Ideatheism

[ApostateAbe]

Not long ago I had a moment of clarity, a payoff from the years I spent engaging in the study of religion and atheist activism. I realized that the gods exist. They exist as ideas. They are the most powerful ideas that ever existed in the world. They are informational units that are at the central cores of religions, have changed billions of lives, inspired revolutions, elevated the greatest leaders, brought down the same leaders, led the arts and sciences, and directed the Zeitgeist of all humankind, for better or for worse.

So why should I keep calling myself an atheist? I have decided that it is misleading to call myself an atheist. There is no word that denotes my new perspective until I decided to invent one. I call it, "ideatheism."

An ideatheist is someone who believes that the gods exist mainly as ideas.

You might ask, "So what is the difference between ideatheist and a normal atheist?" The answer is: fundamentally nothing.

The important distinction is the approach one takes to thinking about the gods. I credit Richard Dawkins for proposing "memes," which is the perspective reflected in ideatheism (ideas are evolutionary units). But he also made the analogous move of placing the gene as the evolutionary unit of natural selection, as opposed to individuals, populations, or species, as he wrote in his books, The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. It didn't change the fundamental theory of evolution, but it offered a more useful new perspective on thinking about it. I would like to do a similar thing with Dawkins' meme idea, applying it our own way of thinking about the nature of the gods, how we identify ourselves, and how we distinguish ourselves from religious adherents.

Allow me to explain what Dawkins first proposed. Memes are ideas that evolve by the Darwinian mechanisms of reproduction, variation, and natural selection. It doesn't have anything to do with biology except as an analogy. Just as the more efficient viruses will outmatch the less efficient viruses, so will the more persuasive ideas outmatch the less persuasive ideas. When Christian churches send missionaries to the privative natives on a lonely island, they introduce a robust religion that usually outcompetes the native mythology, just as their rats and dogs outcompete the dodos. Christianity and Islam were cults that descended from the most persuasive ideology out of a large selection of tribal religions (Judaism was the only religion that was based on holy written scriptures). Christianity and Islam each have had 2000 years and 1500 years respectively to adapt to the attacks from pagans, heathens, heretics, and apostates. They have grown in complexity and ubiquity, beautiful and robust, almost completely inseparable from the believing hosts.

Any fundamental trait of a large religion can be explained in terms of natural selection. The duel-ultimate afterlives of heaven and hell, for example, are explained by the carrot-and-stick method of human persuasion. As products of the human imagination, nothing has constrained Christianity and Islam from maximizing the carrot and stick. And it is no mere coincidence that the duel-ultimate afterlives are found in the two most popular religions in the world. A lesser carrot and stick afterlife doctrine is found in the third largest religion, Hinduism, with reincarnation as beetles and celebrities, places on a hierarchy depending largely on one's religious devotion. Promises of rewards and punishments have helped the survival of the gods--that is part of the way an ideatheist thinks about religions.

Besides the better way to think about the gods, there is a secondary benefit to this new title of ideatheism. It offers a much more interesting and productive way to start conversations with religious adherents. Atheism is a contentious way to identify one's self in the company of theistic believers. It says, merely, "I don't believe in your gods. I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." And it often implies, "There is probably something wrong with you for believing in the gods." Atheism has no philosophy or substance of any sort except the belief that there are no gods (and atheists are divided even on that minor point--is it believing the lack or is it lacking belief?). So all conversations on atheism between atheists and theists tend to start on that divisive point, putting at least one member of the conversation on the defensive. I am an atheist and you are a believer in the gods. One of us is right and the other is wrong--let the arguments begin.

The author Dale Carnegie was on to something when he wrote his famous book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. He had 12 rules for how to win people to your way of thinking. The first rule listed was,

"The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it."

Ideatheism avoids the argument. It says, "The gods exist mainly as ideas. Whatever you may think about the gods, be they up in the sky or not, they seem to manifest themselves most relevantly as religious doctrines. Given the nature of ideologies, it is natural for you or anyone else to believe in the gods." And even a religious adherent may not disagree with that. It is already blazingly obvious that the gods are indeed very powerful ideological forces, and, looking outside of one's own religion, it must be the general rule.

What puzzles me is that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett were the two great thinkers who persuaded me to think of religions in terms of memes. And yet they both seem to have made the simultaneous mistake of choosing the word, "Bright," as an identifier for an atheist. You cannot walk into a room declaring that you are a smart person and then expect to make friendly conversation about it. You are more likely to get punched in the nose. Did not Dawkins and Dennett have a better alternative contained in their own pioneering idea of memes?

One objection to ideatheism might be, "If the gods exist, should we also say that unicorns and dragons exist? They are ideas too."

I would say unicorns and dragons exist since they are ideas, and it isn't useful to say so, because it isn't so relevant to us that they exist as ideas. What is more important to us (what we would tell our children) is that unicorns don't exist as real horses with horns, and dragons don't exist as fire-breathing lizards. It is relevant, on the other hand, that the gods exist as ideas. Their ideological power is well beyond unicorns and dragons, and it is (or should be) relatively unimportant to us that the gods probably don't exist as ethereal cosmic overlords.

I have created division among atheists in the past with my antagonistic theatrics. That is in the past. I hope no division is caused by ideatheism. I don't think of ideatheism as replacing atheism. I think of ideatheism as the same as atheism, only with a small but significant upgrade.

[RareBird]

Fair enough. It seems to be committed reasonable assertions over and above dismissal of literal god(s). May be a little odd to pronounce though.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Terrible name.

Think "ID Atheism".

[ApostateAbe]

I welcome suggestions for a better name. I pronounce it after the Greek idea -- id-eh-ah.

EDIT: Never mind, I like the name.

[wordy]

Good work ApostateAbe, why didn't I come up with that idea? :)

A friend of Michael Shermer maybe did. He wrote about in one of his books. "Why We Believe". But you seems to be the inventor of name though.

idea + theist.

One cause for misunderstanding though would be that as theist is commonly used a theist has reverence and respect for the gods of their choice.

While I guess you being Apostate + Abe has the attitude of an Apostate!

While people hearing your definition might think that being an ideatheist could mean one actually submitted to those idea-gods.

And you meant that one are seeing those ideas as something to take a stand against?

[wordy]

it is (or should be) relatively unimportant to us that the gods probably don't exist as ethereal cosmic overlords.

What is important then for an ideatheist is that they exists as powerful ideas that people actually act upon despite them having only experiental or anectdotal evidence of them existing. That they exist in their heads is what gives them political power.

One could compare with secular ideologies. Marxism and Maoism and Castroism and such exists as powerful ideas. Too powerful according to Liberals like me.

So ideatheism is compatible with atheism unless too many of us atheists react like when we heard of Brights, we didn't like that name at all.

What about the theists then. Some of them like the postmodernists would say this is only a new name for what Don Cupitt have written about for decades? www.doncupitt.com/

and the fundies would say that Secular Humanists finally give stark evidence we are a religion and thus evolution should be banned from school curriculum.

We have to ask a lot of theist to see if it compatible with their views.

I think of a book by Pascal Boyer "Religion Explained". I gave a link to his text in Skeptical Inquire recently. He explains that religions to be functional needs to be "counter-intuitive". Ideatheism is not "counter-intuitive" at all. It is plain simple and obvious to a degree of almost being truistic. truism noun A self-evident truth. See synonyms at cliché

Ideatheism is not proposed as a religion then. It is more like a philosophy about religious political and psychological power or ability to be persuasive?

Ideatheists don't follow or adhere to religious traditions, ideatheists explains away such traditions by giving them natural explanations. A kind of demythization?

[premjan]

Shows the importance of not getting overcommitted to ideas - bee in the bonnet syndrome.

[wordy]

A self-evident truth. See synonyms at cliché

Maybe Memetheism? But memes has been around since 1976 or so without catching on. Ideas is a better word for it. Dawkins came up with meme to rhyme with gene. And to give emphas on the virus like behavior of memes.

Like the Stuck-tune syndrom. Some ideas are like Stuck-tunes, they simply run and run and go on and go on in our heads despite we don't like them.

One such is "Free Will", decade after decade it gets debated and none come to a result that seems plausible to the critics of the concept or "Determinism" is a Stuck-tune loop too going around and around and the critics never get satisfied of the arguements.

The good thing with ideatheism is that it is explanational the bad thing is that it is too trivial or too self-evident.

Doesn't most atheist just yawn and say, just a fancy name for what we have always told the atheists, the gods are imagined and not real.

Theist, somebody who think imagined gods actually to exist.

Atheist, somebody who think imagined gods only exists as ideas in peoples heads.

Ideatheist, somebody who think imagined gods actually exists as ideas in peoples heads.

Sorry me twisted or tweaked your definition.

I see two divisions among ideatheists possible then. Your very head on def that says.

An ideatheist is someone who believes that the gods exist mainly as ideas.

If I understand the implications of that definition. Gods being mainly ideas constructed by us humans makes them as ideas open for change, gods are only as powerful as the commitment that the believers put into them. The believers are responsible for what they do with their ideas. They are the makers and thus in control of them. The damage control is something the believers should engage in. They are accountable for what they do in name of religion.

The other interpretation is more deterministic, gods existing mainly as ideas makes them very contagious and almost as persuasive as real physical viruses and thus it is hard to blame or say that the believers are responsible for "catching the cold virus" of religion. It just happens to them and it is only strong anti-virus methods like deprogramming that works to erase the bad virus. Believers not accountable, more like victims to an accident at early age when they had no resistance build up to stand against religions.

ApostateAbe, are you implying that now that we know that gods are ideas we should encourage all adherents to those bad ideas to abandon them.

Like "Racism" being a bad idea we anti-racists wants to erase? Political Correctness try to do this by blaming the one with stereotype views to be a potential hate crime supporter. Using shame to correct peoples thoughts.

Should we ideatheists also shame the religionists for their very bad ideas about gods being real and not imagined and tell the postmodernists to abandon their bad ideas?

http://science.qj.net/Stereotyping-A-Natural-Human-Instinct-/pg/49/aid/66332

Stereotyping: A Natural Human Instinct?"

Could not gods be an automatic byproduct of this Stereotyping: A Natural Human Instinct? Paul Bloom suggest something similar. We are born as natural dualists. We ascribe and agent to everything that happens. Gods are those imagined agents to things that we have no natural explanations for.

[premjan]

I don't think we should shame religionists. This OP makes the very valuable point that we can help people to play with their preconceived notions and see that they are indeed contingent ideas and not axioms.

[Tartantyco]

1) Duh

2) Duh

3) Itheism?

[wordy]

premjan, so the attitude and goal for an ideatheist would be to say,

Jesus as God, yeah sounds cool but as all ideas it could be improved. I suggest you make Jesus a fully human being by seeing him as a Jewish reformer.

Jesus as one of the ancient Ideatheists.

He was a kind of revolutionary reformer of judaism but a child of his time and thus we are now able to improve of his views. Him being so skeptical to marriages cause he thought the end of time being near. Now we have to build a sustainable society so we make Jesus into an ecological environmentalist and supporter of equal rights for man and woman. Jesus wants us to reform the church and makes it pro-choice and same-sex-marriages with woman priests and pastors.

Jesus makes you free to improve on his ideas on God. We could interpret Jesus to be the first to realize that God exist as an idea in our head.

Allow Jesus to be up to date. :)

[premjan]

yeah wordy I like that.

[wordy]

Premjan, thanks! :)

Abe, I wish I had your command of concepts and how to word them. I like this part.
"I don't believe in your gods. I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." And it often implies, "There is probably something wrong with you for believing in the gods." Atheism has no philosophy or substance of any sort except the belief that there are no gods (and atheists are divided even on that minor point--is it believing the lack or is it lacking belief?). So all conversations on atheism between atheists and theists tend to start on that divisive point, putting at least one member of the conversation on the defensive. I am an atheist and you are a believer in the gods. One of us is right and the other is wrong--let the arguments begin.


But we have to refine this part?

Ideatheism avoids the argument. It says, "The gods exist mainly as ideas. Whatever you may think about the gods, be they up in the sky or not, they seem to manifest themselves most relevantly as religious doctrines. Given the nature of ideologies, it is natural for you or anyone else to believe in the gods." And even a religious adherent may not disagree with that.

They actually do disagree cause they see the implications of saying it that way. Don Cupitt have tried this approach now for some 2007-1981= years.

I only guess, but he has been at it for more than 25 years and written some 20 books on the subject of gods as ideas. Religionists has protested wildly to his "non-realist" views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Faith

The Sea of Faith Network (SoF) is a Christian movement that aims to explore and promote the idea of religious faith as a human creation. It maintains that the concept of God is a sacred but nevertheless human expression. Such ideas span liberal religion and religious humanism.

The SoF logo depicts a saving lifebelt for those who find themselves spiritually "at sea" by offering a non-supernatural expression of religious faith.

The SoF movement started in 1984 as a response to theologian Don Cupitt's book and television series, both titled Sea of Faith. Cupitt is a philosopher, theologian, Anglican priest, and former Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. In the book and series, he surveyed western thinking about religion and charted the transition from traditional realist religion to the 20th century view that religion is simply a human creation.

[wordy]

Abe, hope it is okey with you if I flood your thread with ideas?

I come to think of us as atheists, we love reason more than emotion.

Ideas is kind of very broad concept. I looked the word idea up on answers.com

1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
2. An opinion, conviction, or principle: has some strange political ideas.
3. A plan, scheme, or method.
4. The gist of a specific situation; significance: The idea is to finish the project under budget.
5. A notion; a fancy.
6. Music. A theme or motif.
7. Philosophy.
1. In the philosophy of Plato, an archetype of which a corresponding being in phenomenal reality is an imperfect replica.
2. In the philosophy of Kant, a concept of reason that is transcendent but nonempirical.
3. In the philosophy of Hegel, absolute truth; the complete and ultimate product of reason.
8. Obsolete. A mental image of something remembered.

while if I look up a more specific word like intuition it says.

1.
1. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See synonyms at reason.
2. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

[Middle English intuicioun, insight, from Late Latin intuitiō, intuitiōn-, a looking at, from Latin intuitus, a look, from past participle of intuērī, to look at, contemplate : in-, on; see in–2 + tuērī, to look at.]

Gods are more like intuitive ideas and or interpretations of ideas, a subset of specialized ideas about why we are here and how to behave while ideas are very broad and about anything and gods are a very narrow kind of concept.

So more like intuitheist

An intuitheist is someone who believes that the gods exists mainly as intuitive ideas.

My take on intuitheism is maybe supported by Brittanica encyclopedia.
As conceived by Benedict de Spinoza and Henri Bergson, intuition is taken to be concrete knowledge of the world as an interconnected whole, as contrasted with the piecemeal, "abstract" knowledge obtained by science and observation.

That shows why religion is not compatible with science. That is why Pascal Boyer name religious ideas to be "Counter-intuitive".

That is why we became atheists in the first place. We realized that there is something counter reason about the claims that religious ideas makes. They are set up that way cause that has shown to be what makes them be most effective.

Gods should be agents but as agents they work without to be seen or behind the reality we grasp, they are invisible or omni something, and beyond our knowledge.

Such setups are counterintuitive to me. Why I want to name ideatheists more like intuitheist is because that word gives right connotation while ideas is too broad, even science use ideas and intuition while religion trust their intuition and science question their intuitions and try to take them apart to see if they really hold true under scrutiny and religion forbid you to question their most cherished ideas.

So ideas are like tools, more or less functional, intuitive tools are "A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression."

Impressions are like religious feelings. A sense of something not evident or deducible.

[GoodLittleAtheist]

Let me be the first to say, I don't find it helpful. So what if certain religion memes win out over each other? Religions are memes, but they aren't just competing with each other. Where they attempt to explain how the universe operates or how it originated, they make specific claims about the physical world. In that regard, they are also competing with the Science meme and are incompatible with it. If by saying I am an atheist, someone is going to assume that I mean, "I don't believe in your gods. I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." That is fine. That is what I mean.

The gods are dead, stop kicking them...

It seems to me the distinction you are making is that an atheist believes the gods exist only as ideas, and they are bad ideas. An ideatheist believes the gods exist only as ideas and because they happen to be good replicators we should make special allowances for people holding them? Are you trying to say they are 'good' ideas? Good in what way, other than they replicate well? I think a good idea is one that is true.

I feel like I am missing the point. I've always thought the gods existed as ideas and could see reasons why people would hold those ideas. But that doesn't make them true. And they don't hold a certain prestige over other untrue ideas like unicorns, just because lots of people believe it.

I have a better definition for ideatheist - "I'm an atheist, but...". (Ya, stolen from Dawkins.)

But perhaps I misread the OP... An as an aside, my mind is having a hard time computing that I suddenly sound more strident than ApostateAbe?! I'm usually such a mild mannered atheist.

When a Buddhist meets a Christian, one could also say that when they identify as such, they are also saying "I don't believe in your gods. I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." That is just as valid an assumption to make. And yet people don't get all miffed about that. Why? I don't get offended when someone introduces themselves as religious. Aren't they also saying - "I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." Why doesn't their statement imply, "There is probably something wrong with you for not believing in the gods." Why do atheists need to verbally contort themselves so as not to offend, but no one else does? We all believe different things and it is alright to point that out. It should be socially acceptable to discuss our differences without everyone getting their hackles raised.

p.s. I don't think Dawkins meant memes just as an analogy or metaphor. I think he was trying to say evolution by natural selection isn't a biological process, per se. It is a general theory that applies to all imperfect (but high fidelity) replicators that are subject to selective pressures. We think of it as a biological theory because that is where it has been, almost exclusively, been observed and studied.

[dettus]

Well now that I am reading Breaking the Spell I see the point of "Bright".

The opposite of gay isn't 'glum', it's 'straight'. And the opposite of 'bright' doesn't have to be 'dim', it could be 'super'.

Anyway I like the label 'atheist' for myself even though it's not very descriptive. I'd rather talk to someone about religion and belief and whatever than try on fancy new labels and hope they just get it.

[ApostateAbe]

Well now that I am reading Breaking the Spell I see the point of "Bright".

The opposite of gay isn't 'glum', it's 'straight'. And the opposite of 'bright' doesn't have to be 'dim', it could be 'super'.

Anyway I like the label 'atheist' for myself even though it's not very descriptive. I'd rather talk to someone about religion and belief and whatever than try on fancy new labels and hope they just get it. Dennett uses the word "gay" as justification for, "Bright." There is a difference. Try walking into a room and announcing that you are happy. People agree with you. "I am happy too. Glad you are having such a nice day." Now walk into a room and announce that you are smart. That isn't the main reason I would suggest the word, "ideatheist." It is only a secondary reason. I have already found it practical for my own conversations.

[ApostateAbe]

Let me be the first to say, I don't find it helpful. So what if certain religion memes win out over each other? Religions are memes, but they aren't just competing with each other. Where they attempt to explain how the universe operates or how it originated, they make specific claims about the physical world. In that regard, they are also competing with the Science meme and are incompatible with it. If by saying I am an atheist, someone is going to assume that I mean, "I don't believe in your gods. I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." That is fine. That is what I mean.

The gods are dead, stop kicking them...

It seems to me the distinction you are making is that an atheist believes the gods exist only as ideas, and they are bad ideas. An ideatheist believes the gods exist only as ideas and because they happen to be good replicators we should make special allowances for people holding them? Are you trying to say they are 'good' ideas? Good in what way, other than they replicate well? I think a good idea is one that is true.

I feel like I am missing the point. I've always thought the gods existed as ideas and could see reasons why people would hold those ideas. But that doesn't make them true. And they don't hold a certain prestige over other untrue ideas like unicorns, just because lots of people believe it.

I have a better definition for ideatheist - "I'm an atheist, but...". (Ya, stolen from Dawkins.)

But perhaps I misread the OP... An as an aside, my mind is having a hard time computing that I suddenly sound more strident than ApostateAbe?! I'm usually such a mild mannered atheist.

When a Buddhist meets a Christian, one could also say that when they identify as such, they are also saying "I don't believe in your gods. I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." That is just as valid an assumption to make. And yet people don't get all miffed about that. Why? I don't get offended when someone introduces themselves as religious. Aren't they also saying - "I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe." Why doesn't their statement imply, "There is probably something wrong with you for not believing in the gods." Why do atheists need to verbally contort themselves so as not to offend, but no one else does? We all believe different things and it is alright to point that out. It should be socially acceptable to discuss our differences without everyone getting their hackles raised.

p.s. I don't think Dawkins meant memes just as an analogy or metaphor. I think he was trying to say evolution by natural selection isn't a biological process, per se. It is a general theory that applies to all imperfect (but high fidelity) replicators that are subject to selective pressures. We think of it as a biological theory because that is where it has been, almost exclusively, been observed and studied. The word "ideatheist" has been useful for me in talking with Christians. It may not be useful for the atheist who doesn't tend to talk about religion with anyone but other atheists. The difference between "atheist" and "ideatheist" in conversations is that the line of division is the only topic of the word "atheist." You can tell someone that you are Buddhist or Muslim of Hindu or ideatheist, and the division won't necessarily be the thing to start talking about. It may be about Zen, enlightenment, Buddha, Nirvana, or whatever. For an ideatheist, it will be about natural selection of religious doctrines, competitions between religions, reason for evangelism, mechanisms for belief, and that sort of thing. For an atheist, the starting point in conversation is, "I don't agree with you." Does that make sense to you?

