How does an atheist define the ego?

[Skeeve]

Let me get this straight, so I may learn and try to better myself. You didn't present a false dichotomy?

No, because those were truly the only options.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Pup]

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

Are you saying that atheists defend the idea that there is no god, therefore they must think that the idea is good? That's true, in the sense that most people will defend an idea that they believe is accurate, whether or not the thing itself is good.

For example, I would defend the idea that bigots and murderers and child abusers exist, though I don't think they're good, but since they exist I think it would be bad to deny their existence.

 

[Christian]

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

The fact that there is no god is neither good of bad, your subjective evaluation of this is that it is good (that you believe this) (it might solely be because you believe it to the the truth) Of course, you can say it is not the case and end of story.

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?

I answered a question. It was a side opinion, not the main part of the thread or point. I have many opinions (as everybody else) which I don't think I need to go to the trouble of showing evidence, specially if it has not been the main point. If I lose respect and acceptance from you because of it, I can only say that is regrettable.

 

[Christian]

Are you saying that atheists defend the idea that there is no god, therefore they must think that the idea is good? That's true, in the sense that most people will defend an idea that they believe is accurate, whether or not the thing itself is good.

For example, I would defend the idea that bigots and murderers and child abusers exist, though I don't think they're good, but since they exist I think it would be bad to deny their existence.

Yes, exactly my point. It is good that you believe bigots and murderes and child abusers exist. It is a very useful belief. Very good.

 

[Christian]

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.

I have acknowledge the fact that I have gotten answers and have thanked this. And I do see a very specific pattern, which I pointed out as well.

 

[Christian]

No, because those were truly the only options.

Stupidity or poor troll. Nothing else can explain the OP.

Skeeve, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Christian]

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.

Well, this atheist group does have in common that the ego is not considered a very important element, only a term of usage in common conversation or for reference to academia.

 

[slingblade]

I have to remember to be very careful when I write, big scrutiny around here. This nitpicking is not useful, IMHO.

I refer you to Wonderland:

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

Many of us find "nitpicking" is useful, for clarity's sake. Language is slippery, and misunderstandings bog down a discussion.

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 above, for example. There's some talking at cross-purposes going on with that.

Everyone from every "group" will have things in common with those from other "groups." But not all those commonalities will arise from the condition that delineates the group. It's a matter of "necessary and sufficient."

To be an atheist, it is both necessary and sufficient that I hold no belief in a god or gods. That is what I have to do, and all I have to do, to be an atheist. Therefore, anything else I have in common with other atheists is not necessary to, nor is sufficient for, being an atheist, and is a non-sequitur.

There is no standard atheist's definition for "ego," as having such a definition is not at all necessary or sufficient for atheism.

Helpful?

 

[Christian]

I refer you to Wonderland:



Many of us find "nitpicking" is useful, for clarity's sake. Language is slippery, and misunderstandings bog down a discussion.



The above, for example. There's some talking at cross-purposes going on with that.

Everyone from every "group" will have things in common with those from other "groups." But not all those commonalities will arise from the condition that delineates the group. It's a matter of "necessary and sufficient."

To be an atheist, it is both necessary and sufficient that I hold no belief in a god or gods. That is what I have to do, and all I have to do, to be an atheist. Therefore, anything else I have in common with other atheists is not necessary to, nor is sufficient for, being an atheist, and is a non-sequitur.

There is no standard atheist's definition for "ego," as having such a definition is not at all necessary or sufficient for atheism.

Helpful?

First, I like the way you write. Second, let me see if I can explain.

I fully understand you, I do. But you are not taking into account some elements that I believe should be.

To me atheists are a special group. The commonality does not come from taste or preference in a vacuum. IMO.

Maybe an example will help. I can define a group based on income. I define the group of people who are millionaires. This is what defines the group. I suspect they have more things in common than income. The process of becoming millionaires has given them other traits that are also similar. Maybe it is spending habits, work ethic, morals, etc.

Am I making my point?

 

[Jeff Corey]

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

I sure hope not, except if they are asked about the history of the science.

