Secular Nativity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why did you say 'Why do they trigger you.' ?

It’s general advice. IMO many atheists are subcritical of their own emotions and underlying motivations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you accuse atheists on here of God dodging.

I didn't ask about my emotions but about examples of me being triggered.

We could try word association.

[Maeght]

It’s general advice. IMO many atheists are subcritical of their own emotions and underlying motivations.

And many aren't. Don't generalise.

[Maeght]

We could try word association.

Go for it.

[Nearly Sane]

We could try word association.

Your qualifications in using and interpreting word association  are?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your qualifications in using and interpreting word association  are?

He needs to do it himself.

[Nearly Sane]

He needs to do it himself.

So you have none, and he doesn't claim to have any expertise so you are just posting drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you have none, and he doesn't claim to have any expertise so you are just posting drivel.

You have turned a refusal to carry out a psychological test on the grounds of inherent inadequacies into lack of input. There are words that trigger some atheists but people need to examine themselves.

How for instance is their reaction to various words associated with the Christian lexicon?
They will have to be honest with themselves.

[Maeght]

You have turned a refusal to carry out a psychological test on the grounds of inherent inadequacies into lack of input. There are words that trigger some atheists but people need to examine themselves.

How for instance is their reaction to various words associated with the Christian lexicon?
They will have to be honest with themselves.

Suggest some words. No refusal here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Suggest some words. No refusal here.

I cannot constitute anything like a proper scientific test but checking your own emotions during religious discussion is for the individuals. St. Paul talks of “testing yourself” . Just a one of realing off a list and asking you for a response isn’t going to tell you much IMV. You have to observe yourself. With religious discussion. Do religious words stimulate you in a different way from other words? You know your own intellectual reaction but what about your spontaneous emotional reaction. The most obvious word is the word God, Jesus, sin, salvation etc. Remember you are testing and watching this yourself with no need to report to anyone else apart from yourself. Perhaps do the same for religious items.

[Gordon]

I cannot constitute anything like a proper scientific test but checking your own emotions during religious discussion is for the individuals. St. Paul talks of “testing yourself” . Just a one of realing off a list and asking you for a response isn’t going to tell you much IMV. You have to observe yourself. With religious discussion. Do religious words stimulate you in a different way from other words? You know your own intellectual reaction but what about your spontaneous emotional reaction. The most obvious word is the word God, Jesus, sin, salvation etc. Remember you are testing and watching this yourself with no need to report to anyone else apart from yourself. Perhaps do the same for religious items.

Well now - whenever I encounter religion, or talk about it, the words that come to me are largely those describing various fallacies along with words such as 'superstition', 'nonsense', 'fantastical' and 'unbelievable'.

[Maeght]

I cannot constitute anything like a proper scientific test but checking your own emotions during religious discussion is for the individuals. St. Paul talks of “testing yourself” . Just a one of realing off a list and asking you for a response isn’t going to tell you much IMV. You have to observe yourself. With religious discussion. Do religious words stimulate you in a different way from other words? You know your own intellectual reaction but what about your spontaneous emotional reaction. The most obvious word is the word God, Jesus, sin, salvation etc. Remember you are testing and watching this yourself with no need to report to anyone else apart from yourself. Perhaps do the same for religious items.

I wasn't asking for a proper scientific test, that was others. Religious words on their own don't have much of an emotional effect as often they don't mean anything to me. They may 'trigger' a 'here we go again' reaction. Religious arguments can cause frustration and annoyance at times because I find them poor or that they revert to religious talk which to me means nothing. I do find the typical 'thought for the day' style religious speak to be quite annoying but that i the same reaction as I get with 'arty talk' or 'poetic talk'. I heard an 'artist' talking on Radio 4 last week and found virtually everything she said to be arty nonsense and got a bit frustrated with her but also had a chuckle and recognised that to her it had meaning just not to me.

We probably all have some emotional responses to all words or topics since that is all part of how our brains work - stimuli triggers thoughts associated with the words based on previous experiences with that word or topic. What this is supposed to mean when it comes to specific religious words or topics I don't know.

