How does an atheist define the ego?

[SezMe]

Is there a "banging your head against the wall" smiley?

Sorely needed in this thread, that's for sure.

 

[SezMe]

Being a atheist (at least in the US) can have many consequences. I have posted a link on discrimination against atheists.

How others react to atheists describes one aspect of their behavior but does not go toward defining any aspect of ours.

To consider that similar experiences (based on the fact that one is an atheist) can lead to similar traits. May not be the case, but it is something to consider.

It has been considered ... and rejected with some pretty good arguments. Why is it still on the table for you?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I know what you are saying, that atheism is only and only a description of someone who does not believe in deities and nothing more. I do undestand that that is the definition, but one can infer more common traits from someone who is an atheist. No, I have not conducted statistically relevant surveys that can point to those common traits. I just suspect it. It is a guess.

I would have to say that it's not a very good guess. There is no body of atheist dogma, no atheist articles of faith, no master Book of Atheism, no atheist catechism, no atheist church, no atheist religion, no body of atheist teaching from which all atheists draw their beliefs, in fact it's impossible to describe atheists as a group other than "none of the above". The stamp collector analogy is perhaps overused, but - modifying it slightly - there are stamp collectors, coin collectors, antique furniture collectors, art collectors, collectors of all sorts of artefacts or natural objects; what are the common features of people who collect none of these things, other than that they collect nothing? As a general principle, looking for "the atheist perspective" on any question is futile; there ain't no such animal.

Dave

 

[Dancing David]

Wouldn't that get a little confusing? Having a bruised ego doesn't sound qualitatively the same as a bruised body.

Maybe you could show me an ego and show me how it is bruised.

The is a metaphor, simile or analogy. Why not call it what it is? "Hurt feelings", "feelings of rejection", etc...

 

[Dancing David]

So ego is not a word you use? I haven't define it. I'm asking if atheists have a definition for it. My definition of ego is mediocre at best. I use the term loosely and looking for a more solid understand of the term. I'm confident the term does exist.

Ego has common usage, ego has bad usage by Freud, neither really means anything that can't be explained more easily/

 

[Dancing David]

That is a valid question. The ego seems to be a topic related to human development and improvement. As many have posted, the use relates to the quality of the person. I was hoping to catch good observations for my use. If atheists have distinguished that gods don't exists (and they perceive this to be a good thing) then insight on the ego must be interesting too.

So far, it doesn't seem to be something special to consider for personal development. But, I hope you can see pattern of consensus among atheists here, along these lines.

I think we need to state that you are probably more interested in materialism than atheism.

The ego is a word in common usage, it is the sense of 'self' that develops from biological processes and social reinforcement.

 

[Geezer]

I can refine the analogy to entreprenuers. You are missing my point. Your second point does not follow. Your third point is pure speculation just to refute me.

I don't know if links are allowed anymore. Here is one that shows what I mean. I don't think my point is that far off as to be refuted like this. I may be wrong as I said before, but I think it is a valid point to consider atheism a process that makes people have common traits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

I think you are missing the point, Ladewig and others are trying to show you that your reasoning is similar to the following conversation.

Man1:"Have you been to New York?"
Man2:"No"
Man1:"Oh, do you know my sister then? She hasn't been to New York either."

 

[Pup]

Do you have any citations for this? I've never heard theists use the term "ego" in any religious way. Do you have any evidence that ego is an important concept to most theists? Can you give a definition of ego that is commonly used by theists that wouldn't fly with an atheist?

The term may not be important to most atheists, but my contention is that it's not important to most theists either. My evidence is purely based on personal experience, so I'd like to know how your experiences led you to a different conclusion.

Same here. Even when theists talk about humility, I don't usually hear them use the term "ego." The jargon seems to be pride vs humility, rather than ego vs. humility.

 

[Skeeve]

I think you are missing the point, Ladewig and others are trying to show you that your reasoning is similar to the following conversation.

Man1:"Have you been to New York?"
Man2:"No"
Man1:"Oh, do you know my sister then? She hasn't been to New York either."

Exactly. You can't ask an atheist or group of atheists how they think/feel and expect to get an answer that speaks for all atheists.

