Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[D'rok]

Fine, let's say it's 8%. This does not change any of the structure I have presented. The claim of 3% is marginal to construction.

And what is your estimation of the percentage of humans who do not believe in gods?

 

[SezMe]

I can follow your logic. But some intution must tell you that if 97% of the population believe in some sort of deity (something completely imaginary) there must be a mental process that makes it so. You have to consider why humans persist in the belief of the supernatural.

No. Period. Intuition does not have to tell you that.

This thread has you endlessly postulating that there is something in your intuition to be looked at. You toss off all suggestions otherwise and persist that it is a valid question and ONLY a worldwide survey will give a definitive answer. Fine, fine. Go do the damn survey then come back and we'll talk about the results. Otherwise this thread is nothing more than you repeatedly asserting it is an interesting question. So what?

 

[Christian]

No. Period. Intuition does not have to tell you that.

This thread has you endlessly postulating that there is something in your intuition to be looked at. You toss off all suggestions otherwise and persist that it is a valid question and ONLY a worldwide survey will give a definitive answer. Fine, fine. Go do the damn survey then come back and we'll talk about the results. Otherwise this thread is nothing more than you repeatedly asserting it is an interesting question. So what?

The reason the thread has gone on for the longest is my the multiple exchanges. I've had to repeat myself because people continued to ask me over and over again the same things. The merit of the thread is lots of new information for me. I have learn much.

 

[Sledge]

The reason you get asked the same questions a lot is simple. YOU NEVER ANSWER THEM. Again: who are the "three or four people" who agree with you? I count one, maybe. Who are the others?

 

[ideogram]

I haven't read all the crap in this thread, but I'm going to respond to what has caught my eye.

My hypothesis would read like this:

Atheists have other traits in common that allows to predict their perspective on a variety of topics or situations

Where do I come up with this idea? I speculate that atheism is a conviction that comes from a mental process. This particular process molds the brain to think and react in certain ways in specific situations. This molding affects the way individuals think, thus creating a distinct atheist perspective.

There are several ways to test this hypothesis, but I think a survey is a good start. We could survey 1,000 people (randomly picked around the world. We would survey more than 1,000 but would only consider the answers of those who are atheist, to mask the survey). We would have our same size control group where the common trait be something else. Then we would look for common traits.

It's important to point out that the most we could conclude is that the average atheist is more likely to be more of this or that. For example, the findings could be:

Atheist are more likely to be more contrarian than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to be more skeptical than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely not to be believe in spirituality than the general population, on average.

And so forth.

From this, one can guess the general atheist perspective on specific topics, issues, etc.

This is only a mental exercise and pure speculation (on my part). I do think it is an interesting topic to consider.

I think someone cited a statistic that corroborates my claim. And yes, that is a posibility. But, from what I have read, most chinese are theist. This is consistent with the idea that the brain is predisposed (evolutionary process) to the supernatural. Consider that most statistics place atheism at 3%.

If, for a second, you could suspend your tough stance and ask, why is it that there is a group of individuals that is not like most. Is there something different here? Wouldn't you like to explore this in a scientific and objective way?

It might come to absolutely nothing, after all is said and done.

But maybe one could find a correlation of common traits. Maybe a combination of traits like being a contrarian, independent thinker, higher IQ, etc. leads to atheism for those who where theists and to remain an atheist for those who began as such.

It would be fascinating to find a formula of the mental traits that might leads to atheism (or to remain an atheist). Or to conclude that no such thing exists.

I don't claim there is an atheist perspective. My point is that it should be a testable hypothesis. Revelant data comes from a survey (for example) with all the scientific qualities of a valid survey.

I have put forth ideas, but they are not acknowledge. I will do it again. Now, please remember these are the traits that I would speculate would come out of a survey.

Atheist are more likely to be more contrarian than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to be more skeptical than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely not to be believe in spirituality than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to be independent thinkers than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to have higher IQ's than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to be tolerant of minorities than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to be more respectful of the law than the general population, on average.

Christian, you say you don't make any claims, but a hypothesis is a claim. Simply by presenting this hypothesis and saying it is an interesting topic, you are making a claim. You really aren't interested in evidence that might disprove your claim, you actively fight against it. The primary example is that, for your hypothesis to be true, you must define the term "atheist" such that there is no society in which atheism is the norm, and therefore where atheism is not a contrarian stance. Therefore you are trying to define the group to be studied as one that will yield the data you desire.

This is why I can accept your initial hypothesis and you still argue with me. Because I can accept your initial hypothesis while presenting data that shows your desired claim to be incorrect.

Furthermore, your initial claim is deceptive, because it is only one step in a chain of proof that you wish to construct. That chain basically leads to the conclusion that atheism is an evolutionary aberration, perhaps like homosexuality. This is why you actively resist the analogy with astrology, because it is not possible to seriously claim that being born in a specific range of dates is an evolutionary aberration. Instead you wish to advance the analogy of left-handedness, because obviously left-handedness is a biological trait.

Again, I don't know if you are consciously doing this, but if you're not trying to deceive us, then you are deceiving yourself.

 

[ideogram]

Christian, what do you think of performing a similar mental exercise on Protestants in Catholic countries?

 

[Kopji]

Maybe atheists have more bumps the head or a larger forehead.

 

[SezMe]

Maybe atheists have more bumps the head or a larger forehead.

And a tail. Don't forget the forked tail.

 

[Kopji]

Part of me wants to admire singleminded persistence when people have been shown to be wrong - but that part's probably crazy.

 

[Aepervius]

Atheist are more likely to be more contrarian than the general population, on average.

No. Never. Not in a lifetime.

 

[Christian]

That chain basically leads to the conclusion that atheism is an evolutionary aberration, perhaps like homosexuality.

For the record, I don't think homosexuality is an aberration. With all the respect you deserve, IMHO, I think this comment would be very offensive to most homosexuals.

Having said that, the mechanisms of evolution give certain individuals distinct traits. These traits are neither good or bad, they just are. It is the environment which will determine the advantage or disadvantage of the said trait.

For example, for a man to be smaller might be a disadvantage in a region of mostly tall men because women might prefer to mate with taller men.

On the other hand, smarter men or women might have an advantage over most of the population in many areas.

I have this notion that there could be differences in brains of people who are better at math or music. I think the brain of Einstein was qualitatively different than the brain of most of the population. I really don't think our deep convictions and personalities are solely do to environment, but that the make up of brain plays an important role.

Further, I believe that being a skeptic/materialist/atheists/non-religious might be an advantage in our modern world.

 

[Marduk]

I really don't think our deep convictions and personalities are solely do to environment, but that the make up of brain plays an important role.

Further, I believe that been a skeptic/materialist/atheists/non-religious might be an advantage in our modern world.

In that case the survey has already been done
http://mnnonline.org/article/14792

The survey revealed another discomforting statistic: atheists and agnostics are apparently better educated about other religions than the people claiming that faith. The poll, which was only 32 questions, covered a broad range of religious topics and covered questions about the birthday of Jesus, what Ramadan was, and what religion the Dali Llama was. The highest average scores were from those who are not religious.

2 threads on this brain difference already
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186970
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186870

Further, I believe that been a skeptic/materialist/atheists/non-religious might be an advantage in our modern world.

In fact, atheism carries such a stigma in the United States that most Americans will not even conceal the fact that they wouldn't vote for a candidate who declared he was an atheist. If an American stated outright that he or she would not vote for a candidate because the candidate was a woman, an African-American, or a Jew, that American would be criticized, ostracized, called a hateful bigot. But if that same American were to say that he or she would not vote for an atheist, there would be no such backlash. And sadder still, most Americans would agree.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/148719/an_atheist_as_president_of_the_united.html
In my experience this is reversed in the UK, no one would vote for a politician who expressed a strong faith in a deity
takes all sorts

 

[Sun Countess]

Let me try to understand what you're saying.

There is a biological mechanism/group of traits that makes some people more "prone" to atheism, that has nothing to do with the culture that they're raised in, or their exposure to religious beliefs.

This same group of traits might be an advantage in the modern world.

Therefore, atheists will somehow become prime mating partners.



I'm sure I must have misstated something because that sounds crazy.


First of all, I don't think you'll ever find a genetic component to atheism. There are some correlations to education and higher intelligence, but those same correlations can be found whenever the collective intelligence and education of a region are higher. We're no longer superstitious wandering tribes of people who have no idea how the sun works or if the rain will ever come. Atheism is much more the norm in certain European countries, and it's also much more common in Canada. We sit at about 38% in B.C. I don't know what cultural mechanisms keep fundamentalist Chrisitianity at such a shrill high in parts of the US, but it seems to me that none of them are having trouble finding procreation partners.

Second, anybody can become an atheist, and I mean a real atheist who lacks belief, not just somebody who claims to be an atheist to pick up hot chicks. Atheism is just a lack of beliefs in deities, and everybody lacks belief in deities of some stripe; they usually just have to add one more to the list. I've seen people with the most fundamentalist religious beliefs come to realize that there's no god out there, just small men behind a curtain who like to boss other people around.

You keep throwing around 3% worldwide numbers, and now agree that it might be as high as 8%, so how would you explain that 38% of people in BC are atheist/agnostic, if it's all biological and evolutionary? I can attest to the fact that as a group we're no smarter or more contrarian than any other province or state in North America. I would say it's because no dominant religion has a strong foothold here, unlike in the Bible belt. You may need to have contrarian or skeptical tendencies (and skepticism and critical thinking can be taught) to question the status quo, which is the first step to undoing your indoctrination into religious beliefs, but you don't need that here.

But honestly, the main component that leads to atheism is the absolute lack of evidence of the existence of any deities. As the world learns more, it's become that much more clearer that there's no god out there. We don't need to invoke deities to cure illnesses or ensure the survival of our crops. Not that they ever actually worked anyway....

 

[ideogram]

For the record, I don't think homosexuality is an aberration. With all the respect you deserve, IMHO, I think this comment would be very offensive to most homosexuals.

Thank you Christian, you are very kind. I hope you will respond to my question about doing a similar survey of Protestants in Catholic countries? Basically I would like to isolate the effects of being contrarian to the general population from being atheist.

As for whether being an atheist has a genetic component, I think that would be a very difficult question to study scientifically.

 

[Christian]

Let me try to understand what you're saying.

There is a biological mechanism/group of traits that makes some people more "prone" to atheism,

There are certain brains that are more resistant to explaining the world with supernatural elements.

that has nothing to do with the culture that they're raised in, or their exposure to religious beliefs.

This can never be. I believe there are many studies out there that place a person's final makeup at 50% environment and 50% genetics. Many have argued (successfully, IMO) that a particular environment can override genetics in many areas (never in all)

This same group of traits might be an advantage in the modern world.

That type of brain that includes more critical thinking skills, more skepticism, more contrarian attributes helps these individuals navigate in their environment better. For example, better education renders better quality choices.

Therefore, atheists will somehow become prime mating partners.

No, my taller/shorter example leads to a mating advantage. This type of advantage might lead to a better quality of life, overall.

Second, anybody can become an atheist,

I suspect this is not true.

and I mean a real atheist who lacks belief, not just somebody who claims to be an atheist to pick up hot chicks. Atheism is just a lack of beliefs in deities, and everybody lacks belief in deities of some stripe; they usually just have to add one more to the list. I've seen people with the most fundamentalist religious beliefs come to realize that there's no god out there, just small men behind a curtain who like to boss other people around.

To override the brain's tendency to explain things that include supernatural elements is not an easy thing. I don't think it is just a mental process where someone goes through this mental boot camp and then changes his or her mind. I think there is much more involved. I think evolution has given most humans this trait of explaining phenomena with supernatural elements. (now, that will be my next thread)

You keep throwing around 3% worldwide numbers, and now agree that it might be as high as 8%,

No, I didn't agree, I just conceded the point to move along the discussion. I do think it is much lower than 8%. The point is that, it is a small percentage of the population.

so how would you explain that 38% of people in BC are atheist/agnostic, if it's all biological and evolutionary?

I wouldn't know how to explain data like that with only this information.

I can attest to the fact that as a group we're no smarter or more contrarian than any other province or state in North America.

You have realize that anecdotal evidence wouldn't suffice.

But honestly, the main component that leads to atheism is the absolute lack of evidence of the existence of any deities.

Everyone keeps isolating this as the only attribute. I think there a implications to this beliefs. The world must be viewed in a different way if there is no God or gods. For example, the same logic that leads to conclude there are no gods must play a role in other beliefs of the supernatural. Otherwise, there would be logical inconsistencies. I do believe that there can be many people who believe are atheists who are not and don't understand that they are being inconsistent or are really theists.

As the world learns more, it's become that much more clearer that there's no god out there. We don't need to invoke deities to cure illnesses or ensure the survival of our crops. Not that they ever actually worked anyway....