What point are you trying to make with all this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well now - whenever I encounter religion, or talk about it, the words that come to me are largely those describing various fallacies along with words such as 'superstition', 'nonsense', 'fantastical' and 'unbelievable'.

I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.
Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.

You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.

[Gordon]

I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.

Bearing in mind, Vlad, that I have incurable cancer (as you may recall from another thread), and dependent grandchildren, you can take it as read that I've done a fair bit of emotional introspection, and religion is no more relevant, reasonable or rational to me now than it was before I got sick

Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.

I never said any such thing.

You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.

Your problem is that you've caught something nasty (Christianity) and you can't quite understand that others of us are less susceptible to that particular malaise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't asking for a proper scientific test, that was others. Religious words on their own don't have much of an emotional effect as often they don't mean anything to me.

You will understand though my desire to be sensitive and careful giving advice.

They may 'trigger' a 'here we go again' reaction.

I think my experience closest to this was saying and thinking that “religion was being pushed down my throat”. This was prior to me becoming a Christian, Subsequently I admitted to myself that this hadn’t been the case. It was an attack to defend strategy. When I rocked up at my local church I was surprised to find people I knew were actually active Christians.

Religious arguments can cause frustration and annoyance at times because I find them poor

In what way?

or that they revert to religious talk which to me means nothing.

You mean to you? Is that in terms of comprehension or stimulation?

I do find the typical 'thought for the day' style religious speak to be quite annoying

Why, do you find it condescending? Myself I find it a bit lightweight, twee and woolly often

but that i the same reaction as I get with 'arty talk' or 'poetic talk'. I heard an 'artist' talking on Radio 4 last week and found virtually everything she said to be arty nonsense and got a bit frustrated with her but also had a chuckle and recognised that to her it had meaning just not to me.

I think though we’ve got to avoid archetypes since that is the way to bigotry and reverse snobbery. I was terrified of book club people but Mrs Vlad joined and I took her there and back even forcing myself into meetings as moral support. Needless to say I’ve got into it and made friends out of people I didn’t expect too

We probably all have some emotional responses to all words or topics since that is all part of how our brains work - stimuli triggers thoughts associated with the words based on previous experiences with that word or topic. What this is supposed to mean when it comes to specific religious words or topics I don't know.

What point are you trying to make with all this?

There’s a lot that goes on under the bonnet of consciousness M. Fellow armchair philosopher Richard Dawkins talked of consciousness raising by which he meant for example that as a species we didn’t know our discourse was sexist until it had it’s consciousness raised.

[jeremyp]

Well we’ve already had someone on who has suggested that God could exist and be encountered but there atheistic beliefs would prevent engaging with God.

"Atheist" is a descriptive word, not a prescriptive word.

I don't discount the possibility of a god because I am an atheist, I discount the possibility (probability really) of  god because no god has left any evidence that they exist. That leads to me being described as an atheist. Atheism is not an ideology, it merely describes the lack of belief in gods no matter what the reason.

You seem to be saying that those people who have encountered God are wrong.

If anybody could ever satisfactorily demonstrate that they have encountered God, I would have to stop being an atheist. I believe those people who say they have are mistaken, mainly because their encounters are indistinguishable from delusions.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.
Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.

You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.

But for me (and maybe others) it is exactly the opposite.

I remember the period of time when I recognised that I was atheist. Prior to that I'd spent several years tying myself up in intellectual and logical knots trying to 'believe' that there was a god. But I knew all along (and this why I used the term recognised that I was atheist) that when I relied on my emotional response - turned off the logical attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole - that I just did not believe it. And quite frankly from my emotional 'heart' that I'd never believed.

The notion of god simply didn't make sense emotionally and logically when I looked at the world around me. Once I'd come to recognise that I didn't believe everything became clearer and more obvious to me - kind of like looking at the world directly rather than through a frosted glass window. But the flip-side was the responsibility - both personal and as humanity. No longer could I 'out-source' a moral standpoint to some ill-defined 'other' and sacred texts claimed to be his 'word'. And that is the point, about 35 years ago when I became interested in ethics - which I have pursued as an interest and professionally ever since.

