Atheism Lacks Entertainment Value

[CynthiaCypher]

Which reminds me...

What evidence do you have that babies believe in a god?

:biglaugh:

Non-sequitur. I never said they did.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a pretty clear sentence. It's not particularly an aesthetically pleasing sentence and the information conveyed is minimal but it is a clear and coherent sentence. But if you wanted to make it fuller and richer you would need to provide more information.

I find it amusing - and rather hypocritical - that this sort of criticism would come from someone who described the statement "there is a god" as a "narrative" a few pages back.

 

[Willamena]

My point is that it is not as generalized and "meaningless" as CynthiaCypher would like us to think.

If someone comes up to me talking about god and I reply "god does not exist" then it is obvious that I am talking about the god (regardless of how that person defines 'god') the first person is talking about.

So CynthiaCypher's pages long rant does not apply.

What I find most comical is how she thinks the only reason I disagree with her is because I do not understand the OP.

But then, I have dealt with other people who think they are so much smarter than the rest of the world...

But if someone came up to you talking about god and you replied, "god does not exist," but in all their rambling they had given no meaningful indication about what they meant by "god," the only significant interpretation is that you are talking about what "god" means to you, not what "god" means to them.

We primarily use words for what they mean to us.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism lacks a meaningful narrative, if anything is simplistic it is the narrative that atheism presents. In fact I would say that the narrative of atheism is not only lacking in entertainment value and not only is simplistic but is entirely meaningless within itself.

For example this little story atheist like to tell others:"There is no God".

What the hell is that suppose to mean?

Does it convey any knowledge? Does it answer any real questions? Give any real meaning? Does it inspire any purpose? Any values, ethics or emotions? No.

It is useless as it is meaningless.

I believe the story with "entertainment value" for the atheist isn't found in the blunt claim, "There is no god," just as the story with "entertainment value" for the theist isn't found in its blunt claim. The worldviews of the agent/agency for either perspective hold the most interesting narrative. Any entertainment value that both worldviews hold relates the story of an individual's relation to the world around them, and that world will either exist because of or exist regardless of some version of "god."

Myth transcends both stories, it takes that relation out of the individual and casts aspects of the story into roles, to which the individual can again relate. The hero, the guide, the sidekick, the lovers, the villain, the cause or goal, and the conflicts--all the devices of an interesting plot are there for both the theist and the atheist. "God" or nature, as the worldly aspect of us, takes on each of these roles, in various ways.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I find it amusing - and rather hypocritical - that this sort of criticism would come from someone who described the statement "there is a god" as a "narrative" a few pages back.

I don't think you understand the concept of narrative in this context. Narrative is diegesis, it is a telling.

When you construct a statement regarding what you believe, you are not just stating what you believe but you are giving us a message about you. Since your statement is about your beliefs, then it is also about you and than makes it autobiographical. There is no debating it, you just told your audience something about yourself. So if you state "There is no God" you are also stating that you have come to the conclusion that there is no God. This is diegesis, this is a telling, this is narrative.

 

[fantome profane]

We primarily use words for what they mean to us.

I try to use words to convey meaning to others.

 

[McBell]

But if someone came up to you talking about god and you replied, "god does not exist," but in all their rambling they had given no meaningful indication about what they meant by "god," the only significant interpretation is that you are talking about what "god" means to you, not what "god" means to them.

We primarily use words for what they mean to us.

Is it your claim that the situation in my post never happens?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think you understand the concept of narrative in this context. Narrative is diegesis, it is a telling.

When you construct a statement regarding what you believe, you are not just stating what you believe but you are giving us a message about you. Since your statement is about your beliefs, then it is also about you and than makes it autobiographical. There is no debating it, you just told your audience something about yourself. So if you state "There is no God" you are also stating that you have come to the conclusion that there is no God. This is diegesis, this is a telling, this is narrative.

... this is hand-waving to justify your prejudices.