Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

OK lets start from your very first post, the OP of this thread, in which you set out your premise:



So on the basis of the OP, you have to know what the general population thinks.

But most recently you decide that the general population does not belong in your Survey? Why? Do you already know, or think you know what the "general population" so important in your OP, already thinks?

How can you exclude non-atheists, since it was you personally who wanted to compare the two populations. That's the point.

Norm

The general population is not part of the survey because (this is hypothetical assumption) we already know the traits in the general population. For example, we already know the average IQ of the general population.

But, ok, suppose we don't know traits in the general population. Fine, then before this survey, we would need to find the traits in the general population and have that data handy. But this is not part of the framework of this test.

I do see your point.

 

[Christian]

Not a valid analogy, because in the Republican/Democrat example you are not looking to find out what Republicans have in common.

If you wanted to find out what Republicans had in common then you would have to have non-Republicans in your sample.

It would be meaningless to say "80% of Republicans have property X" if 80% of the general population have property X.

Besides you have already stated a hypothesis about the tendency of atheists to accept supernatural beliefs, which presupposes that you are looking at differences between atheists and the general population.

Yes, I see the point. I made the (ficticious) assumption that before all this, I already had statistics for the general population.

 

[Pup]

That not what I'm trying to study. The study is not "what are the differences in traits between atheists and theists". It is what do atheist have in common.

Well, yes, but wouldn't the results be meaningless? I mean, what if you discover that 99% of the atheists have two arms? So what?

The underlying assumption is that you're interested in what atheists have in common that's different from what everyone has in common. So you have to eliminate the things that everyone has in common.

The way to do that is to compare how non-atheists answer the same questions. If 99% of everyone answers yes to something, you ignore that trait because it's uninteresting. If 99% of the atheists answer yes to something, but only 1% of everyone else answers yes to it, that would be meaningful.

Edited to add: Just saw your previous post. I see you've got it now.

 

[Christian]

Well, yes, but wouldn't the results be meaningless? I mean, what if you discover that 99% of the atheists have two arms? So what?

The underlying assumption is that you're interested in what atheists have in common that's different from what everyone has in common. So you have to eliminate the things that everyone has in common.

The way to do that is to compare how non-atheists answer the same questions. If 99% of everyone answers yes to something, you ignore that trait because it's uninteresting. If 99% of the atheists answer yes to something, but only 1% of everyone else answers yes to it, that would be meaningful.

Edited to add: Just saw your previous post. I see you've got it now.

Yes, got it. Agreed.

 

[fromdownunder]

Yes, got it. Agreed.

So I take it you now agree that you need a Control group consisting of theists to make your Survey meaningful. If so we can move on, and you can start proposing the sort of questions that you intend to include for discussion. I think we have settled the "What is an atheist" issue for all intents and purposes.

What's next?

Norm

 

[Helen]

The problem is semantics here. When you say "not all atheists have rejected gods" you are thinking of a specific mental process (like an internal discussion of pros an cons and a final judgement). Not all mental processes that reject deities work this way. Whatever mental process precedes, the final mental process of putting deities in the "fiction" folder is what counts. In that instant deities have been rejected as real (they were placed in the fiction folder) This is true because these folders are mutually exclusive. Accepting one, rejects the other.

So by the same token theists reject atheism?

And if it is this mechanism you are interested in looking at, wouldn't it be right to say that you could study any group who reject a belief, such as for instance the belief in Santa Claus?

 

[Agatha]

Well done on seeing the problem with your proposed survey design, Christian.

 

[chillzero]

Really? You don't think that a Christian couple with a newborn that the baby is not considered to be the same religion as it's parents by the parent's friends, family and neighbors as well as the church they belong to?

That other people may think it so does not make it so. I say this as a person of nationality where no matter how often you tell people you are not christian, even as an adult, they insist on labelling you either catholic or protestant dependant on what suits them to believe about you. Doesn't make me christian that so many others choose to think this way.

Please understand, once a certain point is reached, there is no such thing as "passively never choosing" not to believe deiteis are real. The brain does not work this way. All thoughts are active, anything that you think will trigger a physical process. Every time someone thinks deities, there will be an active thought process.

And several of us disagree with this. Your insistence that this is how our brains work does not make that actual fact.

You misunderstand. I'm forceful with my argument because of the parameters of design. It is not an argument in a vacuum. Please explain where I have been "almost insulting" (what that "almost insulting" mean?) and the very good points I have dismissed?

I already explained where the insult lay in the same sentence you responded to.

You are wrong. I don't need to include the full population. I'm only required a valid sample. The sample must be of atheists. It must be of atheists because this is the study group. Why would I include non-diabetics in a diabetics study? (of course, unless the control is specifically designed to be non-diabetics)

I see you finally get this.

No, I'm assuming knowledge in cognitive experimental design and hypothesis testing.



This is what I mean about knowledge in hypothesis testing. The nature of hypothesis is to test a pre-determined position (the pre-determined position is the hypothesis). It presuposes a pre-determined position where the null hypothesis is confirmed or rejected.

... and your hypothesis is deeply flawed, as several have explained.

 

[Beth]

Again, it comes down to definition.

If your definition of atheist is "lacking a belief in God" then newborn babies are atheists.

If your definition stipulates that the person must understand the concept of God then no, they are not atheists.

Like many many other words, atheist has more than one definition. In fact, atheist has even more definitions than those two, it's just that those two have been what discussion in this thread has concentrated on. I don't typically have a problem with multiple definitions. They can each be useful in the proper context. It is useful to discuss which definition is being used. It is not particularly useful to insist that one definition is the only correct definition. They are all correct. The question is which one is appropriate for the situation.

We are not arguing whether newborn babies can be atheists.

We are arguing about the definition of atheist.

Actually, I am arguing about whether all newborn babies should be considered atheists. Some people are claiming that, which seems to fit definition one. By definition one, you could claim that dogs, squirrels and rocks are likewise atheists. I don't especially care if people want to consider animals and inanimate objects atheist because they don't possess the mental faculties to belief in any sort of god. But there are social implications to claiming that all children are born atheists that I feel are inappropriate and I do object to that.

For example, Richard Dawkins has likened labeling of children with the religious beliefs of their parents as something akin to child abuse, a POV I find distinctly distasteful. I have heard people in this forum, based on such a mislabeling, claim that all religious education is a form of child abuse. That sort of demonization of those who disagree is something I don't care for at all.

While I think that babies can be atheists, it is not because I agree with definition one, but because I think that it's reasonable to consider such labels when applied to children, especially babies, as an identification of the religious (or non-religious) group their family identifies with. It is not an indication of their own beliefs on the matter, but an indication of what beliefs they will be raised with.

Such labels are irrelevant in regards to definition two above until the child is of an age to have beliefs of their own. Therefore, I'm not talking about a definition of atheist that fits either 1 or 2 above, but more a recognition of how our society classifies groups of people and which group the family of the young child fits into.

By the way, that was a thought provoking post on your part. It helped me to clarify my own thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

 

[Christian]

So I take it you now agree that you need a Control group consisting of theists to make your Survey meaningful. If so we can move on, and you can start proposing the sort of questions that you intend to include for discussion. I think we have settled the "What is an atheist" issue for all intents and purposes.

What's next?

Norm

No, we don't need a control group of atheists. We need compiled statisctics of the general population (atheists and non-atheists) The average of the general population will be compared after common traits are found.

 

[Christian]

Well done on seeing the problem with your proposed survey design, Christian.

Thanks Agatha.

 

[Christian]

And several of us disagree with this. Your insistence that this is how our brains work does not make that actual fact.

If you can explain how the brain works and that it is different than how I have explained it, I would like to read that.

I already explained where the insult lay in the same sentence you responded to.

No, you have not.

... and your hypothesis is deeply flawed, as several have explained.

How is the hypothesis flawed?

 

[Brainache]

To draw a valid comparison between Atheists and the General population, wouldn't you have to ask them all the exact same questions?

People will respond differently to differently worded questions. So if the baseline general population traits that you are comparing your Atheist results to are from a different set of questions, you can't really compare them. Can you?

 

[Christian]

To draw a valid comparison between Atheists and the General population, wouldn't you have to ask them all the exact same questions?

People will respond differently to differently worded questions. So if the baseline general population traits that you are comparing your Atheist results to are from a different set of questions, you can't really compare them. Can you?

Consider IQ tests. They measure the same thing. There are many personality tests that measure the same traits. The requirement would be valid data. Beth mentioned that data is out there only to gather.

The big problem, for me, is how to combine in one test the many traits to tests. I don't have that figured out. Or if I'm looking at the problem the wrong way. (a single test for many traits that actually infer brain similarities)

 

[chillzero]

If you can explain how the brain works and that it is different than how I have explained it, I would like to read that.

You have not explained how the brain works, nor have I said that you did, or that I know better. However, I do know that you should not repeatedly make the assertion that atheists' brains are hard wired to consider and refuse the existence of gods when several have explained to you, repeatedly, that this has not been an active or concious decision. You have had several people give you very good analogies about how we aren't hardwired to not believe in mythical beings like leprachauns or flying teapots. For many atheists it is a passive acceptance of non-existence and not a considered rejection. This won't change no matter how you try to word it, or insist that they are thinking differently than they are telling you they think.

No, you have not.

Try again:

You have been almost insulting at times to suggest that some are theists who are just ignorant of that fact as yet,

It is insulting to atheists to tell them that really, some of them just don't realise that they believe, that they are actually in some kind of ignorance or denial about what you see as the obvious existence of god. You need to stop measuring people against your own personal cultural, religious and educational background.

How is the hypothesis flawed?

Your hypothesis supposes that atheists share common traits, and then suggests further that this might be down to brain function that differs from the brain functions of religious people. You have ignored the very obvious fact that you can't even find commonality among a relatively small group here on this forum, as well as being resistent to identifying atheists in the same manner by which many atheists will identify themselves. For about 10 pages you resisted the rather obvious point that you want to measure this commonality against nothing substantive.

You can't identify your target group and you don't seem to grasp the complexities of surveying and response analysis. You haven't even started talking about the questions yet!

This may have been a mental excercise to you and never intended to come to fruition as an actual real-world project. Fair enough. My hope is that you will at least come away from this thread wth consideration for some of the information being given to you. You don't have to agree with it, or even understand it, but you really need to stop denying it. Atheists understand atheism a hell of a lot better than you do, and you should show some respect for their input.

 

[chillzero]

To draw a valid comparison between Atheists and the General population, wouldn't you have to ask them all the exact same questions?

People will respond differently to differently worded questions. So if the baseline general population traits that you are comparing your Atheist results to are from a different set of questions, you can't really compare them. Can you?

I was hoping we'd done this to death and managed to get this point understood, but looking at the response you got, I am not so sure. This seems such a blindingly obvious part of the survey process, that I struggle to see why it is causing Christian so much difficulty.

 

[Christian]

You have not explained how the brain works, nor have I said that you did, or that I know better. However, I do know that you should not repeatedly make the assertion that atheists' brains are hard wired to consider and refuse the existence of gods when several have explained to you, repeatedly, that this has not been an active or concious decision.

Why not? If someone tells me they can solve algebra problems and have never studied arithmetic, I can explain why that is not possible. If I'm wrong, the place it's coming from is pure analysis and nothing more. I won't be the first or last who continually argues the validity of his or her position.

You have had several people give you very good analogies about how we aren't hardwired to not believe in mythical beings like leprachauns or flying teapots. For many atheists it is a passive acceptance of non-existence and not a considered rejection.

I have never stated that anyone is hardwired to be an atheist. What you call passive acceptance, I call a mental process. If you want to argue that atheism comes from something other than a mental process, I would like to know from where.

This won't change no matter how you try to word it, or insist that they are thinking differently than they are telling you they think.

My point exactly. No matter how you want to word it: "passive", "unconcious", "instinctive", "by default", all are mental processes. Humans need brains to do absolutely anything. (well, unless you are helped by an external machine and even then, once someone's is brain dead, most everyone considers that person dead)

It is insulting to atheists to tell them that really, some of them just don't realise that they believe, that they are actually in some kind of ignorance or denial about what you see as the obvious existence of god.

It may very well be insulting. The fact of the matter is that I have said no such thing, or implied it in any shape or form.

You need to stop measuring people against your own personal cultural, religious and educational background.

In this thread the only background that is relevant is the one that relates to it subject. I can't let it go because I won't accept false accusations. I don't want to accept precedents that I willfully "insult" or "almost insult" anyone here. I don't and won't accept any such thing.

Your hypothesis supposes that atheists share common traits, and then suggests further that this might be down to brain function that differs from the brain functions of religious people. You have ignored the very obvious fact that you can't even find commonality among a relatively small group here on this forum, as well as being resistent to identifying atheists in the same manner by which many atheists will identify themselves. For about 10 pages you resisted the rather obvious point that you want to measure this commonality against nothing substantive.

But yours a matter of opinion and an appeal to the masses. This is not the way to show a poor hypothesis. You would have to show that if I would not be able to identify atheists and that would absurd. It would be because I'm not the first person who would survey atheists. You would have to nullify all data concerning atheists. If you can show me how all data on atheists is invalid.

You can't identify your target group and you don't seem to grasp the complexities of surveying and response analysis. You haven't even started talking about the questions yet!

Ah, but now you are talking about my expertise in experiment construction. That is something else.

This may have been a mental excercise to you and never intended to come to fruition as an actual real-world project. Fair enough. My hope is that you will at least come away from this thread wth consideration for some of the information being given to you. You don't have to agree with it, or even understand it, but you really need to stop denying it. Atheists understand atheism a hell of a lot better than you do, and you should show some respect for their input.

I'm not denying anything. And I have shown respect for their opinions. This does not mean I'm going to accept and agree or not forcefully defend my position.

 

[CMacDady]

Well, being an atheist I do admit this hypothesis is insulting. I mean you are looking for common traits in atheists, and if they differ from the general population, then making the possible connection to a difference in brain function. While you have said that you are not bent on finding anything incriminating against atheist and have admitted there may be good things, it still doesn't get around the fact that an experiment like this opens up a can of worms.

Someone, not like you who does have misgivings towards atheists, could take a look at this study see that atheists might be different than everyone else and stigmatize them. As long as atheists could be called different it may be 'unnatural' to be an atheist.

Furthermore, many atheists here have tried to show how particular they are about the definition of atheism. Since you do not agree with their definitions, you may potentially conduct this survey using a definition different than what others hold true. This could cause biases in the group you survey, and produce biased results. A biased result on something so controversial could be dangerous since you have found a trait in your definition of atheist and not the entire population that calls themselves atheist. This is probably why the infant issue was argued to such an extent.

 

[Christian]

Well, being an atheist I do admit this hypothesis is insulting.

That is unfortunate, but you have to understand this comes with the territory. Many ideas, theories and facts are insulting to different people.

http://www.themedguru.com/20100724/...ne-deadlier-forms-breast-cancer-86138045.html

I mean you are looking for common traits in atheists, and if they differ from the general population, then making the possible connection to a difference in brain function. While you have said that you are not bent on finding anything incriminating against atheist and have admitted there may be good things, it still doesn't get around the fact that an experiment like this opens up a can of worms.

I"ll take for granted we're aware we talking in hypothetical. In that understanding, we can't stop seeking the truth because it might open a can of worms.

Someone, not like you who does have misgivings towards atheists, could take a look at this study see that atheists might be different than everyone else and stigmatize them. As long as atheists could be called different it may be 'unnatural' to be an atheist.

People don't need studies to be bigots. Science will lead to where it will.

Furthermore, many atheists here have tried to show how particular they are about the definition of atheism. Since you do not agree with their definitions, you may potentially conduct this survey using a definition different than what others hold true.

Atheist here want to subscribe to an obscure definition put forth by George H. Smith who defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" This has been refuted by Ernest Nagel who rejects Smith's definition of atheism. as merely "absence of theism". He says that only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject.

The etymological evidence points to a clear definition of explicit atheism.

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

This could cause biases in the group you survey, and produce biased results. A biased result on something so controversial could be dangerous since you have found a trait in your definition of atheist and not the entire population that calls themselves atheist. This is probably why the infant issue was argued to such an extent.

The only requirement to consider someone as atheist is that they fit the definition of explicit atheist. I have not found one single adult ever who fits the definition of implicit atheist. No infants participates in this type of complex surveys.

 

[CMacDady]

That is unfortunate, but you have to understand this comes with the territory. Many ideas, theories and facts are insulting to different people.

http://www.themedguru.com/20100724/...ne-deadlier-forms-breast-cancer-86138045.html

Ah. I did not know that you were a black woman, who took offense to that study.

Atheist here want to subscribe to an obscure definition put forth by George H. Smith who defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" This has been refuted by Ernest Nagel who rejects Smith's definition of atheism. as merely "absence of theism". He says that only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

They wanted to show you that the definition of an atheist is with the absence of belief that any deities exist without a conscious rejection of it, as well as one that has a conscious rejection of it. Only to deny that portion of the definition would be incorrect. They were not solely subscribing to the idea that there is not any conscious rejection, but that it can exist.