Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[fromdownunder]

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".

Well, my point is "I lack a belief in gods", all of them. And I have never heard of your George H Smith before I read this post. I must say I have never heard of Ernest Negel either.

How about coming down and joining the real world, where people do what they do regardless of what you think that they do. Which has been your problem from the outset.

Here is an anecdote of an event I attended a few years back, where one of my co-workers commented of a new senior Manager:

"He's an Academic Bastard"

it was overheard by the new Boss, and his response was:

"I might be a Bastard, but I'm not an Academic"

There is a real world out here. Try joining it.

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

No, we don't need a control group of atheists.

I never said that you needed a control group of atheists. Please learn to read.

We need compiled statisctics of the general population (atheists and non-atheists)

Which is what I was suggesting to you all along, and you continually said you did not want to do this. You specifically wanted to exclude theists from your Survey and stated or inferred as much. Have you even got a clue what you are talking about?

The average of the general population will be compared after common traits are found.

Whom will be compared with whom after what common traits about what have been found? What does this statement even mean?

For somebody who appears to pride themself on the Scientific method, polling methods, and statistical data gathering and analysis, I have to say that this word salad leaves me with the feeling that you are incapable of even organising a six year olds birthday party.

...and I really thought a few posts ago that we were making progress here.

Norm

 

[Robin]

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".

Never heard of either of the gentlemen and I suspect that few here have.

So it is most unlikely that either of them is a source for the definitions we use about atheism.

Why are you so het up about this?

Why do you have a problem with the fact that if someone describes himself or herself as being an atheist then he or she should be the one to decide what it means?

It is then OK for you to say "that is not what I mean by atheism". So there is a disagreement on the definition of a word.

So what?

Is there a stone tablet somewhere that says what the word must mean?

No. Words often have differing meanings. It is not a biggie. Let's just build a bridge and get over it.

 

[PixyMisa]

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"

I wouldn't consider that definition to be in any way obscure. Perhaps among the particularly ill-educated...

This has been refuted by Ernest Nagel who rejects Smith's definition of atheism. as merely "absence of theism".

With all respect to the late Prof. Nagel, atheism: without theism. It's what the word means.

 

[Sun Countess]

Just for fun, Christian, here is a short list of deities, from among the thousands "known" to mankind:

Apollo
Ares
Baal
Cthulu
Ganesh
Loki
Odin
Ra
Thor
Vishnu
Zeus


Quick - how did you classify them? Are they real or imaginary? What mental processes did you go through at some point in your life that allowed you to classify them that way?

Here's a slightly altered list of deities:

Apollo
Ares
Baal
Cthulu
Ganesh
Loki
Odin
Ra
Thor
Vishnu
Yahweh
Zeus


How did you classify that list? Are those gods real or imaginary? How did you learn which gods to accept and which to reject? I had a very easy time classifying both lists, because I understand that throughout history and across cultures, many people have used fictional god explanations where they needed answers to questions they had, and they couldn't find any. If you had to mentally remove one from the second list and say to yourself, "Well.....MOST deities have been imaginary but there is one true god who is really really real," then, frankly, I get offended when you tell me that I'm the one going through the tougher thought processes. My mental process for categorizing gods is quick and easy, and learned in childhood. What surprises me is that adults who grew up in a modern western culture still have to make a quick scan of a list to see if the gods are all fake ones, or if the "real" one is on it.

We're not living in some ancient tribe where the all-knowing all-seeing god, Bizzybozo created us all, where he keeps the sun rising, and the crops and people healthy, where he smites you if you don't offer up the proper sacrifices. If I grew up in a culture where Bizzybozo was used to explain everything, and I learned about him from every single person I knew, I may not be an atheist. I don't know because I didn't grow up in that culture.

Instead, I grew up in a culture where gods could easily be classified: They're works of fiction. It's easy to see that none of them are real, because there have yet to be two completely disparate cultures who have had the same god beliefs handed down to them by any real god. Because if there was a real god, he wouldn't want one small isolated group to know that he existed, while he let other people in far-reaching tribes offer up sacrifices to Bizzybozo or Cthulu.

So I would posit that there's something very suspect about the brains of theists in modern western civilizations, who have to go through an "extra step" of classifying any given deity, because they have to check it against a list of real versus imaginary.

 

[chillzero]

CMacDady addressed the post in much the same way I intended to (thank you!)

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.

Right. So, what mental process did you go through to not consider cooking lasagne in the last 5 minutes?

 

[Pup]

Apollo
Ares
Baal
Cthulu
Ganesh
Loki
Odin
Ra
Thor
Vishnu
Yahweh
Zeus

Just as a quirky side-note, when I read the list and quickly categorized them, Cthulu stood out. He, along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Force, and similar things, went in the bucket of "dieties that cultures haven't really worshipped" compared to the rest, who went in the bucket, "dieties that people really worship(ped)."

I expect that in a few centuries, Cthulu, the FSM, the Force, and a host of others may shift into the other category, if they aren't already headed that way.

 

[Christian]

Well, my point is "I lack a belief in gods", all of them. And I have never heard of your George H Smith before I read this post. I must say I have never heard of Ernest Negel either.

How about coming down and joining the real world, where people do what they do regardless of what you think that they do. Which has been your problem from the outset.

Here is an anecdote of an event I attended a few years back, where one of my co-workers commented of a new senior Manager:

"He's an Academic Bastard"

it was overheard by the new Boss, and his response was:

"I might be a Bastard, but I'm not an Academic"

There is a real world out here. Try joining it.

Norm

Do you understand the distinction between implicit and explicit?

 

[Christian]

I never said that you needed a control group of atheists. Please learn to read.

That was a mistake, I meant theists. Yes, and sorry, at my level of intelligence I still make these kinds of mystakes.

Which is what I was suggesting to you all along, and you continually said you did not want to do this. You specifically wanted to exclude theists from your Survey and stated or inferred as much. Have you even got a clue what you are talking about?

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt that we are having an honest discussion. It is hard for me to do this because you keep misrepresenting my position. Let me repeat my position, yet again. Theist are neither part of the study group or part of the control group. They play no part in the particular survey (the actual test survey). The data of the averages of the whole population (which me assume we already have because this has already been done, {I gave the most obvious example IQ tests. We don't need to test theists in the survey for IQ}) will be used at the end of the test, to compare results with the general population. The control group is there to show that the "atheist" clasification is meaningful.

Whom will be compared with whom after what common traits about what have been found? What does this statement even mean?

Do I need to explain it again?

For somebody who appears to pride themself on the Scientific method, polling methods, and statistical data gathering and analysis, I have to say that this word salad leaves me with the feeling that you are incapable of even organising a six year olds birthday party.

Do you see that ad hominens add nothing to the discussion? Have you noticed that not once I'ved used ad hominens on anyone here?

I don't understand where this intellectual elitism comes from (how it is justified). Why attacking a poster's intelligence is a preferred method.

 

[Christian]

Never heard of either of the gentlemen and I suspect that few here have.

So it is most unlikely that either of them is a source for the definitions we use about atheism.

Why are you so het up about this?

Robin don't do that. That is not fair. If you read the related posts, you will see I have only defended the position I hold. Posters continue to challenge the definition and I continue to defend my position. The rebuttals I get are on the lines "I'm an atheist, I know better than you." or "Most everyone here disagrees with you, so you are wrong"

Most if not all theoretical arguments have been presented by me. I have explained who the brain functions, I have introduced the terms implicit-explicit, I have argued that the meaning put forth by atheist is useless for any survey. I have explain the reason why it is necessary to have a minimun requirement of definition for any type of cognitive survey. Some arguments haven't even been addressed or refuted properly. When one person affirms and you have a multitud of people picking and choosing what sentence or phrase to attack, it is not dificult to destroy the one.

Why do you have a problem with the fact that if someone describes himself or herself as being an atheist then he or she should be the one to decide what it means?

I have no problem with this. The huge problem is dismantly all the straw men erected. Plese read your question. (Probably without knowing) You have erected the straw man that I want to impose a definition or won't accept a defintion as given by someone else. This is not the case.

What I'm saying is that that definition is useless for the test because we wouldn't be able to identify the study group. Poster here have already concluded that this type of survey is useless, meaningless, that atheists have nothing in common. My position is that that is a valid train of thought. But I disagree that it should not be tested. Why not test it? Why would we shy away from testing that idea?

It is then OK for you to say "that is not what I mean by atheism". So there is a disagreement on the definition of a word.

That is exactly my position. And I have said over and over that both definition are valid. But I can't use one of them. I can only use the one that pertains to explicit atheism.

 

[Christian]

I wouldn't consider that definition to be in any way obscure. Perhaps among the particularly ill-educated...

Ok, lets do an experiment. Show me one single adult who is an implicit atheist. I have not met one single adult who is an implicit atheist.

With all respect to the late Prof. Nagel, atheism: without theism. It's what the word means.

Correct. You are just omitting the mental process involved in the whole without theism thing.

 

[Christian]

Just for fun, Christian, here is a short list of deities, from among the thousands "known" to mankind:

Apollo
Ares
Baal
Cthulu
Ganesh
Loki
Odin
Ra
Thor
Vishnu
Zeus


Quick - how did you classify them? Are they real or imaginary? What mental processes did you go through at some point in your life that allowed you to classify them that way?