So Vlad - just because when you turn off your logical and intellectual 'head' and rely on your emotional 'heart', it concludes 'god', don't assume that is the same for others. When I do this my emotional heart clearly concluded 'no god'.

[Maeght]

You will understand though my desire to be sensitive and careful giving advice. I think my experience closest to this was saying and thinking that “religion was being pushed down my throat”. This was prior to me becoming a Christian, Subsequently I admitted to myself that this hadn’t been the case. It was an attack to defend strategy. When I rocked up at my local church I was surprised to find people I knew were active Christians. And yet here you are a member of a religion ethics boardIn what way? You mean to you? Is that in terms of comprehension or stimulation?Why, do you find it condescending? Myself I find it a bit lightweight, twee and woolly often I think though we’ve got to avoid archetypes since that is the way to bigotry and reverse snobbery. I was terrified of book club people but Mrs Vlad joined and I took her there and back even forcing myself into meetings as moral support. Needless to say I’ve got into it and made friends out of people I didn’t expect too There’s a lot that goes on under the bonnet of consciousness M. Fellow armchair philosopher Richard Dawkins talked of consciousness raising by which he meant for example that as a species we didn’t know our discourse was sexist until it had it’s consciousness raised.

The 'here we go again' point wasn't about religion being pushed down my through but about the same things being said by believers when ever the topic comes up. The poor arguments being made - 'look at the trees' , 'so the Bible tells me so', 'Jesus has changed my life' and so on. Every argument really - otherwise I'd be a believer.

Yes, I meant that religious speak means nothing to me. I first got involved here and the BBC site previously for two reasons - one to understand why people believe and to learn about that and secondly to put straight some misconceptions some theists seem to have about atheists. I don't hear anything convincing or new re the first part but still like to take part in the second. I don't post that much these days and didn't for some time but am interested to dip in now and again.

I didn't say Thought for the Day is condescending, I said I find it quite annoying and that is because it is full of arty/religious talk and furthers the poor arguments I hear elsewhere. Re religious speak meaning nothing to me it is to some extent comprehension I'm sure - I don't know what some of the phrases are meant to mean but I'm not sure the people saying them do always either. It doesn't connect with me any more than someone enthusing about cars or motor cycles or stamp collecting or anything else I have no association with.

[SteveH]

I don't honestly know if or how much time you spend on self examination Gordon. My advice is to examine your emotional response, in short to probe why religious talk elicits your evident wrath.
Regarding Your intellectual response and intellectual fallacy defence.I think you mentioned once or twice that you contracted fallacy spotting and analysis out to others you thought more adapt at that than yourself.

You know my response. We have seen some amazing absurdities proposed on this forum as ways to avoid the God concept IMO.

Sanctimonious, self-satisfied cant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Atheist" is a descriptive word, not a prescriptive word.

I don't discount the possibility of a god because I am an atheist, I discount the possibility (probability really) of  god because no god has left any evidence that they exist. That leads to me being described as an atheist. Atheism is not an ideology, it merely describes the lack of belief in gods no matter what the reason.

I’m not sure where to start with “The probability of God” thing. How do you propose to calculate it. Empirical evidence required? That makes one a philosophical empiricist doesn’t it and that is a circular argument. That way lies Scientism.

If anybody could ever satisfactorily demonstrate that they have encountered God, I would have to stop being an atheist. I believe those people who say they have are mistaken, mainly because their encounters are indistinguishable from delusions.

Can you give a comparable delusion? I think you are wrong though since you do not know God doesn’t exist you don’t know that people cannot encounter him.

Since I am not an empiricist I am open to arguments for an against God. Where as you are open only one.

[Nearly Sane]

Sanctimonious, self-satisfied cant.

I've never quite been able to throw off a suspicion that Vlad is an atheist WUM trying to make theists look bad through posturing. But +1 to your comment, not sure about the spelling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sanctimonious, self-satisfied cant.

Did you mean to say “cant”?

[SteveH]

Did you mean to say “cant”?

Yes.

[SteveH]

... not sure about the spelling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've never quite been able to throw off a suspicion that Vlad is an atheist WUM trying to make theists look bad through posturing.

Wish fulfilment.