The atheist mindset

RichieO

Actually I used believe too that people were born atheist by default, until it was pointed out that if a person has no awareness whatsoever of the concept of God, Gods, etc, then they would equally have no concept of atheism, which takes a position on the nature and concept of God, Gods, etc. Therefore it's more accurate to suggest that people are born non-religious by default, and then you could at least suggest that by exposure to the various social constructs, people form their identities, and they may lean more towards one group or another depending upon any number of both internal and external influences to which they are exposed as they develop from infanthood to adulthood, throughout their lives.

Atheism is not a concept. I became agnostic then atheist long before I had heard either word, I doubted, then I stopped believing, in the ensuing 60 + years nothing has given me any reason to believe I had backed the wrong horse, I never stopped looking, questioning and learning...

One eyed Jack

RichieO wrote: »

Atheism is not a concept. I became agnostic then atheist long before I had heard either word, I doubted, then I stopped believing, in the ensuing 60 + years nothing has given me any reason to believe I had backed the wrong horse, I never stopped looking, questioning and learning...

Atheism is of course a concept, and whether or not you were ever or never aware if it as a concept is neither here nor there, nor is your age relevant, unless you were attempting to prove a point by suggesting you still possess the mentality of an infant with regard to your concept of atheism.

Do you apply the same standard of awareness of concepts to other concepts, such as gravity? I don't see any evidence of infants floating about the place either due to their lack of awareness of the concept of gravity.

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

keep looking, question EVERYTHING always....

Especially atheism! Do you often look under the theology or philosophy rocks?

But seriously, you can't really question *everything*! You'd go bonkers if you did. Scepticism is good but I think it can be taken too far. There's so much we have to take on faith. When's the last time you measured the speed of light? A bit of a stretch I know, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point.

Then there's scientism. Seems a lot of atheists trust only what can be empirically verified. What's wrong with pure reason? Why assume everything must have a natural explanation? Are atheists afraid of looking stupid?

It's really struck me in the past week the total intransigence and stubbornness in this forum. Most responses to my posts were no, no, but, but. A couple of reluctant agrees followed by but. Frankly it's a bit draining.

I sense too some peer pressure element, wanting to confirm to the atheist orthodoxy, and downright rejection of different ideas without due consideration, frequent knee-jerk reactions. Point scoring instead of trying to understand the other side. I also see a pattern of what appears to be prepared responses learned through wearisome debates, too many cliches being trotted out.

A bit of a rambling post I know, more of a emotional response than any kind of solid argument. Yes, I'm human.

The End.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Especially atheism! Do you often look under the theology or philosophy rocks?

Yes, I've looked there. Lots of smoke and mirrors. Not much in the way of substance.

kelly1 wrote: »

Scepticism is good but I think it can be taken too far.

Your quote from Bush above is reductionist to the point of nihilism. Would you count that as "scepticism taken too far"?

kelly1 wrote: »

Then there's scientism. Seems a lot of atheists trust only what can be empirically verified. What's wrong with pure reason? Why assume everything must have a natural explanation? Are atheists afraid of looking stupid?

What you refer to as "pure reason" - as far as I can see, it's rhetoric - elegantly dressed words, resonant phrases, orotund verbiage which - when boiled down - represents nothing. You haven't deployed anything that I'd call "pure reason" yet. But feel free to have a go.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's really struck me in the past week the total intransigence and stubbornness in this forum. Most responses to my posts were no, no, but, but. A couple of reluctant agrees followed by but. Frankly it's a bit draining.

Again, have you considered the possibility that you might be the one with the faulty thinking? Bear in mind that there are thousands of religions that you don't believe in, all of whose believers reckon that you're wrong, just as you reckon they're wrong. All believers can't be right, since they all make different truth-claims. However, they can all be wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

I sense too some peer pressure element, wanting to confirm to the atheist orthodoxy, and downright rejection of different ideas without due consideration, frequent knee-jerk reactions.

Atheism is not a religion and people here don't do it to "look cool" though I concede that there appear to be a lot of religious people who believe that atheist believers form peer-groups in the same or a similar fashion to the way religious people form peer-groups. We don't.

