nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The atheist mindset

RichieO

I have found that the vast majority of atheists seem to have a quite different mindset than theists, inasmuch that atheists also discard the likes of astrology, psychics, the supernatural, superstitions, lucky charms, magic, voodoo and just about everything that cannot be proven or explained in sensible, logical terms, on the other hand theists tend to accept some or many of these, so I was wondering is there a “gullible gene” or is it the way the brain is wired, or a combination of some other reasons…

Are there any atheists or agnostics who buy into any of the above mentioned?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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