How does an atheist define the ego?

Well, I hope you learned something from all this. I know I didn't.
Which rarely happens here. I find that I get new info that I can use for teaching at least a couple of times a day here.
The Time Cube was especially helpful.
 
Last edited:
Christian said:
So asking for the definition of a term to a bunch of intelligent people is not valid?
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant. The concept of ego does not intersect with the concept of atheism if you construct a Venn diagram. Why would you ask atheists for a definition of ego? Why would you ask Catholics for a definition of automobile? WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE?
 
slingblade said:
Oh yes. I just think your point is mistaken. :)
Click to expand...

To make a hypothesis is not a mistake. You assert that atheists don't have anything but just that (not believing in deities). You might be right.

I think it is valid hypothesis to consider if atheist have more things in common. Being a atheist (at least in the US) can have many consequences. I have posted a link on discrimination against atheists.

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.
 
Very interesting question, Christian. I'm an agnostic atheist with non-theistic Buddhist tendencies. I would define the ego simply as "the chatty self-referential part of our awareness." We identify with it and get attached to it to varying degrees, but tend to completely forget about it when we're in dreamless sleep or deeply engrossed in an interesting project.
 
Jeff Corey said:
Well, I hope you learned something from all this. I know I didn't.
Which rarely happens here. I find that I get new info that I can use for teaching at least a couple of times a day here.
The Time Cube was especially helpful.
Click to expand...

I did. And a lot. Sorry to hear that you didn't. I continue to learn from the ground up and have ways to go. Love every moment.
 
Last edited:
Astreja said:
Very interesting question, Christian. I'm an agnostic atheist with non-theistic Buddhist tendencies. I would define the ego simply as "the chatty self-referential part of our awareness." We identify with it and get attached to it to varying degrees, but tend to completely forget about it when we're in dreamless sleep or deeply engrossed in an interesting project.
Click to expand...

Thanks Astreja. Needed that.
 
Sigh. You can show many common traits, but that still doesn't mean there's a definition for any word or concept that's specific to atheism.

I don't have any definition for "ego" that is in any way related to my non-belief in gods, that I know of. I don't hold a definition for "ego" that's specifically atheist in any way. In fact, if I want to define "ego," I go look at a dictionary, because it's not a concept I discuss often.

If there's an "atheist way of defining ego," I would have no clue what it could possibly be.
 
slingblade said:
Sigh. You can show many common traits, but that still doesn't mean there's a definition for any word or concept that's specific to atheism.

I don't have any definition for "ego" that is in any way related to my non-belief in gods, that I know of. I don't hold a definition for "ego" that's specifically atheist in any way. In fact, if I want to define "ego," I go look at a dictionary, because it's not a concept I discuss often.

If there's an "atheist way of defining ego," I would have no clue what it could possibly be.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.

What I have concluded (I'm repeating myself) is that the term ego is not important to atheists, in any significant way. To most theist it seems to be an important concept, specially in relation to well being. That would point to the idea that ego treatment (a la Totte) is irrelevant. I have no reason to conclude that the well being of atheists is any different from theists.
 
Christian said:
Thanks for the response.

What I have concluded (I'm repeating myself) is that the term ego is not important to atheists, in any significant way. To most theist it seems to be an important concept, specially in relation to well being. That would point to the idea that ego treatment (a la Totte) is irrelevant. I have no reason to conclude that the well being of atheists is any different from theists.
Click to expand...

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

Dude, the term ego is important to some atheists. It is unimportant to others. Please stop trying to draw some conclusion about atheism from the answers to your question. The question is irrelevant to atheism. What part of this can you not understand?
 
It seems to me that this thread is unnecessarily combative: I do not see much to object to in the op or the follow up. But I often miss things, and this may be yet another such occasion

At present I understand the thread this way:

The OP makes the assumption that the term "ego" is generally important. I think that is debatable and I see little evidence for it. Those who have answered mostly seem to confirm my impression. It is perfectly possible that this is indeed because most are atheists: most of my friends are atheists and it may be that the term is in constant use amongst theists and I just have not noticed. If that were true then there would be something different about atheists and it would be shown by that different use of language. But I would ask the OP to really consider if that difference actually exists: most here seem to think it does not: and that is what I think too. I hear the term used in discussions of psychology: and I hear it used in the sense others have described: meaning someone has a big tip for themselves (I hear "big ego" but seldom "medium sized ego": the other end of the spectrum is more often called low self esteem where I live, for some reason). Those conventions of language are in every day use and I see no reason to suppose a difference between theists and atheists for they have no "spiritual" content at all

Buddhism as been mentioned and so far as I understand it the annihilation of the "self" is what is at issue there (very shorthand: I dont mean to get into a discussion of deep buddhist religious belief and I couldn't if I wanted to because I don't know enough). They talk of achieving this by getting rid of desires and the wish for control, because those are what cause suffering. But that does not mean destroying the "self": it means enhancing it. I think they believe that we confuse the"self" with those desires; and that is not a bad notion to my way of thinking. Ultimately we are conceived as being part of a whole and individuality is not a good thing.

