Community help for Non-Cognitive?

[TROC]

or at least the position you describe isn't classically atheist, as it incorporates significant beliefs about belief that most atheists leave undefined, or settle on an orthodox view.

Exactly why I must be precise and cautious. I'm not uncomfortable with a statement of 'belief': I can accept or reject things where the 'proofs' are not practical. I can say "I firmly disbelieve in God" - the same way an otherwise rational christian can say they "firmly believe in God" even though they logically admit that God is not 'provable' in the conventional sense - thus using the word 'belief' as opposed to 'fact'.

Among friends I like to conjecture as much as the next person... what if god is ?... etc, but with people at large; for example when dealing with Christians, it's important out of courtesy that I declare atheism so they don't get the wrong impression (that I'm in the market for some Jesus) and avoid being disingenuous. I can say "God may or may not exist" (agnostic) as a factual statement, but I don't and will never believe, so a declaration of atheism is important.

Among atheists, as you note, the community is largely 'hard cognitive' so i need some precision in defining myself (likewise out of courtesy) and I'm finding that it also causes me to reach very different conclusions, both practically and philosophically.

[Angrboda]

or at least the position you describe isn't classically atheist, as it incorporates significant beliefs about belief that most atheists leave undefined, or settle on an orthodox view.

Among atheists, as you note, the community is largely 'hard cognitive' so i need some precision in defining myself (likewise out of courtesy) and I'm finding that it also causes me to reach very different conclusions, both practically and philosophically.

Such as?

[jonb]

Among atheists, as you note, the community is largely 'hard cognitive' so i need some precision in defining myself (likewise out of courtesy) and I'm finding that it also causes me to reach very different conclusions, both practically and philosophically.

Lighten up man, they understand me only too well. It's like your thinking about stuff instead of just feeling it. Come on, party on dude.

[mralstoner]

Statements like "God must be treated as any hypothesis" are ones I reject functionally and inter personally - even though it's literally true or false - in the same way I would reject something like "There was 74 cents in change in my pocket the morning of December 1st, 1982". The statement "There was 74 cents in my pocket" must be true or false, but arguing it (as the proofs are lost) is not rational.

It would be rational to argue you had 74 cents if you had documentary evidence of your entire finances leading up to that day. But you don't, so there's insufficient data to prove it either way. All you can say is it's highly unlikely.

So are there proofs likewise unavailable about gods? That sounds like the absence of evidence argument. But that's a cognitive argument that engages the proposition. (And it's a flawed argument because it does not disprove god, nor make god improbable, it just makes god seem unlikely).

[TROC]

It would be rational to argue you had 74 cents if you had documentary evidence of your entire finances leading up to that day. But you don't, so there's insufficient data to prove it either way. All you can say is it's highly unlikely.

So are there proofs likewise unavailable about gods? That sounds like the absence of evidence argument. But that's a cognitive argument that engages the proposition. (And it's a flawed argument because it does not disprove god, nor make god improbable, it just makes god seem unlikely).

It was my pocket and in '82 I had no bank account, and the stores had no video cameras etc.etc. So although it is reasonable to say that it is 'unlikely' that there was exactly 74 cents in my pocket it is never 'provable'.

TRUTH: I willfully constructed the statement to ensure that proofs could not be made available.

On God: There are proofs I can observe to dispute any individual point of "gods", but like my small change experiment but on a much larger scale - the God of Isaac and Abraham was itself constructed to be infinite, everlasting, omnipotent and ineffable. Even though I see many facts that support my beliefs, the natural conclusion to the tedious cognitive dispute can always be the same: "God did it that way to test your faith". It may be 'probable' or 'improbable', it will absolutely be 'true' or 'false'; but it was willfully built by men never to be 'provable'. I don't believe that God the mystical exists, but I'm certain by evidence that god the construct does and I understand why and how it was made.

Person "A": There is something that exists you can never see or understand.
Person "B": That cant' exist... here's some proofs.
Me: Doh!!!

---

Come on, party on dude.

You bet... Just finding the best way to be honest, accurate and get the community to pipe down a moment so I can remember where I put my beer!

---

I'm finding that it also causes me to reach very different conclusions, both practically and philosophically.

Such as?

Lots of examples, probably the best is the resiliency and persistence of religion here in America; particularly the rise of the evangelicals and the 'apparent' rise of fundamentalists. There are specific reasons for it's origins and also good reasons why I'm not troubled (where the cogs tend to be alternately angry about it and threatened by it).

But that would take a blog to explain... Don't know if I want to make you feel that much safer yet... :-).