[dettus]

It's useful in conversation because you de facto admit that straight up atheism is something to hide, to be ashamed of, in essence already agreeing with their pre-concieved notions by distancing yourself from the term atheism. I have the same criticisms of other labels, like bright, humanist, freethinker, etc too. I was just commenting on the bright thing because I hadn't quite looked at it like that before. I don't support the 'bright movement' but I won't be harping against it anymore (not that I really have been).

But hey, if it works for you, use it.

Me, I'm mostly just interested in planting thoughts in people's heads. If a thought I can plant helps dispel myths about atheism then, yay for me. If I can get someone to think about something in a way they hadn't before, yay for me. If I can dispel a myth about science or whatever, yay for me. Even if I do nothing to impact the person directly, my words can maybe indirectly help in change. For example, if someone hears me say something but totally ignore it, the next time they hear it, it might finally resonate, as it would sound familiar.

What words and the tone etc of the conversations one has depends on where you live, who the listeners are, etc. There is no one phrase covers all.

RL calls. Yeah my post is all over the place. Abe, just keep talking to people, it matters.

[ApostateAbe]

Ideatheism is not proposed as a religion then. It is more like a philosophy about religious political and psychological power or ability to be persuasive?

Ideatheists don't follow or adhere to religious traditions, ideatheists explains away such traditions by giving them natural explanations. A kind of demythization?Yes, I think of ideatheism as more like a scientific position, not so much a moral philosophy and certainly not a religion. :)

[ApostateAbe]

It's useful in conversation because you de facto admit that straight up atheism is something to hide, to be ashamed of, in essence already agreeing with their pre-concieved notions by distancing yourself from the term atheism. I have the same criticisms of other labels, like bright, humanist, freethinker, etc too. I was just commenting on the bright thing because I hadn't quite looked at it like that before. I don't support the 'bright movement' but I won't be harping against it anymore (not that I really have been).

But hey, if it works for you, use it.

Me, I'm mostly just interested in planting thoughts in people's heads. If a thought I can plant helps dispel myths about atheism then, yay for me. If I can get someone to think about something in a way they hadn't before, yay for me. If I can dispel a myth about science or whatever, yay for me. Even if I do nothing to impact the person directly, my words can maybe indirectly help in change. For example, if someone hears me say something but totally ignore it, the next time they hear it, it might finally resonate, as it would sound familiar.

What words and the tone etc of the conversations one has depends on where you live, who the listeners are, etc. There is no one phrase covers all.

RL calls. Yeah my post is all over the place. Abe, just keep talking to people, it matters. Cool. The point is not to hide from the word, "atheist" (I never really liked that idea either). If "ideatheist" or any other euphemism is popularized, then it will take on the same negative connotations. Look at what happened to the word, "gay," for example. The point of the word, "ideatheism," is that us-vs.them or me-vs.-you isn't the foundation of one's religious identity and isn't the starting point in talking with people. The starting point is a very rational theory on the way religions work. :)

[doubtingt]

Atheism is a contentious way to identify one's self in the company of theistic believers. It says, merely, "I don't believe in your gods. I am not one of you. I do not believe the same things you believe."
[i]I am an atheist and you are a believer in the gods. One of us is right and the other is wrong--let the arguments begin.

......Ideatheism avoids the argument.

Sorry, but it doesn't avoid the argument, because the argument is not about whether God exists as an idea. I seriously doubt there is even one person exposed enough to theism to have an opinion on it who doesn't fully acknowledge that God is an idea. The point of argument is over whether or not that idea corresponds accurately to an actual entity that exists independent of and prior to that idea. Belief is not defined by having an idea, but by accepting that idea as an accurate representation of a reality that is external to the idea. Theism is not defined by having an idea of God, but by
believing that one's own idea accuarately corresponds to a reality beyond the idea, and any who does not believe that God is more than idea is an atheist and in disagreement with the theist position. Either the idea of a theist does accurately correspond to a reality beyond it or it does not. It is simply a fact that the theist is either right or wrong in this belief. Any actual theist will not be comforted nor disarmed by your acceptance that they have "an idea", which is just a way of saying "I believe that you believe" that many theists will find condescending.

[Richard1366]

Why do we bother to spend time inventing new words to describe our lack of belief. Atheist suits me just fine, I don't believe in your gods, saints, devils, spirits, auras, sacred cows, etc. etc. I'm an Atheist, says it all in one word that most people, even the religious ones understand. Ask most anyone about a meme, a bright or an ideatheist and watch their eyes glaze over!!!

[dettus]

Because where someone's initial reaction to a self labelled atheist might be one of complete dismissal that same person might actually consider words coming from a [insert label here]. Remember that some people have pre-concived (and often incorrect) assumptions and notions about atheists. Remember that some religionists demonize atheists as part of their belief structure, etc. What works for some doesn't work for others.

[doubtingt]

Because where someone's initial reaction to a self labelled atheist might be one of complete dismissal that same person might actually consider words coming from a [insert label here]. Remember that some people have pre-concived (and often incorrect) assumptions and notions about atheists. Remember that some religionists demonize atheists as part of their belief structure, etc. What works for some doesn't work for others.

Sure, but it is not the word 'atheist' they are really reacting to. Since they can't defend their views rationally, they can really only protect their view (even from their own doubts) by derogating anyone who lacks their beleif that the idea of God refers to a very real entity. The only reason they might initially react less negatively to another label is that they are unaware of what the label refers to. As soon as they realize that it refers to exact same thing that 'atheist', namely that the person does not believe that God is an idea that accurately corresponds to a real entity, then they will view that label negatively (and probably view the label-switching as a sign of dishonesty and/or shame).

[dettus]

But first impressions do matter when talking with people in everyday conversation. Just blurt out, "I'm an atheist" to the wrong person and the likelyhood of a second chance to make a first impression is already lost.

Anyway I'm on both sides here. I use 'atheist' when talking with almost everyone but I also realize that other people's take on words are different than mine. I also realize that here on these forums us atheists talk amongst overselves about things, and we harp on each other, and this doesn't neccesarily carry over to RL conversations.

[wordy]

The only reason they might initially react less negatively to another label is that they are unaware of what the label refers to. As soon as they realize that it refers to exact same thing that 'atheist', namely that the person does not believe that God is an idea that accurately corresponds to a real entity, then they will view that label negatively (and probably view the label-switching as a sign of dishonesty and/or shame).

As Abe constructed his OP that is true, it is no difference between an atheist and an ideatheist. But even now it is a slight difference in attitude, and maybe that difference is sensed by the religionists and they at least listen a while until their defense system shut us out.

Therefor I suggested intuitheist or similar name being even less confronting.

I challenge your take that it would be dishonest. It is only dishonest if you use it that way. If you do change attitude to reflect the view of an intuitheist which is definable now cause it is a new word. So we could decide what it refers to.

Why are they not upset over buddhists? Not sure, I am as an atheist. Maybe buddhists don't challenge them even if it is a competing view.

Even our Swedish Church allow courses in buddhist meditation within the church. It is not loved by all but they allow it.

If we want to gain we have to stand the pain in changing our attitude.

Much evidence support that religion is a kind of byproduct of evolutional adaptations so to erase religion will take a very long time. Hundreds of years or more. If Paul Bloom is right it is something we are born with. We ascribe agent to almost anything. Yes I know we atheists don't do it but too many of the religionists do it and they have money and politicians that are loyal to them. Massmedia even here in supposed very secular and atheistic Sweden support religion.

I feel disappointed that so many of us fail to see how difficult this is. Religion is not an intellectual choice to them who are caught in it. They are like someone in love. They see the good things and not much of the dark side of religions.

Like when we are in love, it could take years to realize that not all is good in the other person.

The changed attitude of an intuitheist could help us atheists in the long run and to change attitude is not to cheat or to "probably view the label-switching as a sign of dishonesty and/or shame)." that would only happens if we use the new label without changing attitude. If we use it as a sign of a changed attitude then it works as a honest attitude.

[Viking]

Like I told my wife, who is as committed atheist as I am, "We all need a little help from the gods now and then."

[ashe]

Welcome to Hinduism.

[mrzyphl]

I'm more inclined to use the term philotheist but I'm really more of a phobotheist.

ETA: It has come to my attention that I used the wrong half of philosophy. I meant to write 'sophotheist' not philotheist.

[wordy]

philotheist but I'm really more of a phobotheist

If philotheist means someone who loves god then phobotheist should mean someone with an irrational fear of faith in gods?

What to name someone with a rational fear of faiths in gods?

Realist-theist or God-buster like in Myth-busters? Lol

[premjan]

It shouldn't be that hard to get a theist, who is already starting to rely on his or her reason instead of prejudice for discussion of religious questions to become an ideatheist, as the simple existence of multiple religious sects in virtually every major religion leads to questions about which doctrinal positions are correct. In fact the simplest answer is that they are all prejudicial positions, and that God him/herself is just an idea that serves a human purpose.

[wordy]

premjan, that is very logical but if Pascal Boyer and other sociological psychologists? gets it right then religious faith is not about reason that way. They use reason and logic to defend a feeling of being loyal and committed to a relation to and with God and to be loyal to a commitment to the plan God has for their life or a relation to religious tradition is about being true to the relation to the tradition and not being true to what is the most logical thing to do or true to our ability to see gods as humanly constructed ideas.

Boyer suggests that religion to be effective always need to be mildly "counter-intutitive".

Gods needs to be extra-ordinary in some important way. So what you reason above seems to not take that in regard? Did I get your intention?

[premjan]

You're right that religions are generally a little counterintuitive, that probably makes the person less skeptical. Once they are past the barrier of initial disbelief, they become more gullible to the rest of the doctrines. However, the path to atheism usually involves some recourse to reason. If there is going to some way for the subject to discard religion, it is quite likely to have something to do with reason. Or possibly with pantheism - universal love.

[ApostateAbe]

It shouldn't be that hard to get a theist, who is already starting to rely on his or her reason instead of prejudice for discussion of religious questions to become an ideatheist, as the simple existence of multiple religious sects in virtually every major religion leads to questions about which doctrinal positions are correct. In fact the simplest answer is that they are all prejudicial positions, and that God him/herself is just an idea that serves a human purpose. Yes, that is what I have in mind too. :)

[ApostateAbe]

Sorry, but it doesn't avoid the argument, because the argument is not about whether God exists as an idea. I seriously doubt there is even one person exposed enough to theism to have an opinion on it who doesn't fully acknowledge that God is an idea. The point of argument is over whether or not that idea corresponds accurately to an actual entity that exists independent of and prior to that idea. Belief is not defined by having an idea, but by accepting that idea as an accurate representation of a reality that is external to the idea. Theism is not defined by having an idea of God, but by
believing that one's own idea accuarately corresponds to a reality beyond the idea, and any who does not believe that God is more than idea is an atheist and in disagreement with the theist position. Either the idea of a theist does accurately correspond to a reality beyond it or it does not. It is simply a fact that the theist is either right or wrong in this belief. Any actual theist will not be comforted nor disarmed by your acceptance that they have "an idea", which is just a way of saying "I believe that you believe" that many theists will find condescending. I think you could be right. Maybe it is condescending, at least to some. My personal conversations seem to go better when I identify myself as an ideatheist and explain what it is. Christians DO seem to be disarmed and ready to talk about it in a friendly way. Try it yourself--identify yourself as an ideatheist in the company of Christians (you can start by asking, "So what do you think about the gods?")--and tell me how it goes.

[doubtingt]

Therefor I suggested intuitheist or similar name being even less confronting.


There is nothing "confronting" about the word atheist. It evokes a confrontational reaction in theists only because of it refers to someone who does not assume that God is real and more than just an idea. Any word which had such a referent (which includes ideathiest and others) will take on the same confrontational reaction as soon as theists realize it also refers to someone who does not belief God is more than an idea.
50 years from now, ideatheists would be the most hated group in the U.S.


Why are they not upset over buddhists?


Because they are ignorant of the fact that many Buddhists are actually atheists. Most Abrahamic theists (in the U.S. anyway) think that Buddha is a God.


If we want to gain we have to stand the pain in changing our attitude.


Atheism does not imply an attitude, and I see no real change in attitude being proposed by the OP.


I feel disappointed that so many of us fail to see how difficult this is. Religion is not an intellectual choice to them who are caught in it. They are like someone in love. They see the good things and not much of the dark side of religions.


Which is why it makes sense to expose the dark side of religion to the light of day as much as possible. By enabling those who persist in irrationality, we perpetuate it. The good and caring friend who knows someone in an unhealthy relationship doesn't avoid the honest conversation, he/she tells it like it is, even if it means their friend will get upset.

[wordy]

Abe, I am so wordy. Here is a short version

Suppose they start by being confrontational. "Do you know that Jesus loves you? He has given his life so you could be saved! Are you saved. " I could respond like this

"Yes I know evangelists tells me so but I know we humans are independent enough to be good persons without being dependent on any god. I saved myself!"

Would that work better than being intellectual with them talking about ideas?

My long version:

Abe, "So what do you think about the gods?"
Doubtingt has a good point.

Religionists of the evangelistic kind is more into a kind of "Blind Love" almost obsessive dependence on God. They are "madly" in love, they totally submit to the feeling of being deeply dependent on God. It is more like the obsession a drug dependent person use his intellectual capacity to rationalize that dependence to defend why he or she should continue the usage of the drug.

But they are also dependent on the emotional "kick" the inner chemical release of reward chemicals that our body provide to ease pain and make us feel good.

They feel saved and when we start talking about gods in a way that set up doubts in them they feel vulnerable to loosing access to that which makes them feel good.

Your right about "So what do you think about the gods?" is much less threatening that ""So how do you feel about that there is no God or gods?"

"Losing my religion" = they don't want to lose it so they defend it if one show intention to argue their gods out of their mind using manipulative rhetoric.

What if one change that starting sentence?

instead of "So what do you think about the gods?" one start with

"So what do you feel about the gods? Are God important in your life? Do you care about God?"

Maybe a less wordy one.


That would do what Premjan and Doubtingt maybe allure to. To sow doubt and start a journey of reason in their mind. They know there are thousands of christian sects and denominations and takes on Jesus and they know Jews don't agree on Jesus being even a prophet and muslims saying he is prophet all right but not the latest one and not a god. Maybe they care less about Hindu gods cause they existed culturally long before Jesus arrived so they see Jesus as King of Kings and the most high among gods. :) Buddhism they see more like a way of life and philosophy on how to relate to stress of life. Not so much fear of competition from them.

By starting with the most important feelings they have, their inner motivation to why they care about gods in the first place.

They actually believe them to be real. But that is the intellectual interpretation of what makes them motivated to have such a faith. The feeling of being saved by a power bigger than themselves. The primary factor is the feeling of not being self-reliant, that they need help from somebody stronger and religion gives them that help to feel surrounded by a community of people dedicated to make them through the night. It is about survival and not so much about abstract intellectual ideas and they feel a deep dependence and to address if as ideatheist maybe is amusing or condescending but it doesn't touch the deep structure that is the main factor. To feel saved by submitting to a force stronger than their own human capacities to make life meaningful on their own.

So more like emotheist but that would trigger their defenses too.

Suppose your the one starting the friendly talk?

Then one could start along these lines:
"So what do you feel about the many interpretations of God? How do I know which one to relate to? Which one did you chose and why?"

But if they start the evangelistic approach: "Do you know that Jesus loves you?" then one could answer, "I sure know that Evangelists told me so but I see Jesus more like a child of his time. There are many interpretations of him and even many who chose God directly without going through Jesus as their Lord. Some of us are independent of all gods. One could be a good person without being dependent on gods."

Would that work even better that saying the gods are cultural ideas. One address the dependence they have on one particular interpretation.

A short version to such a question could be. "Yes I know evangelists tells me so but I know we humans are independent enough to be good persons without being dependent on any god."

[wordy]

Doubtingt The good and caring friend who knows someone in an unhealthy relationship doesn't avoid the honest conversation, he/she tells it like it is, even if it means their friend will get upset.

Very true, they are often very destructivly dependent on their total submission to faith in gods so it is like a drug addiction, they need new fixes every week and the preacher gives them emotional highs by peppering their ego with "Jesus loves you" He died for so you could be saved. Thank the Lord. He is King he is the Savior. Jesus I love you!" stuff. They are like the groupies running after Rolling Stones in their heydays. Willing to do anything for their idols.

But it is also very true that like drug addicts many christians rather stop relating to you if you have that honest talk with them. They cherish their good feelings more than their feelings for you.

So could that be what Abe look for. A way to stay in connection by having another approach to gods.

I suggested a new attitude and maybe Abe doesn't intend to but I read into his text a new attitude. I could look up that part and cite but maybe Abe could say it again!

[wordy]

I stand corrected. Apology to Doubtingt

I've red Abes OP again. I got Abe wrong and Doubtingt got Abe right. Not a change of attitude as I first red into the OP but change in how to think about gods or our approach to gods or how to retell that perspective when we relate to believers?

"my new perspective ... approach ... thinking re gods ... (if we have more) persuasive ideas" than the believers. ... a "significant upgrade" in how we think about gods.

So Abe in his OP suggest a new perspective and approach and way of thinking and the critics says the believers already know this and have dealt with it unharmed? A futile approach already tested and known to fail. Proven to not work. Is that what the critics say? Do I get them right?

My different approach would be to not take up ideas but the emotional attachment that many religionists have. we don't have to name it "emotheism" we just change our approach by start talking about the feelings and not the theological reasoning behind them.

"How do you relate to God?"

Wordy
PS longer quotes from Abe's OP
There is no word that denotes my new perspective until I decided to invent one. I call it, "ideatheism."
...
The important distinction is the approach one takes to thinking about the gods.
...
Just as the more efficient viruses will outmatch the less efficient viruses, so will the more persuasive ideas outmatch the less persuasive ideas.
...
Promises of rewards and punishments have helped the survival of the gods--that is part of the way an ideatheist thinks about religions.
...
I hope no division is caused by ideatheism. I don't think of ideatheism as replacing atheism. I think of ideatheism as the same as atheism, only with a small but significant upgrade.

[wordy]

In post #21 Abe take up something important according to me. :)

"us-vs.them or me-vs.-you isn't the foundation of one's religious identity and isn't the starting point in talking with people. "

Abe, That is what I like to talk about now!

What if your wrong. The us-vs.them or me-vs.-you could be the foundation of one's religious identity and is exactly the starting point in talking with people from the religious perspective. Abe, you have seen the movie "Jesus Camp TheMovie". Total confrontation indeed.
www.jesuscampthemovie.com/

William "Bill" Irons talk about that. Religion as committed to a group and it's norms, Us vs Them cause the test of if one belong and is worthy of being one of "Us" is to do a sacrifice and the test is if you believe in a counter-intuitive God. The test is to be able to show "feelings of honest faith in their God" Not any kind of gods. An Us vs Them indeed. So maybe you say that contrary to the believers approach of direct confrontation, them seeing us as direct enemy of their "War on Sin" we should start nice by being neutral to the war on sin.

Abe are you suggesting us to: We kind of start from an anthropological field work approach. The anthropologist start with a "I don't value or critic your views, I study them and are all ears to what you have to say. I will not confront your views. Just ask more to make clear if I get your perspective, your way of thinking and relating to your god." that approach?

If I get your thinking?

We kind of disarm their attacks on us as sinners by starting with:

"So you have faith in gods, which one do you believe in then? How is that god more true than all the other gods I've heard of. Zarathustra suggested his interpretation, Moses his interpretation, Jesus his interpretation, Muhammed his interpretation, what is your interpretation? "

Is it along that line of thinking? You kind of side step their Us-vs-Them war?

The point of the word, "ideatheism," is that us-vs.them or me-vs.-you isn't the foundation of one's religious identity and isn't the starting point in talking with people. The starting point is a very rational theory on the way religions work.

