Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

You need a full stop here. The reason "supernatural elements" enter into those explanations is due to several common perception errors and general ignorance about how "nature" actually works.

Good, then ask yourself: Why are those preception errors common? What is it in the brain (mental process) that creates this errors?

Yes, the ones that know something about how nature works and what some of the common perceptual errors are.

What is different about these people? Why do they avoid making this mental errors? You can't say it's all education right?

What you're trying to do is turn your "predisposition to explain things with supernatural elements" into evidence that "supernatural elements" actually exist. It doesn't work that way.

Can we stop with these straw men. Please point out where in this thread I have even hinted at an idea like this.

 

[Matt the Poet]

You are saying that whether or not there deities exists does not matter? I don't think you mean this.




There is a big difference if there are deities compare to if there are none. The implications of one or the other is important.

How, exactly? A non-interventionist god is a perfectly logical possibility, as is one whose functioning is indistinguishable from the operation of a natural, material world. Or, indeed, a weak theist 'ground-of-all-being'
sort of a god of which everything we are and observe is merely an extension.

In none of these cases does matter whether God exists
or not, and it certainly doesn't matter whether I believe It exists.

 

[Christian]

Christian, you claim that arguments are
being presented and refuted. This suggests a rather basic misunderstanding of what these words mean.

Fine, I'm ignorant, lacking in understanding of the most basic concepts and terms.

So far, you have stated a belief - to turn this into the presentation of an argument you need to explain why you think your belief is true - that is, you must provide the reasoning that has led you to it. Only then can we begin to properly refute you, by finding amy flaws in that reasoning or any evidence on which it is based.

The problem is not reading all posts and context. I have stated no belief. I have been very clear about my presentation of ideas. I have explained the reasoning behind my framework. And have refuted without challenge (solely on logic) specific points regarding my presentation and framework.

In the meantime, Fiona, myself and others have done what we can which is to provide you with counterexamples in the form of our own experiences, which show that it is at least possible to have a social and cultural background in which belief or otherwise in a deity is entirely irrelevant.

I have explain, over and over again why anecdotal evidence and the opinion of the this specific group does not refute the hypothesis. Do you know what I'm talking about here? Have you read what my argument about hypothesis testing?

You do have the opportunity to refute these viewpoints, in that you can provide evidence that we are either lying or mistaken, but so far you haven't done this - you've merely restated your beliefs and suggested that we must be wrong because ours conflict with them. This rather gives the lie to the 'H' part
of your 'IMHO', and in amy case is not, as I've said, a refutation.

This is not the reason why you are not refuting the hypothesis. And you are obfuscating the real argument.

 

[Agatha]

Yes it is. I have only expanded on the dictionary definition.

From Wikipedia:
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

First, this implies that someone has had a mental process that lead to reject the idea of gods. I don't think a 2 year old has that capacity.

Second, there must be a consistency in this rejection.

You are looking at the word "reject[ion]" in this definition and understanding it to be an active, conscious decision. But that is only part of a process that only some atheists experience. Why do you feel you need to expand the definition?

 

[Sun Countess]

I understand what you're trying to do here. I just don't find, IMHO, to be an intellectually honest argument. If I'm wrong based solely on this, then I'm dead wrong and must confront why I'm so wrong. But, I find it increible that someone holds the position that a 2 year old is an atheist. This completely disfigures the definition (or how we understand atheism) of atheist.

Just because you find something incredible doesn't mean that it is. I find this position perfectly credible and ordinary, because it's the position that I hold. I find it incredible that people get themselves tattoed, but I know that others hold contrary positions to mine.

And that's okay.

Do you see that your statement holds true for every single piece of information? "Everyone, EVERYONE, is born without any notion of anything." Yes, one of those things includes the notion that there are deities. I pointed out that our brain is predisposed for language and as soon as we are exposed to language, we don't think in terms of rejecting or accepting language, we simply learn it.

This is true. Every human who is exposed to language (barring some mental or physical barriers) learns language. Feral humans do not acquire this skill.

I have maintained that our brains are predisposed to "see" deities. So, when we are exposed to things (events, situations, etc.) our brain activates the deities explanation. It can be simple things like imaginary friends or scary things in the dark or any of the elements of fantasy a child naturally gravites to.

I would disagree. Children who are exposed to the concepts of deities or other imaginary creatures (ghosts, boogeymen, elves, Santa) will believe in them. Some will grow out of those beliefs as they learn the natural explanations. Other children, like me, are not exposed to deities, and our brains don't turn to them. If we have questions about something, we ask a trusted adult and tend to take their word at face value.

If a child is not exposed to the idea of a creator god, that child will not imagine one on his own, especially if the trusted parent gives them a satisfactory answer to "where did we come from?" If a child asks a parent where the Christmas toys come from and Mommy answers, "I bought them at a mall," do you think the child will say to himself, "I think Mommy is lying. There's no way she bought those toys. I believe that a supernatural being who can see whether I'm naughty or nice delivered my toys down the chimney."

I simply disagree. Adopting many beliefs of many things, does not necessary involve rejection. To reject deities, IMO, does.

You would be wrong. Do Jewish children reject Santa?