[mralstoner]

TROC, if you want to avoid arguments you could just call yourself a low-threshold atheist instead of a non-cognitive atheist i.e. your criteria for dismissing the god hypothesis are minimal. I think the line between cognitive and non-cognitive atheism is too subtle and complex to explain to others.

More to the point, if humanist community is all you are after, maybe you should seek out individuals within humanist groups who are more interested in social outings rather than tortured debates. Take your outings to settings that are not disposed to debating e.g. bushwalking, softball, etc. Start building your own humanist social group, if that's what you're after. I'm sure there's lots of people who would prefer this to listening to a humanist lecture, but they're probably not associated with any group, so you'll have to find them yourself. Start a facebook group, advertise, promote ...

Meanwhile, maybe this humanist church in Houston is near you:

What is a former pastor and church planter to do after publicly declaring that he's an atheist? Mike Aus started another church.

Aus, along with several other atheists, freethinkers and secular humanists in Houston, launched Houston Oasis, a community grounded in reason rather than revelation, celebrating the human experience as opposed to any deity. The first of these Sunday morning gatherings was held in early September and featured live music by local artists, personal testimonies, a message and time for fellowship.

Last May, Aus came out as an atheist on MSNBC's Chris Hayes show, saying that he'd long had doubts about his faith and beliefs, but never abandoned the idea that Christianity provided for basic human needs for support and community.

"Regardless of theological orientation, there is some kind of deeply ingrained basic human need for community," Aus said. "Homo sapiens are a tribal species that need support from others, that cannot be denied."

http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief...982205.php
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...ible-tudy/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofthe...ot-a-blip/

[Angrboda]

Such as?

Lots of examples, probably the best is the resiliency and persistence of religion here in America; particularly the rise of the evangelicals and the 'apparent' rise of fundamentalists. There are specific reasons for it's origins and also good reasons why I'm not troubled (where the cogs tend to be alternately angry about it and threatened by it).

But that would take a blog to explain... Don't know if I want to make you feel that much safer yet... :-).

Your choice. You hinted you had an alternative framework, with alternative conclusions. If you can't explain it, or won't, I'm tempted to take a non-cognitive approach to your ideas and dismiss them as not being tangibly meaningful. My thoughts on things like ethics and the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta would require that I bring in a lot of background to explain them. Yet you suggest your ideas illuminate the American religious situation. I find it hard to believe it would take that much, given a mutual familiarity with American religion. There are non-specific theories of religion relating to social systems or cognitive science and so forth, and then there are America specific theories having to do with historical, political or other factors of the American landscape. That you think that communicating your ideas about American religion would be too inordinately difficult to pursue is both disappointing, and suspicious. But so be it.


I'm short a power cable for my file server. That's a cognitively determinate task I can pursue instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIxiN0a9FyA

[fr0d0]

I find myself agreeing with most of your points TROC. I don't see how you conflate belief with fact, as you appear to. Belief is the bit you refuse to address I guess.

In my locale it's 2% the other way. I'm way too long in the tooth to get excited enough to want to push my mate J onto anybody. It takes actual direct enquiry.

Does that make me non cog too? It feels like it does.

For a non cog you sure cog lots though I understand your position strictly concerns avoidance of one particular subject.

Good reading. THX

[TROC]

TROC, if you want to avoid arguments you could just call yourself a low-threshold atheist instead of a non-cognitive atheist i.e. your criteria for dismissing the god hypothesis are minimal. I think the line between cognitive and non-cognitive atheism is too subtle and complex to explain to others.

I think you may be completely correct; normally I can get away with a more lightweight description but at some point the questions come up and I'll want to be able to explain myself.

The links to the Houston group are very interesting. I'm in Texas myself.

Thanks Mr. Al!

---

But that would take a blog to explain... Don't know if I want to make you feel that much safer yet... :-).

Your choice. You hinted you had an alternative framework, with alternative conclusions. If you can't explain it, or won't, I'm tempted to take a non-cognitive approach to your ideas and dismiss them as not being tangibly meaningful. ...

Sorry ap; I was being sarcastic related to your previous Hudson quote: "He's going to start a blog. I feel safer already."
(Sometimes I don't even get my own humor..)

Like most things not closely examined my prose and emotional vocabulary needs some work is all. And I ramble but I like my first bit: http://muscularatheist.blogspot.com/

I'm short a power cable for my file server. That's a cognitively determinate task I can pursue instead.

Now that's something I could have actually been useful for! I've got miles of cable.