Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

That is true, to a lexicographic extent.

Also black cars are more likely not to be red than the general car population, on average.

There can be some very limited similarities in how atheists (or religionists) think, but I don't expect many, having seen all the variety in how religionists see the world.

Some posters here have pointed out there are spiritual atheists out there, so your black/red car parallel would not apply.

 

[Christian]

I was talking about your reference to values and morals. But evade the question if you want.

I missed this. Can you ask the question again or in a direct way?

 

[ideogram]

There is a theory that humans are predisposed to believe in deities. I think most chinese are not atheists. From my understanding, most believe in some form of deities. What I'm saying is that a random sample would give us a good answer. I don't think it can be done solely by logical reasoning.

Most people would say that most Chinese are "atheist". First you say you didn't invent the category, but now you want to interpret it in an original way. This would just lead to arguments over what the term "atheist" means. Hmm, what was that about "framing"?

As a matter of fact, I agree with you that it can't be done simply by logical reasoning. That is why I gave the example of being born on a certain date. In fact I can imagine there might be good reasons children born in the summer might have something in common. But we generally consider astrology to be superstition.

 

[lionking]

I missed this. Can you ask the question again or in a direct way?

I asked, very simply and very directly, whether you are trying to demonstrate that atheists have "christian" traits?

 

[Christian]

It's really late. As always hard to keep up the one to many responses. Will continue later today, it's 1:00 am my time here. Sorry.

 

[Christian]

I asked, very simply and very directly, whether you are trying to demonstrate that atheists have "christian" traits?

Completely missed it was a question. No, of course not.

 

[Sledge]

Christian, your signature is very apt. You are under the mistaken idea that you are communicating. You are not. Whether by mistake or by design, what you are putting across is the idea that you are waiting for people to say something that will allow you to pull a "gotcha" moment on them. Please stop asking questions and clearly state what your point it. And no, I do not mean you should start another thread.

 

[Sun Countess]

Yes, but you live in a world that is predominantly theist. And there is this idea that in evolutionary terms humans are predisposed to the supernatural. To fight both things (maybe other variables too) maybe a special mental process must take place.

I'm not fighting anything. Nobody taught me that I needed to believe in any gods, and I never saw a reason to. I know plenty of people who were taught to believe in gods, and they never saw a reason to question those beliefs. Our perspectives seem pretty similar.

This time, I'm not asking a question. There is no hidden agenda. I think it is a valid exercise. I don't commit to any position in this matter, just think it is something to consider. Further, I think that if the hypothesis is correct, it is useful.

For somebody who doesn't want to commit to a position, you sure don't seem to be accepting of what any actual atheists have to say, or to change your position from "I think I'm right and you're wrong but I won't say why."

With regards to other posters, I have answered to the best of my abilities. The fact that I don't agree with specifics positions (the majority's position) should not disqualify me as a serious thoughtful poster.

Yet, you've given no actual reasons that you disagree with others' positions, other than the fact that you think there's something more to atheism than what actual atheists are telling you.

If you want to know about how Christians feel about a given topic, would you ask atheists or Christians? How would you feel about an atheist telling a group of Christians that even though they're all saying similar things, the atheist feels that the atheist hypothesis on Christianity has more value?

You need to start discussing more and not just throwing theories out there, that can't be refuted because you think you're right.

 

[lionking]

Completely missed it was a question.

I thought the "?" would be a decent clue. But, as I said earlier, not even good trolling. I'm out of here as well.

 

[Wolfman]

I don't think this is true. From Wikipedia I give this generalization of an atheist population:

* In the U.S. states with the highest percentages of atheists, there are the fewest murders. In the most religious U.S. states, there are the most murders.
* Only 0.2 % percent of U.S. prisoners are atheists.
* Atheists are more tolerant towards women's and homosexuals' rights.
* Atheism and secularism correlate with high levels of education, and low levels of racial prejudice.
* Atheists beat their children less often than others, and more often encourage them to think independently.
* In Sweden, the most secular country in the world according to Zuckerman, the charitable aid given is the highest as a proportion of GDP.

You said that you don't agree about drawing generalizations from a particular pool of atheists...then as 'evidence' of your argument, you do just that.

I'm an atheist...but the whole "atheists are less likely to be criminals" thing is nonsense. In the U.S., demographically speaking, criminals tend to come from low-income, high crime rate communities; those areas, demographically, also tend to have far higher percentages of theists than of atheists. If you try checking out stats for white collar crimes, committed by those of middle to high income/education individuals, you'll find that the proportion of atheist to theist is almost exactly the same as the general societal proportions. Then there's the fact that claiming to have religious beliefs can get you a lighter sentence, and earlier release, and there's strong incentive for criminals to claim religious affiliation, even if its not true.