Here's a slightly altered list of deities:

Apollo
Ares
Baal
Cthulu
Ganesh
Loki
Odin
Ra
Thor
Vishnu
Yahweh
Zeus


How did you classify that list?

It is irrelevant how I classify the list. I can predict in no uncertain terms how all atheist will classify the list. You don't even have to list any names. The mental process is immediate. I can also predict how a theist would approach the task.

My mental process for categorizing gods is quick and easy, and learned in childhood.

Do you see that I can predict when in childhood you were able to categorize gods? Do you see that if you tell me at 2 years old you had already been able to do this, I would be suspicious of your claim?

So I would posit that there's something very suspect about the brains of theists in modern western civilizations, who have to go through an "extra step" of classifying any given deity, because they have to check it against a list of real versus imaginary.

Have you read the material that describes why and how the brain is predisposed to believing in gods and the supernatural?

 

[Christian]

Right. So, what mental process did you go through to not consider cooking lasagne in the last 5 minutes?

I searched my memory, and got the response that I had indeed not considered cooking lasagne in the last 5 minutes (in the last 5 minutes, starting from where I read the question, not starting when you wrote it, or when you thought of the question).

 

[Agatha]

Ok, lets do an experiment. Show me one single adult who is an implicit atheist. I have not met one single adult who is an implicit atheist.

Did you look at the book to which Hokulele linked earlier, about the Pirahã? These people have no concept of deities; they are implicit atheists.

 

[Christian]

Did you look at the book to which Hokulele linked earlier, about the Pirahã? These people have no concept of deities; they are implicit atheists.

From this link:

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

While the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god they do believe in spirits and that they can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people. Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.

These people seem to be theists. The story very consistent on how the brain is predisposed to the supernatural. Human's inference system explains the why of religion and our proneness to the supernatural.

 

[chillzero]

I searched my memory, and got the response that I had indeed not considered cooking lasagne in the last 5 minutes (in the last 5 minutes, starting from where I read the question, not starting when you wrote it, or when you thought of the question).

You searched your memory when I asked you about it. Beforehand it was a passive non-consideration, non-cooking non-event.

Further, when I did ask you about it, this process you went through did not instantly make you a rejector of lasagne. It was still a passive non-consideration of a nothing that did not affect your life in any way negatively or positively. It just was not.

 

[Agatha]

They are not theists; they do not believe in gods or supreme spirits. You understand their spirit-belief as equivalent to a god belief, but it seems (from the book, which is well worth reading) that their belief in spirits is more that everything has a soul. They don't worship or venerate the spirits in which they do believe.

If you redefine gods to include the disembodied souls of clouds and trees, then they would be theists. But if you start redefining everything as gods, then you are re-categorising people into the wrong boxes in order to fit your prior conclusion. Some might suggest that this is not the first time this has happened on this thread.

 

[Christian]

You searched your memory when I asked you about it. Beforehand it was a passive non-consideration, non-cooking non-event.

Now, this is the type of discussion that goes to the heart of the matter. My definition of atheism only requires that at some point the question was asked and a decision was made. That is called explicit atheism. That is the only requirement for the survey. And it should be an obvious requirement (you have to check the atheist box). That you want to include implicit atheists in the survey for it to be valid makes no sense.

Further, when I did ask you about it, this process you went through did not instantly make you a rejector of lasagne. It was still a passive non-consideration of a nothing that did not affect your life in any way negatively or positively. It just was not.

Ah, put then the quality of the question is not the same as asking "do you believe in lasagne?".

 

[Christian]

They are not theists; they do not believe in gods or supreme spirits. You understand their spirit-belief as equivalent to a god belief, but it seems (from the book, which is well worth reading) that their belief in spirits is more that everything has a soul. They don't worship or venerate the spirits in which they do believe.

If you redefine gods to include the disembodied souls of clouds and trees, then they would be theists. But if you start redefining everything as gods, then you are re-categorising people into the wrong boxes in order to fit your prior conclusion. Some might suggest that this is not the first time this has happened on this thread.

Ok, let's settle the matter. What is your definiton of a deity?

 

[Agatha]

Tempting though it is to send this discussion into a recursive spiral and say "something in which I don't believe", I think any of these definitions will do:

Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force ( http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=deity )

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often called in some religions as a God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity )

The essential nature of a god, divinity; A powerful entity that possesses numerous miraculous powers (e.g. a god or goddess) ( en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Deity )

Do you take issue with any of these? Is there another definition you'd prefer to use?

None of these match the spirits in which the Piraha believe.