Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

I really don't understand why you seem to think that all atheists have rejected the idea of gods.

I have never believed. My parents were atheists, and so were both sets of grandparents. I loved mythology as a child, preferably Greek and Norse, and gods, heroes and monsters were often my bedtimes stories. I never believed in those gods, although I enjoyed the stories immensely, and when I later read the Bible, I had the same reaction to that, except that I found it far more boring than my favourite mytologies. The first time I actually met someone I realised was religious, was when I was six, and started school in Jönköping (a town often referred to as the Jerusalem of Sweden, because of its many churches of different protestant denominations), and my teacher expected everyone to believe. It seemed very surprising to me that an adult would believe in what I considered bedtime stories, but it wasn't something that I gave much thought. All adults were a bit strange, after all. She was kind to me, in spite of my failings in the religious department. She probaly pitied the little heathen

There has never been a point in my life when I have analysed, and rejected, religion. That I am an atheist is simply a fact to me, the same way it is a fact that I am Swedish, and female. It's not something I have to analyse, accept or reject; it's just what I am. I no more needed to accept/reject the Christian god, than I needed to accept/reject Zeus. I understand that you feel atheists ought to examine their lack of beliefs, since so many people do believe in some god, or gods, but why? I wouldn't change any other opinions just on the basis that the majority of the world's population hold other views. would you change your religious beliefs just because other faiths have more believers?

Anecdote time: When my first father died, my mother was clever enough to get me my second one He was an atheist as well, but he had come by it the hard way, since his father was a vicar. He had believed unquestioningly till his early teens, and then struggled for years, both mentally, and with his father, before he realised and accepted that his faith was gone. There were no similarities in how we became atheists. There were actually not many similarities in how we WERE atheists either. To me, it was a fact of life, to him it was a constant struggle and a hard earned position. For him, religion remained a bête noir all his life, since there was alawsy a sense that he had betrayed his father (the vicar, not the god one). He couldn't find it in him to enter a church lightly, while to me a church has as little significance as any other temple, Acropolis, for instance. (No, I'll take that back, Acroplis has far more signicance for me...) Temples are often beautiful and culturally interesting buildings full of art, but that is all. To my father, they were forbididng, and conjured forth an avalanche of difficult memories. I have fond memories of my father struggling to enter a church for a concert - you could read the conflicting emotions in his body laguage.

Now, we were alike in many ways, but that was related to cultural factors, likes and dislikes, and perhaps to political opinions. Not to some quirk in our characters that led us to atheism. He would better suit the ideas you have of atheists, because he had in fact rejected the god of his childhood. His sisters had not, however. They were both believers, but very different from each other. His older sister was as close to a fundamentalist as you would ever get in the Church of Sweden; strict, judgmental and unforgiving. His younger sister was the opposite; kind, forgiving, and quick to love. I would never presume to say that their theism was the same, just because they believed in the same god. The belief was all that was similar. Just as the disbelief is all you can assume that two atheists share.

Because of all the unnecessary "noise" (I even start arguing stuff I don't want to argue, I get baited easely, cause of my tendency to like arguing) the discussion has shifted to what I feel about atheists or my definition of atheism. All that is irrelevant. The reason why I need to define atheism is because I need to filter the group to survey. The definition here is to vague for this purpose and it has the quality that, a priori, reject the hypothesis in the first place.

I have said time and again (I appreciate the story of course, and your point of view) that anecdotal evidence can't discard the hypothesis that atheists have traits in common. I hope you can see why. I have put forth a framework for this test that would be scientific. I don't know the results, can't know the results. This is the whole purpose of hypothesis testing, to test ideas, free of prejudice.

It very well be that atheists here have been right all along. But their being right would be out of speculation, a coincidence with reality. After a test, they can cite a study that corroborates their speculation.

For people who are critical thinkers, with open minds, etc. this has been the hardest idea to advance.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Because of all the unnecessary "noise" (I even start arguing stuff I don't want to argue, I get baited easely, cause of my tendency to like arguing) the discussion has shifted to what I feel about atheists or my definition of atheism. All that is irrelevant. The reason why I need to define atheism is because I need to filter the group to survey. The definition here is to vague for this purpose and it has the quality that, a priori, reject the hypothesis in the first place.

I have said time and again (I appreciate the story of course, and your point of view) that anecdotal evidence can't discard the hypothesis that atheists have traits in common. I hope you can see why. I have put forth a framework for this test that would be scientific. I don't know the results, can't know the results. This is the whole purpose of hypothesis testing, to test ideas, free of prejudice.

It very well be that atheists here have been right all along. But their being right would be out of speculation, a coincidence with reality. After a test, they can cite a study that corroborates their speculation.

For people who are critical thinkers, with open minds, etc. this has been the hardest idea to advance.

That post wasn't addressing the issue of traits in common. It was addressing your definition of atheists as rejecting gods, as it said in the very first line and reiterated over the course of the story.

Please read for comprehension next time.

 

[brenn]

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

Makes sense to me. To the extent the common trait is believing in things based upon evidence, that would certainyl predict their opinions in various situations. Not only science, but social and political issues and any issue where conclusions based upon evidence or a lack of evidence may be at issue. So I can predict that an atheist will not believe in bigfoot, because of the lack of credible evidence, even though religious belief isn't directly relevant.

 

[Helen]

I just cannot for the life of me understand on what basis you have formed this hypothesis. And since you seem to base it on atheism as a rejection of something, I wonder if you are not perhaps biased by living in a predominantly religious environment?

But by all means, let's say that atheists share, or lack, something that make them atheists: Then what?

 

[chillzero]

Some who actually is reading the thread, very good. No, you got it wrong. For the survey to be statistically valid I can't, before hand tell atheists that they are being surveyed (targeted) and they can't know the purpose of the survey. This would nullify ther resulteds.

Agreed.

So, the survey would go out to the general population (atheists and theists alike), this would mask the targeting.

So far, so good (and at last we see that the general population includes atheists).

Further, the survey have the pretense of any other type of purpose.

Agreed.

Since what we really want is the responses of atheists, within the survey questions relating to religion would be asked, in such a way as to satisfy the definition of atheists (someone who has rejected the concept or idea of deities).

Once the filter has been accomplished, we can randomly select our test group and compare responses.

Excluding all non-atheists is not randomly selecting anything. You are coming at this from the wrong direction.

What you should surely do, is retain all responses, and tabulate the results without prejudice. Then you examine those results to identify whether those who have ticked the 'Atheist' box respond in the majority identically to each other, but differently to questions that those who select the various theistic options (assuming you supply options, such as 'Christian', 'Muslim', etc - or subdivisions thereof) respond in the majority identically to each other. For example, do 90% of atheists tend to say that yes, they believe that the death penalty is correct, where 90% of religious believers think it is not.

If you find some such correlation, then you may have the beginnings of statistical anomalies to review and drill down further. This of course assumes the questions are not, for example, relative no-brainers such as the self identity of people with no religious beliefs being less likely to believe in creationsim, or less likely to be spiritually minded (although I consider myself spiritual in a fashion, as do other atheists I know, so it is by no means all-encompassing - refer again to the difficulty you are having in understanding what atheism is).

My point is that that is a valid framework to test the hypothesis whether atheists have common traits. The null hypothesis (what most here claim, a priori, and very forcefully) would be reject if there are statiscally relevant common traits. This would show evidence that atheist do have traits in common.

Nobody is denying that atheists have some traits in common but what you are conflating is the concept that they have traits in common that are statistically significantly different from common traits held among religious groups, or that they do not hold those same traits in common with religious believers. By undertaking the excercise in the manner you outlined above you are indeed likely to find some common traits, but by excluding the responses of all non atheists you have disabled your ability to draw meaningful data. Further, by then introducing different responses from a different group that you have already identified as holding some common trait in common and holding that up against the atheist responses, you are making the original questionnaire irrelevant.

But, we would not be done. That would only be half the work. With this, we have not proven that these common traits are because some human brains are wired different than the rest of the population. Now, it is impossible to get suggestion or for posters here to help with modeling or testing. You are one of the few who are actually discussing or critiquing metholodogy, which the real contribution to the thread (or even the validity of the framework of a test)

You cannot determine if brain chemistry differs between any groups of people based on a questionnaire.

 

[Helen]

That post wasn't addressing the issue of traits in common. It was addressing your definition of atheists as rejecting gods, as it said in the very first line and reiterated over the course of the story.

Please read for comprehension next time.

Thanks, quixotecoyote! I thought I was fairly clear, though rambling...

 

[Christian]

Agreed.


So far, so good (and at last we see that the general population includes atheists).


Agreed.


Excluding all non-atheists is not randomly selecting anything. You are coming at this from the wrong direction.

What you should surely do, is retain all responses, and tabulate the results without prejudice. Then you examine those results to identify whether those who have ticked the 'Atheist' box respond in the majority identically to each other, but differently to questions that those who select the various theistic options (assuming you supply options, such as 'Christian', 'Muslim', etc - or subdivisions thereof) respond in the majority identically to each other. For example, do 90% of atheists tend to say that yes, they believe that the death penalty is correct, where 90% of religious believers think it is not.

If you find some such correlation, then you may have the beginnings of statistical anomalies to review and drill down further. This of course assumes the questions are not, for example, relative no-brainers such as the self identity of people with no religious beliefs being less likely to believe in creationsim, or less likely to be spiritually minded (although I consider myself spiritual in a fashion, as do other atheists I know, so it is by no means all-encompassing - refer again to the difficulty you are having in understanding what atheism is).


Nobody is denying that atheists have some traits in common but what you are conflating is the concept that they have traits in common that are statistically significantly different from common traits held among religious groups, or that they do not hold those same traits in common with religious believers. By undertaking the excercise in the manner you outlined above you are indeed likely to find some common traits, but by excluding the responses of all non atheists you have disabled your ability to draw meaningful data. Further, by then introducing different responses from a different group that you have already identified as holding some common trait in common and holding that up against the atheist responses, you are making the original questionnaire irrelevant.


You cannot determine if brain chemistry differs between any groups of people based on a questionnaire.

This is the type of discourse I was expecting. This is helpful to me. Excellent. I can't respond right now. I will get later. Please hold on.

 

[Christian]

That post wasn't addressing the issue of traits in common. It was addressing your definition of atheists as rejecting gods, as it said in the very first line and reiterated over the course of the story.

Please read for comprehension next time.

Which I said was irrelevant. I chose that definition because it is useful. I choose to refuse the other definition because, for the purposes of the survey, it is useless (as valid as it can be). So much for comprehension.

 

[GeeMack]

Let's go home. No survey is no the way. Yes mental masturbation, after all.

Okay, so were you lying when you said no survey?

 

[Helen]

Why is it useless? You really seem to be aiming for a certain result, if you reject a definition that many atheists agree with.

 

[Christian]

Excluding all non-atheists is not randomly selecting anything. You are coming at this from the wrong direction.

What you should surely do, is retain all responses, and tabulate the results without prejudice. Then you examine those results to identify whether those who have ticked the 'Atheist' box respond in the majority identically to each other, but differently to questions that those who select the various theistic options (assuming you supply options, such as 'Christian', 'Muslim', etc - or subdivisions thereof) respond in the majority identically to each other. For example, do 90% of atheists tend to say that yes, they believe that the death penalty is correct, where 90% of religious believers think it is not.

The random part does not concern the whole population of those surveyed. It only concerns the the population in study. I must make sure to choose "atheists" randomly to ensure that my "atheist" sample is like the atheist population in general. This is why I proposed a world wide survey, to account for religious and non-religious environments.

If you find some such correlation, then you may have the beginnings of statistical anomalies to review and drill down further. This of course assumes the questions are not, for example, relative no-brainers such as the self identity of people with no religious beliefs being less likely to believe in creationsim, or less likely to be spiritually minded (although I consider myself spiritual in a fashion, as do other atheists I know, so it is by no means all-encompassing - refer again to the difficulty you are having in understanding what atheism is).

Good survey questions require higher technical skills. I haven't gotten past the simple parts of the framework do to the prejudices and missunderstandings (and outright derailment) of some posters.

Nobody is denying that atheists have some traits in common

Actually that is exactly one of the impasses. Most posters refuse to even consider that atheist are a formal group, let alone have other common traits. This has been one big reason we have not been able to advance in any significant way.

but what you are conflating is the concept that they have traits in common that are statistically significantly different from common traits held among religious groups, or that they do not hold those same traits in common with religious believers. By undertaking the excercise in the manner you outlined above you are indeed likely to find some common traits, but by excluding the responses of all non atheists you have disabled your ability to draw meaningful data. Further, by then introducing different responses from a different group that you have already identified as holding some common trait in common and holding that up against the atheist responses, you are making the original questionnaire irrelevant.

Something went wrong here. I'm comparing common trait of individuals within the same category (atheists). The control group (with another distinct trait) serves only to demonstrate that indeed the same questions do or not give similar answers.

You cannot determine if brain chemistry differs between any groups of people based on a questionnaire.

Correct. A survey can only tell me if a group share distinct common traits. Once we have established correlations, then we can go to Phase II. If no common traits are found, Phase II is unnecessary.

 

[Christian]

Why is it useless? You really seem to be aiming for a certain result, if you reject a definition that many atheists agree with.

You are not quoting me correctly. This erects a straw man (whether you know it or not).

It is useless for the purpose of the survey because the denifition pur forth here assumes, a priori, that atheists have nothing else in common. What use is that if my hypothesis want to find out if there are any other common traits atheists have?

The definition given by posters here, by definition discards any other commonality.

Valid as it may be, I would not be able to conduct a survey because according to the definition the group does not even exists. Some posters here have taken the stance that atheisms is a non-group, a non-category.

 

[Agatha]

Exactly. You can only test your hypothesis by manipulating your definition to one which is inaccurate.

If I propose a survey that seeks to test the common psychological traits of everyone wearing black shoes on a certain date, it will fail. People who wear black shoes on that date are likely to display the exact same common traits, in the same general proportions, as people who are wearing brown shoes on that date.

By definition, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. That's all there is to it.

By adding a process to your definition, and thereby excluding people who are atheists but don't fit your adjusted definition, you are manipulating your survey sample to try to influence your results.

 

[Christian]

Exactly. You can only test your hypothesis by manipulating your definition to one which is inaccurate.

I'm not manunipulating a definition. It is not an accurate statement. I'm using a definition using three independent sources that concur on the exact same one I'm using.

We had this discussion. Why would your definition be any better than those? I have already rejected answers based on the fallacy of appeal to the masses and authority.

By definition, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. That's all there is to it.

Is there any way to explain that is not the only valid definition? That you can't claim that that is the only and only valid definition?

By adding a process to your definition, and thereby excluding people who are atheists but don't fit your adjusted definition, you are manipulating your survey sample to try to influence your results.

Your definition and the one I have put forth are not that different you know.

The definition I'm using is: an atheist is someone rejects or shows disbeliefs in gods. The difference is a mental process however small it is.

 

[Agatha]

Look, it's your survey, it doesn't particularly matter to me if you don't get meaningful results.

By adding the process and treating "reject" as an active verb - which it need not be in English - you add cultural elements and exclude atheists such as myself, who have never believed in any gods, and have always considered them to be in the fictional realm. If you intend to exclude such people, then that affects your results.

 

[Christian]

Look, it's your survey, it doesn't particularly matter to me if you don't get meaningful results.

By adding the process and treating "reject" as an active verb - which it need not be in English - you add cultural elements and exclude atheists such as myself, who have never believed in any gods, and have always considered them to be in the fictional realm. If you intend to exclude such people, then that affects your results.

You just don't want to understand. You fit the definition perfectly. The only people who do not fit the definition (which you include as atheists, and I don't object to) is someone who is ignorant or the category deities (real or imaginary).

 

[Agatha]

There you go again, telling people what they believe, instead of accepting their word for it.

I'm ignorant of all the deities I've never heard of, and looking on godchecker.com there are plenty. From my perspective all deities are imaginary - you find me a real deity and I'll believe, though I doubt it would change my life in any meaningful way.

 

[Christian]

There you go again, telling people what they believe, instead of accepting their word for it.

I'm ignorant of all the deities I've never heard of, and looking on godchecker.com there are plenty. From my perspective all deities are imaginary - you find me a real deity and I'll believe, though I doubt it would change my life in any meaningful way.

You missunderstand, I'm no telling what you believe. I'm telling you how you fit the definition. It is different. You reject the caterogy "real deities" so all items in the category are rejected by default.

The only difference between your definition and mine is that you were an atheist before, according to your definition and you were not according to mine. And, now you are an atheist according to your definition and according to mine.

 

[Agatha]

I was an atheist before when?

 

[Christian]

I was an atheist before when?

According to your definition, when you were born, you didn't believe in deities. You didn't know the concept of deities and could care less about such things. This state of affairs lasted for however long. You were an atheist by your definition, but not mine.

Then, somehow, somewhere, you became aware of the category deities, the concept of deities, and decide, "oh what such nonsense" etc. etc. etc. At that point you continued to be an atheist by your definition and became one by mine.