Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Agatha]

When I was born I "didn't not believe"? You mean I believed? Nope.

Couldn't care less. If I could care less, then by definition I cared to some extent.

You are still insisting that there is an active, conscious decision to place deities into the realm of the imaginary. Did you ever make an active conscious decision to put Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Professor Dumbledore, Buffy The Vampire Slayer etc into the realm of the imaginary? If all those things were presented to you as fictional from the very first instance, there is no conscious decision necessary.

 

[SezMe]

The definition I'm using is: an atheist is someone rejects or shows disbeliefs in gods.

Let me rephrase your definition using non-ambiguous English:

An atheist is someone who rejects belief in gods or is someone who shows disbelief in gods.

See the bolded part. That's the part you just won't accept. And see the underlined word. That's the word you refuse to read.

 

[Christian]

When I was born I "didn't not believe"? You mean I believed? Nope.

I corrected that mistake. Fine, if you really want to go the route of correcting my grammar, I'll try to be more careful. When you were born, no conscious decision was made regarding imaginary beings.

Couldn't care less. If I could care less, then by definition I cared to some extent.

You couldn't care less.

You are still insisting that there is an active, conscious decision to place deities into the realm of the imaginary.

Of course. We think in categories. When you think cow, your brain automatically puts cow, at least in one category (hopefully), mammals. You can't stop your brain from doing this. You can't stop your open eyes from seeing what's in front of them.

Did you ever make an active conscious decision to put Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Professor Dumbledore, Buffy The Vampire Slayer etc into the realm of the imaginary?

Yes, my brain has to categorize, imaginary and real. I decided that all those belong in the imaginary basket.

If all those things were presented to you as fictional from the very first instance, there is no conscious decision necessary.

You misunderstand how the brain works. It is impossible to understand "left" without being aware of the concept "right"; same holds true for up and down; also true for tall or short; finally, holds true for imaginary and real.

To understand what fictional means you must have a solid grasp of what is real. You can't escape this thought process. I don't understand why you would argue about these simple ideas.

 

[ideogram]

I don't understand why you would argue about these simple ideas.

Seriously Christian, I no longer know what your purpose here is.

 

[Beth]

You misunderstand how the brain works. It is impossible to understand "left" without being aware of the concept "right"; same holds true for up and down; also true for tall or short; finally, holds true for imaginary and real.

To understand what fictional means you must have a solid grasp of what is real. You can't escape this thought process. I don't understand why you would argue about these simple ideas.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. It fairly apparent to me what you are trying to communicate. Newborns are not atheists in any sort of thinking way. Agatha and Fiona and Helen are. I do think that newborns can be atheists, in the same way that they can be Christian or Muslim, but that's because I think that babies automatically inherent their parents religion (or non-religion) in the same way they do their parent's nationality. Such things may or may not stick as an adult, but that's the way to bet. I know other people on this forum have different opinions. Someone on this thread may feel inspired to inform me I'm wrong and why.

As to why they would argue about such concepts? Why not? After all, you are.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...You misunderstand how the brain works...

And you do? You haven't demonstrated that so far. But at least you have abandoned the "mind" nonsense.
Oh, well, little steps for little feet.

 

[Christian]

And you do? You haven't demonstrated that so far. But at least you have abandoned the "mind" nonsense.
Oh, well, little steps for little feet.

I think I have a decent understanding of how the brain works. Whatever I don't understand, I can educate myself further and presto. Even rocket science is only a matter of effort and time. I'm fairly confident about my explanation on the brain's inference system and its' use of categories.

I don't recall the "mind" subject you speak of. Can you show the reference please?

Little steps for little feet? Intellectual elitism is a fascinating subject and one to address.

 

[Christian]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. It fairly apparent to me what you are trying to communicate. Newborns are not atheists in any sort of thinking way. Agatha and Fiona and Helen are. I do think that newborns can be atheists, in the same way that they can be Christian or Muslim, but that's because I think that babies automatically inherent their parents religion (or non-religion) in the same way they do their parent's nationality. Such things may or may not stick as an adult, but that's the way to bet. I know other people on this forum have different opinions. Someone on this thread may feel inspired to inform me I'm wrong and why.

As to why they would argue about such concepts? Why not? After all, you are.

Thank you. If I accept the definition where the concepts imaginary/real are not a requisite, I also can agree that newborns, infants, toddlers, etc. are atheists. Would never ever describe any baby like that but, using that definition, it would be accurate.

 

[GeeMack]

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

That dishonesty stuff is becoming quite a consistent component of his position, isn't it?

 

[GeeMack]

Seriously Christian, I no longer know what your purpose here is.

The evidence suggests he's here to complain and whine, and to argue semantics in order to develop a survey, which he said he wasn't developing (not sure if he lied when he said he was creating a survey or if he lied when he said he wasn't, but either way...), in order to show that atheists have some trait(s) in common which he's already determined they must have. Dishonesty, contradiction, and arguments from ignorance seem to be the foundation of his position.

 

[Brainache]

Thank you. If I accept the definition where the concepts imaginary/real are not a requisite, I also can agree that newborns, infants, toddlers, etc. are atheists. Would never ever describe any baby like that but, using that definition, it would be accurate.

You do know that Atheists believe in stuff don't you Christian? For instance I believe that the Universe started out about 14 billion years ago as a whole lot of energy which condensed into Hydrogen atoms and photons and such, etc, etc. I believe that the diversity of life on Earth is explained by the Theory of Evolution. I believe lots of other things as well, just not gods. I don't have the scientific wherewithall to come up with these things on my own, so I rely on the scientific community to inform my understanding of the world, much in the same way as ancient people (and some modern folks) relied on Priests, Shamans, Witch Doctors etc.

What makes you think that "god beliefs" have their own separate category in our brains, as distinct from just "beliefs"? Your premise doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Christian]

You do know that Atheists believe in stuff don't you Christian? For instance I believe that the Universe started out about 14 billion years ago as a whole lot of energy which condensed into Hydrogen atoms and photons and such, etc, etc. I believe that the diversity of life on Earth is explained by the Theory of Evolution. I believe lots of other things as well, just not gods. I don't have the scientific wherewithall to come up with these things on my own, so I rely on the scientific community to inform my understanding of the world, much in the same way as ancient people (and some modern folks) relied on Priests, Shamans, Witch Doctors etc.

Ok.

What makes you think that "god beliefs" have their own separate category in our brains, as distinct from just "beliefs"? Your premise doesn't make sense to me.

The brain works with independent file cabinets (I'm oversimplifying here to make my point) You can also think of this file cabinets as categories. We have an inmense number of cabinets. A cow will be stored in several cabinets at the same time. When you think of the cow one way, you will trigger the corresponding cabinet or cabinets.

For example, you can think of the cabinet mammals, and a cow will be stored there. A cow can also be stored in the cabinet "animals I can eat".

Now, normal humans have a cabinet called "imaginary things" and one called "real things". When I say Harry Potter, you will trigger a cabinet associated with this character. It might be the "people with glasses" cabinet or however you have associated this item before.

But, if I ask you: ficticious or real? Immediately your "imaginary" cabinet will trigger. Through your learning, you were taught these two categories and based on the rules of how the brain associates items you effetively decide where to put each item in the corresponding cabinet.

Here is a link giving one example of what I'm talking about:

http://huehueteotl.wordpress.com/20...ries-of-living-and-non-living-for-processing/

 

[Robin]

Ok.



The brain works with independent file cabinets (I'm oversimplifying here to make my point) You can also think of this file cabinets as categories. We have an inmense number of cabinets. A cow will be stored in several cabinets at the same time. When you think of the cow one way, you will trigger the corresponding cabinet or cabinets.

For example, you can think of the cabinet mammals, and a cow will be stored there. A cow can also be stored in the cabinet "animals I can eat".

Now, normal humans have a cabinet called "imaginary things" and one called "real things". When I say Harry Potter, you will trigger a cabinet associated with this character. It might be the "people with glasses" cabinet or however you have associated this item before.

But, if I ask you: ficticious or real? Immediately your "imaginary" cabinet will trigger. Through your learning, you were taught these two categories and based on the rules of how the brain associates items you effetively decide where to put each item in the corresponding cabinet.