That is a very different conception of the "self" than the christian one: that one seems to revolve around the idea of the soul. And that seems to be very much concerned with individuality. I suspect that is a post enlightenment conception, though: there is also a tradition in christianity that we are all part of the creation/godhead: the soul is a spark of god, sort of: but it gets too complicated and although it may be important to contemplatives I don't think that is very mainstream. In this discussion I think the OP is relating "ego" to that conception of the soul. I could be wrong and perhaps the OP will correct me if I am.

Atheists don't believe in the soul though they can very well accept the beliefs of buddhists (some do, I think). But the experience of a continuous self (whether that is an illusion or not) is one we all share. So perhaps the question is how do atheists account for that experience? What does "I" consist in?

I will say frankly that I do not know and I do not care. For me it is in the box marked "not answerable: do not waste time except for fun". Others will say that it is a fascinating question and that we will find the answer in the physical properties of the brain and body: for there is nowhere else to find them. I agree with that: if answers can be had that is where they will be. But I am not interested because I am shallow like that: all the information in the world about how the rainbow is made is wonderful to know: but it is not what I think of when I see one. I know others differ and get more out of rainbows for the knowledge, though. And neither of us is wrong, IMO. But that difference shows that we do not have much in common because we are atheists: I think there are theists who look at the rainbow and get more out of it because they see god's promise: and others who just enjoy it as I do. There are folk who like nuts and bolts of how things work and folk who don't. Of those who do like explanations some are theists and some are not: and they differ about what counts as an explanation
 
Sledge said:
Is there a "banging your head against the wall" smiley?

Dude, the term ego is important to some atheists. It is unimportant to others. Please stop trying to draw some conclusion about atheism from the answers to your question. The question is irrelevant to atheism. What part of this can you not understand?
Click to expand...

Being irrelevant to atheism is not the same as being irrelevant to ask a specific question to an atheist group and coming to a general conclusion. Why not draw an inference? Perfectly valid it is. It might be a wrong inference, sure, but it seems to be ok.
 
Fiona said:
It seems to me that this thread is unnecessarily combative: I do not see much to object to in the op or the follow up. But I often miss things, and this may be yet another such occasion

At present I understand the thread this way:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.
 
Christian said:
Being irrelevant to atheism is not the same as being irrelevant to ask a specific question to an atheist group and coming to a general conclusion. Why not draw an inference? Perfectly valid it is. It might be a wrong inference, sure, but it seems to be ok.
Click to expand...

... what?
 
Christian said:
I can refine the analogy to entreprenuers.
Click to expand...

This. You've refined your analogy, you need to refine the other side of it. The analogy of atheists to millionaires was in some ways a good one. There are many kinds of people who are millionaires, there are many kinds of people who are atheists.

Narrowing millionaires down to millionaire entrepeneurs, since the orignal analogy was valid enough for its purposes, requires you narrow down what kind of atheist you're talking about.

It sounds like what you have in mind when you say atheist is someone who is an atheist who values skepticism and critical thinking, such as is often found on this forum devoted to critical thinking. We're rather different and probably rather outnumbered by eastern atheists raised in communist or formerly communist societies. You might be thinking in even narrower terms, of American skeptical rationalist atheists, who are most likely to have been raised in a Christian tradition and reasoned their way out of it.

So, there you go. Of course these are exactly the sort of people to be sticklers about definition, which explains your difficulties.

To actually address your question, I think you've got the right of it if you've concluded that there is no particularly atheist take on the meaning of 'ego'. That horse is probaby dead now, but I'm hoping I could shed some light on the root of our communication difficulties.
 
Christian said:
Have you considered that the reason why atheist don't believe in any fictional being, and that theists believe in some and not others, makes a significant difference between both group? That this would make the definition of ego by atheists interesting. Is has been interesting for me.
Click to expand...

Sorry if this has already been asked and answered. What has "ego" however you define it got to do with belief in, or otherwise of the tooth Fairy?

Norm
 
Mister Agenda said:
This. You've refined your analogy, you need to refine the other side of it. The analogy of atheists to millionaires was in some ways a good one. There are many kinds of people who are millionaires, there are many kinds of people who are atheists.

Narrowing millionaires down to millionaire entrepeneurs, since the orignal analogy was valid enough for its purposes, requires you narrow down what kind of atheist you're talking about.

It sounds like what you have in mind when you say atheist is someone who is an atheist who values skepticism and critical thinking, such as is often found on this forum devoted to critical thinking. We're rather different and probably rather outnumbered by eastern atheists raised in communist or formerly communist societies. You might be thinking in even narrower terms, of American skeptical rationalist atheists, who are most likely to have been raised in a Christian tradition and reasoned their way out of it.

So, there you go. Of course these are exactly the sort of people to be sticklers about definition, which explains your difficulties.

To actually address your question, I think you've got the right of it if you've concluded that there is no particularly atheist take on the meaning of 'ego'. That horse is probaby dead now, but I'm hoping I could shed some light on the root of our communication difficulties.
Click to expand...

That was very helpful, indeed. Thank you.
 
Christian said:
What I have concluded (I'm repeating myself) is that the term ego is not important to atheists, in any significant way. To most theist it seems to be an important concept, specially in relation to well being. That would point to the idea that ego treatment (a la Totte) is irrelevant. I have no reason to conclude that the well being of atheists is any different from theists.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom