How does an atheist define the ego?

[Christian]

The reason atheists don't believe in any of these + god is that they don't benefit from it.

My understanding is that atheists don't believe in gods because there is no evidence for them, independent of the benefit analysis.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Have you considered that the reason why atheist don't believe in any fictional being, and that theists believe in some and not others, makes a significant difference between both group? That this would make the definition of ego by atheists interesting. Is has been interesting for me.

i just don't see why it is of any interest to you. It isn't to me, and seemingly most posters here. What is the attraction?

 

[Christian]

i just don't see why it is of any interest to you. It isn't to me, and seemingly most posters here. What is the attraction?

That is a valid question. The ego seems to be a topic related to human development and improvement. As many have posted, the use relates to the quality of the person. I was hoping to catch good observations for my use. If atheists have distinguished that gods don't exists (and they perceive this to be a good thing) then insight on the ego must be interesting too.

So far, it doesn't seem to be something special to consider for personal development. But, I hope you can see pattern of consensus among atheists here, along these lines.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

This is off topic, but I don't believe this is true (that this is the only thing they have in common). I do understand that a person can be very rigorous and point out that by definition, this is the only trait in common. But, I hope you can appreciate the idea that a group that has one thing in common by definition (e.g. atheists) can have other things in common because they are atheists.

Can have something in common? Sure.
Must have something in common? Nope.

In this case? It's a "no".

Have you considered that the reason why atheist don't believe in any fictional being

No, you are simply wrong.

Athiests can believe in lots of stupid stuff.

Raelians are atheists and yet believe in various silly space alien visitations.
There are also plenty of athiests amongst the von daniken followers.
I'm not that familiar with the subject, but scientologists don't have gods as far as I know (feel free to correct me)

That's 3 groups of space alien believers right there.
That counts as fictional beings, right?

I'm also willing to bet that if someone makes a survey on cryptozologist forums they'll unlock various athiests who believe in bigfoot and such.

Athiest <> Skeptics

and that theists believe in some and not others, makes a significant difference between both group?

It's the definition (when it comes to god)

That this would make the definition of ego by atheists interesting. Is has been interesting for me.

Most likely a survey of this nature will uncover issues that have nothing to do with athiesm.

Example: Ask a bunch of psychology students and quite likely they will all quote freud regardless of their (a)thiesim.

 

[Sledge]

I know what you are saying, that atheism is only and only a description of someone who does not believe in deities and nothing more. I do undestand that that is the definition, but one can infer more common traits from someone who is an atheist. No, I have not conducted statistically relevant surveys that can point to those common traits. I just suspect it. It is a guess.

No, I don't have a point. It was/is a question. And from the answers I'm getting, I can see this pattern of a not very important or relevant term to atheists.

Then you have learnt nothing.

 

[Red3]

My understanding is that atheists don't believe in gods because there is no evidence for them, independent of the benefit analysis.

Correct, but theists do believe despite there being no evidence for them, so what makes the difference? I think it's the need to believe. The same need that drives "atheists" and theists to (probably) come to different ideas about what the ego is. It's just the creation vs evolution thing scaled down. One groups wants the truth - however cold, and the other wants comfort even at the expense of reason.

What do you think the ego is?

 

[Piggy]

Discussing how atheists define the ego is like discussing how non-football-players define the cosmic ether.

 

[Tricky]

The "ego" and "personality" are sets of attributes and behaviors, invented by humans, to help describe the human mind. They are not a "part of the mind" or noumena that exist apart from the mind. It is my opinion that a scientist researching the brain would find this to be the case, regardless of their religious affiliation. Philosophers, however, are another matter. But then, philosophers don't really do anything useful. (Again, in my opinion.)

 

[Ladewig]

. If atheists have distinguished that gods don't exists (and they perceive this to be a good thing) then insight on the ego must be interesting too.

And here we find two errors in your logic. First, atheists do not perceive it as a good thing - the lack of divine beings is neither good nor bad, it just is. Second, we don't have anything in common other than not believing in gods. Really, there is no common trait. Why don't you believe us when we say that?

 

[Piggy]

And here we find two errors in your logic. First, atheists do not perceive it as a good thing - the lack of divine beings is neither good nor bad, it just is. Second, we don't have anything in common other than not believing in gods. Really, there is no common trait. Why don't you believe us when we say that?

Indeed.

First of all, I would dearly love it to be true that there was some paradise awaiting me, and some eternal being who cared for me and could reunite me with my loved ones after death. The notion of oblivion terrifies me at times (tho not as much now as it used to).

Second, atheists don't even agree about what it means to be an atheist. Most atheists will tell you that my particular brand of atheism is not supportable. (They're wrong, of course, but they're welcome to their opinion. )

 

[Christian]

And here we find two errors in your logic. First, atheists do not perceive it as a good thing - the lack of divine beings is neither good nor bad, it just is. Second, we don't have anything in common other than not believing in gods. Really, there is no common trait. Why don't you believe us when we say that?

The notion that there is no god is good, not the fact, I would assume from the defense of it.

No, I can't believe you just because you say so. It is a hypothesis that can be rejected not based on this group's opinion. And, I can be wrong, obviously. But, I find it to be a valid hypothesis.

 

[Christian]

The "ego" and "personality" are sets of attributes and behaviors, invented by humans, to help describe the human mind. They are not a "part of the mind" or noumena that exist apart from the mind. It is my opinion that a scientist researching the brain would find this to be the case, regardless of their religious affiliation. Philosophers, however, are another matter. But then, philosophers don't really do anything useful. (Again, in my opinion.)

Thank you Tricky and hello again.

 

[Hokulele]

The notion that there is no god is good, not the fact, I would assume from the defense of it.

No, I can't believe you just because you say so. It is a hypothesis that can be rejected not based on this group's opinion. And, I can be wrong, obviously. But, I find it to be a valid hypothesis.

I would venture to guess that atheists in Western cultures will have more in common with each other when it comes to concepts such as the ego than an atheist from a Western culture and one from an Eastern one. In other words, the definition of ego is far more culturally dependent than philosophically.

 

[Christian]

No, you are simply wrong.

Athiests can believe in lots of stupid stuff.

Raelians are atheists and yet believe in various silly space alien visitations.
There are also plenty of athiests amongst the von daniken followers.
I'm not that familiar with the subject, but scientologists don't have gods as far as I know (feel free to correct me)

That's 3 groups of space alien believers right there.
That counts as fictional beings, right?

I'm also willing to bet that if someone makes a survey on cryptozologist forums they'll unlock various athiests who believe in bigfoot and such.

Athiest <> Skeptics

I have to remember to be very careful when I write, big scrutiny around here. This nitpicking is not useful, IMHO. It does not discredit the idea that atheists can have traits in common other than the definition. And, as I said I can't show proof of this and I may be wrong.

The contributions have been excellent, IMO. The proof is in the length of this thread. I have enjoyed it.

 

[Sledge]

I do wish you'd get to your point.

 

[Christian]

I do wish you'd get to your point.

In long threads it is hard to keep up with what is going on. I began with a question and wanted feedback on it. Some have given me straight forward answers and others have objected to the question, altogether. This has been the longest of the thread. But, my interest was the atheist's take on the term.

 

[Ladewig]

The notion that there is no god is good, not the fact, I would assume from the defense of it.

I do not understand this sentence. May I ask you to restate it in a different way?

No, I can't believe you just because you say so. It is a hypothesis that can be rejected not based on this group's opinion. And, I can be wrong, obviously. But, I find it to be a valid hypothesis.

This to a skeptic board. If you provide evidence of your theories (no matter how unconventional, damning, controversial, unexpected, or unwelcome they may be) then you will be accepted and respected. If you continually ignore requests for evidence, then you will not be accepted and respected.

So, what have you got?

 

[Piggy]

It does not discredit the idea that atheists can have traits in common other than the definition.

Well if you think they do, it would be at least polite to say what you think these traits might be.

It's not helping your case that actual atheists are saying, given their experience, that they don't expect to have any more or less in common with another person (aside from opinions on God) who is an atheist than with a person who is not.

Yes, it may be true that atheists are indeed more likely to have some other trait in common.

But since you can't say what it might be, and atheists can't say what it might be, and no one is producing any research saying what it might be, then it's a whole lotta nothing.

 

[Ladewig]

In long threads it is hard to keep up with what is going on. I began with a question and wanted feedback on it. Some have given me straight forward answers and others have objected to the question, altogether. This has been the longest of the thread. But, my interest was the atheist's take on the term.

Perhaps the sample size of your experiment is not large enough. May I suggest you find other skeptic boards with religion sub-forums or some atheist boards and ask the same question there. Try some boards based in different countries.

Be sure to come back and let us know the results of your investigation.

 

[Piggy]

But, my interest was the atheist's take on the term.

And if you will read the thread, you have indeed gotten some takes on the term from atheists.

And lo and behold, they've run the gamut, haven't they?

I don't find the term "ego" useful at all. Tricky equates it with personality. Others have expressed different views.

So you seem to have your answer: There is no common atheists' definition of the ego.