You are saying that whether or not there deities exists does not matter? I don't think you mean this.

Hokulele already said what I would say here. It doesn't matter to me either. This is another argument from incredulity, and it doesn't hold. Not everybody thinks the same as you, but that doesn't mean that somebody's thought process are an "aberration" of what you would consider normal.

What I propose is that you might have other traits in common with other atheists because your brain has mechanical things in common. This is not something so controversial or out there. I could something like (if you were a musician): What I propose is that you might have other traits in common with other musicians because your brain has mechanical things in common. One other common trait would be perfect pitch, (not that all musicians have perfect pitch)

Do you think that people who don't believe in ghosts have something in common? Do you think that people who don't play piano have something in common? Why do you single out atheists as a group who must have something in common when all we share is a lack of something? Just because that something is important in your life, that doesn't mean it's important in other people's lives.

 

[Christian]

You are looking at the word "reject[ion]" in this definition and understanding it to be an active, conscious decision. But that is only part of a process that only some atheists experience. Why do you feel you need to expand the definition?

Now, this is the problem. It is impossible to have a discussion if people erect straw men left and right, misinterpret what is said and comb every single sentence trying to find the most insignificant inconsistencies.

So, Agatha, you can clearly see that I have not, anywhere, said or implied that I hold the correct definition of atheism.

If I'm going to continue, I will have to chose the posters to respond to, because it is just phisically imposible for me to answer all and every single issue raised. I know many wil say that I'm running away and blah, blah, blah, and just choosing to address this and that conveniently, and so be it.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Christian, you may not think you've stated a belief, but effectively you have, as the suggestions you've put forward only make sense if atheism and disbelief in he supernatural require specific mental effort to achieve. If this is not the case, then there is no need for a biological basis - indeed for any kind of systemic basis at all - for Atheism. Or theism, for that matter. This is therefore one of those rare cases where anecdotal evidence does count for something. Your hypothesis is of the form 'all swans are white' - all we need to do is present you with a single black one. Unless you claim it isn't really black, or isn't really a swan, it stands as a valid counter to a universal claim...

 

[Fiona]

You are saying that whether or not there deities exists does not matter? I don't think you mean this.

I certainly do mean it: if you cannot grasp that then any notion you might have about atheists is so far removed from reality that any sort of explanation you might come up with is just going to be wrong.


It would help if you did not dismiss what you are told, Christian. That is very disrespectful and it is also a very poor way to learn anything

 

[Agatha]

Now, this is the problem. It is impossible to have a discussion if people erect straw men left and right, misinterpret what is said and comb every single sentence trying to find the most insignificant inconsistencies.

So, Agatha, you can clearly see that I have not, anywhere, said or implied that I hold the correct definition of atheism.

If I'm going to continue, I will have to chose the posters to respond to, because it is just phisically imposible for me to answer all and every single issue raised. I know many wil say that I'm running away and blah, blah, blah, and just choosing to address this and that conveniently, and so be it.

Okay, I withdraw that part of my post and apologise. What definition of atheist are you using?

 

[Beth]

This is true. Every human who is exposed to language (barring some mental or physical barriers) learns language. Feral humans do not acquire this skill.

I would disagree. Children who are exposed to the concepts of deities or other imaginary creatures (ghosts, boogeymen, elves, Santa) will believe in them. Some will grow out of those beliefs as they learn the natural explanations. Other children, like me, are not exposed to deities, and our brains don't turn to them. If we have questions about something, we ask a trusted adult and tend to take their word at face value.

If a child is not exposed to the idea of a creator god, that child will not imagine one on his own, especially if the trusted parent gives them a satisfactory answer to "where did we come from?"

I'm not so sure about this. We can't ask ferel children about their ideas regarding god since they can't communicate effectively. Other children are typically exposed to such concepts at a young age. While it may not have come up for you, I gather that some children do, in fact, make up creator gods without prompting although I can't recall where I read that.

At any rate, you might want to reconsider the issue of whether or not children would imagine creator gods on their own as it does not have an established answer.

 

[Hokulele]

I'm not so sure about this. We can't ask ferel children about their ideas regarding god since they can't communicate effectively. Other children are typically exposed to such concepts at a young age. While it may not have come up for you, I gather that some children do, in fact, make up creator gods without prompting although I can't recall where I read that.

At any rate, you might want to reconsider the issue of whether or not children would imagine creator gods on their own as it does not have an established answer.

Please see the book I linked earlier. It really is an interesting read.

 

[Sun Countess]

Okay, I withdraw that part of my post and apologise. What definition of atheist are you using?

This seems to have been answered in post #207:

Yes it is. I have only expanded on the dictionary definition.

From Wikipedia:
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

First, this implies that someone has had a mental process that lead to reject the idea of gods. I don't think a 2 year old has that capacity.

Second, there must be a consistency in this rejection.

The definition doesn't include me, so I don't know what I would be in Christian's viewpoint.

I'm not so sure about this. We can't ask ferel children about their ideas regarding god since they can't communicate effectively. Other children are typically exposed to such concepts at a young age. While it may not have come up for you, I gather that some children do, in fact, make up creator gods without prompting although I can't recall where I read that.