Though I can't help but wonder if your experience with peer-pressure in religion is - again - leading you to think about posters here in the wrong way.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

It's really struck me in the past week the total intransigence and stubbornness in this forum.

what did you expect? the scales to fall from our eyes?
do you think an atheist posting consistently in the christianity forum would have any more luck than you have had here?

you simply haven't presented an argument which has convinced people; the failing is not on the side of the audience.

RichieO

I think we use different dictionaries, a concept is an abstract idea in my book, so atheism is label stuck on people who do not believe in the concept of a deity, gravity is a fact not an abstract idea... Arguing semantics is only exposing the vulnerabilities of labels...

Optimalprimerib

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In responding to the drive-by poster I was referring more to crystals, reiki, homeopathy, reflexology, etc. but if you want to drag christianity down to that level be my guest!

This is my problem. Atheists put themselves on a pedestal above anyone who has a belief that does not match their own. They close their mind to other beliefs or mantras because science cannot prove it yet. That does not mean that there is no grounding to that belief. It just has not been found yet.

Look there are plenty out there that believe blindly on certain things, but if they can get a comfort from that without harming others, it puts them in a happier place.

I have religious friends. Some that truly believe in the gift of prayer, that it offers a comfort or gives resolve. Some that go to mass because they are afraid of their mammy. Go late and nearly trip over themselves falling out the door as soon as it is over.

I have atheist friends as well. Some that I never knew were atheists as they keep it to themselves unless asked. Some that I knew were atheists before I knew their name.

On both sides, they have different levels of intelligence on different aspects of their lives. So to say that atheists have a higher IQ or intelligence than non atheists is folly even a little arrogant. There is nothing wrong in believing the unbelievable if it makes you a better, stronger person.

smacl

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

So to say that atheists have a higher IQ or intelligence than non atheists is folly even a little arrogant.

It might be worth pointing out here that the post that asserted that religious people have lower IQs was made by a Catholic poster, Peregrinus and this post was backed by a Wikipedia article that linked a number of studies in this area. As and atheist, I pointed out a number of potential issues with this assertion, where I suspect on the one hand there are confounding variables at play and on the other the dangers of misapplying IQ as a metric. I would suggest you re-think where the arrogance is here. My opinion is that it is arrogant to try to polarise the population into theists and atheists and then pass sweeping unsupported generalisations across as fact which are actually no more than biased anecdote.

There is nothing wrong in believing the unbelievable if it makes you a better, stronger person.

I'd agree, but there is no reason for anyone else to consider such beliefs to be credible to the extent that they should share those beliefs. Someone tells me they're a Christian or Muslim and they derive great strength and an improved life from prayer, I'm happy for them. If they suggest I join in their prayer, I say thanks but no thanks. If they try to foist their beliefs on my children through schools funded by my taxes, I object strongly and vocally. If they say their God considers homosexuality an abomination, or attempts to restrict what a woman can or cannot do with her body, or attempts to restrict access to contraception, I become extremely critical of their God and their religion.

Samaris

I really do not get why people come in to a forum called atheism and agnosticism, espouse religious views, attempt to convince said atheists and agnostics of the truth of their religious views ("My faith will prove strong enough to convert the heretics where all others have failed before me!") and then get offended when the above don't agree with them because, y'know, they're atheists or agnostics and have almost certainly heard it all before. As you can tell from the extremely well thought out and researched posts refuting the same old points.

Like, who's being intransigent and obnoxious here? Can I not have my lack of belief respected in the same way that I respect the Christians' rights to their religion in the Christianity forum?

The majority of people in here seem quite happy to live and let live as long as religion is not being forced down their throats (certain issues with Irish law for some). Many are even happy to talk about religion. But unsurprisingly, there will be few converts gotten from here. You'd have an easier time with AH, although they'd probably be a lot more blunt about it and the thread would rapidly degenerate into a row, because AH.

Intransigent my rear end, it's like going into the farming forum to discuss the merits of BSE and then being offended when the farmers don't agree. Well, that could have been predicted.

