Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

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.

So, let's concentrate on this and only this point, to get it out of the way, because I think in this case, it can be a discussion based solely on logical arguments.

What you are saying is that someone can be an atheist without knowing they are an atheist. To me, one requisite of holding a position is that one must be aware that one holds such position and a mental justification of it. When I say justification, it can range from I just want to to the most complex dissertations.

 

[Hokulele]

So, let's concentrate on this and only this point, to get it out of the way, because I think in this case, it can be a discussion based solely on logical arguments.

What you are saying is that someone can be an atheist without knowing they are an atheist. To me, one requisite of holding a position is that one must be aware that one holds such position and a mental justification of it. When I say justification, it can range from I just want to to the most complex dissertations.

Atheism isn't a position on an issue, but a lack of one.

Bald isn't a hair color.

 

[Agatha]

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.

Please do. I concur with Fiona and Hokulele; I hold the position that a two year old [who has not been taught about gods] is an atheist, and I hold the position that whether deities exist or not doesn't really matter, although I don't believe that they do exist.

 

[Piscivore]

What you are saying is that someone can be an atheist without knowing they are an atheist. To me, one requisite of holding a position is that one must be aware that one holds such position and a mental justification of it. When I say justification, it can range from I just want to to the most complex dissertations.

Do you believe in Azerthoth? What is your justification for not believing in Azerthoth? Have you ever even considered whether you believe in Azerthoth or not?

 

[Hokulele]

OK, in an attempt to move this conversation away from No True Atheists^TM, would the following describe your premise and hypothesis accurately?

"If a person rejects the existence of god(s), they are more likely to reject the existence of other supernatural creatures/effects. This can be explained by a unique brain composition/chemistry/other."

 

[Agatha]

So, let's concentrate on this and only this point, to get it out of the way, because I think in this case, it can be a discussion based solely on logical arguments.

What you are saying is that someone can be an atheist without knowing they are an atheist. To me, one requisite of holding a position is that one must be aware that one holds such position and a mental justification of it. When I say justification, it can range from I just want to to the most complex dissertations.

If you choose to define atheist as a person who has actively, consciously rejected belief, then by that definition a two year old, who doesn't have the reasoning skills to make that decision, wouldn't be an atheist.

But that's not necessarily what an atheist is. The baggage and cultural assumptions inherent in your definition means it assumes more about atheism than is warranted by the proper definition of the word.

 

[Sun Countess]

That's because you're using definitions of atheism which require some sort of active rejection of some sort of deity. A person who isn't taught about any deities may not know the word atheism, but that person is an atheist. All that's required to be an atheist is the lack of belief in any deities.

Let's take a for instance:

The first gods I learned about were the greek and roman gods, and I learned about them at school. I was taught that all the gods were mythological beings, used to explain what was then still not known about the natural world. They were presented as an interesting story of what crazy things people can believe.

I later learned about Yahweh and Jesus, along with stories involving Adam, Eve, Jonah, and Noah. They were also presented to me as mythological beings, used to explain things still now known about the natural world. Again, interesting stories about crazy things people can believe.

Did I become an atheist when I heard about Zeus and accepted his fictional (non-existent) nature? Did I become an atheist when I heard about Yahweh and accepted his fictional (non-existent) nature? I didn't actively reject either Zeus or Yahweh, as neither was presented to me as real entities, with some sort of power over me. I would contend that I was an atheist before I heard about either Zeus or Yahweh, simply because if you asked me which gods I believed in, my answer would be "none."

Most two-year old children don't believe in any gods either, which makes them atheists. They can become theists when they start to incorporate their parents' religious beliefs into their own thinking.

 

[Christian]

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

Excellent. So, is it possible that some humans are born with better (different) perceptual equipment that would lead them to have less perceptual 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.

All you're doing is adding a level of complexity here. Not only the brain is limited but the data is incomplete and imperfect due to our limited senses. I would say, there can be brains that are less limited with bodies with less 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.

You are assuming all humans can or want to use this error-correcting systems. You have to consider why some people chose to seek these systems and most don't.

Why not? It is all education.

No, no, no. You can train a person to sing soprano till the end of time. If the equipment is not there, she will never sing soprano.

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.

Absolutely not. If any such assumption was implied (aside from your postings) then please, strike them all down, erase them. I don't wish to imply nothing of the sort.

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.

If you understand it like that better, then I don't mind.

 

[Christian]

Do you believe in Azerthoth? What is your justification for not believing in Azerthoth? Have you ever even considered whether you believe in Azerthoth or not?

Excellent. Do you see that for me to answer your question, I have to think of Azerthoth first. I have to analyse the question, process information, then answer your question. If I do none of this (because the questions have not been asked) there is no way for you to know what I think.

If you want to redefine atheism as the ignorance of the concept of the existence or not of deites, that is a whole new ball game. I have seen no such definition, not here, not anywhere.

 

[Christian]

This is much better for me because now, I understand that first I must explain and justify my working definition of atheism, what an atheist is.

