> What atheists call "no god," some thesist call "a god of their own definition."
And that's wrong, just on a basic level, and it's part of those theists being incapable of understanding a worldview without theism. They can't understand my philosophy, so they're compelled to shove me into a box they can understand, and then refuse to listen when I tell them their worldview is making them comprehensively misinterpret what I'm saying.
(And, no, a person can't dictate someone else's own philosophy to them. No matter how condescending that dictation is.)
Do you recognize that you're doing exactly the same thing in reverse?
The thing is, you can stomp your foot and throw a fit all you want about others not using your definitions that flow from your worldview, but it doesn't change reality. You're approaching epistemological and psychological differences as though they're a battle of authority. You can claim authority over a lot of things, even legal authority, but you cannot force someone to "understand differently."
This is what I mean by theists and atheists talking past each other. They each employ a form of ethnocentrism that frames every conversation as an argument. They do NOT want to understand each other. They want to WIN.
It's not about "definitions", nor about "winning". It doesn't even matter which meaning of the word "atheism" will we use. When someone seriously suggests that absence of eternal punishment means no incentive to not be evil, it means it's them who fail to notice all the other incentives that may be there. I already understand their point of view - their incentive is very clear to me and would work on me had I believed it; while for some reason they seem incapable of understanding mine that come from elsewhere. Asserting that lack of religion is just another religion seems very similar - if all you know is religionful life, you may have a hard time trying to think about what being religionless actually look like. I know both, so it's easy for me.
I have done it deliberately, because it really wasn't ;) The original comment (29952729) was clearly about some religious people not being capable of understanding that one's life doesn't have to be founded on religion. Then the reply that I replied to muddied the waters by adding people who religiously believe that there are no gods into the mix, which may still fit the definition of "atheism" (even though it isn't what "atheism" actually means), but it wasn't what the original poster was talking about at all.
When someone says I'm essentially a murderer because I don't believe what they believe, I get a bit annoyed.
When someone says I believe in something I don't believe in, and gets condescending about it, I get somewhat annoyed, but I mostly want to know what's going on in their head. I think I have some of it figured out, but you just accuse me of dishonest debating tactics. Why do you think I'm so wrong? Why do you think the people who think I'm a monster necessarily have a point?
- Yes, you are right that many theists equate "does not believe in God" with "would perform the most perverse and tortuous murder if given the chance." That would agitate anyone, and is not what I'm critiquing. But beyond this, do keep in mind that theists are like any other segment of the general population. If you let the beliefs and actions of some color your vision of all before you've met them, you very literally have a bias against a legally-protected class. This doesn't mean you're acting on it, but it is there. Some people like to know it is there, some don't care.
- Secondly, you're speaking contradictions. When you say that you want to understand why some people think such and such about you, and someone else gives you some insight into their thinking (and this wasn't me), and your reaction is to defend yourself, your actions show you aren't attempting to understand, you're attempting to CORRECT. But you can't correct what you don't understand. You also can't correct epistemological and psychological concerns by shouting from the top level that all they understand about you is wrong. I mean, you CAN. But you won't like the results.
I know all theists aren't like the ones we're talking about here. A lot of them don't think I believe in anything at all, and I'd say that's nice of them except they wouldn't regard something like "understanding atheism" as being nice as much as being basically cognizant of the world around them, like I'm not especially nice for understanding Lutheranism.
I passed the yelling phase a while ago. I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused, and I am annoyed but I do attempt to keep it out of my voice. I think people projecting a massive amount of anger onto me is their problem, not mine. As for trying to correct the condescending people who think I believe in some supernatural ethos or entity, maybe it's a bad habit, but thinking I must be angry to do so is a worse one.
And that's wrong, just on a basic level, and it's part of those theists being incapable of understanding a worldview without theism. They can't understand my philosophy, so they're compelled to shove me into a box they can understand, and then refuse to listen when I tell them their worldview is making them comprehensively misinterpret what I'm saying.
(And, no, a person can't dictate someone else's own philosophy to them. No matter how condescending that dictation is.)