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

It might be worth pointing out here that the post that asserted that religious people have lower IQs was made by a Catholic poster, Peregrinus

somehow i had it in my head that Peregrinus is CoI; not that it matters (and not that i'm asking him/her to 'out' themselves). that woud be an ecumenical matter.

Peregrinus

Full disclosure: I'm a Catholic.

The point about religious people having a lower IQ was first made by Splashuum in post 73; I came in in post 75 to say, basically, yeah, that's right, but it might not mean what you might think it might mean, and to try and keep the discussion focused on the issue of whether the IQ evidence says anything meaningful about an "atheist mindset".

One eyed Jack

RichieO wrote: »

I think we use different dictionaries, a concept is an abstract idea in my book, so atheism is label stuck on people who do not believe in the concept of a deity, gravity is a fact not an abstract idea... Arguing semantics is only exposing the vulnerabilities of labels...

I'm not arguing semantics at all. If I had truly wanted to be pedantic, I would have pointed out that in your earlier horse racing metaphor, the atheist position would be that they have no horse, as opposed to backing any particular horse in the running. To extend that metaphor to cover your own position then would be that you don't believe that any of the horses has the possibility of winning (or being correct about their assertions about their particular deity or deities), and so given you haven't actually backed any horse at all, you aren't really risking anything! Of course I understood what you meant though, so I wasn't going to be pedantic about it.

Now, with regard to both atheism and gravity, both are actually abstract, intangible concepts. A lack of awareness of gravity, or an awareness of gravity, doesn't make any difference to the effects of gravity itself. A lack of awareness of the question of a deity or deities has no effect on the concept of atheism. Atheism is still an abstract concept which would exist regardless of an individuals self-identity.

Hotblack Desiato

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

This is my problem. Atheists put themselves on a pedestal above anyone who has a belief that does not match their own. They close their mind to other beliefs or mantras because science cannot prove it yet. That does not mean that there is no grounding to that belief. It just has not been found yet.

Many beliefs have been proven false by science e.g. flat earth, homeopathy. 'Keeping an open mind' to proven falsehoods is certainly not a sign of intelligence as you claimed.

On both sides, they have different levels of intelligence on different aspects of their lives. So to say that atheists have a higher IQ or intelligence than non atheists is folly even a little arrogant. There is nothing wrong in believing the unbelievable if it makes you a better, stronger person.

I made no such claim.
You however claimed that they are less intelligent than the 'keepers of an open mind', though, which is nonsense.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now, with regard to both atheism and gravity, both are actually abstract, intangible concepts. A lack of awareness of gravity, or an awareness of gravity, doesn't make any difference to the effects of gravity itself. A lack of awareness of the question of a deity or deities has no effect on the concept of atheism. Atheism is still an abstract concept which would exist regardless of an individuals self-identity.

Apples and oranges tooth fairies. Gravity demonstrably exists and hence is no more an abstract concept than heat or light. The existence of deities cannot be demonstrated (perhaps because they don't exist), and hence are abstract concepts at best.

RichieO

I acknowledge I am shoite using metaphors and analogies, but if I asked you if you believed in Santa and you said "no" I would not think "what a strange concept"...

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Apples and oranges tooth fairies. Gravity demonstrably exists and hence is no more an abstract concept than heat or light. The existence of deities cannot be demonstrated (perhaps because they don't exist), and hence are abstract concepts at best.

Whether they are or aren't abstract concepts wasn't really the point though. The point was more a commemtary on awareness (or lack thereof), doesn't change the fact that both gravity, and the question of deities exists. To suggest that people are born atheist would be incorrect, because they are born without an awareness of the question in the first place to follow by taking a position one way or the other on the question itself.

RichieO wrote: »

I acknowledge I am shoite using metaphors and analogies, but if I asked you if you believed in Santa and you said "no" I would not think "what a strange concept"...

You wouldn't, but that's a commemtary on your own individual mindset, as opposed to the shared mindset you're alluding to in your opening post which is a commemtary on your observations of the differences in the mindset of people who are atheist and those people who are religious.

It reminded me of the example of when scientists were mapping the human genome a few years back, and some scientists were convinced they had discovered a gene related to IQ. Unfortunately their excitement was short lived as further investigation using a greater sample set revealed their discovery to be false. I would suggest that with a greater sample set and further investigation, your discovery too may well prove to be false. That's one of the dangers of the correlation/causation fallacy at an individual level - you can tend to convince yourself of extraordinary claims without the requisite requirement for extraordinary evidence, because confirmation bias will lead you to believe what you believe is indeed true.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whether they are or aren't abstract concepts wasn't really the point though. The point was more a commemtary on awareness (or lack thereof), doesn't change the fact that both gravity, and the question of deities exists. To suggest that people are born atheist would be incorrect, because they are born without an awareness of the question in the first place to follow by taking a position one way or the other on the question itself.

Not really. A baby will experience gravity from the moment it is born and become aware of it as soon as it becomes generally aware, falling over being something babies do a lot of. The same baby may never become aware of the question whether or not God exists, and by virtue of not being aware of the notion of God will be an atheist. Atheism only requires that a person doesn't believe in a god or gods. it doesn't demand the atheist considers themselves an atheist. Person who does not know about gods isn't in a position to believe in them.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Not really. A baby will experience gravity from the moment it is born and become aware of it as soon as it becomes generally aware, falling over being something babies do a lot of. The same baby may never become aware of the question whether or not God exists, and by virtue of not being aware of the notion of God will be an atheist. Atheism only requires that a person doesn't believe in a god or gods. it doesn't demand the atheist considers themselves an atheist. Person who does not know about gods isn't in a position to believe in them.

While a person will undoubtedly experience the effect of gravity, it doesn't logically follow that they will become aware of the concept of gravity, any more than it follows that they are aware or unaware of the concept of theism and the contrary theological position that is atheism.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any method to determine whether an infant is either passively or positively aware or unaware of the concept of a deity or deities and therefore there is no way to determine whether they do or don't believe in a deity or deities until they develop the cognitive capacity to articulate and communicate their thought processes in some form.

The best we could accurately determine IMO is that we simply don't know one way or the other whether a person when they're born is either a theist, deist, pantheist or atheist. The belief that all people are born atheist is somewhat reminiscent of the 'blank slate' theory in human cognitive development, which isn't a theory I subscribe to either, as it implies quite like the opening post that the human mind is a fixed one-track mind in each person, which flies in the face of modern scientific theories regarding how the human brain actually functions.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While a person will undoubtedly experience the effect of gravity, it doesn't logically follow that they will become aware of the concept of gravity, any more than it follows that they are aware or unaware of the concept of theism and the contrary theological position that is atheism.

The mere fact that everyone experiences the effect of gravity makes them aware of it as a natural physical phenomenon, which of course is what it is. It is not a concept, i.e. unlike God or the tooth fairy it is not an imagined thing.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any method to determine whether an infant is either passively or positively aware or unaware of the concept of a deity or deities and therefore there is no way to determine whether they do or don't believe in a deity or deities until they develop the cognitive capacity to articulate and communicate their thought processes in some form.

The best we could accurately determine IMO is that we simply don't know one way or the other whether a person when they're born is either a theist, deist, pantheist or atheist. The belief that all people are born atheist is somewhat reminiscent of the 'blank slate' theory in human cognitive development, which isn't a theory I subscribe to either, as it implies quite like the opening post that the human mind is a fixed one-track mind in each person, which flies in the face of modern scientific theories regarding how the human brain actually functions.

The problem with that line of argument is that theistic religion is a natural progression from non-theistic supernatural beliefs, such as ancestor worship and shamanism. While the specifics have developed over time, the notion of gods is a taught concept. A religion such as Christianity was conceived by relatively few people and propagated to many other over time. Babies don't spontaneously become Catholics, Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs, rather it is something inculcated in them later as children by their parents and community. While different children might buy into the god story given to them to varying degrees, it is not something the vast majority would ever come up with by themselves. As such they are born atheists and remain atheists until they're given religious instruction of some kind.

Samaris

Well, it is possible that a person would come up with a mythological explanation for the world around them, much as religions developed in general, particularly if they have no other way of explaining X, Y or Z. It's a bit of a difficult one to test, since it would require having someone with no concept of religion living out in the wilds somewhere!

Some individuals might come up with fanciful ideas of what the lightning was, why the sun rose and set. Others might not. Some of them might be naturally inclined to theism, others may be naturally inclined to atheism. Some of them might even get the right explanations. But I don't see how you could predict which would be which.

If all people were inclined to be atheists with no outside push, presumably religions would not have sprung up in the first place. Yet it seems perfectly likely also that there have always been atheists, they just had to keep very quiet about it.

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

Some individuals might come up with fanciful ideas of what the lightning was, why the sun rose and set. Others might not. Some of them might be naturally inclined to theism, others may be naturally inclined to atheism. Some of them might even get the right explanations. But I don't see how you could predict which would be which.

I don't doubt that, but if you think about it, what you're seeing is the few having an imaginative explanation for some unusual phenomenon and the suggesting that's how it works to the many. Bolt of lightening hits the ground, some dude or dudette thinks 'yay, its Thor!' and starts a good story going. People love a good story and Thor is born. Story gets retold and embellished over time, and a few lightening storms later, everyone's dancing about the place worshipping Thor. Everyone except of course the babies, who haven't yet had Thor explained to them. Goddamn baby atheists!

Samaris

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-false-equation-of-atheism-and-intellectual-sophistication/284406/

Seems relevant to the conversation about IQ. It's an interesting read anyway.

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-false-equation-of-atheism-and-intellectual-sophistication/284406/

Seems relevant to the conversation about IQ. It's an interesting read anyway.

An interesting article, though I wouldn't much agree with the conclusion that the age of atheism hasn't really caught on. I think more so that it has been continually stymied by various religious groups who are extremely reluctant to lose their positions of power in society. While nominal religious affiliation in countries like Ireland remains high, the fact that actual religious practise is in steep decline, as has joining the priesthood, suggests to me we will see major changes in the coming decades.

RichieO

I used to feel the largest religions were too big to fail, but given the the fact that many people are are dropping their religion solely for one reason, that the church denies them their basic rights, whether human, womens or gays rights, I wonder what the church will do to prevent further losses, if anything, because if that trend continues, what's next?

beefburrito

Atheists definitely have a different mindset to the other side.
They don't think in a cosmic, spiritual or superstitious way.

They do have their uses as they proclaim to be more intelligent than the religious, spiritual call it what you like woo people.

I find the atheists who were once religious less confrontational in their attitude to religious,woo, spiritual people, concepts and organisations.

It's the I've discovered Atheism and the I've discovered God or cosmic spirituality people who are the most irritating.

I always have a good laugh at the new Atheist or new woo,they tend to go on a crusade of telling everyone about their new found enlightenment.

I'd hate to be a moderator on this forum or the Christianity forum because it must be a full time job.....

looksee

beefburrito wrote: »

Atheists definitely have a different mindset to the other side.
They don't think in a cosmic, spiritual or superstitious way.

They do have their uses as they proclaim to be more intelligent than the religious, spiritual call it what you like woo people.

I find the atheists who were once religious less confrontational in their attitude to religious,woo, spiritual people, concepts and organisations.

It's the I've discovered Atheism and the I've discovered God or cosmic spirituality people who are the most irritating.

I always have a good laugh at the new Atheist or new woo,they tend to go on a crusade of telling everyone about their new found enlightenment.

I'd hate to be a moderator on this forum or the Christianity forum because it must be a full time job.....

Don't know about the Christianity forum but this one is very civilised and well behaved ( - mostly). We do get people floating in making wild generalisations about atheists, but we are pretty tolerant...and then we squish them .

RichieO

Another shoite analogy; Listening to Theist vs. Atheist.

You. How much weight can you lift comfortably?
Me. 100kg
You. Good, I have such a weight that needs moving.
Me. Show me.
You, here it is.
Me. I can’t lift that; it’s a sheet of glass, put handles on it..
You. Here, two suction cups, now lift it.
Me. I can’t it’s 3 x 3mtrs and flat on the floor.
You. So you can’t lift 100Kg.
Me. Yes, but….. screw you.
You. Screw you twice… I WIN…

smacl

beefburrito wrote: »

I always have a good laugh at the new Atheist or new woo,they tend to go on a crusade of telling everyone about their new found enlightenment.

It is a phenomenon sometimes referred to as 'zeal of the convert' and according to this Pew study while it exists its effects are very modest in that new converts to a belief system are only slightly more zealous than there long term counterparts.

RichieO

smacl wrote: »

It is a phenomenon sometimes referred to as 'zeal of the convert' and according to this Pew study while it exists its effects are very modest in that new converts to a belief system are only slightly more zealous than there long term counterparts.

Yet another shoite analogy..

A genuinely open mind is always in transition, like trying to measure the speed of an object that is slowly accelerating or decelerating the measurement is relative to small time frame, a sudden large change is more noticeable, like the 'eureka' moment, tell everyone about it...

smacl

Not a bad analogy at all, and one seen quite often in Eastern philosophy such as Taoism which emphasises the importance of continuous change and transition as much if not more than the intermediate states. You see this reflected in physical practises such as taiji (tai chi) and qigong.

Hotblack Desiato

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-false-equation-of-atheism-and-intellectual-sophistication/284406/

Seems relevant to the conversation about IQ. It's an interesting read anyway.

There's a glaring fallacy at the heart of this article though:

But that doesn't mean the average believer's search for meaning and understanding is any less rigorous or valuable—it just ends with a different conclusion: that God exists.

If the average believer is actually engaged in seeking truth, isn't it an amazing coincidence that the vast majority of them find that truth in remaining affiliated, whether nominally or actively, in the same religion they were raised in in childhood?

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If the average believer is actually engaged in seeking truth, isn't it an amazing coincidence that the vast majority of them find that truth in remaining affiliated, whether nominally or actively, in the same religion they were raised in in childhood?

You also have the issue that if the average nominal Christian actually believed in God one would think they'd go the church a bit more often. If you honestly believed there was an omniscient all powerful being keeping tabs on you with certain expectations as to how you behaved, surely you'd make the effort to comply to a large degree? As such I would question the certitude of the beliefs held by many nominally religious folks.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's a glaring fallacy at the heart of this article though:



If the average believer is actually engaged in seeking truth, isn't it an amazing coincidence that the vast majority of them find that truth in remaining affiliated, whether nominally or actively, in the same religion they were raised in in childhood?

It's obviously not a coincidence.

Nor is it particularly surprising, though. Most people who "find their truth" in some religion find it in a variety of religion which is accessible to them, by culture and upbringing. This gives the religion in which they have been brought up a head start.

Atheists are no different; they tend to find atheist positions which are accessible to them by culture and upbringing. You'll find an awful lot more Irish atheists whose atheism looks like Richard Dawkins', for example, than you will find Irish Taoist atheists.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

You'll find an awful lot more Irish atheists whose atheism looks like Richard Dawkins', for example, than you will find Irish Taoist atheists.

Most likely so, but then you may also have many more atheists still who atheism doesn't like anything much at all, in that they've no interest in religion one way or another.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Most likely so, but then you may also have many more atheists still who atheism doesn't like anything much at all, in that they've no interest in religion one way or another.

Yes, but apathy and disinterest are highly accessible to us Irish by culture and upbringing!

The statement Hotblack interrogates is "the average believer's search for meaning and understanding is [not] less rigorous or valuable" than, presumably, the average unbeliever's search for meaning and understanding. I think for the comparison to be meaningful we have to exclude those who find themselves in unbelief because they have simply no interest in religion as a possible route to meaning and understanding.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but apathy and disinterest are highly accessible to us Irish by culture and upbringing!

True, but then lack of interest in religion doesn't indicate apathy unless there's a lack of interest in everything else as well. Could just be that many people have no interest in religion because it has no relevance to them whatsoever

The statement Hotblack interrogates is "the average believer's search for meaning and understanding is [not] less rigorous or valuable" than, presumably, the average unbeliever's search for meaning and understanding. I think for the comparison to be meaningful we have to exclude those who find themselves in unbelief because they have simply no interest in religion as a possible route to meaning and understanding.

Hmmm, not so sure we know that much about the average believer or unbeliever one way or another, nor the standard deviation for that matter. We seem to be throwing around a lot of unsupported stereotypes here.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

True, but then lack of interest in religion doesn't indicate apathy unless there's a lack of interest in everything else as well. Could just be that many people have no interest in religion because it has no relevance to them whatsoever

A lack of interest in religion as a possible source of "meaning and understanding" does suggest someone who is either not searching for M and U, or is arbitrarily limiting that search because of, I dunno, preconceptions about religion, or an unlimited search is just too much trouble, or whatever.

smacl wrote: »

Hmmm, not so sure we know that much about the average believer or unbeliever one way or another, nor the standard deviation for that matter. We seem to be throwing around a lot of unsupported stereotypes here.

And when has that ever stopped us?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Atheists are no different; they tend to find atheist positions which are accessible to them by culture and upbringing.

The vast majority of Irish atheists were raised as catholics, so they have found a position very different from their upbringing albeit not entirely culturally incompatible (today. 30 years ago an atheist was someone you'd see on the Late Late and the audience would gasp when they brazenly announced their unbelief. Even today the A-word carries a lot of baggage for some people.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

A lack of interest in religion as a possible source of "meaning and understanding" does suggest someone who is either not searching for M and U, or is arbitrarily limiting that search because of, I dunno, preconceptions about religion, or an unlimited search is just too much trouble, or whatever.

But a lack of interest in naval gazing in general, whether or not it includes religion, is hardly an indicator of apathy. One can be exemplify all it is to have a joie de vivre and not give a flying fig for such things.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

But a lack of interest in naval gazing in general, whether or not it includes religion, is hardly an indicator of apathy. One can be exemplify all it is to have a joie de vivre and not give a flying fig for such things.

Of couse. You can be apathetic about "the search for meaning and understanding" but passionate about, say, Crewe Alexander. Or the other way around.

But the claim specifically relates to "the search for meaning and understanding", so we can disregard people's feelings about Crewe Alexander for the purposes of scrutinising the claim.

The claim, to remind you, is that " the average believer's search for meaning and understanding is [not] less rigorous or valuable" than the average unbeliever's search for M&U.

Hotblack disputes this, pointing to the fact that the average believer ends up in the tradition in which he was raised, suggesting that he hasn't travelled very far in his search for M&U.

You, however, point to atheists who arrive at atheism not in a search for M&U but simply because of a lack of interest in religion. Your position, it seems to me, would tend to support the claim, rather than undermine it.

RichieO

Looking for "The Truth" is a waste of time, similarly looking for "The Enlightenment" or "The Anything" because there insn't one, you can only find our own version of anything and everything; and that includes your perception... Your brain, your mind, your perception, your world, all created by you, for you... You are welcome to deny, laugh, cry, shout and scream, object and insult, I don't care or mind, it will not change that fact... You are what you think you are and your world is what you think it is...

smacl

RichieO wrote: »

You are what you think you are and your world is what you think it is...

I think you'll find people are much more easily influenced than that. If you tell someone they're looking really well it can add a spring to their step, conversely if you tell someone they look like they're at death's door it can have a sickening effect. Another way of looking at it is that you are what you choose to be and the world is what you make of it. Without being religious, there are many philosophical stances you can adopt. As the old Dublin joke would have it the difference between a stoic and a cynic is the former brings the baby whereas the latter's what you wash it in

RichieO

smacl wrote: »

I think you'll find people are much more easily influenced than that. If you tell someone they're looking really well it can add a spring to their step, conversely if you tell someone they look like they're at death's door it can have a sickening effect. Another way of looking at it is that you are what you choose to be and the world is what you make of it. Without being religious, there are many philosophical stances you can adopt. As the old Dublin joke would have it the difference between a stoic and a cynic is the former brings the baby whereas the latter's what you wash it in

That is true, (for some) but does that make it invalid or verfiy it?, I am still what I think I am, irrespective of what caused me to change...

smacl

RichieO wrote: »

I am still what I think I am, irrespective of what caused me to change...

I don't agree. To say that you are what you think you are would demand complete knowledge of the self. This in turn would deny the existence of a subconscious mind among other things. I'd also suspect that from a materialist point of view it would be unlikely that you could ever know all of your own mind as to do so would most likely require a mind larger than your own.

RichieO

smacl wrote: »

I don't agree. To say that you are what you think you are would demand complete knowledge of the self. This in turn would deny the existence of a subconscious mind among other things. I'd also suspect that from a materialist point of view it would be unlikely that you could ever know all of your own mind as to do so would most likely require a mind larger than your own.

There was a time long ago when I had a similar opinion, however, I have changed my opinion now, as with many other things too, and even some things I was convinced were nonsense, they haven’t changed, I have, in many ways…

smacl

RichieO wrote: »

There was a time long ago when I had a similar opinion, however, I have changed my opinion now, as with many other things too, and even some things I was convinced were nonsense, they haven’t changed, I have, in many ways…

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. Is it your opinion we don't have an unconscious mind in addition to a conscious one? Do you believe you fully understand the workings of your own mind? Do you believe the entirety of your actions are guided and controlled by your will? Apologies for the barrage of questions, but the notion that anyone could entirely know themselves is slightly alien to me.

RichieO

smacl wrote: »

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. Is it your opinion we don't have an unconscious mind in addition to a conscious one? Do you believe you fully understand the workings of your own mind? Do you believe the entirety of your actions are guided and controlled by your will? Apologies for the barrage of questions, but the notion that anyone could entirely know themselves is slightly alien to me.

No to all questions, and I do not know anything entirely, I do know that I constantly change how I think, hopefully improving with time… The mind is not just complicated but highly complex in many ways, my aim is improve it in every way I can…

Samaris

RichieO wrote: »

Looking for "The Truth" is a waste of time, similarly looking for "The Enlightenment" or "The Anything" because there insn't one, you can only find our own version of anything and everything; and that includes your perception... Your brain, your mind, your perception, your world, all created by you, for you... You are welcome to deny, laugh, cry, shout and scream, object and insult, I don't care or mind, it will not change that fact... You are what you think you are and your world is what you think it is...

I fear that line of reasoning and it's becoming more and more common currently. It is the line of reasoning that does - and I don't say you're one of them, btw! - lead to "alternative facts" and "my opinion deserves equal time with the facts for balance". It has already contributed (or perhaps sprung from), all the stuff about the media lying, who to believe, etcetera.

And, oddly, it seems to be approaching a religious fervor at the moment. Facts, evidence and observation don't matter. The world is sick of experts, particularly scientists. Gut instinct is the way to go, especially when said gut instinct is very much of the self-preservation, my gain at the cost of others (because they're barely even real) is accepted and encouraged.

The concept itself is fine, it's basically individual social constructivism, although I'm sure there's a specific term for it, but, as usual, the grain of truth in it (that our perceptions and information-processing differ) becomes the core point - that everyone has a different reality and that's fine, all opinions are valid and equal, facts bedamned.

It is interesting that it encourages fundamentalist thinking within our own societies too. Fundamentalism is rising all over the world - often religious (Buddhists in Myanmar, Hindu in India (both mostly against Muslims), Turkey, various Middle Eastern countries, secular fundamentalism in the UK and a bizarre mixture in the US, Hungary and Poland towards the far-right, etcetera). It's less noticeable here, but I think this is one of our signals about our own, lately-repressed, forms of fundamentalism. If the facts don't matter anymore, all that's left is gut instinct, and our gut instincts tend to be fearful, resentful and inclined to lash out.

Hotblack Desiato

Samaris wrote: »

"my opinion deserves equal time with the facts for balance"

The BAI guidelines for broadcasters during referendums, in a nutshell.

secular fundamentalism in the UK

Examples please. The only form of fundamentalism rising in the UK that I can see is muslim.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The only form of fundamentalism rising in the UK that I can see is muslim.

Does this count?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172426