 

[Ladewig]

Maybe an example will help. I can define a group based on income. I define the group of people who are millionaires. This is what defines the group. I suspect they have more things in common than income. The process of becoming millionaires has given them other traits that are also similar. Maybe it is spending habits, work ethic, morals, etc.

Am I making my point?

No. There are three errors.

First, the millionaire analogy is not useful because some people are millionaires because they inherited money, others won the lottery, others invested wisely in stocks and bonds, other got lucky investing in companies, other built their own business, others committed crimes to get their money, others used talent in some field to become successful, etc, etc.

Second, for the analogy to be relevant to this discussion, then you would have to try to find common traits among people who are NOT millionaires. That's what atheists have in common, they are simply NOT something else that is clearly defined.

Third, the analogy is not useful because people can easily go back and forth between atheist and believer much more easily than people can go back and forth between millionaire and non-millionaire. also, 99.99% of everyone who is not a millionaire wants to be a millionaire.

 

[Ladewig]

The fact that there is no god is neither good of bad, your subjective evaluation of this is that it is good (that you believe this) (it might solely be because you believe it to the the truth) Of course, you can say it is not the case and end of story.

I apologize, but I still do not understand you. What do you mean by this?

I answered a question. It was a side opinion, not the main part of the thread or point. I have many opinions (as everybody else) which I don't think I need to go to the trouble of showing evidence, specially if it has not been the main point. If I lose respect and acceptance from you because of it, I can only say that is regrettable.

No, it is not a side question; it is the main point. It is the very core of this discussion. If there is no evidence that atheists have common traits, then asking for their definition of a word is of no use at all.

 

[Jeff Corey]

First, I like the way you write. Second, let me see if I can explain.

I fully understand you, I do. But you are not taking into account some elements that I believe should be.

To me atheists are a special group. The commonality does not come from taste or preference in a vacuum. IMO.

Maybe an example will help. I can define a group based on income. I define the group of people who are millionaires. This is what defines the group. I suspect they have more things in common than income. The process of becoming millionaires has given them other traits that are also similar. Maybe it is spending habits, work ethic, morals, etc.

Am I making my point?

No. Atheists are a group only in the sense that they will answer the question, "Do you believe in any gods at all?" with a simple, "No."
Millionaires are a group defined by a changing arbitrary definition.
To me theists are a special group, because they answer the question above with, "Yes".

 

[Sun Countess]

Well, this atheist group does have in common that the ego is not considered a very important element, only a term of usage in common conversation or for reference to academia.

Again, I'll ask: What does the theist group have in common when it comes to a definition of ego? From my experience, theists use "ego" the same way that atheists do.

If you could tell us what you think would make an atheist's definition of a non-religious word different from a theist's definition, it may move the thread forward.

To me atheists are a special group. The commonality does not come from taste or preference in a vacuum. IMO.

Great. Have you met a wide range of atheists that have led you to that opinion? Personally, I was raised without religious beliefs. I came by atheism in a very different way from many posters here who were raised with religious beliefs. What do you think we all have in common?

Maybe an example will help. I can define a group based on income. I define the group of people who are millionaires. This is what defines the group. I suspect they have more things in common than income. The process of becoming millionaires has given them other traits that are also similar. Maybe it is spending habits, work ethic, morals, etc.

All those maybes are great for a navel-gazing session, but there's no substance behind your (weak) assertions. Paris Hilton is a different type of millionaire than Oprah, or JK Rowling, or the head of a drug cartel, or the miser who dies with millions of dollars of cash buried in the backyard. Do you honestly believe that those millionaires all have the same spending habits, work ethics, or morals? Would they all define "ego" the same way because they're millionaires?

Atheists may have vastly different spending habits, work ethics, and morals too. Honestly, the only thing they have in common is a lack of belief in any gods.

 

[Christian]

No. There are three errors.

First, the millionaire analogy is not useful because some people are millionaires because they inherited money, others won the lottery, others invested wisely in stocks and bonds, other got lucky investing in companies, other built their own business, others committed crimes to get their money, others used talent in some field to become successful, etc, etc.

Second, for the analogy to be relevant to this discussion, then you would have to try to find common traits among people who are NOT millionaires. That's what atheists have in common, they are simply NOT something else that is clearly defined.

Third, the analogy is not useful because people can easily go back and forth between atheist and believer much more easily than people can go back and forth between millionaire and non-millionaire. also, 99.99% of everyone who is not a millionaire wants to be a millionaire.

I can refine the analogy to entreprenuers. You are missing my point. Your second point does not follow. Your third point is pure speculation just to refute me.

I don't know if links are allowed anymore. Here is one that shows what I mean. I don't think my point is that far off as to be refuted like this. I may be wrong as I said before, but I think it is a valid point to consider atheism a process that makes people have common traits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

 

[slingblade]

First, I like the way you write. Second, let me see if I can explain.

Thank you. And by all means, please try.

I fully understand you, I do. But you are not taking into account some elements that I believe should be.

To me atheists are a special group. The commonality does not come from taste or preference in a vacuum. IMO.

Yes, but I said that. I said there is only one condition that is both necessary and sufficient to being atheist: a lack of belief in a god or gods. Quite literally everything about a person that makes him an atheist individual could be different from that of another atheist individual, so long as they both hold that one condition in common.

Maybe an example will help. I can define a group based on income.

Yes, you can, but the commonality of that group will be no different from the commonality of atheists. Millionaires need have only one thing in common: holding assets of at least one million dollars. They can quite literally be different in every other respect that makes them individuals. The trailer park drunk who buys the lucky lotto ticket isn't necessarily going to have many values or ideals in common with the woman born into wealth, although there may be some, certainly.

I define the group of people who are millionaires. This is what defines the group. I suspect they have more things in common than income.

They may have, but they don't have to have, in order to be part of the group defined as millionaires. All they have to have in common is the money. Everything else about them could be wildly different.

The process of becoming millionaires has given them other traits that are also similar. Maybe it is spending habits, work ethic, morals, etc.

You don't know that. It might, certainly. It also might not. If I win the lottery tomorrow, it will not suddenly change my values to those of Bill Gates. It will simply put me in the same income bracket with him. Nothing more will necessarily follow.

Am I making my point?

Oh yes. I just think your point is mistaken.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

We atheists knew that already. But what does that have to do with your ego obsession?

 

[ShadowSot]

As a martial artists who happens to be an atheist... to me ego is the way our bias' affect our view of things.
For example, some martial artists refer to defeating the ego as a must towards becoming a martial artsist.
The reason for this is, in my understanding, not to become deep and spiritual, but instead it's to keep your bias' from loading a fight.
You don't want to be so over-confident you present an opening to your opponent, and so under confident you can't hold yourself steady in front of him.

 

[Ladewig]

Your third point is pure speculation just to refute me.

My third point has two parts. (1) going from non-millionaire to millionaire is nowhere close to being as easy as going from theist to atheist or atheist to theist. (2) Are you suggesting that if we asked all 6.6 billion people in the world if they would like a free gift of $1,000,000 that more than 1 in 10,000 would say no?

ETA: forget part 2 completely. I withdraw my original assertion. part 1 remains as a valid reason why the millionaire analogy is flawed.

 

[Christian]

I hope everyone can appreciate that answering everyone is becoming impossible. I apologize in advance.

Maybe I can show evidence of other similar traits (in the US at least) (one was intelligence)

Atheists are subject to discrimination based on their beliefs. This should create specific qualities to counter it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/18religion.html

Atheist seem to be more knowledgeable about religious topics

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/on-the-trivia-banks-of-atheists/

Atheism can be associated with less agreeability.

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2010/03/atheists-are-disagreeable-and.html

Because of the common experiences of being an atheist, it is possible to make hypothesis about common traits.

This can all mean nothing, but to ask for a definition of a term to a group of atheist does not seem like a bad idea. It has not been for me.