The atheist mindset

Samaris wrote: »

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.

There is - Individualism

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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



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

Fundamentalism isn't really the best word to use for it, as it tends to be associated specifically with religion (although not invariably).

But there is a rise in certain attitudes - and it appears to be across the world - that lend themselves to fundamentalist notions. Maybe it's more tribalism?

It's pretty obvious with various religious groups, generally sparked off by some culturally specific issue, be it unrest between subgroups within a religion or between members of different religions (i.e. India, Myanmar, Middle East, Turkey). Along with discriminating against other religious groups (or one specific one), it also seems to be showing with a tightening grip over institutions and the members within the dominating religion - rise of extremism.

In non-religious societies, "the west" (ish), there is a rise in similar attitudes - my group or get out, be it by religion, race, colour or class. Sure, it was always there, under the surface - these are based on our own issues, inherent to western societies in the same way that religion may be the big cultural draw for extremism in other societies. But there does seem to be a large boost to it now, a sharpening divide between "us" and "them". It's very obvious in the United States at the moment. The biggest danger from these attitudes is the latitude it gives to hurt or discriminate against whichever group is today's victim - in Chechnya it's gay men (that was sparked off by a group requesting permission to hold a pride parade in March. Not only was that not granted, but the crackdown started right after it was rejected).

In the UK, "them" ranges from EU citizens, refugees, migrants in general and obvious descendants of migrants, regardless of their being British or not. It is a fundamentalist sort of ideal when taken to extremes.

Obviously, it does not extend to all people of any given country. And yes, there may well be reasons for issues - there usually are. But it is unusual - and a bit alarming - to listen to how people talk about their specific "them" now compared to even two years ago.

RichieO wrote: »

I was wondering is there a “gullible gene” or is it the way the brain is wired, or a combination of some other reasons…

I think more the latter. As others have pointed out our genetic history was formed in an environment where seeing agency and patterns where none exist was positively a benefit for us. So we evolved to do just that.

Imagine mistaking an agent for not an agent. This would get you killed and out of the gene pool in many cases.

Imagine mistaking no agent for an agent however. This would do nothing more than make you look a little silly for a moment.

So we are hard wired in a sense to see patterns and agency where none actually exist, because we are basically hard wired to be cautious and to survive. You could if you are interested google phrases like "Hyperactive agency detection" or "The intentional stance".

So it is little wonder than many (Most?) of our species continue to do so and see agency and patterns in the very universe around us. What is relevant to me is the substantiation one can THEN find for the feelings and fantasies our genetic heritage serve up to us.

Which, alas, is none from these people. The Christians and catholic around here simply do not back up their beliefs in any way when asked. Even Peregrinus who (not as complementary as it first sounds given the field) is the most coherent and articulate catholic frequenting this area of the forum has (at least to my knowledge, I may have missed it) never managed to offer a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest any credibility for the idea that whatever the explain for our universe and/or humans is....... that it involves the actions of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think tribalism, in-group and out-group thinking is particularly peculiar to theists, deists or pantheists

Not particular to it maybe but certainly exacerbated by it.

I tell this story often so I will make it brief here but I grew up with two boys who had such a strong friendship that they expressed it (due to the whole homosexuality thing) through the medium of a shared imaginary friend.

Until the day they actually fell out, to the point of actual violence, about some arbitrary attribute of said imaginary friend.

Which always seemed like religion in miniature to me. When people share a belief then the more that belief is divorced from reality the more potential there is for divisions to occur when some (often arbitrary) irreconcilable difference arises.

The boys arguing over what color hair their imaginary friend had is little different from the religious arguing over whether homosexuality is ok or not (get Andrew Sullivan and Bill OReilly.... both Catholics.... into a room on that one sometime) or what the Catholic cracker actually is. Neither side can evidence or substantiate their views.... the views remain irreconcilable.... and divisions occur.

Can that happen without religion? Hell yes, damn right it can. But religion certainly is a prime example of it in action on a large scale and for little to no benefit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course if you were like myself to view science itself as an all encompassing, abstract concept, then science is all around us, and it inspires us to investigate phenomena.

I do not see science as inspiring investigation at all. It is the tool one uses once inspired to do so. I have never seen anyone inspired to paint by a paint brush. Rather they get inspired to paint and then turn to the paint brush.

But we do often use the word "science" in common speech to refer not just to the methodologies but the products of it. And certain "science" in the sense of the products of science does inspire people to do more science.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Which is just because YOU define atheism as a position on the question itself. However many people define atheism merely as lacking in a belief in god. In which case it would likely be entirely true that babies are born atheist.

So no, no one is "incorrect" here. They are just operating on two different, but these days equally valid, definitions of what "atheism" even means.

Why do you think that the atheists get the higher ground? What do you mean by that?