Community help for Non-Cognitive?

[TROC]

I have been a non-believer in God or gods as long as I can remember. When people asked I reported as an Atheist. This year, with the kids growing and some time available, I was wanting to become more involved in the community. I really had not paid much attention until now.

In the first year of looking around I've learned that I am a 'non-cognitive', and there is a community theme that a non-cognitive isn't 'really' an atheist. Which may be true (I've no issue re-naming myself), but I'm not sure where to go at the moment. Some background:

As early as 8 or 9, I'm certain no older than 11, the question of God/Jesus came up and I stated to myself "I don't believe this do I?... Nope." It was not much more complex than that. The certainty of my non-cognitivism is that I know I was at an age when I had limited information and was not capable of 'analysis' or to call my statements a skeptical response to a proposed theory: I could not be a proper 'skeptic' having neither data nor methodology. I -DID- make an emotional statement based upon limited information. Later I learned the many cognitive arguments for/against but my origin is simply described that the emotional 'value proposition' of religion/God never appealed to me so I didn't look too closely.

As a result I conduct myself as non-cognitive: I listen to people and without a belief in God/gods I think about what they 'mean' and what needs they are fulfilling. When someone says Jesus makes them feel good I'm as inclined to chastise them as strongly as when someone tells me they enjoy casino gambling; the former is a tedious discussion and the latter has good data why it is likely a 'net bad' for them in a way that they are already fully aware of (they know they're loosing money but enjoy the entertainment - De gustibus non est disputandum)

After this first year of reading and hanging out among the community I think I concur that I am likely not an 'Atheist' in the way the community accepts. Awkward to say "I'm an atheist but other atheists would not agree" so given my profile and disposition I'm inquiring to the forum for assistance to answer:

- What is the appropriate title/group?
- What groups/people/blogs/books are appropriate or useful. For example "Religion for Atheists" (De Botton) is more my theme.

Thanks for any help

TROC
Texas

[genkaus]

I have been a non-believer in God or gods as long as I can remember. When people asked I reported as an Atheist. This year, with the kids growing and some time available, I was wanting to become more involved in the community. I really had not paid much attention until now.

In the first year of looking around I've learned that I am a 'non-cognitive', and there is a community theme that a non-cognitive isn't 'really' an atheist. Which may be true (I've no issue re-naming myself), but I'm not sure where to go at the moment. Some background:

As early as 8 or 9, I'm certain no older than 11, the question of God/Jesus came up and I stated to myself "I don't believe this do I?... Nope." It was not much more complex than that. The certainty of my non-cognitivism is that I know I was at an age when I had limited information and was not capable of 'analysis' or to call my statements a skeptical response to a proposed theory: I could not be a proper 'skeptic' having neither data nor methodology. I -DID- make an emotional statement based upon limited information. Later I learned the many cognitive arguments for/against but my origin is simply described that the emotional 'value proposition' of religion/God never appealed to me so I didn't look too closely.

As a result I conduct myself as non-cognitive: I listen to people and without a belief in God/gods I think about what they 'mean' and what needs they are fulfilling. When someone says Jesus makes them feel good I'm as inclined to chastise them as strongly as when someone tells me they enjoy casino gambling; the former is a tedious discussion and the latter has good data why it is likely a 'net bad' for them in a way that they are already fully aware of (they know they're loosing money but enjoy the entertainment - De gustibus non est disputandum)

After this first year of reading and hanging out among the community I think I concur that I am likely not an 'Atheist' in the way the community accepts. Awkward to say "I'm an atheist but other atheists would not agree" so given my profile and disposition I'm inquiring to the forum for assistance to answer:

- What is the appropriate title/group?
- What groups/people/blogs/books are appropriate or useful. For example "Religion for Atheists" (De Botton) is more my theme.

Thanks for any help

TROC
Texas

I think the term you are looking for is theological noncognitivism or ignosticism.

Can you your position a little better? For example, you say that upon encountering a proposition for god, you analyze the desires and needs of the person presenting it rather than analyzing the position itself. I find that irrelevant to atheism. Whether or not you are an atheist would be determined by your actual position on the proposition itself. Judging by your statements, it would seem than you are an atheist and I believe most of the other atheists here would agree.

[TROC]

... I find that irrelevant to atheism. Whether or not you are an atheist would be determined by your actual position on the proposition itself. Judging by your statements, it would seem than you are an atheist and I believe most of the other atheists here would agree.

This is an important clarification, thanks: Individually I can say "I do not believe in God" - which makes me an atheist. The community overtone (my read in the last year) is that to participate a cognitive approach is implicitly required. "We should examine these dis-proofs of God and challenge with them; this will produce people more compatible with our way of thinking". The 'vibe in the community' as I have been experiencing it. Not just a focus on 'atheist evangelism' or communication, but specifically cognitive atheism. Or - in short - I can be an atheist alone all I like, but the community may not be appropriate for me.

Where is (how to find) a non-cog community which will be better suited?

[genkaus]

This is an important clarification, thanks: Individually I can say "I do not believe in God" - which makes me an atheist. The community overtone (my read in the last year) is that to participate a cognitive approach is implicitly required. "We should examine these dis-proofs of God and challenge with them; this will produce people more compatible with our way of thinking". The 'vibe in the community' as I have been experiencing it. Not just a focus on 'atheist evangelism' or communication, but specifically cognitive atheism. Or - in short - I can be an atheist alone all I like, but the community may not be appropriate for me.

Where is (how to find) a non-cog community which will be better suited?

Which particular community are you talking about? This one? Online communities? The one you live in? Or some club or group you have joined?

I cannot suggest any non-cog community for you because I don't know of any. On the other hand, I haven't noticed any implicit requirement of cognitive evaluation in this community - though that happens to be a path most of the members here follow.

[Faith No More]

Where is (how to find) a non-cog community which will be better suited?

This community is not geared towards non-cognitivism, but we do attempt to make a community for everyone, including believers that want to discuss ideas with atheists. Sometimes we do have a user chastize someone else for not adhering to the same beliefs about such and such, but that is not indicative of the whole. Overall, we try to make this place comfortable for everyone.

Stick around and see if you like it.

[TROC]

Where is (how to find) a non-cog community which will be better suited?

This community is not geared towards non-cognitivism, but we do attempt to make a community for everyone, including believers that want to discuss ideas with atheists. Sometimes we do have a user chastize someone else for not adhering to the same beliefs about such and such, but that is not indicative of the whole. Overall, we try to make this place comfortable for everyone.

Stick around and see if you like it.

I think faith-no-more hit it on the head. Both my local associations and the tones on most blogs are clearly/heavily cognitive. I'm not 'outcast' by any means and I'll be sticking around and debate is great, but I'm an outlier so looking for like minded is awkward. If any of you happen to bump into something let me know.

[Doubting_Thomas]

Well if you don't believe in god(s) then you are an atheist. Atheism doesn't require obnoxiousism.

Maybe apathetic might be a more comfortable label although i'm suspicious of attempts to subdivide atheism in the current opinion poll world.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a fairly hefty current of non-cog in the way I approach the subject. Some things are very easy to approach from that position, others are not.

Consider the statement;

-You have a soul-
From the cognitive approach (essentially granting them a laundry list of strange shit for the sake of discussion) I might say;

"Where? Why can't we find this thing? If you can't even demonstrate that you personally have such a thing how could you possibly begin to tell me that I do?"

From a different perspective I might ask;

"WTF does that mean? Without being able to even conceptualize what this "soul" is (and with no way to even approach verification-let alone refutation) how can we possibly proceed with this discussion? I suspect that by "soul" you mean something else entirely."

That's probably why I consider the whole "soul" business DOA. Any explanation or statement as to what we are discussing invariably leads to a long list of words that are synonymous with "soul" and yet offer no elaboration or description of the term (leading me to wonder if it has ever actually meant anything specific to begin with). I very quickly become frustrated with empty platitudes offered up as explanations or claims - I can see no way to proceed from the point that they are invoked. The community here hasn't struck me as a bad fit as I straddle this particular line.

Now, on the other hand. Consider the statement;

"An immensely powerful anthropomorphic entity created all that we see around us 6,00 years ago by way of magical incantations"

This statement would be very difficult for me to approach from the non-cog position. This is very clearly an attempt at something cognitive. I might mention that the underlying concept of god and magic appear to be meaningless, incomprehensible, but the event being proposed is of a cognitive nature. I can consider this proposition, I can assign metrics, I can conceptualize the event even if I cannot conceptualize the forces behind it. This statement "means" something....even if that something is inaccurate (and even if it assumes things which I suspect have no real meaning).

[TROC]

There's a fairly hefty current of non-cog in the way I approach the subject. Some things are very easy to approach from that position, others are not.

Consider the statement;

-You have a soul-
From the cognitive approach (essentially granting them a laundry list of strange shit for the sake of discussion) I might say;

"Where? Why can't we find this thing? If you can't even demonstrate that you personally have such a thing how could you possibly begin to tell me that I do?"

Raises the second good point. I've 'become' capable of cognitive evaluation of statements. But personally I made the the decision very early on emotional grounds. I began as an atheist due to a non-cognitive position, while most publishing/talking are the opposite.

If you told me at 9 you had an automobile that got 200MPG I might have thought it was a great event for humanity; so useful. Today I know enough about the chemistry and physics of internal combustion to know it's not possible. Skepticism requires acquisition of data and we've variable in our ability to do that - both generally and at life stages. At 9 I would like to think something good happened, now I know too much.

It was emotion, and a long time ago, but the best aspect I can note in my 'non-cog' origin is that I've never had an emotional need to be immortal. Even young I was comfortable with my mortality and fallibility. So when the religious offering was presented giving me immortality I declined it out of absence of need first and did not (had not) had any care or reason to pay specific attention to the factual credibility of the underlying mysticism. Later I could see the arguments, but still had no need to pay much attention. There are other dimensions to this but this is the 'clearest'. I declined the spiritual/emotional/community offering and the incidentally associated God construct went with it.

This describes an atheist origin as 'non-cognitive' - the fact that I later learned skepticism doesn't change the truth of my origin. It's a challenge for a rational non-cognitive like myself in candor and the reason for example: Saying to a Theist/Christian "You've committed yourself emotionally to a community and emotional 'value pack' but are foolish for failing to pay careful attention to the problematic embedded God construct" is not a statement I can make, as I'd declined the offering on an emotional basis in the opposite direction also without ever (or even having the tools) to challenge factual aspects of it. If for some reason I had died before say; 15-20 or so, I would have done so a fully non-cognitive atheist never having questioned the specifics. Now into my 40's I'm capable of the cognitive position but my 'heart and beliefs' must still accept the truth of my origin.

In contrast; most cognitives are what I'll call 'late skeptic onset' atheists. Generally they relate stories in their teens or early 20's where they saw/read/experienced something that caused them to question the factual specifics of the constructs and that's where they 'fell out'. Which is fine, but still leaves me approaching the questions and issues from a very dissimilar perspective - bit of an outsider.

If nothing else I will say that ya'll have definitely helped me organize my thinking around this. Thanks!

[jonb]

My logic, for what it is worth, I think is driven by my emotions. and I'm well happy here. I often call myself an Absurdist, because I enjoy that philosophical background, but in truth I find most categories more restrictive than enhancing. You are what you are, titles at the end of the day mean nothing.