[wordy]

http://www.anthropology.northwestern.edu/faculty/irons.html

William Irons author 2001. "Religion as a Hard-to-Fake Sign of Commitment." in Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment. R. M. Nesse (ed.), pp. 292 - 309. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

If I get William Irons it works as the Us vs Them among Gang's they are at war with each other over territory in cities in US. To know which to recruit as member of the Gang they test the wannabe member. They have to commit a hard to fake sign of loyalty. Often by doing a crime that is very costly to them. Many years in prison kind of crime.

Religions are a bit more sophisticated but work on same kind of Us vs Them.

So you suggest us atheists to sidestep that war by saying. Ok I am curious, forget me being a potential enemy to you cause I have no faith in your God. Tell me more about your God.

Would they buy that approach? Give links to such conversation you had that worked?

[ApostateAbe]

In post #21 Abe take up something important according to me. :)

"us-vs.them or me-vs.-you isn't the foundation of one's religious identity and isn't the starting point in talking with people. "

Abe, That is what I like to talk about now!

What if your wrong. The us-vs.them or me-vs.-you could be the foundation of one's religious identity and is exactly the starting point in talking with people from the religious perspective. Abe, you have seen the movie "Jesus Camp TheMovie". Total confrontation indeed.
www.jesuscampthemovie.com/

William "Bill" Irons talk about that. Religion as committed to a group and it's norms, Us vs Them cause the test of if one belong and is worthy of being one of "Us" is to do a sacrifice and the test is if you believe in a counter-intuitive God. The test is to be able to show "feelings of honest faith in their God" Not any kind of gods. An Us vs Them indeed. So maybe you say that contrary to the believers approach of direct confrontation, them seeing us as direct enemy of their "War on Sin" we should start nice by being neutral to the war on sin.

Abe are you suggesting us to: We kind of start from an anthropological field work approach. The anthropologist start with a "I don't value or critic your views, I study them and are all ears to what you have to say. I will not confront your views. Just ask more to make clear if I get your perspective, your way of thinking and relating to your god." that approach?

If I get your thinking?

We kind of disarm their attacks on us as sinners by starting with:

"So you have faith in gods, which one do you believe in then? How is that god more true than all the other gods I've heard of. Zarathustra suggested his interpretation, Moses his interpretation, Jesus his interpretation, Muhammed his interpretation, what is your interpretation? "

Is it along that line of thinking? You kind of side step their Us-vs-Them war? I have seen Jesus Camp. Scary movie, huh? The method featured in that film was the indoctrination of children, not the confrontation of their enemies. I wouldn't suggest to completely abandon one's private disliking of religion--I am not sure that any of us can help it--I would suggest taking strategies that are as rational as possible. And that includes NOT having confrontations or explicit debates with your targets. The most effective missionaries and salesmen make friends with their targets, agree at any opportunity, be on the same side, appeal to the higher values, admit errors, be humble, and that sort of thing. "Atheism" damages that method, not only because of the negative connotations of the word, but mainly because of the divisive denotation of it--"I believe in no gods including yours."

I would suggest starting conversations about religion with, "I believe in the gods, not like most people do, but as I can directly see them, as parts of ideologies. I am an ideatheist--I think the gods exist mainly as ideas. And the Christian god is the most powerful god in the world; I greatly admire him. As an idea he has persuaded the most people, and he has been the greatest influence on western civilization. Other gods have been many, but no other god has surpassed him."

[wordy]

Abe, I get you much better now, thanks that was very clear. I am a bad reader.

I see much merit in that kind of reasoning you do here. Pragmatic approach. To survive when not brutally attacked it is better to play neutrally friendly and non-confrontational. Until the other go for deceptive attacks forcing you to leave a job cause they want every one there to be Christian or such.

Richard Dawkins in a very recent interview on tvo.org TV Ontario in Canada is very positive re Jesus. He treat Jesus in that program very similar you treat the Christian God here in your example.

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=43

and look for May 10 2007 the Agenda program. Fun to listen to.

I fail to remember exactly what he say about Jesus but he doesn't totally rule out him to be an actual historical person. He say that there is very little supporting him to be an actual historic person but that it cant be ruled out. maybe not those exact words though.

Maybe that is Dawkins way of not coming through as a totally confrontational atheist.

[wordy]

I greatly admire him. (the Christian god)

That is surprising to me. Obviously me a very poor reader of your texts up to now. I don't admire the christian god at all. I see him as a very bad person.

How to say that to a christian I don't know.

My approach up to now has been to say that Jesus was a child of his time. And that now people read into the story about him our more modern views. The mythic story behind a modern interpretation that makes Jesus looks good morally.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

ApostateAbe: I realized that the gods exist. They exist as ideas. They are the most powerful ideas that ever existed in the world....I have decided that it is misleading to call myself an atheist. There is no word that denotes my new perspective until I decided to invent one. I call it, "ideatheism."

Actually, I would think it would be called "memism", with a hard "e."

[wordy]

Didn't Dawkins who coined the new word meme in his book about the Selfish Gene say it should rhyme with gene when pronounced so that would not be a hard e would it? The reason ideatheist is better that memetheist or memism is that people remember ideatheist much more easily and is more intuitive and has no connection to Dawkins and his arrogance according the Abe's OP the purpose is to to not start a fight which memism would suggest. Religion is a virus that should be erased as soon as possible the word memism suggests to me.

Ideatheism is much more neutral only saying my interpretation of gods are a bit different from yours.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

wordy: Didn't Dawkins who coined the new word meme

He didn't coin it.

MORE: in his book about the Selfish Gene say it should rhyme with gene when pronounced so that would not be a hard e would it?

Isn't a hard "e" eee as in "gene?"

MORE: The reason ideatheist is better that memetheist or memism is that people remember ideatheist much more easily and is more intuitive and has no connection to Dawkins and his arrogance according the Abe's OP the purpose is to to not start a fight which memism would suggest. Religion is a virus that should be erased as soon as possible the word memism suggests to me.

Ideatheism is much more neutral only saying my interpretation of gods are a bit different from yours.

But "memism" would imply that there are no gods, just memes of gods; i.e., of the god concept.

[wordy]

How typical for atheists?

We are both cocksure on things.

Listen to meme and gene here http://www.answers.com/meme

I know too little about soft and hard vocals not being a native english user but it sure sound soft while e in Memory is short and hard to me. Maybe hard means something me not have no knowledge of. If it is then I apology. It sounds softer to me than when memory is spoken as a word.

Richard Dawkins did coin it. It didn't exist when we told us about it in his book did it? You mean he stole it and hide that fact to us? :)

You mean he only popularized it then. Meme existing with that meaning before he brought it up? Wiki seems to suggest I got it right?

Richard Dawkins coined the term meme, which first came into popular use with the publication of his book The Selfish Gene in 1976. Dawkins based the word on ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

In his book The Selfish Gene (1976), the ethologist Richard Dawkins coined the slightly different term "meme" to describe a unit of human cultural evolution ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

Richard Dawkins, who coined the word in his book The Selfish Gene defines the meme as simply a unit of intellectual or cultural information

The word ``meme'' was coined by Richard Dawkins in his (much-maligned) 1976 book The Selfish Gene:. ``I think that a new kind of replicator has recently ...
www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/formerly-hyper-weird/memetics.html

The Meme Machine - Susan Blackmore, Richard Dawkins
What is a meme? First coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, a meme is any idea, behavior, or skill that can be transferred from one person to ...
www.2think.org/mememachine.shtml

Hey I made my point. :) But I know nothing about hard eee but it sounds very soft to me. Give an example of a soft e then so me could hear the difference.


But "memism" would imply that there are no gods, just memes of gods; i.e., of the god concept.

How will that help Abe to achieve what he told us in his OP and in other posts explained in detail.

Memism meaning there are no gods, just memes of gods. You mean memes about gods. If they are of gods then the gods gave them to us. My grammar is rusty so forgive me for nitpicking on grammar subleties :)

The most correct interpretation of ideatheism if I get Abe at all is to say that gods are memes. Not that memes of gods or memes about gods, such is known too but that is not the main implication of the word ideatheism?

Memes as gods is a more logical interpretation. Take the meme Jesus. For the believer Jesus actually listen and speak to that person. Not as Schitzo hear voices but as one hear ones memory maybe. Jesus speak through inner voice to them. Jesus is an alive meme for them, not only an idea but a whole meme complex that has an almost independent existence within the believer. Jesus as a meme can say surprising things to them. He is not under total control by the believer. Usually ideas is under the believers control. I have an idea about how to interpret Abe one day and the next I correct my misunderstanding and being an idea it allows that. God memes are more independent. Being more stable. They are resistant to too wild interpretations.

Pascal Boyer has tested this on students, he writes about it in his book "Religion Explained". Too wild god memes was rejected by the person they tested them upon and these god memes was not effective as communicating. Mildly counter-intutive god-memes as I remember Boyer. So ideatheist is much less confronting to the believer.

Where it fails could be the too much truism or trivial views it present. Kind of too obvious to all and everybody? Not mildly counter-intuitive so could be rejected as not enough theistic.

People could react to Abe saying. That is not a theism, that is just trivial ideas about gods, our God is unique and not trivial.

The too trivial god of ideatheism could be a no-brainer while the exotic gods of theism is believable to the religionists. :)

[wordy]

The term comes from a transliteration of a Greek word and was used in 1904 by the German evolutionary biologist Richard Semon in his work Die Mnemische Empfindungen in ihren Beziehungen zu den Originalenempfindungen, translated into English in 1921 as The Mneme.

In his book The Selfish Gene (1976), the ethologist Richard Dawkins coined the slightly different term "meme" to describe a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, arguing that replication also happens in culture, albeit in a different sense. In his book, Dawkins contended that the meme is a unit of information residing in the brain and is the mutating replicator in human cultural evolution. It is a pattern that can influence its surroundings – that is, it has causal agency – and can propagate.

But that word has not same spelling mneme instead of meme.

But it show how much better ideatheism is compared to memism or memetheism. If the word existed already 1904 and failed to get known by anybody else but Dawkins and his teacher maybe then it is doomed to stay unknown.

ideas is the known word and that is why Abe chose it. It is a communicative word. Even small children have heard of ideas.

[Steve Schlicht]

No more labels are needed.

It is noticeable that the whole notion of purporting God(s)ess(es) is based firmly within the human brain and conceptualized into ideas, hopes, aspirations.

What I've noticed in life is that these ideas can also separate, divide and contend with other ideas of God(s)ess(es) equally causing strife and oppression. The fact that they are made up and mostly asserted with qualities so as to make them unfalsifiable is a weakness as well.