Check out China, on the other hand, where atheism is the norm, and where religious belief can result in more severe and/or longer prison sentences; you'll find that there are more atheist prisoners than theist, and that criminals for the most part claim no particular religious belief.

I could also point out that if I go into a theist community such as the Mennonites, then rates of violence and criminality are far lower than in predominantly atheist communities in China.

Yeah, you can cherry-pick information to support whatever particular theory you want. And yes, you can generalize about atheists from within a particular demographic group. But neither the title of your thread, nor your OP, state that as your intent. Rather, you seem to be seeking to draw generalizations about all atheists, drawn from a very limited and biased pool of data.

 

[fromdownunder]

Try to be fair. Your first response to my thread was an interesting biographical piece. I can't comment on it because it is outside the bounds of my knowledge, and I can only see a marginal relation to the thread. You ended with a strawman. I can't defend a position I have not taken.

I gave you my perspctive on life, and you now say rhat it is ony marginally relative, and "outside your bounds of knowledge", and you say it is only marginal to your header which stated specifically:

Is there an "atheist perspective"?

So, I answered your header, and what did I get? You don't want to know what I think, or do, or believe, because as in your thread on ego, you have pre conceived ideas, and if people do not answer in the way you wiah them to, you simply throw out terms such as "strawman" whixh lets you stay all warm and fuzzy, and in no way advances the discussion.

So, please respond to what I posted, not with a one liner, but with how I fit into some sort of atheist "standard" which is what you seem to be trying to do, or actually make a point. Since you have deserted (run away) from your "ego" thread, because nobody fitted what certainly is beginning to appear to be your pre conceived opinion of what you think atheists are, please have a point.

Norm

 

[SezMe]

Good evidence for this is the fact that the category exists, I didn't not create it.

Actually, you did.

From the ego thread, we know you will not listen to the responses you get but will retain your preconceived notions. This thread is conceptually the exact same one as the ego one; why did you start over with the exact same nonsense again?

 

[Wolfman]

Let's look at this argument again...comparing "atheists in America" to "atheists in China" (or other demographics); if your claim that these things represent an "atheist perspective" are true, then they'll hold consistent in each environment.

* In the U.S. states with the highest percentages of atheists, there are the fewest murders. In the most religious U.S. states, there are the most murders.

As I mentioned previously, atheists are far more likely to be criminals in China than theists...by pure merit of the fact that atheism is pretty much the norm here. I'm not familiar with any stats breaking China down by provinces that are more religious or less religious; but I haven't seen anything (either personally, or in research) that indicates theist areas are more likely to commit crime than atheist.

* Only 0.2 % percent of U.S. prisoners are atheists.

Very, very different stat in China, as mentioned previously.

* Atheists are more tolerant towards women's and homosexuals' rights.

Again, in China, which is officially a secular/atheist state, there are specific laws against homosexuality, and widespread discrimination against them. Despite the strong Judeo-Christian demographics of the U.S., there is still far less tolerance of homosexuals in China than in the U.S.

On the other hand, I'd consider women's rights in China to be pretty progressive.

* Atheism and secularism correlate with high levels of education, and low levels of racial prejudice.

In China, atheism and secularism correlate with high levels of indoctrination and control. Racial prejudice is quite high.

In fact, large numbers of Chinese intellectuals -- born and raised as atheists -- are turning to religion now. So one could even make something of a counter-argument to your own.

* Atheists beat their children less often than others, and more often encourage them to think independently.

I don't know of any studies on this, but I'm quite certain that the rates of child abuse in China among atheists would be much higher than among theists in the U.S....simply because the U.S. has much stricter laws, and better enforcement. For a comparison between atheists and theists in China, barring concrete information that I haven't seen, I don't think we can draw any conclusion one way or the other (although personally, I've observed no great difference)

* In Sweden, the most secular country in the world according to Zuckerman, the charitable aid given is the highest as a proportion of GDP.

"The most secular country in the world"

Interesting...I'd be rather curious to hear the definition of "secular" in this case, as I'd consider China to be just about as secular as it is reasonably possible for a nation to be. Perhaps "the most secular Western nation" would be a better description? I'd strongly question Zuckerman's authority to come to such a conclusion; much less to draw sweeping generalizations based on that.

 

[Beth]

Wow, I haven't followed the other thread, but so far in this thread Christian has not insulted, denigrated, or otherwise indicated that he carries a prejudice against atheists. I appreciate that you all may have reason for your suspicion, but this thread comes across as a pile up on him.

It's an interesting topic for discussion, so I'd be interested in hearing more about the actual facts as they are known regarding atheists worldview - actually I'm thinking it sounds more like personality traits. I appreciate that it's an effect that is nested under the larger cultural norms that someone lives in.

So yes...you can draw some general suppositions about atheists who all come from a particular background; but as to atheists in general, no, it is a foolish and naive idea.

I think you are correct in this supposition, but nonetheless, it would be interesting to see if there were any characteristics that held across cultural barriers. There's no reason not to ask the question and look at the evidence.

My hypothesis would read like this:

Atheists have other traits in common that allows to predict their perspective on a variety of topics or situations

There are several ways to test this hypothesis, but I think a survey is a good start. We could survey 1,000 people (randomly picked around the world. We would survey more than 1,000 but would only consider the answers of those who are atheist, to mask the survey). We would have our same size control group where the common trait be something else. Then we would look for common traits.

It's important to point out that the most we could conclude is that the average atheist is more likely to be more of this or that. For example, the findings could be:

Atheist are more likely to be more contrarian than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to be more skeptical than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely not to be believe in spirituality than the general population, on average.

And so forth.

From this, one can guess the general atheist perspective on specific topics, issues, etc.

This is only a mental exercise and pure speculation (on my part). I do think it is an interesting topic to consider.

Actually, it doesn't have to be just a mental exercise and pure speculation. There are surveys out there. If you (or anyone else reading) can find the data, I can run the analysis and see what the data says.

Think about what type of data you would need and research what surveys have been done. There's data out there. Somewhere.

I can consider your position the null hypothesis. I'm not ready to accept it and think it is possible to reject it.

I don't think this null hypothesis can be accepted solely on logic.

The null hypothesis doesn't need to be accepted on logic. It's chosen and assumed true because when you reject it, you do so at a specified level of confidence and the alternative is deemed the better fit to the data.

 

[Skeeve]

I had a post of mine edited for stating that I thought the Ego thread was a troll, now this thread looks identical to it and I see some have said the same thing.

Yet they're not being corrected for using the word troll....? Why is that. Do I have to have more posts before I can call someone or something a troll?

I admit I said, "Christian was either stupid or attempting a poor troll.", but I should have said was, "Christian is either very ignorant of atheism or has attempted a poor troll."

Moderation here confuses me. Search "troll" and it's everywhere....it must be post count that decides who can use the term. /shrug.

BTW, what I said in the Ego thread still stands and is appropo for this thread as well.

 

[zooterkin]

As I mentioned previously, atheists are far more likely to be criminals in China than theists...by pure merit of the fact that atheism is pretty much the norm here.

Is that what you meant to say, or did you mean that criminals are more likely to be atheists than theists, which seems to make more sense to me?

 

[Christian]

Christian, your signature is very apt. You are under the mistaken idea that you are communicating. You are not. Whether by mistake or by design, what you are putting across is the idea that you are waiting for people to say something that will allow you to pull a "gotcha" moment on them. Please stop asking questions and clearly state what your point it. And no, I do not mean you should start another thread.

Sledge, I'm trying to communicate the best way I can.

I will be emphatic and state that there will be no gotcha moment.

I don't know how to state my point more clearly. Please read my initial post on this thread.

 

[Christian]

I thought the "?" would be a decent clue. But, as I said earlier, not even good trolling. I'm out of here as well.

Once again, I missed the question. Sorry you feel this way. As soon as I understood I answered your question.

 

[Christian]

Most people would say that most Chinese are "atheist".

That's not what Wikipedia says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

It seems most chinese are theist, just not the western brand of it.

First you say you didn't invent the category, but now you want to interpret it in an original way.

What I mean is, I didn't not invent the category "atheism". No, I'm not interpreting the category, I'm hypothesizing on what other traits are there in common within the category.

This would just lead to arguments over what the term "atheist" means. Hmm, what was that about "framing"?

Based on the definition, we identify the group and test a hypothesis within that group.

As a matter of fact, I agree with you that it can't be done simply by logical reasoning. That is why I gave the example of being born on a certain date. In fact I can imagine there might be good reasons children born in the summer might have something in common. But we generally consider astrology to be superstition.

I don't think it is the same thing. A more appropriate analogy would be left-handed people. The category is people who are left-handed. I might hypothesize that because they are left-handed and the world being how it is, it is possible that they might have other traits in common.

 

[ideogram]

It seems most chinese are theist, just not the western brand of it.

Based on the definition, we identify the group and test a hypothesis within that group.

See, as I predicted, we are now arguing over the definition of the term "atheist". And, in fact, this is how framing works: by carefully choosing your definitions you bias the result of the question.

Since I have never seen you before, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But if you insist on arguing over the proper definition of the word "atheist" then I have to question your sincerity.