• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How does an atheist define the ego?

Christian

Graduate Poster
C
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
1,090
I do understand the basic answer of chemichal processes within a physical system. My question is in the context of psychology or philosophy. I'm curious to know if an atheist finds any definition of the ego useful or relevant.
 
Some definitions

Jeff Corey said:
What do mean by "the ego"?
Click to expand...

These are some definitions of the ego. Diverse as you can see. I'm looking to see if there is an atheist's working definition, if any.

1. The ego is our identity.
2. The ego is individuality.
3. The ego is a center of consciousness.
4. The ego is an executive. It makes decisions. It implements our will.
5 The ego is an organizer.
6. The ego is an interface.
7. Outflow. The ego is a transformer and interpreter, transmitting ideas from soul into the world of people, in a form which is understandable and appropriate to those people.
8. Inflow. The ego translates incoming information from the human world such that our daily experiences are comprehensible and meaningful and educational to the Self or soul.
9. The ego is a mediator.
10. The ego is a symbol.
11. The ego is a pattern.
12. The ego is a sentry.
13. The ego is an archetypal constellation.
14. The Freudian ego.
 
There are uses for the word when discussing psychology. But I don't really understand why being an atheist would matter; none of the definitions of the word I'm aware of make any reference to any gods - not even the spiritualist definition.

ETA: As pointed out above, the usage in psychology isn't limited to the Freudian definition.
 
I don't know what atheists in general would think, but this behaviorist considers all of those definitions to be useless.
 
Jeff Corey said:
I don't know what atheists in general would think, but this behaviorist considers all of those definitions to be useless.
Click to expand...

That is why I ask. What would you consider a useful definition? Is there any useful definition?
 
What we think of as the self or our consciousness or whatever is an emergent property of the processes going on in our brain. I'm assuming that's what you're asking about.
 
Mirrorglass said:
There are uses for the word when discussing psychology. But I don't really understand why being an atheist would matter; none of the definitions of the word I'm aware of make any reference to any gods - not even the spiritualist definition.

ETA: As pointed out above, the usage in psychology isn't limited to the Freudian definition.
Click to expand...

I suspect it matters because I think it wouldn't include any reference to spirituality. Many definitions do include elements of this.
 
IMST said:
What we think of as the self or our consciousness or whatever is an emergent property of the processes going on in our brain. I'm assuming that's what you're asking about.
Click to expand...

Ego equals our consciousness? I understand the concept of consciousness, from the atheist perspective. Thanks.
 
Christian said:
These are some definitions of the ego. Diverse as you can see. I'm looking to see if there is an atheist's working definition, if any.

1. The ego is our identity.
2. The ego is individuality.
3. The ego is a center of consciousness.
4. The ego is an executive. It makes decisions. It implements our will.
5 The ego is an organizer.
6. The ego is an interface.
7. Outflow. The ego is a transformer and interpreter, transmitting ideas from soul into the world of people, in a form which is understandable and appropriate to those people.
8. Inflow. The ego translates incoming information from the human world such that our daily experiences are comprehensible and meaningful and educational to the Self or soul.
9. The ego is a mediator.
10. The ego is a symbol.
11. The ego is a pattern.
12. The ego is a sentry.
13. The ego is an archetypal constellation.
14. The Freudian ego.
Click to expand...


All but two or three of those definitions are utterly swirling oral-electric Jeebus hippy ****.

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of Rule 10. Please do not curse in your posts, or mask such words in an to attempt and by-bass the auto-censor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question, I guess, is whether atheists get stuck on the fact that biological processes could produce consciousness without a god to imbue the person with a soul.

The answer is that consciousness exists and can be measured, altered, supressed, and even divided (sort of). Biological processes exist and can also be measured. The soul and god cannot be measured. Atheists (and anyone who cares about science) should be content to study that which can be studied until, at least, everything possible is known about it.
 
As Richard Dawkins would say, "Even if science can't satisfactorily explain it to you, what in the world makes you think religion can?"

Religion offers you nothing whatsoever to aid you in your quest except perhaps to assure you that an invisible supreme being knows the answer even if you don't.
 
Christian said:
Ego equals our consciousness? I understand the concept of consciousness, from the atheist perspective. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thus the I'm assuming that's what you're talking about part of my quote. Obviously it wasn't. As a result, I've no idea what you mean by ego, really.
 
gph said:
I think your question is misdirected. It should be directed at scientific naturalists, not atheists.
Click to expand...

You mean atheists would not care to define it or can't define it? When I asked the question, I assumed that an atheist would have a working definition of ego. I didn't think that atheists don't use the word. But, this is why I ask. It's possible that atheists don't care for or use the term, and I would like to know either way.
 
The aspect of our developed consciousness that creates the illusion of an audience inside the brain, of us being separate from everything else (even our own bodies, as if our body was a suit we're wearing), as if life was a movie and we were the main protagonist... that is in essence the ego. The Me-ness.
 
Christian said:
You mean atheists would not care to define it or can't define it? When I asked the question, I assumed that an atheist would have a working definition of ego. I didn't think that atheists don't use the word. But, this is why I ask. It's possible that atheists don't care for or use the term, and I would like to know either way.
Click to expand...
There's no structure in atheism that can define ego. If you just want a variety of opinions though, knock yourself out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom