Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

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.

Those defintions are fine. You must understand that those definition come with the sophistication of modern society. They include subtleties that may not be in the language of a particular tribal setup.

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.

From that account one can infer that the Pirahã believe in imaginary beings who command power and can hurt them. The distinguish the beings as different from other Pirahã because these beings live above the clouds, and so forth.

You can reject that Xigagaí is a deity because it is not worshiped or because some part of definition does not quite fit. And I would have to agree with you solely based on those strict technical grounds. But, there something that tells me that I can't call the Pirahã atheists because they believe in imaginary people that almost are like deities. And that almost is son close that it would not be quite right for me to call them atheists.

With a little more sophistication (when they acquire more language distinctions and more culture) Xigagaí will be a full deity, by our standards.

 

[Hokulele]

I would also note that the discussion is skirting on the edges of a translation fallacy. I know I have mentioned this many times before, but the Japanese term kami, the Hawai'ian term aumakua (or akua), and the English term god are used as translations of each other, but they are actually describing slightly different concepts in each case. For example, must a god be bound by causality?

 

[Hokulele]

With a little more sophistication (when they acquire more language distinctions and more culture) Xigagaí will be a full deity, by our standards.

That is the most elitist, patronizing, and discriminatory comment I have yet seen in this thread.

 

[Agatha]

With a little more sophistication (when they acquire more language distinctions and more culture) Xigagaí will be a full deity, by our standards.

Say what? They'll come to theism when they get a bit of education and learn some Western values? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I infer from this that you feel they are only unbelievers because they haven't received the 'Good News'.

ETA Or, what Hokulele said. My typing is slow.

 

[Christian]

That is the most elitist, patronizing, and discriminatory comment I have yet seen in this thread.

Why? I don't get it. I specifically used the terms sophistication because algebra is more sophisticated that arithmetic, English has many more words than Spanish, thus richer in amount and with more distinctions, and the Mexican culture is bigger than the Pirahã. These are all factual observations, they are quantitative descriptions, not qualitative. Nothing elitist, patronizing or discriminatory about them.

 

[Christian]

Say what? They'll come to theism when they get a bit of education and learn some Western values? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I infer from this that you feel they are only unbelievers because they haven't received the 'Good News'.

ETA Or, what Hokulele said. My typing is slow.

No, this is not what I mean. I said they were theists. This was my claim. What I mean is that they have less words than we do, so they can't express the level of sophication we have in these definitions. That a conclusion of atheism would come from imcomplete information because their language is not as sophisticated (as complex) as ours. We can't query them to the level of subtleties or precision you would want to satisfy your defintion of deity.

 

[Hokulele]

Why? I don't get it. I specifically used the terms sophistication because algebra is more sophisticated that arithmetic, English has many more words than Spanish, thus richer in amount and with more distinctions, and the Mexican culture is bigger than the Pirahã. These are all factual observations, they are quantitative descriptions, not qualitative. Nothing elitist, patronizing or discriminatory about them.

"Sophisticated" and "richer" are not objective terms when it comes to things such as language and culture. They certainly imply a value judgement. In addition, you seem to be arguing that the "better" the culture, the more likely people are to be theists (by your definition of theism). That is an assumption, and a patronizing one at that. You might as well just call them underdeveloped savages who will someday learn to recognize proper gods.

Did you ever consider that their language and culture may be perfectly adapted to their circumstances and there may be no need for anything "more sophisticated"? This whole diversion perfectly demonstrates that the commonalities you are looking for are cultural, not biological.

 

[Christian]

"Sophisticated" and "richer" are not objective terms when it comes to things such as language and culture.

For me they are. And now I'm telling you straight out what I meant. I meant to use the terms quantitatively. We may disagree on the appropriateness of those terms in language and culture. What I will not accept is you telling me want I meant.

They certainly imply a value judgement.

The only value judgement (not implied but explicit) is quantitative. 10 is more than 20, period.

In addition, you seem to be arguing that the "better" the culture, the more likely people are to be theists (by your definition of theism). That is an assumption, and a patronizing one at that. You might as well just call them underdeveloped savages who will someday learn to recognize proper gods.

