisdom I may possess, I leave those judgements to others, though I, of course, have a fairly high regard for my own opinions.

Grumpy

[wynn]

Actually, the point is that you are largely incomprehensable and eratic when discussing theism.

For you, perhaps.

Has it ever occured to you that you just might not be able to talk about things on my level?

But that would be preposterous to consider, right? Surely, my level must be beneath yours, surely you know better than me.

You alone are responsible for the persona you project.

Oh. And you play no part in how you perceive people?

[wynn]

"True atheist?" Is that anything like a "true Christian" or a "true Scotsman". You appear to be as guilty as anyone else of trying to force people in to your preconceived notions of what they should be.

Not every phrase that has "true" in it is a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Where's the bias? I'm just telling what I see, and now we have third- and fourth-party confirmation.

I also wasn't saying it's the objective truth about you. I simply said it's the persona you project on this forum. And I'm not the only one saying this. If you're disturbed by your own reflection, maybe you should do something to change your image.

No, I don't need to change my image. If anything, I should go away from atheistic mirrors like you who render distorted images of me.

How could one even do what she's asking? The English language is heavily dependent on religious cultural terms. One does not have to be free of the language to be free of the faith.

If one is indeed free of the faith, wouldn't that show in one's language?

The sadness I see appears to be a result of taking one's own truths too seriously.

Perhaps you take yours too seriously.

[wynn]

Really? No! Get out of town! There are different interpretations of a philosophy?

Is this an appeal to authority? Or an argumentum ad populum? I can't quite make up my mind.

Your assertion here is what precsiely? Why is one (presumably) atheists opinion of some of their fellow atheists relevant here?

Not in the slightest.
How many Atheists are there, do you think, that were formerly theists? More to the point. Are you suggesting that Atheists shouldn't try to understand that which they choose to reject? That their arguments should be based on... Something else? Do you have even the remotest comprehension of how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes, that's right. Your opinion, which you present as a fact, which attacks a certain philosophy. Do you actually understand what it is you're attacking?

I understand that you are into one-upmanship.
And one-upmanship is not my forte.

[Trippy]

I understand that you are into one-upmanship.
And one-upmanship is not my forte.

That's your perception of me, nothing more.

[Trippy]

Oh. And you play no part in how you perceive people?

:Chin tap:

Oh, the rhetorics games! When it becomes easier to read between the lines than understand the text!

Leave it at rhetorics, or take it to the philosophy forum to discuss matters of perception, selfhood etc. etc.

[gmilam]

Not every phrase that has "true" in it is a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Then maybe you should quit telling atheists how they should think, feel and talk.

[gmilam]

For you, perhaps.

Has it ever occured to you that you just might not be able to talk about things on my level?

But that would be preposterous to consider, right? Surely, my level must be beneath yours, surely you know better than me.

I would think a true seeker would be a little more humble.

[BWE1]

One idea, separated by a common language.

[Grumpy]

wynn

For you, perhaps.

Has it ever occured to you that you just might not be able to talk about things on my level?

But that would be preposterous to consider, right? Surely, my level must be beneath yours, surely you know better than me.

No, it never occurred to me, and it is curious that you even think that way. I do, evidently, "know better" than you on many topics, though that is often a really low bar. I can, at least, put forward a coherent thought in clear language and answer questions directly(however much you don't like my answers). I don't know whether you are capable of direct, cogent, non-evasive debate, I just have no evidence in support of that, it would be a pleasant surprise if any showed up.

Grumpy

[Balerion]

No, I don't need to change my image. If anything, I should go away from atheistic mirrors like you who render distorted images of me.

Well, I would disagree. Your behavior has resulted in two temporary bans, and you react with hostility whenever someone tells you about yourself. I mean, you've resorted to ad hominem already (DID I USE IT RIGHT, DAVE C?!), contending that my atheism has something to do with how your behavior is interpreted.

There is no clearer case of a tiger needing to change their stripes.

If one is indeed free of the faith, wouldn't that show in one's language?

In small ways, perhaps. One might say "Gesundheit" instead of "God bless you," but the language is too dependent upon Biblical imagery to be completely free from it. In this case, atheists are much like minorities who take ownership of the pejoratives used against them. If I say "God damn him," I don't literally mean I hope God damns him, I mean that he's a jackass and I hope ill befalls him.

[wynn]

Thank heavens you found your witch!

[Fraggle Rocker]

If I say "God damn him," I don't literally mean I hope God damns him, I mean that he's a jackass and I hope ill befalls him.

I think 99% of the time that's what 99% of Christians mean too. In fact in vernacular use among Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Rastafarians or whatever, they generally don't even want ill to befall him. They just wish he would stop being such an asshole, by growing up, becoming enlightened through education, or having his mother/father/wife/sister/brother/friend/teacher/pastor/coach/whatever tell him that he is in fact an asshole and he should try to improve himself.

How many times have you "goddamned" your own wife/girlfriend/child/friend/whatever? Did you really want ill to befall him/her?

[Balerion]

I think 99% of the time that's what 99% of Christians mean too. In fact in vernacular use among Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Rastafarians or whatever, they generally don't even want ill to befall him. They just wish he would stop being such an asshole, by growing up, becoming enlightened through education, or having his mother/father/wife/sister/brother/friend/teacher/pastor/coach/whatever tell him that he is in fact an asshole and he should try to improve himself.

How many times have you "goddamned" your own wife/girlfriend/child/friend/whatever? Did you really want ill to befall him/her?

Define "really." I mean, that's a snarky answer, but it's true. Yes, when someone does me wrong, for a moment I really hate them, and can visualize that proverbial anvil falling on their heads.

More to your point, though, I was simply pointing out that one not only can't "free" themselves of theistic references in the language, but doesn't have to, because the words and phrases have been appropriated by secular society. I mean, Christmas, the chief holiday of the Christian faith, is now a completely secular commercial holiday celebrated by all faiths. Who needs to free themselves from any of it when they can simply take it for themselves?