The OP is pointless. And trying to answer the OP is a waste of time.

 

[Christian]

I would have to say that it's not a very good guess. There is no body of atheist dogma, no atheist articles of faith, no master Book of Atheism, no atheist catechism, no atheist church, no atheist religion, no body of atheist teaching from which all atheists draw their beliefs, in fact it's impossible to describe atheists as a group other than "none of the above". The stamp collector analogy is perhaps overused, but - modifying it slightly - there are stamp collectors, coin collectors, antique furniture collectors, art collectors, collectors of all sorts of artefacts or natural objects; what are the common features of people who collect none of these things, other than that they collect nothing? As a general principle, looking for "the atheist perspective" on any question is futile; there ain't no such animal.

Dave

I understand the general consensus here is that atheists have no other trait in common. I also understand that this is why most here consider the question (as expressed) to have not relevance (merit?).

I'm not ready to accept that. I don't believe anyone has presented more than opinions on the matter as well (let's not get into the burden of proof thing). I know it is a guess. Fine, not a very good guess. That's ok, I can understand that. Not all good guesses turn out to be correct, not all bad guess turn out to be wrong.

To be practical, on future questions or comments on this board, I will drop the "the atheist perspective" part of the question and just plainly ask or comment. Too much energy has been spent on what was not important to me. Implicit in the answers, I will get the atheist perspective. (Funny how most atheists here agree on many things, like this issue and don't seem to notice the consensus)

 

[Mirrorglass]

The point, my dear, is that while we may have consensus on many things - for example, we all (very roughly) agree what 'atheist' means, how many sides there are on a triangle and that the word 'ego' has no single definition - there is no causal link between our atheism and that consensus.

That is, we don't reach a consensus because we're atheists, but for other, unrelated reasons.

A main one among them, of course, being that most of us are skeptics. And forgive me if I'm wrong, here, but it seems to me you're not entirely grasping the fact that 'atheist' and 'skeptic' are not synonyms.

The JREF forum is not an atheist forum, although it could be called a skeptic forum. As such, it may give a fair sample of skeptic opinions, but trying to map atheist opinions here is just bad science. If you had made the opening question 'how does a skeptic define the ego', it would have had a point to it.

But of course, even then the question about the ego would be too ill-defined to give you anything useful.

 

[slingblade]

I understand the general consensus here is that atheists have no other trait in common.

Not from any of us, it isn't. None of us said that.

I also understand that this is why most here consider the question (as expressed) to have not relevance (merit?).

None of us said that, either.

I'm not ready to accept that.

Good, I guess, since you still don't appear to get what is being said.

I don't believe anyone has presented more than opinions on the matter as well (let's not get into the burden of proof thing). I know it is a guess. Fine, not a very good guess. That's ok, I can understand that. Not all good guesses turn out to be correct, not all bad guess turn out to be wrong.

Oh, there's some guessing going on, all right. I just don't think it's the same guessing you think it is.

To be practical, on future questions or comments on this board, I will drop the "the atheist perspective" part of the question and just plainly ask or comment. Too much energy has been spent on what was not important to me. Implicit in the answers, I will get the atheist perspective. (Funny how most atheists here agree on many things, like this issue and don't seem to notice the consensus)

Good grief. Can I get a facepalm, here? Anyone?

 

[Pup]

To be practical, on future questions or comments on this board, I will drop the "the atheist perspective" part of the question and just plainly ask or comment. Too much energy has been spent on what was not important to me. Implicit in the answers, I will get the atheist perspective. (Funny how most atheists here agree on many things, like this issue and don't seem to notice the consensus)

Could you give some evidence to answer the question Sun Goddess asked in post 120, in reference to your statement: "To most theist it [ego] seems to be an important concept, specially in relation to well being."

You seem to believe that theists generally agree on the meaning and importance of "ego" and that their opinion is different from the opinions presented here by atheists, but in my experience, that's not true.

Before you can claim that atheists have a different perspective, you need to show what the theist perspective is, and that it's different from the perspective of most atheists.

 

[Christian]

The point, my dear, is that while we may have consensus on many things - for example, we all (very roughly) agree what 'atheist' means, how many sides there are on a triangle and that the word 'ego' has no single definition - there is no causal link between our atheism and that consensus.