Instead of arguing about what I seem to be implying, I will tell you straight out, I would never take that position. I believe it to be absurd and disregard any interpretation or similar to the effect.

Did you ever consider that their language and culture may be perfectly adapted to their circumstances and there may be no need for anything "more sophisticated"? This whole diversion perfectly demonstrates that the commonalities you are looking for are cultural, not biological.

It's very easy to win arguments by erecting the most henious straw man and then beating it with a vengance. Why do I even have to defend myself of this ridicuous positions you ascribe to me?

Again, I will tell you straight out, I would never take that position. I believe it to be absurd and disregard any interpretation or similar to the effect.

 

[Hokulele]

For me they are. And now I'm telling you straight out what I meant. I meant to use the terms quantitatively. We may disagree on the appropriateness of those terms in language and culture. What I will not accept is you telling me want I meant.

The only value judgement (not implied but explicit) is quantitative. 10 is more than 20, period.

If your contention is that the best measure is quantitative, not qualitative, why would more words for things necessarily lead to common definitions of things such as "god"? Does have more musical instruments available in a culture necessarily lead to the same type of composition? Again, your definitions and selection methods seem to be made to support a conclusion drawn previously, not by the actual real-world usage.

 

[Sun Countess]

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.

Evasion duly noted.


It was not an irrelevant question at all. You keep going on and on about how atheists use different mental processes than theists do, yet you won't talk at all about the mental processes you use to classify deities. Are they real or imaginary? How do you approach the task? Why is an atheist's mental process different somehow? For most cultures, there is no looking at a list of various gods. They believe in the god or gods of their ancestors, and aren't able to see the same pattern that I can see. Yet you seem to think that your mental processes are common to all our human ancestors, who tend to believe in supernatural beings. I think that most people tend to believe in whatever their parents teach them. For me, that meant atheism. Yet you seem to think that means my mentally processing is warped. I'm not the one who has to scan a list of fictional characters to see if somebody accidentally put my special friend on it, because even though nobody has ever met him, you know he's really really real.

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?

I don't see any such thing. Where have you predicted when in childhood I could categorize gods? I didn't have a separate category for them, because my parents told me that they belonged in a category I already understood: fictional characters. When did you learn how to categorize gods? What mental hoops did you have to learn to jump through in order to place them into two separate categories? Did you ever worry that maybe Zeus or Odin were real?

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

So what? Obviously that's true. But most people have been rasied in families and in socieities, so we don't have 6 billion different supernatural belief systems. Most people believe whatever their parents tell them. Some convert away from the religious beliefs that were handed down from their families, but you don't want to look at all those people, just the weirdo atheists, no matter what they were raised to believe.

I'd also like to think that as societies become better educated that we can break away from our old-fashioned superstitions. I can't even imagine the contortions I would have to put my poor brain through to try to explain to space aliens that Zeus and Odin and Loki are imaginary, but Yahweh is real.



Finally, how far in advance does somebody have to book an appointment, so that you can tell them whether they're atheists or theists? It seems that so many of us are walking around without a clue.

 

[Christian]

If your contention is that the best measure is quantitative, not qualitative, why would more words for things necessarily lead to common definitions of things such as "god"? Does have more musical instruments available in a culture necessarily lead to the same type of composition? Again, your definitions and selection methods seem to be made to support a conclusion drawn previously, not by the actual real-world usage.

Let me try to simplify my position. To me, the Piraha are theist. The limited amount of words (compared to English) in their language doesn't allow them to "tell us" they are theist, as we have defined theism. If we allow them to use their languange as the only reference point, then we would conclude they are theist.

 

[chillzero]

You are still missing the point(s), and I'm beginning to suspect it's deliberate.

 

[Agatha]

Let me try to simplify my position. To me, the Piraha are theist. The limited amount of words (compared to English) in their language doesn't allow them to "tell us" they are theist, as we have defined theism. If we allow them to use their languange as the only reference point, then we would conclude they are theist.

Compared WITH. My mother beat the difference into me.

