Send in the atheists

But Crash has already pointed out the nonsense and incongruity of describing inanimate objects such as “atheistic lamppost”.I wouldn’t characterize your effort to broaden the use of “atheistic” as antagonistic, it's just misplaced adjectives and doesn’t further your argument

quote:

---

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

---

So, does that mean that "shopping online", "cooking", and "knitting" are religions, too?Gee, I guess I follow many religions!

quote:

---

I will agree that religion and belief is largely culturally influenced, but in my personal experience, there was also a major transformation which in my opinion occurred apart from cultural indoctrination.

---

So, Phat, how did you completely remove your cultural indoctrination before this transformation took place?

I hope everyone who's got this far has had a good look at the Zuckerman paper Mod links to in the O.P.One interesting thing would be for anyone who finds anything surprising in the stats in relation to any of the countries to point it out. For example, if somewhere has a much higher or lower level of disbelief than you would've expected, for whatever reason.Here's something I noticed that illustrates how patchy Europe is, especially interesting as these two neighbours were one state until recently.Zuckerman:

quote:

---

According to Inglehart et al (2004), 61% of those in the Czech republic do not believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 54% of those in the Czech Republic do not believe in God, although only 20% self-identify as “atheist.” According to a 1999 Gallup International Poll, over 55% of Czechs chose “none” as their religion.

---

quote:

---

According to Inglehart et al (2004), 17% of those in Slovakia do not believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 28% of those in Slovakia do not believe in God, but only 11% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Gall (1998), 10% of Slovaks are atheist.

---

Perhaps Slovakia is more rural and less industrialized than the Czech Republic, but it's actually the Slovaks who are close to average, and the Czechs the exception, with the highest rate of disbelief in the ex-eastern block countries.The other thing that's worth noting is that when you get results like 54% not believing in God, but only 20% self-identifying as atheists, it's not surprising that we're having so much trouble with definitions on this thread. It's not our fault. Half the world seems to have trouble defining themselves when it comes to religion!

are you suggesting confirmation bias? I'm sure there was some of that....but I know that the epiphany I had was more than that.

Yes. But there does seem to be a tendancy for human cultures to invent gods and somebody has to start the ball rolling. Belief in God X has to start somewhere.
I would suggest that if a group of "atheist" (your definition not mine) babies were to be abandoned on a desert island and managed somehow to survive, that they would develop something akin to theism to exaplin aspects of the natural world around them.
In that respect I think it is wrong to call the default position "athiest" as without influence I suspect the default culture to emerge would not be atheist at all.If anyone has some spare babies and a remote island on which to abandon them maybe we can test this out........ Well I agree with your sentiment but am not so optimistic. I fear that pseudoscientific type "religions" such as scientology and new age mysticisms will gain a grip on the popular consciousness at the expense of both traditional theism and rational thought.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi there,The New Zealand 2006 census shows a rise of 5% for those who have "no religion" to 34.7%. And interestingly the percentage of those who identified with a Christian religion dropped by 5% from the 2001 census.Also, in May this year the government released the National Statement on Religious Diversity. This document controversially stated for the first time that "New Zealand has no official or established religion."The NZ government consists of Labour, and the two junior coalition parties United Future (Christian-conservative), and Progressives (no declared religion). Prime Minister Helen Clark has declared herself agnostic. The leader for the opposition party has stated he does not follow any faith and does not believe in the afterlife (of course not going so far as to use an "A" word - think of the votes!).

Exactly why defining atheism in such a way as to include lampposts or babies is not helpful.
The answers to a poll on atheism are going to very much depend on what atheism means to those being asked.
Given that those of us on this thread who would definitely describe themselves as atheists are still unable to agree exactly what an atheist is it seems unlikely that the stats are an accurate reflection of the prevelance of "atheism" of any single definition.The stats probably do however give an indication as to how socially acceptable it is for one to describe oneself as an atheist in each location and that in itself will say something about how widespread disbelief is.So the stats have to be taken with a pinch of salt but probably are a reasonable reflection of relative attitudes to theism.

I agree. More than a tendency. No anthropologist has ever identified a culture that doesn't have some kind of religion, and powerful supernatural entitities usually (but not always) play a role.The one thing that seems to be always there is the human soul or spirit, so that, if anything, comes first for your island babies. It's quite likely to be given to other animals as well, logically in a sense, as its the thing that's gone missing when something dies, and can extend to plants and even inanimate objects (less logically it would seem). Dictionary definitions, not mine.But by all means use non-theist if you prefer. That way atheist could be reserved for the stage when a baby is capable of understanding the concept of Gods. The child's then an atheist until believing. You could say that it's the default for individuals, but not for cultures. But the babies on the island have no Gods before they, or their descendants, have invented them. And at some point in our history, the first Gods were invented, and our ancestors were cultural animals before that (chimps are) so I think atheism always precedes theism, and is always, in the end, the default.You're an atheist from a theistic culture, and could you be subconsciously coming up with the theistic emphasis?"In the beginning was the word, and the word was God"The atheist emphasis is, surely, "In the beginning was non-belief then along came the silly bugger(s) who invented God."Or is that the antitheist emphasis?(I had an interesting brief exchange with RAZD on another thread about the role of conditions like epilepsy and schizophrenia in the invention of gods, but it was off topic there, so I might get around to starting a much needed thread on the subject when I have time).

Simply giving a dictionary definition to them like "someone who does not believe in God, Gods or deities" would surely bring the 20% more in line with the 54% who've said, simply, that they do not believe in God.Perhaps they're being confused by thinking that an atheist is someone who claims to be 100% sure that there are no Gods, or who claims to be able to prove their non-existence, or must have some kind of antitheistic sentiments, etc.The 54% may include such types, but what they all have in common is that, like their babies, they do not believe in God. That's why, in a post way up near the beginning the thread, I recommended the Zuckerman introduction, as I think he covers most of the problems of innacuracy briefly, but very well.

Thanks for that - and welcome to EvC. I have always listed NZ as somewhere I'd seriously consider moving to - I guess I have another reason to add to the list

As long as we get to also have an island where we raise the children with all the facts - what other people believe, what science says without ever telling them what to believe themselves. For fairness, the guardians should never reveal their faith.

Hi, Sonne, and welcome to EvC. It's interesting that, while nearly two thirds of the country still have a religion, politicians don't appear worried about putting themselves in the no-religion sector. That would tend to indicate that they know that the overwhelming majority of the religious are not bothered about voting for people who do not share their beliefs.Politicians may frequently seem stupid in many ways, but making unnecessary declarations that would lose them votes is usually not one of them!I think this indicates what I would call a low level of religious intensity in N.Z. Religion is certainly not central to life for most people, I'd guess.

not unconsciously. This is quite consciously the case.
BUT........ So I would suggest the emphasis and diferentiation between those who actively deisbelieve and those that are blissfully ignorant non-believers is inevitably essential. To some extent with a word like atheist you can pick your dictionary to suit your argument. Theists, and many others, would probably use the following definitions of atheists.Atheist - definition of atheist by The Free Dictionary
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions Good topic. Could include natural halucinogens in there as well.Interested to know what you think of my own gloomy prediction that pseudoscientific irrationality (scientology, astrology, mysticism) rather than rational atheism will take the place of traditional theism over the next 100 years or so?

No, I am not suggesting confirmation bias.Each person is the sum of their previous experiences, and those experiences take place in a culture.I am suggesting that it is quite impossible, contrary to your suggestion, to have any experience that is devoid of cultural influence/indoctrination. Everyone interprets each and every experience they have through a filter, and a very big influence on the construction of that filter is the culture(s) we grow up in and live in. It is how we relate to the experience, and give it context to ourselves.There is, literally, no way to escape cultural influence. Edited by nator, : No reason given.