At any rate, you might want to reconsider the issue of whether or not children would imagine creator gods on their own as it does not have an established answer.

I'm not saying it's impossible at all, but there have been so few feral children, and as you said, they can't really articulate what explanations they have for their world. Do they come up with supernatural explanations for the things they can't explain? I have no clue.

I do know that the vast majority of children adopt the religious views of their parents. Children aren't rejecting what their parents teach them and devising their own gods. Of course most of us come up with our own explanations of all kinds of things in childhood (like thinking that the people you see on tv are tiny people who actually live inside the box), but once a trusted adult gives you a reasonable explanation, you'll usually adopt that. If you ask an adult where the earth came from or what happens when you die, you'll tend to believe whatever they tell you.

Some atheists do come to reject the teachings of their parents, but so do the people who convert to different religious beliefs. Many atheists out there - including me - aren't exposed to supernatural beliefs - and so we're not actively rejecting anything. I will agree that children may come up with supernatural explanations, or be more susceptible to supernatural explanations (for instance, believing the magician really did saw the woman in half, and she magically came back together) for all kinds of questions, but we don't cling to them in the presence of reasonable natural answers.

We outgrow beliefs in boogeymen in the closets or the tooth fairy or Santa, because we're eventually taught the real explanations which were kept from us. Religion is different in that somehow it's acceptable for adults to cling to the supernatural in the presence of natural alternative explanations.

 

[Christian]

I certainly do mean it: if you cannot grasp that then any notion you might have about atheists is so far removed from reality that any sort of explanation you might come up with is just going to be wrong.


It would help if you did not dismiss what you are told, Christian. That is very disrespectful and it is also a very poor way to learn anything

This is not what I mean. I was thinking that maybe the wording was wrong. But it isn't, you actually mean that a 2 two year old is an atheist? Is this correct? If it is, then I will argue why I think you are mistaken, based solely on logic.

 

[Christian]

Okay, I withdraw that part of my post and apologise. What definition of atheist are you using?

Thanks for that, very kind. I used Wikipedia. Now I will cite Britannica. They both concur on the same definition.

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

 

[caniswalensis]

There is an athiest perspective, and here it is:

*ahem*

"There is no god."

Everything else is up for grabs.

 

[Hokulele]

Thanks for that, very kind. I used Wikipedia. Now I will cite Britannica. They both concur on the same definition.

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

From your EB article:

"To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways."

 

[Christian]

Christian, you may not think you've stated a belief, but effectively you have, as the suggestions you've put forward only make sense if atheism and disbelief in he supernatural require specific mental effort to achieve. If this is not the case, then there is no need for a biological basis - indeed for any kind of systemic basis at all - for Atheism. Or theism, for that matter. This is therefore one of those rare cases where anecdotal evidence does count for something. Your hypothesis is of the form 'all swans are white' - all we need to do is present you with a single black one. Unless you claim it isn't really black, or isn't really a swan, it stands as a valid counter to a universal claim...

Now we are getting somewhere. Now, you are actually addressing my argument.

Any hypothesis is based on a or several premises. These premises will be destroyed or corroborated at the testing phase. There is no other way around it. To construct a hypothesis I'm only required to use logically consistent premises or premise.

I have speculated that atheist's brains might be different than the general population, in that for some unknown reason it is resistant to explaining things with supernatural elements. Can you see why anecdotal evidence would not destroy the premise, a priori. It is entirely possible that you may not be aware your brain is different in this regards without having anything to do with your truthfulness or character.

 

[Sun Countess]

This is not what I mean. I was thinking that maybe the wording was wrong. But it isn't, you actually mean that a 2 two year old is an atheist? Is this correct? If it is, then I will argue why I think you are mistaken, based solely on logic.

Go for it.

 

[Piscivore]

Good, then ask yourself: Why are those preception errors common?

Because humans share more or less the same perceptual equipment, and training is required to recognise them.

What is it in the brain (mental process) that creates this errors?

It's not that these are errors are "created" in the brain- that implies that the data the brain gets is complete and correct. That's the opposite of true. The brain does what it can with imperfect, insufficient data it gets from our very limited senses. Once we learn to compensate for those limitations in our senses- with tools like microscopes and measuring tapes, and most importantly an error-correcting system like the scientific method, the brain does much better.

What is different about these people? Why do they avoid making this mental errors? You can't say it's all education right?

Why not? It is all education.

Can we stop with these straw men. Please point out where in this thread I have even hinted at an idea like this.

The way you phrased your "premise"- "humans, in general, have a predisposition to explain things with supernatural elements"- seems to implicitly assume that there exists something aside from nature to serve as an explanation. Maybe if you'd said "humans, in general, have a predisposition to explain things with stuff they make up" it would be more clear that's what you meant.

 

[Agatha]

Both the definitions you have used thus far treat atheism as something active, a deliberate choice, and based on the active rejection of belief. Neither of the definitions include me, and I am an atheist. I think your definition is too narrow, and given that several posters have said it doesn't fit with their experience, I wonder why you are choosing these definitions rather than the simple one put forward a number of times in this thread: "Atheism is the lack of belief in gods".