Whether you use the Piraha's language or English, they are not theist. They don't subscribe to any notions of beings who are worshipped, or who have supernatural powers, or who are above the humans in a hierarchy of existence. The spirits in which they believe are personifications of animals, and what we (in the west) would call inanimate objects. Their belief is that these objects have an animate dimension, a spirit, but the spirits are no more a deity than the tooth fairy or a pretty shape seen in the clouds. The spirits are on the same plane as the people; as the children and the adults.

I think it may be difficult, if you are immersed in a culture where gods are seen as real and important, to understand a culture where gods are, from the getgo, either seen and introduced as fictional, or never introduced at all.

I remember being about 17 or 18, in the 6th form at school, and being told that some people actually believed that gods were real. It was unbelievable to me. It was as if adults were telling me, in all seriousness, that they were totally convinced that there were faeries at the bottom of their gardens. Bear in mind that my grandfather was a Presbyterian minister, I'd grown up with a deep understanding of the liturgical calendar, and yet I still had no idea that people actually believed that kind of stuff. I still find it a bit weird when I encounter someone who believes in the bible stories as truth. The bible was always presented to me as no more 'truthy' than The Hobbit or Hans Christian Anderson. I didn't need to weigh up the likelihood of gods being real, because they never, ever, were more real than Gandalf, Thumbelina or The Little Mermaid.

 

[Christian]

Evasion duly noted.

Good.

It was not an irrelevant question at all. You keep going on and on about how atheists use different mental processes than theists do,

This is absolutely false. I have never asserted this, ever. What's going on here, why are all these straw men being erect in such continuous way?

yet you won't talk at all about the mental processes you use to classify deities. Are they real or imaginary? How do you approach the task?

This is irrelevant to the thread. I can tell you how any theist would approach the task.

Why is an atheist's mental process different somehow?

It is the same mental process: It is called categorization. All humans categorize. The difference, by definition, is that atheist put deities in the "fiction" folder and most people, by your stastictics, (92%) put some deities in the "real" folder.

For most cultures, there is no looking at a list of various gods. They believe in the god or gods of their ancestors, and aren't able to see the same pattern that I can see. Yet you seem to think that your mental processes are common to all our human ancestors, who tend to believe in supernatural beings.

Straw man, straw man, straw man. All humans categorize. All humans categorize. Some categories are universal, some are not. Tha categories real and fiction are universal. This is not a controversial claim. It is common knowledge.

I think that most people tend to believe in whatever their parents teach them. For me, that meant atheism.

This is not true. Humans come to believe by many means and many times regardless what their parents teach me. Put this is side point.

Yet you seem to think that means my mentally processing is warped.

Where do you get these outrageous straw man. How can I think such a thing? Your mental processing, I conclude is the normal mental processing of any fully functioning brain.

I'm not the one who has to scan a list of fictional characters to see if somebody accidentally put my special friend on it, because even though nobody has ever met him, you know he's really really real.

I conclude that the theist mental process is the normal mental processing of any fully functioning brain.

Where have you predicted when in childhood I could categorize gods?

At 1, a normal brain fully grasps object permanence.
At 2-7, a normal brain does not yet graps conservation
At 7-11, a normal brain acquires the ability to classify. It is from 7 and on that a normal child can express atheism and understand how he ir she is categorizing.

I didn't have a separate category for them, because my parents told me that they belonged in a category I already understood: fictional characters. When did you learn how to categorize gods?

Don't remember when, but it must have been after 7.

What mental hoops did you have to learn to jump through in order to place them into two separate categories? Did you ever worry that maybe Zeus or Odin were real?

Whether you see it or not. There are two categories here, real and fictional.

So what? Obviously that's true. But most people have been rasied in families and in socieities, so we don't have 6 billion different supernatural belief systems. Most people believe whatever their parents tell them. Some convert away from the religious beliefs that were handed down from their families, but you don't want to look at all those people, just the weirdo atheists, no matter what they were raised to believe.

Straw man, straw man, straw man. Where did you get all this?

I'd also like to think that as societies become better educated that we can break away from our old-fashioned superstitions.

I would speculate like this. A brain with certain qualities that is injected with more education breaks away from superstitions. A brain without those qualities injected with more education, does not break away fromo superstitions.

If you read that statement carefully, you will see where I'm coming from. You will understand what I'm looking for.

I can't even imagine the contortions I would have to put my poor brain through to try to explain to space aliens that Zeus and Odin and Loki are imaginary, but Yahweh is real.

Maybe you can't imagine it because your brain sees that in a different way. Many brains see no inconsistencies in that construction. Doesn't that give you something to think about?

The explanation that people are stupid or ignorant does not satisfy me. It might be the correct answer (I hope not), but I want to explore the idea that the reason why people differ in this way has something to do with the makeup of our brains and not just education, intelligence, culture, etc.

Finally, how far in advance does somebody have to book an appointment, so that you can tell them whether they're atheists or theists? It seems that so many of us are walking around without a clue.

You are an atheist by my definition.

 

[Christian]

Compared WITH. My mother beat the difference into me.

Sorry to hear that.

Whether you use the Piraha's language or English, they are not theist. They don't subscribe to any notions of beings who are worshipped, or who have supernatural powers, or who are above the humans in a hierarchy of existence. The spirits in which they believe are personifications of animals, and what we (in the west) would call inanimate objects. Their belief is that these objects have an animate dimension, a spirit, but the spirits are no more a deity than the tooth fairy or a pretty shape seen in the clouds. The spirits are on the same plane as the people; as the children and the adults.

What? So Piraha's live in the clouds? And any child can command people to stay out of the jungle. Piraha's can threat other with death and suffer no group repercutions? I simply don't agree. A pretty shape that can kill you? This does not seem to be an objective appreciation. Further, do you see that human can't imagine fictiuos characters without the qualities of the mind? All supernatural being have minds and display qualities that entity with a mind has. They get angry, the speak and have language, they command, give instructions. All these things presuppose a mind.

I think it may be difficult, if you are immersed in a culture where gods are seen as real and important, to understand a culture where gods are, from the getgo, either seen and introduced as fictional, or never introduced at all.

Any entity that can kill me will be important to me. I understand your position, that gods just one more unimportant category in many people minds. I don't want to argue that. You might be right, that is a side point. The main point is that I see no implicit atheist around.

Suppose I accept that the Piraha ara implicit atheists. Do you see the extreme example you have to come out with to show implicit atheists? So, I don't think a survey will be impared if we exclude the Piraha.

 

[Agatha]

I'm sorry you don't agree and can only (again) recommend that you read the book to which Hokulele and I linked.

Some Piraha spirits live in the clouds, some don't. By assuming that clouds=-heaven=Judeo-Christian hierachical god, you are imposing your understanding and your culture on people for whom "above the clouds" is not qualitatively different from "in the water" or "in the tree canopy" or "in a Tapeti's lair".

I think that given the global super-information-highway, it is very difficult to find cultures which have not been contaminated (I don't mean this in a pejorative sense) by Abrahamic proselytising. But if you could find them, and study their beliefs without making a basic assumption of deity-worship, you may find that theism is not their default position, even if it is yours.

 

[Christian]

I'm sorry you don't agree and can only (again) recommend that you read the book to which Hokulele and I linked.

Some Piraha spirits live in the clouds, some don't. By assuming that clouds=-heaven=Judeo-Christian hierachical god, you are imposing your understanding and your culture on people for whom "above the clouds" is not qualitatively different from "in the water" or "in the tree canopy" or "in a Tapeti's lair".

I think that given the global super-information-highway, it is very difficult to find cultures which have not been contaminated (I don't mean this in a pejorative sense) by Abrahamic proselytising. But if you could find them, and study their beliefs without making a basic assumption of deity-worship, you may find that theism is not their default position, even if it is yours.

Let's make a deal. I will read that book if you read this one

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Expl...6965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287186997&sr=8-1

Then, we will know where we are both coming from.

 

[Agatha]

Okily dokily, I've ordered it and it'll be with me on Tuesday.

 

[Christian]

Okily dokily, I've ordered it and it'll be with me on Tuesday.

Because I live on El Salvador, It will take me a little longer to get mine. I will order it right now.

 

[Christian]

Is it this one?

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sleep-Th...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287188012&sr=1-1

If it is, it is available in the Kindle edition and can get it immediately.