Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:'' An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.''

Wonderful. That's one 'ist' that I wouldn't mind, and that makes complete sense. The only sensible way to be.

I agree VT, I'm converting right away.

Funny thing about "apatheism". At first I thought I'd invented a cool new term. Then Google, as usual, provided the reality check ...

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote: Freud called it projection - and in this instance Immanuel is projecting his passionate belief on to others. He clearly cannot imagine someone not passionately believing in something, so he (and many other theists) posit that atheists passionately believe in atheism or materialism. Perhaps the term "apatheism" will help clarify?

An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.

In short, they don't much care about the question. They care about the question of gods as much as they care about the question of leprechauns, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters ("All Praise His Noodliness"). The question simply isn't on their radar. Many of them do not lead examined lives.

If you are really an apatheist, as you imply, then why are you here, if you don't really care?

I'm just trying to be helpful(?). I consider myself to be agnostic-ish, ie. too commitment-phobic to even firmly commit to agnosticism.

However, I can appreciate that others care less than I do about the nature of reality, just as I might care less than them about success or social activities. I don't project my personal passion for existential BS on to others, as though they are as hostile as I am intrigued. To be blunt, many people truly, honestly and sincerely do not give even the slightest fuck about this thread's subject matter.

I can see their point. It's not exactly practical to spend a lot of time considering the nature of a universe that has made monkeys of countless generations before us. Most "atheists" I've known simply threw the nature of reality into the too-hard-basket and got on with life. The simplest are practical-minded people who see philosophy as a pointless indulgence of w@nkers. Then there are the smart and educated "apatheists" who are extremely curious about life and existence but simply see no need to believe in ancient mythological deities. They've moved on long ago. Their focus tends to be on the positive (ie. whatever they are studying), not the negative.

Most "apatheists" I have known (and can remember) seem to subscribe to a loose sense of humanism without much thought. This no doubt stems from their almost exclusive focus on their family, social and work lives. Many have intense views on morality, but not in accordance to the strictures of the scriptures (sorry, I couldn't resist :), but according to shared group values, which at its core is based on empathy - "would I like x to happen to me or my child?".

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:


FYI, my paternal grandmother's family was from Australia, they were kicked out of Ireland for stealing livestock and sent to Australia, then they were kicked out of Australia for stealing livestock and sent to America, the Australian criminals didn't want them.

Why are you telling me this?

You should tell Greta. She's the Australian, and I'm sure she would be REALLY interested.

thedoc wrote:...
If you don't want to answer, or can't, it's OK, I understand.

I thought I did?

Still, on a philosophy forum I think my meaning was very clear but understand many are not of an academical background. So, he is a slime of the highest philosophical order.

Arising_uk wrote: he is a slime of the highest philosophical order.

I think most of us knew that's what you meant, in the first place.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Why are you telling me this?

You should tell Greta. She's the Australian, and I'm sure she would be REALLY interested.

Oh Greta.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You should tell Greta. She's the Australian, and I'm sure she would be REALLY interested.

Oh Greta.

You just watch what you go saying to Greta, doc, you're a married man.

Doc, from Ireland to Australia to the US. Why weren't they kicked out of the US? I assume that Americans don't like having their cattle stolen either. I have a trash Irish background on one side of the family too, with a fair few wife bashers in that line.

Alfie, thanks for the timely warning on my behalf. This is important because my culture does not allow women to speak with married men. This is a critical aspect of our culture that promotes societal stability. Further, women must not speak with unmarried men. That road leads to damnation. Nor may we speak with other women, for gossip soils the soul.

Greta wrote:Doc, from Ireland to Australia to the US. Why weren't they kicked out of the US? I assume that Americans don't like having their cattle stolen either. I have a trash Irish background on one side of the family too, with a fair few wife bashers in that line.

Alfie, thanks for the timely warning on my behalf. This is important because my culture does not allow women to speak with married men. This is a critical aspect of our culture that promotes societal stability. Further, women must not speak with unmarried men. That road leads to damnation. Nor may we speak with other women, for gossip soils the soul.

Apparently they didn't settle where cattle were a problem or a temptation, so they reformed, or they were absorbed into the prevailing society, and stealing cattle wasn't seen as a problem. They may have even schooled some of the locals on how to not get caught, since they seem to have had some experience with getting caught.

I don't remember hearing about any wife beaters in the family, perhaps the men were afraid that the women would beat them up if they got too rough.

If all that is true then who are you left to speak to? your children and your husband? a very limited conversation, I do feel sorry for you. You just spoke (figuratively speaking) to me and Harbal, so how do you get around that? My wife has conversations with many different people, and I trust her completely.

thedoc wrote:... then who are you left to speak to? your children and your husband? a very limited conversation, I do feel sorry for you.

I'm not allowed to speak to my husband either or he will beat me for insurrection. Nor may I speak with the children for fear of polluting their minds with feminine things. So I'm pretty quiet, all round. All I am allowed is to talk to the wind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfqXh5s4t4k

I take it by now you realise that I've been giving you some Irish blarney

The bit about Mum's family is true, though. I had two uncles who beat their wives on occasion. I found one of them especially scary. He had an air of barely contained violence about him. The other side of my family arrived here as refugees from Hitler. Funny old world.

thedoc wrote: If all that is true then who are you left to speak to? your children and your husband? a very limited conversation, I do feel sorry for you. You just spoke (figuratively speaking) to me and Harbal, so how do you get around that? My wife has conversations with many different people, and I trust her completely.

I hope you are joking.

Greta wrote:
Alfie, thanks for the timely warning on my behalf.

It sort of refers back to something earlier on when thedoc was saying inappropriate stuff about women. Don't worry though, I soon put him straight.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You know full well that there's no 'evidence' possible.

That would make me an agnostic; which I'm not. As I tried to explain to Mr Can, an agnostic is not someone who doesn't know whether or not there is a god, many theists and most atheists will admit they don't know; it's just that one bunch believe it and the other don't. An agnostic is someone who states that there can be no evidence one way or the other, but if god were to appear and perform a few miracles, that would be all the evidence I need to believe in it.

uwot wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You know full well that there's no 'evidence' possible.

That would make me an agnostic; which I'm not. As I tried to explain to Mr Can, an agnostic is not someone who doesn't know whether or not there is a god, many theists and most atheists will admit they don't know; it's just that one bunch believe it and the other don't. An agnostic is someone who states that there can be no evidence one way or the other, but if god were to appear and perform a few miracles, that would be all the evidence I need to believe in it.

No it wouldn't. That's not what I meant. Give me an example then of what would denote evidence for the non-existence of a god (or anything else for that matter). And if 'god' appeared then you wouldn't be 'believing' in him. This is ridiculous, arguing for weeks over what a frigging 'atheist' is. Who cares? Do you really care what a retard like IC thinks?

Greta wrote:

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:I notice that the Atheist set on this strand is absolutely DESPERATE to make the main question change to something personal. They don't want to discuss Atheism (or "atheism") at any cost.

Mr Can, there really isn't much to discuss about atheism. It has been pointed out to you by several atheists that all that atheism entails is a lack of belief in any god. The Atheism you describe is different, in that you define it as a positive belief that god does not exist. The atheists on this forum have agreed that any such belief should be supported by evidence, and if any Atheist can provide that evidence, then we atheists would be as eager to see it as you. We have also pointed out that atheists would just as quickly debunk such a ridiculous claim as you. In that regard, Mr Can, you and atheists agree.

Nice summary of the situation.

Thank you.

Greta wrote:Freud called it projection - and in this instance Immanuel is projecting his passionate belief on to others. He clearly cannot imagine someone not passionately believing in something, so he (and many other theists) posit that atheists passionately believe in atheism or materialism. Perhaps the term "apatheism" will help clarify?

An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.

I would very much like to be an apatheist, but I have spent most of my life in a city where innocent people have been blown up by IRA and al qaeda or daesh inspired nutters, who cite their particular brand of theism as justification. I am reminded of this everyday on the Underground, where every few minutes we are exhorted to look out for anything suspicious. If only other people's beliefs were meaningless and irrelevant to my life.