This is what I mean, atheism has implications, like the conclusions you come to in your examples.

 

[Christian]

Thank you Christian, you are very kind. I hope you will respond to my question about doing a similar survey of Protestants in Catholic countries?

I don't think I would find the same differences, but they would be an excellent control group for the test.

Basically I would like to isolate the effects of being contrarian to the general population from being atheist.

I don't think you'd find many contrarians among Protestants or Catholics. I think the largest population of contrarian would be found among the non-religious group.

As for whether being an atheist has a genetic component, I think that would be a very difficult question to study scientifically.

I proposed a test. Yes it looks masive and complicated.

 

[Sun Countess]

There are certain brains that are more resistant to explaining the world with supernatural elements.

That's your hypothesis, yes; I would argue the opposite. (eta: not really the opposite, but I would argue that it's culture and human progress that make the biggest difference)

That type of brain that includes more critical thinking skills, more skepticism, more contrarian attributes helps these individuals navigate in their environment better. For example, better education renders better quality choices.

Critical thinking and education don't go hand-in-hand, though. More of the world now is educated than ever before. There's no requirement for good critical thinking skills to graduate high school, and there are plenty of good critical thinkers/extremely smart people, who don't pursue academic studies.

No, my taller/shorter example leads to a mating advantage. This type of advantage might lead to a better quality of life, overall.

That's part of your hypothesis, then? Remember that culture plays a huge role in all this.

I suspect this is not true.

You don't think that anybody could become an atheist? Nobody is born a theist, those beliefs have to be learned.

Becoming an atheist doesn't mean giving up supernatural elements altogether. There are plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts, visiting aliens, or other spirits.

To override the brain's tendency to explain things that include supernatural elements is not an easy thing. I don't think it is just a mental process where someone goes through this mental boot camp and then changes his or her mind. I think there is much more involved. I think evolution has given most humans this trait of explaining phenomena with supernatural elements. (now, that will be my next thread)

I would say that the brain wants to explain things period. When the natural elements aren't understood, people will include the supernatural. That's not the case anymore. We know that demons don't cause epilepsy or cholera. We can predict the weather patterns without offering up sacrifices to the gods. Humans on the whole have natural explanations for all kinds of things, so anybody who wants an answer can find a real one, and nobody will be forced to make stuff up.

No, I didn't agree, I just conceded the point to move along the discussion. I do think it is much lower than 8%. The point is that, it is a small percentage of the population.

I think that's too low. Much of China is atheist (and please don't ignore Wolfman's input on this point, as he's lived in China for 15 years), and much of western Europe is becoming less theistic. A lot of people are still social theists, but don't actually believe in any sky daddies.

You have realize that anecdotal evidence wouldn't suffice.

It's not really anecdotal evidence to conclude that the people of British Columbia are generally of the same intelligence as the rest of North America. We're not some hub of intellectualism up here, just average people. Yet there's no one dominant religion, and 38% of the population doesn't practice any religion. We still have plenty of people who practice Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Wiccan, and First Nations religions. (Note that Buddhists are counted as religious, and aren't part of the 38% non-religious.)

Everyone keeps isolating this as the only attribute. I think there a implications to this beliefs. The world must be viewed in a different way if there is no God or gods. For example, the same logic that leads to conclude there are no gods must play a role in other beliefs of the supernatural. Otherwise, there would be logical inconsistencies. I do believe that there can be many people who believe are atheists who are not and don't understand that they are being inconsistent or are really theists.

Those logical consistencies still exist. Plenty of atheists believe in other supernatural nonsense. Buddhists don't believe in any gods, but they believe in reincarnation. Many First Nations people believe in animal and tree spirits, but not in any gods.

This is what I mean, atheism has implications, like the conclusions you come to in your examples.

It's not just atheists who know about natural explanations for illnesses. Nearly every theist knows that if you get sick, you go to a doctor. They just pray on top of it. The atheists will thank the doctor, and the theist will thank their doctor and their god. But they both know that the disease was caused by a virus or cancer, or some malfunctioning organ.

 

[Skeeve]

Isn't 5 pages enough?

 

[Percent]

Hi Skeeve! Loved you in the welcome thread .

 

[Skeeve]

Hiya. I'm always good when you first meet me, then I get grumpier as time goes by.