How does an atheist define the ego?

Dancing David said:
I think we need to state that you are probably more interested in materialism than atheism.

The ego is a word in common usage, it is the sense of 'self' that develops from biological processes and social reinforcement.
Click to expand...
.
Good.
I'll go along with that.
It's the "I" part of our existence.
 
slingblade said:
I concur as well. I don't detect any manner in which my former theism or my current atheism has shaped, altered, or informed my concept of "ego." I don't know that I have ever had more than an elementary notion of the concept. It isn't something that's come up much, if at all.

I do hold concepts which my atheism has informed, and which are now different from the way I considered them as a theist. But the concept of "ego," specifically, is not one of them. I frankly never gave it any thought, and now that I am doing so, I still see no way in which this concept has altered for me based on my belief in god(s) or the lack thereof.

I would also like to know if theists have some common concept of "ego" that an atheist might not share, as a result of said theism or atheism. And having been a theist and never encountered such, I'd be interested in hearing how one might know this.
Click to expand...
.
When I was a mackeral snapper, my "ego" would defend the views of the Church. I recall being appalled in public high school when one of my classmates told me he'd played one of Jesus' brothers in a play at religious camp.
Jesus having a brother... C'mon! :)
I still like mackeral, but can't find any way to defend the views of the Church.
And wouldn't bridle at the thought of a brother to whoever that person may have been way back when.
Still the same "ego" though. :)
 
Ah. I mistakenly thought epix might have been trying to contribute something useful to the proceedings.
 
Are you ill, epix? Is there someone who should be looking after you?
 
Eggo good. Mongo want eggo. Mongo got bruised eggo. Mongo sad and grieves for more pleasant times.
 
Christian said:
(Funny how most atheists here agree on many things, like this issue and don't seem to notice the consensus)
Click to expand...

The hallmark of a faith-based position is that it cannot be refuted by evidence that directly opposes it. Here is a classic example; you are taking the very fact that atheists deny a consensus as evidence of a consensus. Of course, if there were atheists saying that there was a consensus atheist position, you would also take that as evidence of a consensus position; in effect, there is no possible evidence that could refute your preconceived opinion.

Since you've maintained that there is an atheist perspective on the ego despite the fact that every atheist who's spoken to you has told you that there isn't, could I suggest that you just decide, for yourself, what you want to believe that position to be, tell us, then rationalise away anyone who denies that it's their position? It'll save everyone a lot of time, and be no less informative than the approach you're taking so far.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
The hallmark of a faith-based position is that it cannot be refuted by evidence that directly opposes it. Here is a classic example; you are taking the very fact that atheists deny a consensus as evidence of a consensus. Of course, if there were atheists saying that there was a consensus atheist position, you would also take that as evidence of a consensus position; in effect, there is no possible evidence that could refute your preconceived opinion.

Since you've maintained that there is an atheist perspective on the ego despite the fact that every atheist who's spoken to you has told you that there isn't, could I suggest that you just decide, for yourself, what you want to believe that position to be, tell us, then rationalise away anyone who denies that it's their position? It'll save everyone a lot of time, and be no less informative than the approach you're taking so far.

Dave
Click to expand...

I think you are misrepresenting my position. I have not maintained anything. I have speculated, articulated a hypothesis, well aware it can can be wrong (have said so all along). I see no reason to, a priori, discard this hypothesis. I understand you, a priori, consider it futile or useless. I can appreciate that position and will continue to pursue my line of thought without rejecting yet.
 
Christian said:
I think you are misrepresenting my position. I have not maintained anything. I have speculated, articulated a hypothesis, well aware it can can be wrong (have said so all along). I see no reason to, a priori, discard this hypothesis. I understand you, a priori, consider it futile or useless. I can appreciate that position and will continue to pursue my line of thought without rejecting yet.
Click to expand...

The key point is that you have taken evidence against your position and re-interpreted it as evidence in favour of your position. This leads me to believe that you're not drawing your position from the evidence, but fitting the evidence to your position.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
The key point is that you have taken evidence against your position and re-interpreted it as evidence in favour of your position. This leads me to believe that you're not drawing your position from the evidence, but fitting the evidence to your position.

Dave
Click to expand...

That can be valid criticism that in no way discards the hypothesis yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom