Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

That's your hypothesis, yes; I would argue the opposite. (eta: not really the opposite, but I would argue that it's culture and human progress that make the biggest difference)

I think that what changes is the areas where people are "allowed" to explain the parts of the world in supernatural terms. Human progress has been accomplished by a minute number of individuals. Most humans don't have the slightest idea of many of the fundamental important advances that make our world modern. The modern era is seconds in length in terms of human history. We have advanced much faster (in the last two centuries) in terms of tecnology and overall progress than our evolutionary brains. It has been well establish that humans have a very hard time with understanding probability.

Critical thinking and education don't go hand-in-hand, though. More of the world now is educated than ever before. There's no requirement for good critical thinking skills to graduate high school, and there are plenty of good critical thinkers/extremely smart people, who don't pursue academic studies.

Critical thinking and "formal" education don't go hand-in-hand. Critical thinking and education go hand-in-hand because it is inevitable for critical thinkers. The quality of this critical thinking depends on the information available to the individual, of course.

That's part of your hypothesis, then? Remember that culture plays a huge role in all this. You don't think that anybody could become an atheist? Nobody is born a theist, those beliefs have to be learned.

Yes, of course no one is born a theist like nobody is born with the ability to walk or speak any language. Our brains, once developed, will tend to "see" supernatural elements.

Becoming an atheist doesn't mean giving up supernatural elements altogether. There are plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts, visiting aliens, or other spirits.

I understand this. I would consider these people in the category of people with brains that tend to include supernatural elements. From these individuals I don't think we would find much differences from the general population.

I would say that the brain wants to explain things period. When the natural elements aren't understood, people will include the supernatural.

Please remember that there were individuals who went against the natural tendency to explain things not understood to include the supernatural. It was thanks to these few individuals that the unknown was explained through science. And you bring my point exactly. Most people, when things aren't understood, they include the supernatural. But, my hypothesis is that there are few brains that when things are not understood try to find explanations that do not include the supernatural.

That's not the case anymore. We know that demons don't cause epilepsy or cholera. We can predict the weather patterns without offering up sacrifices to the gods. Humans on the whole have natural explanations for all kinds of things, so anybody who wants an answer can find a real one, and nobody will be forced to make stuff up.

In places where information is not readily available, humans still explain things with all these supernatural elements. If who ask most people for explanations of complicated things (important things) I believe most wont be able to explain or understand them.

I think that's too low. Much of China is atheist (and please don't ignore Wolfman's input on this point, as he's lived in China for 15 years), and much of western Europe is becoming less theistic. A lot of people are still social theists, but don't actually believe in any sky daddies.

One thing is the label, another is the true implication of atheism. People might think they are atheist because they are different from the religious theists. But, it is possible that these, so called atheists, have their personal brand of religion with particular sorts of deities.

Those logical consistencies still exist. Plenty of atheists believe in other supernatural nonsense. Buddhists don't believe in any gods, but they believe in reincarnation. Many First Nations people believe in animal and tree spirits, but not in any gods.

I would say the brains of these individual would not differ in any way with most of the population.

It's not just atheists who know about natural explanations for illnesses. Nearly every theist knows that if you get sick, you go to a doctor. They just pray on top of it. The atheists will thank the doctor, and the theist will thank their doctor and their god. But they both know that the disease was caused by a virus or cancer, or some malfunctioning organ.

I could guess that most atheists (who are critical thinkers, contrarians, skeptics) understand much more about illnesses and how medicines and treatments work. Most of the population have no understanding of illnesses are at the hands of doctors. Many times this is a very dangerous thing.

Most theist believe there are other elements involved then only the materialist explanations.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
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
<snip>

Here are some of the few suggested traits for atheists I found googling. I don't know if these are from genetics or the environment.

• May be smarter than others
• Have an ethical compass
• Tend not to be joiners
  astcweb.org/publication/article.cfm/1/22/2/american-hates-atheists
• Have one of the lowest divorce rates religioustolerence.org/chr_dira.htm

It's going to be very difficult assigning characteristics to atheists, because it seems to be very difficult to categorize them. Some are believers in "god not possible," some are believers in "god not proven," and some are believers in who knows what all else. Some of these self-identify as atheists. And many of what I was taught are atheists are now calling themselves any one of a number of other things. So good luck in setting up a way do a survey.

I hadn't realized until now that nobody is using the definitions I grew up with. Every atheist seems to have their own idea of what the definition is or if they want to use some other term entirely. So much for precision in language. This thread has certainly put the E in JREF for me.

ETA: I don't understand everyone's resistence to the idea of trying to find underlying characteristics. Do you think it's impossible or just a waste of time? Is it because you don't consider yourself part of a larger group? Just curious.

 

[Marduk]

ETA: I don't understand everyone's resistence to the idea of trying to find underlying characteristics. Do you think it's impossible or just a waste of time? Is it because you don't consider yourself part of a larger group? Just curious.

Christian is trying to put atheists in boxes. Atheists regard themselves as outside boxes because of their stance on religion which itself seeks to box people in as a form of control, now he might have got away with it if he were called "bob" or "pete" or "simon", but that name on this website is like waving a red flag to the God denying multitude bull herd.
Atheists are people, and people don't conform to a standard, his critical thinking skills and research ability also leave a lot to be desired which on this forum is also a bad error and then you need to take into account all his previous threads which are also of the same type of low level insult

 

[FattyCatty]

Well, I guess one possible trait is a contender. Atheist really aren't joiners.

And thanks for the answer.

 

[Elizabeth I]

First, a couple of times you said something like this:

What I mean is, I didn't not invent the category "atheism".

You do know that in English, two negatives make a positive, right? For example, "not impossible" means that something is possible. So if you say you "didn't not invent the category 'atheism,'" then you're saying you did invent the category atheism. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to say, so could you please say what you did mean?

No, no, no. I'm giving examples of possible outcomes of a possible survey. There is no other way to explain the test, unless one describes how the test would be conducted.

I can repeat till I'm blue in the face that I'm not claiming there are common traits. I don't know this. I would like to find out via a scientifically valid survey.

I have two questions:

1) Why are you here arguing with people instead of out doing your survey?
2) Why do you care? What difference would it make to your world if you were shown that atheists do or do not share some kind of hypothetical trait?

One thing is the label, another is the true implication of atheism. People might think they are atheist because they are different from the religious theists. But, it is possible that these, so called atheists, have their personal brand of religion with particular sorts of deities.

Huh? You think people might say they are atheists but are just deceiving themselves because deep in their heart of hearts they really believe in some god but they don't know it? Do you know how - um - illogical that sounds? I'm pretty sure that people with functioning brains know if they believe in something or not.

Why would you say something like this? Are you working up to the "you atheists really believe in God, but you hate Him so you say you don't believe in Him" speech?

 

[ideogram]

I proposed a test. Yes it looks masive and complicated.

That's not what I mean. Among other things, we still haven't settled the argument over who is and isn't an atheist. I notice in your recent posts you've started using the term "supernatural". I don't think atheism equates to disbelief in the supernatural. And I have no idea how you would classify Scientologists.

 

[Christian]

Christian is trying to put atheists in boxes. Atheists regard themselves as outside boxes

No matter how you slice it or dice it, it is inescapable to conclude that "that" is a category, what you call a box. The name of the category is "outside the boxers."

because of their stance on religion which itself seeks to box people in as a form of control,

What you label control, I can label rules of the group. Atheists also follow rules. This is obvious. You decide to follow these rules and "in a way" are controlled by them.

now he might have got away with it if he were called "bob" or "pete" or "simon", but that name on this website is like waving a red flag to the God denying multitude bull herd.

My nick should not enter into the equation.

Atheists are people, and people don't conform to a standard, his critical thinking skills and research ability also leave a lot to be desired which on this forum is also a bad error

I'm aware that I have lots to learn and that I may never rise to the level of most posters here. That, in no way, will stop me from continuing to advance my skills.

and then you need to take into account all his previous threads which are also of the same type of low level insult

This is not true. This is a false statement. This and the "ego" thread are proof that there is no such low level, or any level insult. If a particular position has the unintended consequence of insulting a person, that is unfortunate. I used to be here at the time when there was absolutely no moderation of posts, and the insults I got then were huge. I took them as I take the ones allowed now, stuff that comes with the territory.

 

[Sledge]

What rules do atheists follow?

 

[fromdownunder]

TA: I don't understand everyone's resistence to the idea of trying to find underlying characteristics. Do you think it's impossible or just a waste of time? Is it because you don't consider yourself part of a larger group? Just curious.

I am one atheist who simply does not even care if such a survey is done. It is not going to affect what I do in any way. Start a survey, and put me down as "totally indifferent".

I do however consider myself as part of a larger group. In ascending order, my children, my immediate family, my extended family, my work colleagues, my friends, my community, the Geelong Football Club (go Catters), the Lara, then Geelong, then Australian Cricket team supporters...Australia itself, OH! and JREF and the other Community BBs that I am a member of.

Norm

 

[Christian]

First, a couple of times you said something like this:

You do know that in English, two negatives make a positive, right? For example, "not impossible" means that something is possible. So if you say you "didn't not invent the category 'atheism,'" then you're saying you did invent the category atheism. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to say, so could you please say what you did mean?

Although my native language is Spanish, I know what a double negative is. It was a careless mistake. Please forgive all my grammar and punctuation mistakes, I'm kinda rusty in English. It's good practice to write in English again and please feel free to correct any other mistake you see fit to, that helps a lot (if you care to, of course).

I have two questions:

1) Why are you here arguing with people instead of out doing your survey?
2) Why do you care? What difference would it make to your world if you were shown that atheists do or do not share some kind of hypothetical trait?

1) Because it is just a discussion. Wouldn't think anybody would think I'd be making this survey.
2) I come to this forum to stretch my mind, to learn more, to argue. It is very interesting to me. Some discussions are more interesting than others. I find this one interesting.

Huh? You think people might say they are atheists but are just deceiving themselves because deep in their heart of hearts they really believe in some god but they don't know it? Do you know how - um - illogical that sounds? I'm pretty sure that people with functioning brains know if they believe in something or not.

Not deceiving themselves, that is not the only option. There might be lots of people who use the word atheist and don't know, understand what the word implies. I have met lots of Christians or Catholics who say they are but, according to their own religion, are not. I believe most of the people in China, for example, say they are atheists because the government teaches this label. Evidence that this might be correct is the rapid conversion of atheists to Christianity in China. It is the most rapid growth of Christianity in the world (population growth). Once these people are exposed to religion, they quickly accept these ideas because they were not really atheists. That means that, while in a survey or statistic they labelled themselves atheists, their mental processes lead them to the supernatural just like most of the population.

Why would you say something like this? Are you working up to the "you atheists really believe in God, but you hate Him so you say you don't believe in Him" speech?

No, you wont hear that from me.

 

[ideogram]

Christian, I am sure you are aware that the term atheist has come to mean something in America different from the etymology. For example, we have The American Atheists. This is a clearly identifiable group associated with the word "atheist". However, there are a couple problems with this group as a subject for your study. The first is that there are many people who call themselves atheists who do not consider themselves part of this group. The second is that this group only exists in America, so you can't really generalize from this group to all human beings. In fact, and I guess I'm repeating myself, I believe "atheist" means something different in other cultures.

 

[Ladewig]

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

Other posters have pointed out that in the U.S. prisoners often claim to be religious to impress parole boards, but there is another reason. When blacks are sent to prison, they are often approached by mainstream and militant Islamic groups who say "see those 150 white people with swastika tattoos? They are the Aryan Nation gang and by this time tomorrow they will kill you if you do not have protection. If you are willing to convert to our religion, then we will protect you."

 

[SezMe]

Everyone keeps isolating this as the only attribute. I think there a implications to this beliefs.

Yeah, you've said that over and over and over again. But you don't have any data to support the idea, you think a massive world-wide survey is the only way to test your idea and you blindly continue to ignore all arguments to the contrary. It's getting boring.

I do believe that there can be many people who believe are atheists who are not and don't understand that they are being inconsistent or are really theists.

What? You're asserting that people who say they don't believe in god(s) don't really know that they do? Really? This, to me, indicates that you're on thin ice when you ascribe the word "thinking" to the ideas you've expressed here.

 

[Christian]

That's not what I mean. Among other things, we still haven't settled the argument over who is and isn't an atheist.

I define an atheist as someone who does not believe in deities based on a mental process that brought him or her to this conclusion. I would never say a 2 year old is an atheist. Further I would consider someone an atheist who is consistent in his or her understanding of not believing in deities.

I notice in your recent posts you've started using the term "supernatural". I don't think atheism equates to disbelief in the supernatural. And I have no idea how you would classify Scientologists.

This is interesting because it would lead to the endless discussion. If someone believes in the supernatural or is a scientologist, there is no logical reason why he or she should not be a theist. But, I understand that is a whole other can of worms.

 

[Sledge]

What rules do atheists follow?

Hello?

 

[ideogram]

I define an atheist as someone who does not believe in deities based on a mental process that brought him or her to this conclusion. I would never say a 2 year old is an atheist. Further I would consider someone an atheist who is consistent in his or her understanding of not believing in deities.

Yes, and let me remind those who might be joining us late, you claimed that you didn't "invent" or "intepret" the category "atheist". We have established that we don't agree on the definition of the category, what now?

 

[Christian]

Yeah, you've said that over and over and over again. But you don't have any data to support the idea, you think a massive world-wide survey is the only way to test your idea and you blindly continue to ignore all arguments to the contrary. It's getting boring.

First, I have expressed a hypothesis. By definition, I don't need evidence to support it. I just need a framework to speculate on. I have expressed where my hypothesis comes from.

Second, I said "one way" to show evidence of this would be a survey. I have not said it is the only way. NO ONE here has put forth an alternative test to prove (or disprove for that matter) the hypothesis.

Third, all the arguments presented do not disprove the hypothesis. I have repeated over and over again that simple logical reasoning does not, can't, won't disprove the hypothesis. Now, if anyone can show that logical reasoning does in fact, lead to accept the null hypothesis, then I will gladly concede the point and be done with it.

What? You're asserting that people who say they don't believe in god(s) don't really know that they do? Really? This, to me, indicates that you're on thin ice when you ascribe the word "thinking" to the ideas you've expressed here.

No, I'm saying that there are lots of people who might be labeled as atheists (like in China) who don't care or are unaware of the implications of the label. Many Catholics (label as Catholics) are not. In communist countries where religion was suppressed by decree, most people accepted the label of atheists.

 

[Christian]

Hello?

Sledge, I have chosen not to respond to you because there is a minimun level of respect that I require. What I mean is, a minimum level of communication. I feel we don't communicate and incompetent to change this.

 

[Sledge]

Respect is earned, not given. Now, what rules do atheists follow?

 

[Christian]

Yes, and let me remind those who might be joining us late, you claimed that you didn't "invent" or "intepret" the category "atheist". We have established that we don't agree on the definition of the category, what now?

Ok, if this is the level of technical precision that is required, then fine.

Technically speaking, we ALL have to interpret symbols, definitions, words. It is impossible not to. That's not what was meant. That I did not invent the category should be self-evident.

Now, I have to have a working definition of atheist. And it is possible (specially when someone wants to win an argument) to squabble about definitions for arguments sake. I don't expect you or anybody here to agree (for consensus sake) with my working definition, but I believe my definition is reasonable and would fit how most people who are knowledgable of the term.

If we can't agree on any definition, then, of course the discussion in moot.