Here is a link giving one example of what I'm talking about:

http://huehueteotl.wordpress.com/20...ries-of-living-and-non-living-for-processing/

But you seem to be talking about an immediate response here, not a considered response.

 

[Brainache]

Ok.



The brain works with independent file cabinets (I'm oversimplifying here to make my point) You can also think of this file cabinets as categories. We have an inmense number of cabinets. A cow will be stored in several cabinets at the same time. When you think of the cow one way, you will trigger the corresponding cabinet or cabinets.

For example, you can think of the cabinet mammals, and a cow will be stored there. A cow can also be stored in the cabinet "animals I can eat".

Now, normal humans have a cabinet called "imaginary things" and one called "real things". When I say Harry Potter, you will trigger a cabinet associated with this character. It might be the "people with glasses" cabinet or however you have associated this item before.

But, if I ask you: ficticious or real? Immediately your "imaginary" cabinet will trigger. Through your learning, you were taught these two categories and based on the rules of how the brain associates items you effetively decide where to put each item in the corresponding cabinet.

Here is a link giving one example of what I'm talking about:

http://huehueteotl.wordpress.com/20...ries-of-living-and-non-living-for-processing/

Yeah, I understand all that. But what you are doing is saying that there is a category for "True things about the world", a category for "Fictional stories about the world" and also a category of "God stuff". I'm saying that the god stuff belongs in either the "True..." category where Theists put it, or in the "Fictional..." category which is where Atheists put it. It doesn't have a separate category of its own, because it is an idea about how the world works which is either true or false. People tend to decide one way or the other for any number of different reasons.

 

[Robin]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. It fairly apparent to me what you are trying to communicate. Newborns are not atheists in any sort of thinking way. Agatha and Fiona and Helen are. I do think that newborns can be atheists, in the same way that they can be Christian or Muslim, but that's because I think that babies automatically inherent their parents religion (or non-religion) in the same way they do their parent's nationality.

Just what is the mechanism for this inheritance?

Do children inherit their parents nationality? My father's mother was Russian and his father was English - what nationality is he?

 

[Beth]

Just what is the mechanism for this inheritance?

Social custom.

Do children inherit their parents nationality? My father's mother was Russian and his father was English - what nationality is he?

I've no idea. You've only told me what his birth nationality was: Russian/English. He may or may not have kept that same nationality as an adult. Many countries would require that he choose one nationality or the other at adulthood. Others would be fine with dual citizenship. He might also choose to become some other nationality. I think religion is reasonable to place on a par with that.

 

[Sledge]

I do so enjoy watching Christian writing other people's (by which I mean everyone's) definition of atheism off as appeal to masses and authority, whilst insisting his is correct. Appeal to self? That's a pretty big ego.

That last line is one for people who've followed both Christian's threads

 

[Jeff Corey]

I think I have a decent understanding of how the brain works. Whatever I don't understand, I can educate myself further and presto. Even rocket science is only a matter of effort and time. I'm fairly confident about my explanation on the brain's inference system and its' use of categories.

I don't recall the "mind" subject you speak of. Can you show the reference please?

Little steps for little feet? Intellectual elitism is a fascinating subject and one to address.

Check yourr previous posts. I believe Dancing David may have corrected you, If not, this is good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWF1d9XLXck&feature=related

 

[Christian]

But you seem to be talking about an immediate response here, not a considered response.

Sure, it's like driving. When one first starts driving, one has to think every move. With time, the responses become automatic; we perceive them as immediate.

 

[Christian]

Yeah, I understand all that. But what you are doing is saying that there is a category for "True things about the world", a category for "Fictional stories about the world" and also a category of "God stuff". I'm saying that the god stuff belongs in either the "True..." category where Theists put it, or in the "Fictional..." category which is where Atheists put it. It doesn't have a separate category of its own, because it is an idea about how the world works which is either true or false. People tend to decide one way or the other for any number of different reasons.

Think of your brain as a computer with a file system (it's not like a computer in many ways, but for this explanation the analogy holds). You can create as many folders as you want (categories) and name them as you wish. We don't have any limitations to the category we create or what files (items) we put in. We can have the same file in as many folders we wish. Of course, we are not entirely original in naming our folders, and education gives us many folder names.