As I said, Christian: you did suggest what might be seen as positive traits to associate with atheism: but while that might be more palatable than the characterisations sometimes seen in the united states (and maybe elsewhere, I don't know) it is still what someone called "othering". Now sometimes there are real differences between the average in a group, as you have said. But it not a perfect match, as you have also said. So it serves no useful practical purpose: and it has its dangers. That does not mean one should not research it, of course: but you will understand that people will resist any such stereotyping, for good reasons and for bad reasons: if they are a beleagured minority (as atheists seem to be in the US) then they will be naturally suspicious of your motives. Perhaps that is not obvious to you: again I do not know your circumstances.
I understand this.
But the fact is that you have proposed a definition and you are clinging to it for reasons I do not understand. Until we clear that up then you cannot begin to design your survey even if your motives are of the very highest.
I agree that unless we can come to a common definition, we have a problem.
So let us start with your sample: as has also been noted, if you cling to the definition you have proposed then you will exclude me and others on this thread even though we are atheists. I say again: I do not reject god. I honestly do not care if there is a god or not: and since I see nothing to suggest that there is I presume that there isn't. That makes me an atheist.
Let's pause here for a moment. You say you see no evidence to suggest that there are any sort of deities, you conclude that there are none. This is my definition of atheism. You are taking a position based on an mental process. You reject the idea of deities based on an structured analysis: nothing that I can perceive leads me to conclude there are deities.
I am not resistant to the muller lyer illusion: it affects me even though I know how it works. I am not resistant to any of the common optical illusions: they fool me just as they fool most people. I did not see the gorilla on the basketball court, either. This is the most obvious end of the perceptual problems which Piscivore referrred to. They are, so far as I know, universal. Our senses and our brains fool us all the time. I do not see that that is deniable, really. They fool us all in the same way, theists and atheists alike.
No, this is were we disagree. Some perceptual problems are not universal. Some people do notice the gorilla. But, this is not the key, how we perceive. What is more important is how we interpret what we perceive. We have a built in inference system. This is the system that enables the belief in deities. One way to define are mental processes is to think of them as a group of inference systems that turn on and off. This is why deities are conceived with qualities like people. All supernatural being are portrayed with minds. This seems universal. The brains (imagines) detects what this beings have done or are doing. It is this were I see interesting to explore and you show most forcefully. You explain that you feel none of this. Most people say they experience (feel) deities. It is their inference system firing information which they interpret incorrectly.
There are things which follow from these limitations: we can't have gaps in our visual field, even though they are really there: so we have evolved to not notice those gaps: our brains fill them in. Yours does and mine does. This is part of what brains do. We tell ourselves stories to explain what we perceive: that is the way we are made, IMO.
Yes, we tell ourselves stories and these stories, in most people sometimes involve the supernatural, entities based on how their brains operate.
Children do this: they don't have much experience and so they explain things using the experience they have: by making up stories which fit the facts they have. All children do this: all adults do it too. As we mature we understand more things and our stories get more sophisticated. They incorporate more facts as we learn more.
Can you explore the idea that most people are prone to explain something with these supernatural elements?
A child may see a shadow on the wall and become frightened because it looks like a distorted human shape to him: he has not seen many things, so his brain fits what he sees into one of the things he is familiar with. He has probably been told stories and they will also help to shape how he interprets what he sees: so in one culture he will see an ancestral ghost, perhaps: in another he may see an alien. But what he really sees is the shadow of his dressing gown:and no matter what he thinks he sees that is the reality. The real world dressing gown is turned into a manifestation of whatever his culture has led him to experience as possible furniture in the world.
Excellent. An argument can be made that there are some children that look at distorted shapes and are less prone to see a human shape or have a very clear understanding of what is imaginary and what is real, more than the general population.
Depending on how his culture (in this case generally his parents) respond to his frightened cry he will learn another way of interpreting what he sees: in the example I use they may tell him that yes, indeed he has seen his granny's spirit: but he is not to be frightened because his granny loves him: or they may tell him that there aren't any real aliens: those are just stories made up for his entertainment. In both cases I would hope his parents would move the dressing gown: but they will tell him a story to help him deal with his fear.
I would argue that most children who are told that those things aren't real don't believe it. This reminds of the story of why Disney had to include the magic dust so that Peter Pan could fly.
You have said that anecdote is no good for this discussion: but you do not even have anecdote so far. So how are you going to choose your sample? If it does not include me and Sun Countess and Agatha, because of your stipulative definition, then you may find out something: but it won't be something about the difference between atheists and theists: whatever else it may be
It would include you because you fit the definition very well.
I'm satisfied I have explained my hypothesis and am satisfied have understood the objections.
