Do atheists understand abstract language?

Post Reply New Topic

I have to say, Ouinon, you made this thread very interesting to catch up on today. I find it hillarious the way you quote yourself and respond. I do not think I have ever seen anyone else do that. So, there you go again, itching at the nihilist in me. I was thinking you might have posted a similar stance in AG's thread on reality and sense, as I see these to also be abstractions and I am unable to summon any more of an answer for those terms than any others like them. I have always understood these terms to be subjective. I know my sense of reality, justice, morality, freedom, etc.. is different from other people. This is the reason why, at the beginning of this thread, I stated I think I understand these abstractions because I understand my own concept of them. These things are real for me, but you say they are not real. So, you have left me wondering if I do or do not understand them. Also, since you believe they are not real, and say the atheist who cannot understand how another can believe in God then cannot understand abstract language, it makes me wonder if you understand it. Does that make sense to you? I am not sure if I commuicated that the way I wanted.

I suddenly realised that I didn't answer your objection at all, ( in my post at top of page ); I read you as saying I was confusing social pressures with language, and posted accordingly! Anyway, I have deleted that part of my earlier reply, and will now try again!

You are mistaken. I am not confusing social pressures with gods. What do you think gods are?

It occurred to me that this might have been what Awesomelyglorious was referring to in his post, quoted below, which I had trouble understanding before.


Perhaps, Sand, you define "god(s)" as something which not only has no objective existence but which it is impossible for you to believe in. Anything "reasonable in your eyes" can not be ( a ) god. If you believe in something it cannot be ( a ) god. "God" according to you is simply "unbelievable". Yes, I can see how this would work, ( and it will tie in with how you define "belief", another piece of "abstract language" )

Which brings me to claire333's post.

Thank you! I find myself alternately arguing and agreeing with myself, especially if other people aren't posting much.

Yes, it is, as someone, ( I think it was techstepgeneration ) said on another thread, a strangely symmetrical impasse.

I agree that there is no reason for the atheist who believes in love, truth, beauty, justice, freedom, etc, to accept that these are "labels" only, ... ( other than finding them, ( these "gods" ) oppressive and wanting out, that is ). Anymore than there is a reason for the believer in god to stop believing simply because god has no objective existence, ( unless the belief is oppressive to them, that is ).

The atheist who constantly describes believers in god as stupid, deluded/delusional/self-deluded, ignorant, weak, idiotic or insane, ( as Sand does for example ), insults people for believing differently to him. As far as I can see this, ( sort of hostility/bitterness etc ) is the only way to tell if someone's belief system is oppressive to them or not, and therefore how useful such a belief might be in general.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 27 May 2009, 12:36 am, edited 3 times in total.

It's not bitterness, its a realization that you cannot anthropomorphize the forces of nature nor discipline standards nor cultural directives nor emotions.. That's just primitive thinking. No bitterness involved

Pure hostility then, towards god, belief in god, and anyone who believes in god.

Perhaps you actually aren't aware of how frequently and virulently you insult people who believe in god, accuse them of being stupid, ignorant, weak, insane, deluded/delusional/self-deluding, etc.

.

Of course god, who came from nothing, took a fistfuls of nothing together and created the universe.

[ PS. to my earlier reply ] According to something I was reading the other day it is not in the "absolute" relativism of the sophist, ( or the similar poststructuralist ), position, nor in the essentialism of Plato, ( eg. Sand's beliefs in beauty etc ), that one finds "reality"/enlightenment, ( abstract terms too, which again can be approached from those two sides ), but in the ongoing/constantly renewed dialogue between the two positions.

Apparently this was Socrates' position, ( where it is possible to discover it under Plato's own essentialist agenda ). And it sounds a bit like the dynamic expressed by the yin-yang symbol.

It fits at the same time with the belief that truth is a label, rather than something which exists objectively, and with belief in truth as something "real". Human experience "exists"/is based in the endless cycling between two opposing positions. It also fits with Augustine's concept of the "city of God" towards which one is always "going" but never arriving. And cliches like "The journey not the destination".

The usefulness/"truth"/"value" of the synthesis achieved in the confrontation of thesis and antithesis only lasts for a microinstant, constantly swept away by the next thesis. In fact it may be that trying to make a synthesis last at all is what creates the next thesis, ie. there would be no production of thesis/antithesis ( duality, value judgements which "create" their opposite, etc ), if we didn't try to hold onto the syntheses.

Perhaps it is an effect of language, ( abstraction itself ); this drive to establish permanent "rules", which are constantly confounded by the non-language nature of the world, which changes permanently. ... ... Now I find myself saying the same as you did!

.

ounion wrote:

This is the reason why I keep coming back to PPR.

I'm sorry, but that solicitation is hilarious--kind of like a sign that says "If you are blind, push this button!" or "Please complete this form if you can't read."

I mean no harm/offense, OP, but I couldn't resist...

ouinon your argument about various things being god is an entirely personal affectation. Not everybody thinks that way, so it does not apply to them. It is simple as that really. There isn't anything of further meaning being generated from your responses, unless you are going to add real explanation as to why it would be true. What might be fruitful is to discus why ppeopel need such gods to belive in, and it is apparent that some do.

I read it as "expand your views on abstract terms ..." so I missed it. But I agree it is very funny.

.

...and for the record...

I'm an atheist who is just as tired of "How can you be so stupid as to believe in XYZ?" atheists as I am of "How can you not believe in XYZ?" preachy-types.

If a particular (non)(believing) disposition lends itself to peace, harmony, and relative happiness without stealing such things from others regardless of the (non)(beliefs) of those others, then leave it the hell alone. "Stupid" people aren't any more responsible for the tools that they've got than "smart" people are for the ones that they were born with/privileged to have access to.

Saying that others must believe/conclude as oneself in order to achieve peace/harmony (personal or global) is as untrue as asserting that just because someone ate pancakes and meatballs when s/he was hungry then everyone else can only escape hunger by eating the same exact things. Or whatever. You get the idea. There's more than one way of satisfying the spiritual, neurochemical, social, etc, needs of "man" (or WOman, if you can't get past the abstraction! ).

I love topics such as these, I really do.

But as I've aged, seen/traveled/experienced the world at large, studied, meditated, contemplated, etc, my zeal for "combat" in these arenas has flagged considerably ("Back in the day, young 'uns, I was a real tiger!")....but over and over again I recall Voltaire's conclusion to Candide:

"That {arguing philosophical abstractions} is all well and good, but I must now go do some work in the garden."

I can whip myself up into an absolute lather of furious passion as quick as anyone...but...in the end, we all need to just get along, and work in the garden.

Ditto, I also think that some people have a stronger need for it.

I think I understand. I thought you were saying, if someone cannot understand another's abstract language, then they do not understand abstract language. ie, the athiest who says god does not exist cannot understand the abstraction of beauty. So, I then concluded, you say beauty does not exist so your arguement would also support that you do not understand abstract language. Then I got all mixed up again with your other asertion that abstract language cannot be understood unless some sort of a master's level of language study is included, which led me back to concluding I do not understand it.

Now I see you are saying, you think a person's ability to understand abstract language is shown in the way they project this understanding toward others...being understanding of the abstractions of others.

Did I get it? I really hope so. I am getting tired of thinking about this one.

Personal, but not an affectation. It must annoy you for you to label it as such.

I have learned this analysis from several different and influential traditions; poststructuralism, sophism, buddhism, and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy among others. It is an approach widely used by thinkers and activists in various political movements to explore the social construction of sexuality, gender, disability, and race. It is not in fact "that simple" an issue.

Claire333 already pointed out, on the previous page:

To which I replied:

Perhaps the only way to tell if someone's belief system is oppressive to them or not, and therefore how useful such beliefs might be in general, is ... ( as I said about Sand's tendency to accuse believers in God of stupidity, self-delusion, idiocy, weakness, and even insanity ), from the levels of hostility, personal insult, etc that anyone levels at others because of their beliefs.


I started to look at that, why ( many ) people believe in value judgements, ( abstract language ), as gods, in another post on this thread. I think some people are more prone to it than others. Did I say that on this thread too, that I think some of the greatest spiritual traditions are the inventions of people who suffered from this sort of worship of language, ( people who take language literally for example ), and came up with some ways to escape the emprise of language.


But as I said, I probably didn't express myself as well as I would have liked, or needed, to convey my idea, as you obviously didn't understand what I meant.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 27 May 2009, 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.