Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

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

The video is good. Harry Potter bless you.

 

[Robin]

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.

There you have another distinction.

Someone might respond immediately by identifying themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jew etc but on closer questioning might say "well I haven't really gone into it that deeply, I just think that those values are what I identify with".

That person would be a non-theist rather than a theist.

Or even those who say something like "those values are what I identify with but I don't actually believe in an intelligent creator or an afterlife", in which case they would be atheists.

I heard a Muslim on the radio recently being absolutely scathing about atheists and then when it came to describing his beliefs he said that the Qu'ran, prayers etc were "metaphors with which to classify feelings we don't fully understand" and "it doesn't really matter if you are a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew".

So again, pretty much a candidate for the atheist pile.

Then you have people like C.S. Lewis before his conversion to Christianity who said he was an atheist but was "angry at God for not existing". I might consider that sort of atheist a candidate for the theist pile.

 

[Christian]

There you have another distinction.

Someone might respond immediately by identifying themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jew etc but on closer questioning might say "well I haven't really gone into it that deeply, I just think that those values are what I identify with".

That person would be a non-theist rather than a theist.

Or even those who say something like "those values are what I identify with but I don't actually believe in an intelligent creator or an afterlife", in which case they would be atheists.

I heard a Muslim on the radio recently being absolutely scathing about atheists and then when it came to describing his beliefs he said that the Qu'ran, prayers etc were "metaphors with which to classify feelings we don't fully understand" and "it doesn't really matter if you are a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew".

So again, pretty much a candidate for the atheist pile.

Then you have people like C.S. Lewis before his conversion to Christianity who said he was an atheist but was "angry at God for not existing". I might consider that sort of atheist a candidate for the theist pile.

I just want to thank you for talking to me instead of at me. Refreshing.

 

[fromdownunder]

Ok, I will talk to you, and ask a couple of questions. We have been trying to find out with great difficulty why you find a definition of atheist so important to your survey. Why is this?

I suspect the answer lies in the sort of questions you intend to ask in your poll, So my second question is, will you post say, six of the questions you intend to ask potential respondants to your survey?

It will shed some light on the first question, and certainly make your position much more clear to the rest of us, simply because of the frustration of not knowing where you are trying to go with the survey. The more knowledge you provide us with up front, rather than using a back door, the more we will understand and help.

It may have been wiser to list your survey questions up as a group in the first place, and ask for clarification, if what you really want is help with here is how the final questions should be put. It would have helped us to understand where you are coming from so much more than your two somewhat heavy handed threads have to date.

Norm

 

[Brainache]

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.

So are you saying that Theists have one more "folder" than Atheists? I don't get it.

If someone believes that God created everything, then he puts "God" in his "where did the world come from?" folder. If someone doesn't believe in God then she puts "(whatever it is that she believes)" in her "Where did the world come from" folder....

Do you see what I'm trying to explain here? The brains work the same, but the contents of the individual folders is different.

 

[Christian]

Ok, I will talk to you, and ask a couple of questions. We have been trying to find out with great difficulty why you find a definition of atheist so important to your survey. Why is this?

I understand that with a long thread it sometimes is difficult to get all the information in. I want to clarify something. I'm sorry that from what you've read you have this idea that there is an actual test in the works. There is none. This thread has the purpose as many others, it is just an exchange of ideas. It is an end in its' self. The definition of atheist was just part of the discussion. I, giving my arguments, and others giving theirs.

I suspect the answer lies in the sort of questions you intend to ask in your poll, So my second question is, will you post say, six of the questions you intend to ask potential respondants to your survey?

Actual valid poll questions are difficult. I don't think I can come up with good quality poll questions on this subject. I was hoping (very naive of me) that poster here would come up with good questions. That did not happen.

It will shed some light on the first question, and certainly make your position much more clear to the rest of us, simply because of the frustration of not knowing where you are trying to go with the survey. The more knowledge you provide us with up front, rather than using a back door, the more we will understand and help.

The problem, I think, is that there seems to be this idea that there is some hidden agenda or possible trap. I want to assure you and please believe me, give me the benefit of the doubt that there is no trap.

It may have been wiser to list your survey questions up as a group in the first place, and ask for clarification, if what you really want is help with here is how the final questions should be put. It would have helped us to understand where you are coming from so much more than your two somewhat heavy handed threads have to date.

Norm

Norm, I'm sorry the threads seem heavy handed. I do like to be provocative and love controversial topics. I think those are the most interesting. It is not my intention to offend anyone, I just think those kind of topics are more lively and stimulating.

Thanks for talking to me.

 

[Christian]

So are you saying that Theists have one more "folder" than Atheists? I don't get it.

No, atheist and theist have the same two folders "imaginary beings" and "real beings". Theist put their brand of deities in the "real beings folder and atheist put all deities (known and unknown) in the "imaginary beings" folders. My definition of atheist is the person that puts all deities in the "imaginary beings" folder. That requires a mental process.

If someone believes that God created everything, then he puts "God" in his "where did the world come from?" folder. If someone doesn't believe in God then she puts "(whatever it is that she believes)" in her "Where did the world come from" folder....

If someone believe in God, he or she will attribute real actions to his or her deity because God is in the "real being" folders and that is what real beings do, they do real stuff. On the other hand, atheist will never attribution real actions to deities because all items in the "imaginary beings" folder can never do anything real.

Do you see what I'm trying to explain here? The brains work the same, but the contents of the individual folders is different.

This is correct in terms of folders, but not all brains work the same like not all computers work the same.

 

[Helen]

Christian, I really have difficulties understanding what you are trying to say here; difficulties that may very well be due to my shortcomings, so please bear with me if I seem dense.

You have a hypothesis that there are differences between the brains of believers and atheists. This hypothesis apparently relies on your definition of atheists as people who have rejected gods. When we object that not all ateists have rejected gods, you discard that definition as useless for your purposes. Nevertheless it is a fact that there are atheists who never rejected gods. So to me, that should either mean that you reject you hypothesis or change it to just include a particular group of atheists. You could of course also go on as you are, and just ignore the facts...

If you decide that it is only meaningful to discuss the sub group of atheists that have rejected gods, I wonder how you would sort out the rejection from the atheism, so to speak? It may be that any similarities you find are due to that. And then you would have to bring in the group of theists who have rejected atheism, wouldn't you, since they may show these similarities as well.

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.

Do you have to be atheist in a thinking way? I know that I did not believe in any gods long before I could think about religion in any meaningful way. What was I then, if not an atheist? And what level of mental acuity would you say has to be present before someone is an atheist? Do we go by IQ? And does the same apply to theists? Could someone with mental diabilities be a theist or an atheist?

 

[Brainache]

No, atheist and theist have the same two folders "imaginary beings" and "real beings". Theist put their brand of deities in the "real beings folder and atheist put all deities (known and unknown) in the "imaginary beings" folders. My definition of atheist is the person that puts all deities in the "imaginary beings" folder. That requires a mental process.

I have no problem with the definition of Atheist you are using for your hypothetical poll.

If someone believe in God, he or she will attribute real actions to his or her deity because God is in the "real being" folders and that is what real beings do, they do real stuff. On the other hand, atheist will never attribution real actions to deities because all items in the "imaginary beings" folder can never do anything real.

I agree. The problem is of course that most of the things which Theists attribute to the action of God can be explained by science without invoking God. Science is real, but God was invented to explain things before people had developed the necessary disciplines required to understand the world scientifically.

Religion IMO persists only because of the cultural traditions and the way children are indoctrinated. I can't see it disappearing anytime soon, even if no one believed in a God, there will always be people who just like the songs, rituals and socialising etc that go along with the practice of religion.

This is correct in terms of folders, but not all brains work the same like not all computers work the same.

I would go further and say that no two brains work exactly the same, but the end results are similar. It's like no two grape vines are the exact same shape, but they both produce grapes.

 

[Robin]

I just want to thank you for talking to me instead of at me. Refreshing.

You are welcome, although I am frequently guilty of talking at people in this form.

Are you aware of the G.K Chesterton thesis that people who don't believe in God are more likely to jump at supernatural explanations?

 

[GeeMack]

No, atheist and theist have the same two folders "imaginary beings" and "real beings". Theist put their brand of deities in the "real beings folder and atheist put all deities (known and unknown) in the "imaginary beings" folders. My definition of atheist is the person that puts all deities in the "imaginary beings" folder. That requires a mental process.

So you're saying there is no difference between the way an atheist and a theist mentally handle the concepts of gods, other than the theist puts one additional invisible entity (or particular assortment of invisible entities) in the "real beings" folder. So given the millions of things that might be in the typical person's "imaginary beings" folder compared to the millions of things in his/her "real beings" folder, the difference is so quantitatively minuscule as to have no considerable significance.

 

[chillzero]

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.

Right, but then you want to strip out the data that you need for comparitive work, and you also want to disagree with the concept and definition of atheism. You want (somehow) to brand only those who deliberately and actively reject deities, and ignore those who passively have never chosen either way.

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.

Those 'derailments' are important issues for you to consider, even if you don't understand them, if you are being genuine in this excercise.

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.

No. Most posters have repeatedly shown you that atheists are a group in that they are united by one thing only - an absence of belief in any deities. This is not a particularly meaningful group for your purposes so you are railing against it trying to insist that atheists must surely have other things in common, including a massive leap of logic you have made to the makeup of their brains. You have been almost insulting at times to suggest that some are theists who are just ignorant of that fact as yet, and have been very dismissive of some very good points put to you about the nature of culture, nature, nurture and so on.

In order to identify whether there are further traits you need to include a full population, and tabulate all the results, then examine those in various formats to see whether peaks or troughs exist in the data for certain questions and topics, and then drill back to see if those peaks and troughs correlate to whether the surveyed people that correlate in responses are all atheist or all not.

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 are not being clear, and that is not a good indicator for the progression of your survey idea. You need to be able to explain yourself clearly, and when it comes to laying out your plans, and identifying the survey questions, you need to be completely unambiguous as to what you are stating.

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.

You are still coming from the pre-determined position that such correlations exist. this is not an honest approach to a survey and will, thorugh various subtleties of language, etc, will skew your results.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

It seems most of the posters in this conversation understand each other, and for the most part, agree with each other at least conceptually. You seem to be the odd man out in not understanding and not making yourself well understood. The evidence suggests the responsibility for the miscommunication is yours, and if you were being honest, which does seem to be difficult for you, you would acknowledge that and work to overcome your shortcomings in that area.

 

[Beth]

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.

Do you have to be atheist in a thinking way?

No. As I said previously, newborns can be atheists, but they are not atheists in any kind of thinking way.

I know that I did not believe in any gods long before I could think about religion in any meaningful way. What was I then, if not an atheist?

I would say you were an atheist in the same way that the child of Christian parents is a Christian before they can think about religion in any meaningful way.

And what level of mental acuity would you say has to be present before someone is an atheist?

I'm sorry, but I simply haven't given the matter that sort of close scrutiny. I would say that you need the level of mental acuity to understand the concept of gods and be able to decide consciously that they don't exist. I'm not sure what level of mental acuity that requires, but it would certainly have to be old enough to talk and communicate such ideas while it does not require a person to be an adult.

 

[Matt the Poet]

I would say you were an atheist in the same way that the child of Christian parents is a Christian before they can think about religion in any meaningful way.

This isn’t true in my case. I had one Christian parent (my Father), but he and my Mother agreed that my mental independence was important enough to consciously avoid influencing my thinking either way on supernatural matters. Religious information was neither hidden from nor pressed upon me.

This doesn’t seem an unlikely scenario – I’m sure lots of the more liberal adherents to a religion would be happy to allow their offspring to make their own choices.

So if you’re the child of Christian parents but aren’t exposed to their Christianity, are you still a Christian? If so, how would that work?

 

[Pup]

I would say you were an atheist in the same way that the child of Christian parents is a Christian before they can think about religion in any meaningful way.

That reminds me of the old joke about the American family who adopted a baby from China. Friends asked if the family was studying Chinese, so they'd be able to understand the baby when it grew old enough to talk.

I can understand the problem with defining a baby as "atheist" as a default, because it's not so simple. Raised in isolation, the baby obviously wouldn't randomly come up with the exact same idea as any existing religion, but I expect that it might invent its own god(s) or create similar magical thinking, at least temporarily as it grew through the imaginative stages of childhood.

I'd suggest that children don't need taught to create imaginary friends, attribute special powers of comfort to a particular blankie, and so forth. They do it naturally, some more than others, some for longer time periods than others. Religion is just a natural extension of those urges.

 

[Dymanic]

I'd suggest that children don't need taught to create imaginary friends, attribute special powers of comfort to a particular blankie, and so forth. They do it naturally, some more than others, some for longer time periods than others. Religion is just a natural extension of those urges.

Yes. We are born magical thinkers by default.

 

[Beth]

This isn’t true in my case. I had one Christian parent (my Father), but he and my Mother agreed that my mental independence was important enough to consciously avoid influencing my thinking either way on supernatural matters. Religious information was neither hidden from nor pressed upon me.

This doesn’t seem an unlikely scenario – I’m sure lots of the more liberal adherents to a religion would be happy to allow their offspring to make their own choices.

So if you’re the child of Christian parents but aren’t exposed to their Christianity, are you still a Christian? If so, how would that work?

By my evaluation criteria, yes. The same way if you are a child of two Americans missionaries living in Africa and speaking only Swahili. Their child would still be considered an American.

 

[Robin]

Social custom.

Not one that I am aware of. It seems to me that it is more usually a conscious choice of parents to bring a child up according to some religion or not as the case may be.

I've no idea. You've only told me what his birth nationality was: Russian/English.

Only according to your arbitrary rule. I very much doubt that either he, his mother or his father would have termed his birth nationality "Russian/English". I don't think that "Russian/English" could even be meaningfully termed a nationality.

I think religion is reasonable to place on a par with that.

It would make my kids "Christian/Atheists".

 

[Robin]

By my evaluation criteria, yes. The same way if you are a child of two Americans missionaries living in Africa and speaking only Swahili. Their child would still be considered an American.

By whom?