I will try to do this. I suspect this is a discussion that never comes to any consensus. But once a working defintion is out of the way, then I can move on to what's important to me.

 

[Piscivore]

Excellent. So, is it possible that some humans are born with better (different) perceptual equipment that would lead them to have less perceptual errors?

The only ones I've heard about are in comic books. What did you have in mind?

All you're doing is adding a level of complexity here. Not only the brain is limited but the data is incomplete and imperfect due to our limited senses.

I didn't "add" anything, the universe is complex.

I would say, there can be brains that are less limited with bodies with less limited senses.

It's very flattering you think atheists are superhuman, but physiologically we're just people like everyone else.

You are assuming all humans can or want to use this error-correcting systems.

Oh, not at all. In fact, I think looking at human history- or even our current culture- the majority of people have chosen to believe what makes them happy rather than what is correct.

You have to consider why some people chose to seek these systems and most don't.

Emotional reasons, mostly. Emotions are a very powerful human motivator.

No, no, no. You can train a person to sing soprano till the end of time. If the equipment is not there, she will never sing soprano.

Maybe not, but you can train someone to sing as best they can- no one is a skilled singer right out of the box.

More to the point, just because we cannot train someone to see in the ultraviolet spectrum doesn't mean they don't need training to recognise and see past the optical illusions that we are prone to.

Absolutely not. If any such assumption was implied (aside from your postings) then please, strike them all down, erase them. I don't wish to imply nothing of the sort.

If you understand it like that better, then I don't mind.

Fair enough.

 

[Christian]

OK, in an attempt to move this conversation away from No True Atheists^TM, would the following describe your premise and hypothesis accurately?

"If a person rejects the existence of god(s), they are more likely to reject the existence of other supernatural creatures/effects. This can be explained by a unique brain composition/chemistry/other."

I would say this premise: A person who rejects the existence of god(s)and is more likely to reject the existence of other supernatural creatures/effects could have a brain with components resistant to those supernatural elements."

 

[Hokulele]

I would say this premise: A person who rejects the existence of god(s)and is more likely to reject the existence of other supernatural creatures/effects could have a brain with components resistant to those supernatural elements."

Or, they could have been raised in a culture that doesn't subscribe to such supernatural elements. Seriously, read up on the Piraha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people

 

[Piscivore]

Excellent. Do you see that for me to answer your question, I have to think of Azerthoth first. I have to analyse the question, process information, then answer your question. If I do none of this (because the questions have not been asked) there is no way for you to know what I think.

Yes, I there is, because I just made him up. You cannot believe in something you know nothing about. Belief requires you to analyse and process information. Non-beleif does not- it is the default state.

If you want to redefine atheism as the ignorance of the concept of the existence or not of deites, that is a whole new ball game. I have seen no such definition, not here, not anywhere.

That's not necessary, because "not beleiving in god" covers both the absence of belief due to ignorance and the absence of belief after consideration of the subject.

 

[Piscivore]

I would say this premise: A person who rejects the existence of god(s)and is more likely to reject the existence of other supernatural creatures/effects could have a brain with components resistant to those supernatural elements."

Uh huh. Now I see where you're going with this.

 

[Sun Countess]

This is much better for me because now, I understand that first I must explain and justify my working definition of atheism, what an atheist is.

I will try to do this. I suspect this is a discussion that never comes to any consensus. But once a working defintion is out of the way, then I can move on to what's important to me.

Except you can't just define atheist to be whatever you want it to be.

Why do theists never listen to actual atheists when they come here pretending they want to learn something about them?

 

[Hokulele]

To expand on what I have been trying to show, there is a great deal of evidence that people will make things up, but only when there seems to be reason to do so, and those explanations will be culture dependent. Supernatural explanations usually accompany tangible things, as in the case of the Piraha. In that case, they claim that spirits do talk with them and can affect their day to day lives, but they have no belief in any kind of a god or supreme being.

I don't believe supernatural belief has anything to do with brain components, or there would be a more consistent distribution of supernatural beliefs/theism than there currently is, as can be seen by the varying populations of atheists in different countries.

 

[Christian]

Or, they could have been raised in a culture that doesn't subscribe to such supernatural elements. Seriously, read up on the Piraha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people

From that link:

While the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god[4] they do believe in spirits and that they can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.[5] Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.

This explains the brains tendency to include supernatural elements.

 

[Christian]

Yes, I there is, because I just made him up. You cannot believe in something you know nothing about. Belief requires you to analyse and process information. Non-beleif does not- it is the default state.


That's not necessary, because "not beleiving in god" covers both the absence of belief due to ignorance and the absence of belief after consideration of the subject.

Then, we have an impasse because I don't accept (and fine I'm ignorant, wrong, etc.) that the ignorance of the concept of the existence or not of deites is atheism.

 

[Fiona]

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.

I was not talking about two year olds. The exchange was this:

I do not reject the notion of a god: I blandly assume there is no deity and I get on with my life because it does not matter.

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