This is your position. I don't know this. There is this promotion of the idea that being an atheist brings no inference on how a person thinks. This might be true, I don´t know. I want to explore this idea, however poor it might be.

That is, we don't reach a consensus because we're atheists, but for other, unrelated reasons.

I see a clear cut argument relating to some subjects and terms (best fiction writers, food). I'm not sure about other subjects, ego being one of them.

A main one among them, of course, being that most of us are skeptics. And forgive me if I'm wrong, here, but it seems to me you're not entirely grasping the fact that 'atheist' and 'skeptic' are not synonyms.

I "grasp" the distinction. And you bring up something good there. There could be a correlation between being a skeptic and an atheist. In which direction the correlation runs would be interesting to pursue. One could find that the majority of atheists are skeptics and that would be a common trait. Again, just speculating here.

The JREF forum is not an atheist forum, although it could be called a skeptic forum. As such, it may give a fair sample of skeptic opinions, but trying to map atheist opinions here is just bad science. If you had made the opening question 'how does a skeptic define the ego', it would have had a point to it.

It would very interesting to know how many atheists here consider themselves skeptics. That would be a little nice survey to show some sort common trait among a population of atheists.

But of course, even then the question about the ego would be too ill-defined to give you anything useful.

Usefulness is subjective, but you express this like it were something you can grade or measure for me.

 

[Christian]

Could you give some evidence to answer the question Sun Goddess asked in post 120, in reference to your statement: "To most theist it [ego] seems to be an important concept, specially in relation to well being."

You seem to believe that theists generally agree on the meaning and importance of "ego" and that their opinion is different from the opinions presented here by atheists, but in my experience, that's not true.

Before you can claim that atheists have a different perspective, you need to show what the theist perspective is, and that it's different from the perspective of most atheists.

This is a simple inference and I used the word "seems" from simple observation. The Totte books and others have been sold by the millions over the years. The US population is predominantly theist, so that is how the comment comes about. It is speculation on my part, and I understand that would not prove anything. This is why I used a weak statement. Sure, 10 or more people can scan and scrutinize every sentence to find inconsistencies or mistakes. You will find plenty. If this is what you wish to do, fine. But I would urge you to consider that you could be missing what I'm trying to say (of course, assuming you have any interest in what I'm trying to say)

 

[Fiona]

This is a question I also asked you, Christian. It is not my experience that the term or concept "ego" is used much by theists: nor that it is used differently from the way atheists use it. Sun Countess and Pup concur. So what makes you think this is true?

 

[slingblade]

This is a question I also asked you, Christian. It is not my experience that the term or concept "ego" is used much by theists: nor that it is used differently from the way atheists use it. Sun Countess and Pup concur. So what makes you think this is true?

I concur as well. I don't detect any manner in which my former theism or my current atheism has shaped, altered, or informed my concept of "ego." I don't know that I have ever had more than an elementary notion of the concept. It isn't something that's come up much, if at all.

I do hold concepts which my atheism has informed, and which are now different from the way I considered them as a theist. But the concept of "ego," specifically, is not one of them. I frankly never gave it any thought, and now that I am doing so, I still see no way in which this concept has altered for me based on my belief in god(s) or the lack thereof.

I would also like to know if theists have some common concept of "ego" that an atheist might not share, as a result of said theism or atheism. And having been a theist and never encountered such, I'd be interested in hearing how one might know this.

 

[Christian]

This is a question I also asked you, Christian. It is not my experience that the term or concept "ego" is used much by theists: nor that it is used differently from the way atheists use it. Sun Countess and Pup concur. So what makes you think this is true?

I think it is. I think it used to describe that "entity" associated with worth. I mentioned the bruised ego, others the big ego. I think it is used much more by theists because it has the same quality as soul (in the same category).

 

[Jeff Corey]

I think it is. I think it used to describe that "entity" associated with worth. I mentioned the bruised ego, others the big ego. I think it is used much more by theists because it has the same quality as soul (in the same category).

The category of imaginary things, I would guess.

 

[Christian]

The category of imaginary things, I would guess.

Correct.