Primitive Indigenous People Convert Christian to Atheism

[Wolfman]

If anyone is manipulating evidence it is certain validation-seeking atheists, and not Everett who never made any claim that Pirahã are atheists or scientists. He said that they're empiricists "in a way," that of segregating direct experience from indirect knowledge, and that he is an atheist as a result of living with them.

Thank you for the clarification...I'd misunderstood that aspect of it

 

[Darat]

To expand on my post above...I think you're playing with semantics here. "Spirits" are just less powerful supernatural entities than "gods". They still deal with belief in supernatural entities that operate outside the natural realm. While the strictest interpretation of 'atheist' might support your argument, I think that most atheists would consider the term to mean a rejection of all supernatural entities...not just one particular kind.

When you get down to it it's not even that really, think of the pantheon of the Greek gods, you have a range of gods all of different "level" of powers, abilities and so on. I think it's just very hard for many of us brought with the monotheism that pervades "western cultures" to drop our concept of god meaning the "big guy". Therefore when we look at other religions/belief systems that don't have such a clear distinction between what is god and other elements of the supernatural we tend to try to map that belief system to our concepts and since there isn't a "big guy" we say they do not have a god.

As you said in the end it is all about a supernatural realm, the exact labels used to identify part of the realm may vary but in the end they are all describing that realm.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Actually, that's not what I had in mind. Whether they should count as atheists or polytheists is another matter, and I think I'd want to know more before I personally lump a category onto them.

First, you seem to consider 'polytheist' and 'theist' to be separate categories here?

No.

I think you're confused because you're saying "X is Y by reason Z", and I'm objecting. But you're interpreting this as my taking the position that X is not Y.

Not so. If you say "X is Y by reason Z", I can object to the application of reason Z, especially if it implies things I disagree with. I'm not even compelled to have a position of X's membership in set Y.

This is the case. I'm taking no position on the categorization of Piraha, and that is exactly what I said above. I would want to know more before I lump them into a category. What I'm objecting to is your criteria for atheism. It's not about rejecting all supernatural entities; it's simply about whether or not you believe there is a god (see below).

I didn't say because they believe in supernatural things; I said because they believe in supernatural entities.

Fair enough. But...

So the telepathy thing has nothing to do with this conversation.

...and yet, you use prayer as part of your criteria. So if a person believes he can communicate telepathically with the dead, would that be praying? And if so, would this person be a theist for this reason?

Furthermore, as should be obvious, I was talking about such entities within the context of an animistic religion.

But you invoked a general rule that you held that most atheists would agree with.

In regards to the 'ghost' thing, those atheists I'm aware of who believe in ghosts don't consider them to be supernatural (or telepathy, for that matter); ... If you can point me to people who claim to be atheists, but actually believe in a supernatural realm, I'd be happy to examine their claims.

If you're suggesting as a criteria what the person considers about his belief in supernatural entities, then this doesn't work for a different reason than your test above. Have you never heard of naturalistic theism?

Furthermore, I wouldn't know how to apply this criteria to Piraha anyway. How do I get them to tell me if spirits are "natural" or "supernatural"? As far as I do understand their culture, it would probably be more appropriate to say that they would consider them to be natural.

And yet it is entirely relevant to the OP, and the discussion:
...
I will readily concede that you may be able to raise some sort of situation or belief that is irrelevant to the topic of the OP;

I don't understand what you mean by relevant. If you're suggesting that you get to apply reason Z because we're talking about X, then that is special pleading.

ETA: since we're concerned with semantics to some degree here, perhaps you could define what the difference is between a 'spirit' and a 'god' in your mind?

Regarding how it relates to the topic of the OP, the difference is whether the translator decided to attach "spirit" to what they were saying or "god" to what they were saying.

In my experience working directly with a group who are animists, a 'spirit' is simply a less powerful 'god'.

Less powerful than what exactly?

Particularly when comparing animist 'spirits' with polytheist 'gods', there seems little difference between them, except the extent of their claimed powers.

So argue that animists are polytheists. That's fair.

Just don't argue that most atheists would hold the term to mean rejection of all supernatural entities.

 

[Wolfman]

Just don't argue that most atheists would hold the term to mean rejection of all supernatural entities.

Ummm...actually...I'm quite confident that most atheists would agree with that definition, with no difficulty whatsoever. The issue here seems to be whether you agree with it (and even if "most atheists" agreed with my definition, you'd continue to disagree).

Becoming rather pointless at this stage.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Ummm...actually...I'm quite confident that most atheists would agree with that definition, with no difficulty whatsoever.

But your confidence is not at issue. If you want to convince me that most atheists would agree with your definition, you should show me something with a bit more epistemic value--minimally, something like a survey.

The issue here seems to be whether you agree with it

No, the issue is whether or not the reasons I disagree with the definition are valid. Whether or not I disagree is just as irrelevant as whether or not you agree.

(and even if "most atheists" agreed with my definition, you'd continue to disagree).

Probably, because how a term is used by a person trumps what definition the person would give for the term. If "most atheists" did agree with your definition, yet in practice, would classify many who believe in supernatural entities as atheists and many who reject the supernatural as theists, then something is wrong with their definition, despite the consensus that it is the definition.

I think it's much more accurate to simply stick to the given literal definition--an atheist lacks a belief in gods. Then we can quibble about what should count as a god.

Regarding the Piraha, it's simply that. Should the spirits they believe in count as gods or no? Deciding whether or not they are atheists should be equivalent to deciding whether or not they believe in gods, so once we answer this question, we ipso facto answered the atheist one.

 

[Wolfman]

yy2bggggs,

Okay, allow me to posit then that the spirits that animists believe in are just a different label for gods, and therefore they are not atheists. Allow me further to posit that any supernatural entity that people claim to see or interact with is, at some level, equivalent to a god belief; and therefore, anyone who believes in such supernatural entities cannot be an atheist.

And to clarify my position here, dealing with definitions again: while I know that not everyone agrees with these definitions (see here), I define "supernatural" as being those things which operate entirely independently of and outside of the 'natural' realm (such as gods and spirits, which simply are not subject to and can often defy natural laws) that, even if real, could not be scientifically confirmed; and "paranormal" as those things for which we do not have an explanation, and may or may not be real, but which can at least theoretically be scientifically confirmed. My statement above is in regards solely to supernatural entities, not paranormal entities.

Gods, spirits, and similar entities (demons for example) operate in a realm that is essentially outside of scientific observation. Even if real, it would be impossible to verify (to clarify this statement...one of those entities could verify it by choosing to take a particular action, but if they did not choose to do so, we could not confirm their existence).

Ghosts, ESP, aliens, etc....these are all paranormal. Ghosts (at least according to ghost hunters and other 'experts' in this field) can be detected, regardless of whether they want to or not. ESP can be tested and evaluated. Examples are numerous.

I am speaking specifically of supernatural entities, and explicitly excluding any and all entities or beliefs that do not fit the description I have given here. And I maintain that belief in any entity which fits the above description is equivalent to a god belief, regardless of the label you attach to that entity (god, spirit, angel, devil, demon, etc.). And that, therefore, anyone who believes in such entities cannot be called an atheist.

It is certainly quite possible for an atheist to believe in paranormal entities and phenomenon (look at all the atheists who believe in alien abductions, or bigfoot); that is not the claim I've made.

Regardless of whether you agree with my definitions above, the criteria by which I'm differentiating between atheist and theist should be readily more apparent now.

 

[atavisms]

how can you 'convert to atheism' when atheism is a lack of belief in something? It's not that some creative mechanism might not exist... it obviously must as here we are...but why men would think that they could define or even fathom it (much less become the model for it!) is beyond me. These Brazilian jungle people are simple and practical and live in the moment...That is truly Being present and alive in reality. Not fantasy and self-delusion.
The power of that must have resonated within the author to the point it overwhelmed the dusty old recycled myths of the bible (and it's threats of eternal hell fire and other such nonsense)

 

[Wolfman]

These Brazilian jungle people are simple and practical and live in the moment...That is truly Being present and alive in reality. Not fantasy and self-delusion.

I'm sorry...but what part of conversing with spirits, exchanging names with spirits, etc., do you consider to be 'not fantasy or self-delusion'?

 

[Gazpacho]

I don't see any fundamental difference between "exchanging names with a spirit", in their cultural context, and choosing an avatar for an internet forum.

 

[Ryokan]

Ummm...actually...I'm quite confident that most atheists would agree with that definition, with no difficulty whatsoever.

It's not a definition I've ever heard before, and not one I would agree with. With this definition, the amount of atheists in the world drops dramatically. The Scandinavian countries and Japan are often reported as being the most atheistic nations in the world, but I wonder if that's true under this new definition.

There is a word that means you don't believe in supernatural things, and that's sceptic.

 

[Delvo]

There is a word that means you don't believe in supernatural things, and that's sceptic.

No, that's the word for thing that have to do with our solid bodily waste products and the systems we build to dispose of them.

 

[Elizabeth I]

This little story stinks of book-sales&promotion. 1 minutes of google will convince anyone that Everett's claims are not supported by other research. Critical thinking ppl !

I'm sorry...

...if you want to classify people who pray to trees and mountains, begging their spirits to help them (or leave them alone if they've angered them) are atheists, you can feel free to do so. For myself, I kinda' rejected that whole "entreating higher powers for help" thing when I became an atheist.

If anyone is manipulating evidence it is certain validation-seeking atheists, and not Everett who never made any claim that Pirahã are atheists or scientists. He said that they're empiricists "in a way," that of segregating direct experience from indirect knowledge, and that he is an atheist as a result of living with them.

What Gazpacho said. Additionally, I don't remember from the book (though it has been some time since I read it) that Everett described any religious rituals - no prayer meetings, no holy dances, no sacramental bonfires. Further, their attitude to the spirits seemed to be the same one they had about rocks, trees, animals, their huts, or other people - they would talk if they happened to meet, but didn't go looking for the spirits to invoke their help or blessing. (Again, from my memory of the book.) So they might be animists but I'm not sure I would call them theists. It was more as if the spirits were just yet another thing that inhabited the same environment they did.

 

[Gazpacho]

I would also add that even the most atheistic, scientifically-minded westerner can "talk to spirits" and "hear spirits talk." For example Richard Feyman, who received a 4-F deferral after he admitted as much in his draft review. (The details of his account indicate he wasn't just lying to dodge the draft.)

What Gazpacho said. Additionally, I don't remember from the book (though it has been some time since I read it) that Everett described any religious rituals - no prayer meetings, no holy dances, no sacramental bonfires.

They have seance rituals that are described in the book. But they don't farm, and their climate has no seasons, so there's not much purpose for ceremonies.