Another strong point that seems to be missing in this thread is that these ideas are not the only ideas that promote art, emotion, hope, compassion and diligent effort.

It is incorrect to posit that those with other ideas (which are not based upon God(s)ess(es) concepts) are less valid...or worse...non-existent.

In my view, the ideas of God(s)ess(es) are superfluous and contain the stronger potential of division and despair...therefore, they are unnecessary.

Ideas founded upon reality and without positing the pretense of God(s)ess(es) are (imho) not subject as much to the potential of division and despair.

Of course, I'm a Humanist...so you get the idea.

;)

Steve

[ApostateAbe]

No more labels are needed.

It is noticeable that the whole notion of purporting God(s)ess(es) is based firmly within the human brain and conceptualized into ideas, hopes, aspirations.

What I've noticed in life is that these ideas can also separate, divide and contend with other ideas of God(s)ess(es) equally causing strife and oppression. The fact that they are made up and mostly asserted with qualities so as to make them unfalsifiable is a weakness as well.

Another strong point that seems to be missing in this thread is that these ideas are not the only ideas that promote art, emotion, hope, compassion and diligent effort.

It is incorrect to posit that those with other ideas (which are not based upon God(s)ess(es) concepts) are less valid...or worse...non-existent.

In my view, the ideas of God(s)ess(es) are superfluous and contain the stronger potential of division and despair...therefore, they are unnecessary.

Ideas founded upon reality and without positing the pretense of God(s)ess(es) are (imho) not subject as much to the potential of division and despair.

Of course, I'm a Humanist...so you get the idea.

;)

Steve I think you are mostly right. You are Steve Schlict--you seem to be right all of the time. I don't suppose you would need the ideatheist label since you self-identify as a Humanist. What do you think of about the word atheist? I say it is misleading and divisive, because I often do see and hear all the time lines from Christians such as,

"Why do atheists care about something that doesn't exist?"

"Doesn't 'God is fake' assume the existence of God?"

And those lines do have at least some degree of legitimacy. The gods as ideas have tremendous effect on our lives, and it is so often their nature as ideas that is overlooked. We think they either exist as ethereal cosmic overlords or they don't exist as ethereal cosmic overlords. We so often neglect their true relevance.

[Steve Schlicht]

I think you are mostly right. You are Steve Schlict--you seem to be right all of the time.

Actually, I'm not so much "right" as I am having and expressing my own opinion.

Oh, and it's spelled S-C-H-L-I-C-H-T...that's two "c-h"es...like church, but I don't go to one.

;)

Fwiw, sorry if I come across as a know-it-all, which is what I gather you imply from your post...oddly enough, that is the same approach my sil used to take with me when she was heavily interested in debates with a real live atheist.

I don't suppose you would need the ideatheist label since you self-identify as a Humanist. What do you think of about the word atheist?

I think it is a wonderfully expressive and meaningful word when used correctly.

I think it is important to not blur the lines of definitions as well.

I say it is misleading and divisive, because I often do see and hear all the time lines from Christians such as,

"Why do atheists care about something that doesn't exist?"

"Doesn't 'God is fake' assume the existence of God?"

And those lines do have at least some degree of legitimacy. The gods as ideas have tremendous effect on our lives, and it is so often their nature as ideas that is overlooked. We think they either exist as ethereal cosmic overlords or they don't exist as ethereal cosmic overlords. We so often neglect their true relevance.

You and Peter Kirby really need to get together, Abe. He seems to be going through the same existential conundrum you are.

That is a sincere expression, by the way...that may be perceived as condescending via a text-based realm, however, you both may really find value in exchanging your respective ideas.

I'm not so much concerned with the products of God concepts with the exception of some issues regarding human liberty (which may be what you're talking about), however, I do mostly discuss their actual improbability as "real" beings.

Steve

[ApostateAbe]

Actually, I'm not so much "right" as I am having and expressing my own opinion.

Oh, and it's spelled S-C-H-L-I-C-H-T...that's two "c-h"es...like church, but I don't go to one.

;)

Fwiw, sorry if I come across as a know-it-all, which is what I gather you imply from your post...oddly enough, that is the same approach my sil used to take with me when she was heavily interested in debates with a real live atheist.



I think it is a wonderfully expressive and meaningful word when used correctly.

I think it is important to not blur the lines of definitions as well.



You and Peter Kirby really need to get together, Abe. He seems to be going through the same existential conundrum you are.

That is a sincere expression, by the way...that may be perceived as condescending via a text-based realm, however, you both may really find value in exchanging your respective ideas.

I'm not so much concerned with the products of God concepts with the exception of some issues regarding human liberty (which may be what you're talking about), however, I do mostly discuss their actual improbability as "real" beings.

Steve I am not any closer to religious faith than I was before (I am still not sure about what Peter Kirby is going through since what he said today). It seems like my aversion to it increases with the more knowledge I gain. I believe essentially the same things I did before, only now my focus is a little different, my activist strategy is way different, and I am putting my beliefs in a more correct language. For example, I have been familiar with your general approach for over a year, but I haven't liked it until now. I'll be taking lessons from you and Hemant Mehta. I wasn't being snarky when I said that you seem to be right all the time. That is my serious judgment.

[wordy]

Steve, I apology if I have spelled your last name wrongly too. :)

Abe get his act together? Lol, I don't know neither him nor Peter Kirby. I got very worried about Abe when he suggested Universal Unitarian to be worthy of consideration. Hey get your act together I most likely would have told him if I had knew him personally. I kind of lose him there in that thread.

But I got very excited when Abe came up with ideatheist.

Wow, that is bright, incredibly more bright than Paul Geisert with his Bright.

And very few atheists protest against Abe and Ideatheist. Shows he has got his act together from my too distant perspective at least.

It is very clever, he is one of the few getting how atheist as a label totally fails for us. Most atheists including me for some 20 years lived in a denial of the futility of using atheist as a self-label term.

No we need no new terms but Humanist fails for me too. Everybody here in Sweden are Humanist except extreme right white supremacy something. Not sure correct term for them. We try to boycott them in local parliaments. We don't see them as Humanists.

Why do Humanist fail. Cause here it means somebody who is doing University study of the humanities, mainly anthropology and sociology and maybe feminist theory about structural discrimination.

It is a political mostly way to the left and most likely Marxist or postmodern structuralism and social constructivism views.

It gives the wrong connotation. I am more inte Evolutionary Psychology and E.O. Wilson and people like him seen from a social liberalism perspective.

No, I don't think we have to self-identify as ideatheists.

As I get Abe it is only used as a tool for communication with believers. As I get Abe it is not an Umbrella or Big Tent to be used for atheists or agnostics or freethinkers or rationalists or humanists or you name it as the neologism Brights was supposed to be.

Abe realize that as Cats who hate to be commanded around we are independent and on our own and as I get him give us a tool for communication that according to his experiences works for him.

I had hoped he could retell some of his successes in using it for us here or give links to them.

I do see problems with using the word myself but I regard his attitude. I wish more atheists to reconsider how the relate to religionists.

A more friendly but still to the point honest approach is needed. To look down on them is similar to looking down on drug addicts. If determinism is true they have very little say in getting out of it. Religionists has almost no say in getting out of their total dependency on religion as a quick fix either.

It is not impossible but it could be hindsight from those who deconverted that it was easy. If it really was that easy then nobody would be religious anymore.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy maybe could help people get lose but it takes hard work.

[Steve Schlicht]

I am not any closer to religious faith than I was before (I am still not sure about what Peter Kirby is going through since what he said today).

I guess what I perceive from your post on "Ideatheism" is an attempt to reconcile the atheist/theist relationship by introducing a "new" construct.

What I didn't make clear is that I view that as really productive as a practice.

I'm just not entirely sure the approach needs a "new" word added to those constructs already available that seek to find common ground in the open marketplace of ideas, while maintaining the integrity of articulate language positing a reasoned refutation of the existence of God(s)ess(es) - even as ideas.

You do raise an interesting point and I'm wondering if the word "atheist" is what is divisive or if it is just the mischaracterization of the "idea" of what that construct suggests that offends and corrupts relationships.

Can we change the "idea" that "atheism" seems to cause division as well as our own constructs of what people mean with their ideas about God(s)ess(es)?

It seems like my aversion to it increases with the more knowledge I gain. I believe essentially the same things I did before, only now my focus is a little different, my activist strategy is way different, and I am putting my beliefs in a more correct language. For example, I have been familiar with your general approach for over a year, but I haven't liked it until now. I'll be taking lessons from you and Hemant Mehta. I wasn't being snarky when I said that you seem to be right all the time. That is my serious judgment.

I don't know Hemant Mehta and, believe or don't...I actually took my lesson from you and your effort to raise awareness and support for those with diabetes.

Atheventures (http://iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3563819&postcount=1)

I am a Type I diabetic. On July 29th, I will be doing a fundraising bike ride for the American Diabetes Association with my roommates. I need to raise $50 by then.

Ideas...they emerge from the mind and are reflected in our actions.

They're what make the world go 'round.

:wave:

Steve

[Steve Schlicht]

Steve, I apology if I have spelled your last name wrongly too. :)

Oh, it's okay, wordy...and completely understandable. My German step-dad is a great guy, but we really need to buy a vowel.

Abe get his act together? Lol, I don't know neither him nor Peter Kirby. I got very worried about Abe when he suggested Universal Unitarian to be worthy of consideration. Hey get your act together I most likely would have told him if I had knew him personally. I kind of lose him there in that thread.

But I got very excited when Abe came up with ideatheist.

Wow, that is bright, incredibly more bright than Paul Geisert with his Bright.

And very few atheists protest against Abe and Ideatheist. Shows he has got his act together from my too distant perspective at least.

I think we are experiencing a terminology misunderstanding here, wordy.

I wasn't suggesting that either Abe or Peter should "get their act together"...rather, I was suggesting that they should get together and discuss their own views regarding concepts, language and ideas.

And I chose such a suggestion because they seem to be considering parallel theories and exploring slightly similar concepts but in different ways.

To be sure, I am at fault for misreading both of their current frames of reference as "conundrums" or problematic and so I do apologize to both of them for that blatant error.

It is very clever, he is one of the few getting how atheist as a label totally fails for us. Most atheists including me for some 20 years lived in a denial of the futility of using atheist as a self-label term.

No we need no new terms but Humanist fails for me too. Everybody here in Sweden are Humanist except extreme right white supremacy something. Not sure correct term for them. We try to boycott them in local parliaments. We don't see them as Humanists.

Why do Humanist fail. Cause here it means somebody who is doing University study of the humanities, mainly anthropology and sociology and maybe feminist theory about structural discrimination.

It is a political mostly way to the left and most likely Marxist or postmodern structuralism and social constructivism views.

It gives the wrong connotation. I am more inte Evolutionary Psychology and E.O. Wilson and people like him seen from a social liberalism perspective.

No, I don't think we have to self-identify as ideatheists.

As I get Abe it is only used as a tool for communication with believers. As I get Abe it is not an Umbrella or Big Tent to be used for atheists or agnostics or freethinkers or rationalists or humanists or you name it as the neologism Brights was supposed to be.

Abe realize that as Cats who hate to be commanded around we are independent and on our own and as I get him give us a tool for communication that according to his experiences works for him.

I had hoped he could retell some of his successes in using it for us here or give links to them.

I do see problems with using the word myself but I regard his attitude. I wish more atheists to reconsider how the relate to religionists.

A more friendly but still to the point honest approach is needed. To look down on them is similar to looking down on drug addicts. If determinism is true they have very little say in getting out of it. Religionists has almost no say in getting out of their total dependency on religion as a quick fix either.

It is not impossible but it could be hindsight from those who deconverted that it was easy. If it really was that easy then nobody would be religious anymore.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy maybe could help people get lose but it takes hard work.

Thanks for your insight, wordy, and I really do envy your grasp of the English language!

Points well taken and you've given me much to think about.

The bolded portion is particularly meaningful to me and I am in agreement with you (as you probably already realized).

Take care, my friend.

Steve

[wordy]

Thanks Steve, I only create the illusion to know English, much guesswork and less solid knowledge.

What Abe suggests is something interesting. How do we atheists, humanists, freethinkers etc communicate most effective with both our own and with those who are trapped within a dependence on religious traditions and their modern expressions?

I have tried to encourage him to give more example but I guess it is privacy issues. Maybe he use other handle user name there and don't want to reveal them here. Or it could be in private vocal chat where he lives.

I still see problems with his approach to use Ideatheism cause Don Cupitt has tried something similar in many books and public appearances and TV shows and it has only created a few enthusiastic followers. Sea of Faith TV series in BBC? 1983? So more than 20 years and still no real result.

Fundamentalist faith is very resistant to change. So Abe more more likely try to reach christians that is moderate to liberal, maybe among the UU group. They are close to the non-realism view of Sea of Faith and Don Cupitt style of theology. God as a way to use language to create meaning in life.

I don't support non-realism at all, I am very much against it but as atheist one could learn from them how they thinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Cupitt

[wordy]

Not sure how on topic the following text is. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_27_4
Free Inquiry
June / July 2007
Volume 27 Number 4



The Big M by Tom Flynn

...

On the other hand—and, sad to say, contra Kitcher—the parallels between faith and a typical recreational opiate are almost elegant. Please don’t take this next phrase the wrong way, but take heroin—you know, The Big H. Heroin has no power over those who have never used it. Try it a while, become addicted, and its absence will be intolerable. This is quite different from the need for oxygen. Everyone dies without oxygen; opiate withdrawal holds terror only for addicts.

Doesn’t religion, and, in particular, the Big M, show the same pattern? Lifelong unbelievers (nonaddicts) often find nothing particularly frightening in the thought that there is no Meaning in life, only the more limited—and plural—meanings we create for ourselves. In contrast, those who believe (or who believed until only recently) resemble addicts for whom the prospect of withdrawal from Meaning can be genuinely terrifying. After years of dependence on the Big M, “trading down” to the more prosaic small-m meanings with which secular humanists adorn their lives can seem unbearable. On this view, religion in its role as guarantor of Meaning is not only analogous to a recreational drug, it is more like disease than cure. Yes, it palliates the fear of Meaninglessness, but, in so doing, it is merely relieving a syndrome that it itself fomented when it convinced believers that any such thing as Meaning was available to them in the first place.

Sorry such a long quote but I'm not sure what to cut or what to include as a quote.

I have no knowledge on how it feels to be addicted to H or to N as in smoking cigarettes but some quit N as in smoking very easily, they just do it. Others who are addicted to N try for years to quit smoking and stop doing it again and again and still fails to quit.

Could not religion be very similar. Every individual very different in chemical dependence and on how easy they could leave it.

I'm rather certain that religion partly works as a kind of drug. It releases reward chemicals in the believers head. Maybe we all are very different in how sensitive we are to the levels of such releases. some show no excitement whatsoever and others get hooked on religion from day one almost. Instantly in love with Jesus.

So if Abe start a friendly conversation with somebody addicted to faith in something then the less threatening his use of words is the more likely a real meeting will happen between them.

Friendly meetings could build trust. Ability to listen without judging may strengthen that trust.

I compare with somebody wanting to jump off a building or somebody that have taken hostage. To treat them in a calm non-confrontational way often works much better than jelling Give up or I shoot you!

Maybe religious faith is not exactly comparable with strong drugs but it is rather similar to dependence on music as a comfort of loneliness. You could be very dependent on music too, traveling far away and to great cost just to hear your idol. You don't like when people give your idol bad criticism, you tend to defend your idol in a way that others find almost fanatic, you could "preach" to people or evangelize to them with your preferred kind of music. Music is innovative in it's variety, and people tend to cluster around genre or schools of thought and they interpret music in very traditional ways and uphold these traditions almost literally. They hold some music almost as holy and get incredibly upset if you play it without regard. There was Jazz musicians playing "serious" music in a Jazz style, Grieg and such here in Sweden and the lovers of Grieg got so upset that they demanded the Swedish radio should never play that music again.

Almost like a blasphemy thing to do they seem to have felt it to be.

Ok music maybe are not a total parallel but rather similar if one compare people who are taken both expressions emotionally.

So what do you say. Is it right to say to the lover of Jazz that his or her relation to Jazz as close to drug abuse? No Jazz in Schools, and so on.

I have tried to tolerate Jazz now for some 50 years but still fail to see it as something to value. If I would react as most atheist here I would tell lovers of Jazz that they should come out of it and listen to real music instead. :)

Or I could act like Abe suggest. Say, I am an ideamusician, I find it interesting that there are so many different ways of expressing music. You seems to love Jesus, I mean Jazz, Jazz saves your day I guess. I have a hard time to stand Jesus, I mean Jazz at all. To me it is organized noise of the worst kind but maybe you could play something for us who fail to get what makes it swing for you? Kind of dialog. Or should I continue to say "Why on earth do you listen to that crap, sounds idiotic to me. Come out of it and play something we all could enjoy or shut the Hifi off will you!" To show a willingness to learn what makes the other tic is maybe more humanistic. Religious feelings is rather close to what lovers of music engage in? Is it not?

[GoodLittleAtheist]

The word "ideatheist" has been useful for me in talking with Christians. It may not be useful for the atheist who doesn't tend to talk about religion with anyone but other atheists. The difference between "atheist" and "ideatheist" in conversations is that the line of division is the only topic of the word "atheist." You can tell someone that you are Buddhist or Muslim of Hindu or ideatheist, and the division won't necessarily be the thing to start talking about. It may be about Zen, enlightenment, Buddha, Nirvana, or whatever. For an ideatheist, it will be about natural selection of religious doctrines, competitions between religions, reason for evangelism, mechanisms for belief, and that sort of thing. For an atheist, the starting point in conversation is, "I don't agree with you." Does that make sense to you?Well, it helps qualify what you were saying. The OP sounded more like a belief in belief turn of mindset, rather than a conversational tactic. I was afraid you had 'seen the light', and had equated a replicatively successful meme with a meme that is good, regardless of your own personal beliefs on the subject.

I'm still not crazy about the term. But if it works for you, then it works for you. I won't argue that. Personally, I would rather change assumptions about the term atheist, then to try to find a new coinage. But, yes, you are right, I do not actively engage Christians in religious conversation. Not that I live in an atheist bubble, by any means, if anything I live in a Christian bubble, but I find most people don't like discussing religion anyhow. But I do hope by just being honest and refering to myself as an atheist that it at least shatters a few preconcieved notions. I think less reframing is needed, and more openness. A lot of people refer to the homosexual community's reclamation of the word 'gay', but I think terminology had less to do with it. It is the openness that has been the more important factor in changing social attitudes. Once people realize that they already know homosexuals (or atheists) and that they are perfectly nice people, then it is less easy for false stereotypes to flourish.

[renassault]

Firstly, I'm rather saddened yet not surprised that such methods of conversion towards atheism are discussed at all. This is reminiscent of an article I read a few months ago about the plans of Darwinists with regards to the beliefs of the general marginally-Christian populace.

I understand that there is a barrier between most theists and non-theists, but this method is not fair towards theism, and its method is quite clear. I suggest a much easier, more comfortable approach for the not so strong in their faith, or lack thereof.

Firstly, it is a fact that what wasn't logically defended, or defendable, and even less so when the opposite was, automatically had to be discarded. This is necessary for the sciences and mathematics, however we are not dealing with values that can be objectively identified so easily. Evidence in favor of either Christianity or atheism can jiggle in favor either way. This is a proposal that benefits both if it can work.

What I suggest is that belief and its logical defense be distinguished from one another. For example, if a belief/nonbelief system is shown to not be rational in the light of facts beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is acknowledged by both the adherents of that system as well as those of all others. However, this is as far as it goes. The system that has been shown to be false, continues to exist/live by those who are part of it, but the only change is that it is not logically defendable. If this last sentence sounds ridiculous, bear with me. The adherents of the system continue on blind faith. They are not forced to change that system, unless they want to, and if they don't, they can continue in that system. Of course, for those who seek nothing but the truth, they will face a dilemma, however, the only pressure to convert will be from the inside, and not by outside factors: other people, which 99% of the time, and this is entirely from personal experience, kills it.

For example, someone whose system (system A) is against all the facts goes to debate someone whose it isn't (system B). System A brings up an argument against System B, which B answers and presents a counter-argument which A attempts to answer. In the end, regardless of who wins, both adherents walk away each to their system, the winner with confidence in his, and the loser with faith in theirs that sooner or later evidence will come up to justify their position.

PROS
-----
1. As I mentioned before, this method will work between any two given systems, not just for atheism.
2. There will be no psychological struggle (in theory) when a system is shown to be false in some way, beyond a reasonable doubt being the worst possible scenario for it.
3. Conversion to a more truthful system will be easier (again in theory).
4. A lot of hatred could be eliminated this way.

CONS
-----
1. It is impossible that all adherents will stick to a suggestion of this kind.
2. Although much better than pressure that can lead to bloodshed, stubborness is given the perfect chance to prevail.
3. It does not accomodate those of weak confidence in their belief/nonbelief system.


Essentially, this is a psychological tactic to eliminate the religious label from people of differing belief/nonbelief systems, which has the potential to promote cooperation, eliminate hatred, and bring a less insecure feeling for those whose system has been falsified.

Lifelong unbelievers (nonaddicts) often find nothing particularly frightening in the thought that there is no Meaning in life, only the more limited—and plural—meanings we create for ourselves. In contrast, those who believe (or who believed until only recently) resemble addicts for whom the prospect of withdrawal from Meaning can be genuinely terrifying.

This is clearly not a scientific article of any kind. This may be true for most believers, but personally I'm more afraid that a different religion will be true and will send me to Hell. This ignores the fact that many believers were nonbelievers before their conversion

[Steve Schlicht]

Sorry, did you say that there was evidence for "Christianity"?

Are you also dismissing the existence of many who were believers before they were non-believers?

Steve

[ApostateAbe]

renassault, welcome to the forum; I hope you stick around. Most of us believe what we do either from reason or the seeming of reason. And so it makes sense to us that rational debate and arguments and dialectics are the way to change minds. It is the first thing that pops into our heads. It is what convinced many of us, at least in part. So that is the way I went about talking to Christians, in order to persuade them of my way of thinking.

It has now become obvious to me that reason isn't all it takes. Reason is important. Diplomacy is more important. Reason by itself doesn't work, because reason is only part of what influences a person's beliefs. Greater than reason, often, is wishful thinking, respect for authority, fear, and society. You don't need to tell atheists to argue with great logic and intellectual force. Atheist activists are already highly focused on reason, because that is the way their minds are geared, and that is the best weapon they have. It might be the only weapon they have. That is what makes Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris their heroes. It is time to diversify, with the likes of Hemant Mehta and Steve Schlicht. Go to the debate forums, and you will have a taste of both the excessive reason and the complete lack of diplomacy.

Ideatheism is meant to be an addition to both tools, actually. To give ourselves a more accurate and reasonable perspective of the gods and religions, to prevent some of the common objections against atheism (you believe in nothing, your philosophy is negative, you can't prove there is no God), and to start conversations with Christians on a positive note instead of a divisive one.

[ApostateAbe]

wordy, you wanted examples of successes I had with the ideatheism approach. When I first started thinking of the gods in terms of existing as ideas instead of not existing, that is when I had my first really great conversation--not with a strong Christian, but just with a believer in God. I was in Hawaii last winter, waiting for a transfer flight home. I went to a bar, sat next to a guy also from the mainland, and I ordered an overpriced martini. I asked this guy, "so how many gods are there?" He says, "One." I say, "I think there are many gods, as many gods as there are in people's beliefs. I believe they exist not as people in the sky, but as ideas. And then I talked about how the god of Abraham Yahweh-Elohim is the most powerful God in the world, being the most adaptive and highly evolved, enduring 2000 years of competition. I gave an example of how Christian missionaries went to the Hawaiian islands and successfully converted the natives who had only their isolated island mythology. That is an example of the natural selection of religions--a strong religion outmatching a weaker one, the same way some of the invading species those missionaries carried joined the ecosystem and outmatched some of the native species.

The guy said he had never thought about religion that way. He seemed attentive the whole time, and he didn't argue with me. I then made my leave to join my family. That isn't seen on the Internet where we engage with only the Christians on a mission. It was a new experience for me. The beginning of the conversation I think made a big difference. If he said, "one god," and then I said, "there are no gods," then that brings to the table a division. Instead, I said that I believe in all the gods--a statement of unity.

[wordy]

Abe, I see your point. Test it on believers here in IIDB too so we could follow your iterated dialog, and participate or take turns if you get out of time.

Which christian is most likely to be interested here in IIDB? I have kind of ignored them cause they too easily trigger my anger.

Oh Sorry, I remember one that maybe is christian but in a New Age style. She really triggered me to feel like when I was 10 years old. Not good feelings. Too much hate.

I wish you all luck with your approach. Could work on some and totally fail on others, the important thing is that it feels good for you to try it out.

I do also believe that the gods lives only within peoples heads and that is why they have such enormous political power. It is almost like an obsession for those most afflicted or even a possession sort of. A chemical possession.

Wordy going to bed soon.

[ApostateAbe]

Abe, I see your point. Test it on believers here in IIDB too so we could follow your iterated dialog, and participate or take turns if you get out of time.

Which christian is most likely to be interested here in IIDB? I have kind of ignored them cause they too easily trigger my anger.

Oh Sorry, I remember one that maybe is christian but in a New Age style. She really triggered me to feel like when I was 10 years old. Not good feelings. Too much hate.

I wish you all luck with your approach. Could work on some and totally fail on others, the important thing is that it feels good for you to try it out.

I do also believe that the gods lives only within peoples heads and that is why they have such enormous political power. It is almost like an obsession for those most afflicted or even a possession sort of. A chemical possession.

Wordy going to bed soon. Talking with Christians on the Internet is not the same as talking to Christians you meet elsewhere. Christians interested in talking about Christianity with atheists are the evangelists who have already fully committed to their position. I can still have a productive conversation with a committed religious adherent. They are best done in email or private chat. Forums like this one involve many participants, and a single condescending comment from someone who thinks he is on my side can raise defenses and taint the whole exchange.

[Smohg]

I don't think that anyone argues that the idea of god exists.

[Russell's Teapot]

I have very, very limited knowledge of the subject, but from my brief textbook readings on him, Durkheim's view of religion matches up with a lot of the OP and ensuing conversation. From the (again, very small amount of) stuff I've read, he thought that religions were true in the sense that they worked for people, not in a 'physical' sense. This sounds, at least to me, a lot like the idea that they survive based on their persuasive merit as memes.

Did any of that make sense? I'm writing this while being distracted by large explosions on Mythbusters :)

[ApostateAbe]

I don't think that anyone argues that the idea of god exists. Yes. Nobody doubts the statement, "ideas of gods exist." It may be a little more uncomfortable for an atheist to say, "the gods exist as ideas," since the only belief essential to atheism (if any) is that the gods do NOT exist. Atheists acknowledge as a secondary matter that the ideas of gods are important. Ideatheism places that principle at the center of one's paradigm and religious identity.

[ApostateAbe]

I have very, very limited knowledge of the subject, but from my brief textbook readings on him, Durkheim's view of religion matches up with a lot of the OP and ensuing conversation. From the (again, very small amount of) stuff I've read, he thought that religions were true in the sense that they worked for people, not in a 'physical' sense. This sounds, at least to me, a lot like the idea that they survive based on their persuasive merit as memes.

Did any of that make sense? I'm writing this while being distracted by large explosions on Mythbusters :)Durkheim explains religions as existing to serve the functions of society. I explain the existence of religions (and all lasting ideologies) the same way Daniel Dennett does--not to serve society's interests, but simply to survive as a meme, much like a virus (Dennett made the analogy of the lancet fluke microbe that influences an ant's behavior to maximize its own survival). Religions can and do serve social interests, and that helps to maximize the survival of the meme, so I place memetic selection at the center of religion theory.

[wordy]

Abe, I don't master memes but is it possible then to say that by identifying with one meme = I believe gods exists as memes make that possible for you to seed a doubt within somebody who believes that gods exists outside of our heads as powerful supernatural entities.

By reinterpreting atheism to concentrate on the meme side of gods and not the supernatural side of them.

Have to run now ot buy food :)

Thanks for creating thread that it is fun to participate in.

[ApostateAbe]

Abe, I don't master memes but is it possible then to say that by identifying with one meme = I believe gods exists as memes make that possible for you to seed a doubt within somebody who believes that gods exists outside of our heads as powerful supernatural entities.

By reinterpreting atheism to concentrate on the meme side of gods and not the supernatural side of them. Yes, by giving them a sensible perspective to reflect on instead of the old lines from atheists. Memes is a very easy concept. Imagine the power that computer viruses would have if they had the ability to self-produce functional variations like biological viruses. They would be naturally selected for greatest efficiency. They would gain defenses against anti-virus software. They would penetrate firewalls. They would adapt themselves to updated operating systems. Such power they would have, existing only as lines of code. That is something like the power that ideologies have, existing only as information.

Abe's prediction: self-evolving computer viruses within ten years.

[wordy]

But Dawkins has tested the virus analogy now for more than ten or 20 years? And they hate him for it. Memes, I loved them from day one I heard of them but they fail among ordinary people. So ideas is a much better word to use on people who are not into computer nerd or geek stuff. Maybe Gamers would accept words like Memes.

Jesus gon to heaven after visit in the Underworld day here so Food shop later open time so have to rush to the Mall again to buy me a Jeans Jacket. Sad them take so long time to dry after laundry. They sell one for just some 14.99USD special one time offer.

[ApostateAbe]

But Dawkins has tested the virus analogy now for more than ten or 20 years? And they hate him for it. Memes, I loved them from day one I heard of them but they fail among ordinary people. So ideas is a much better word to use on people who are not into computer nerd or geek stuff. Maybe Gamers would accept words like Memes. Yes, good point. I can't think of a better way to understand memes. The computer virus analogy would have to be stated carefully. "Ideologies of any sort, not just Christianity, are something like computer viruses, only they have the ability to evolve, and they may help their hosts, not just hurt."

[wordy]

Symbiotic virus model?

Here is many other models from a Wiki stub?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_religion#Religion_as_a_Byproduct_of_Evolutionary_Psychology


I pointed out the one nearest to my views. I see merit in others too. Pascal Boyer has interesting views on religion
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/boyer_religious_concepts.htm
Functional Origins of Religious Concepts:

Ontological and Strategic Selection in Evolved Minds �*

Pascal Boyer

What is the origin of religious concepts? How come we can find concepts of supernatural agency more or less the world over, with important recurrent features? This lecture is a ‘progress report’, an account of how these previously intractable questions are now a matter of empirical, indeed experimental inquiry.

[Russell's Teapot]

Durkheim explains religions as existing to serve the functions of society. I explain the existence of religions (and all lasting ideologies) the same way Daniel Dennett does--not to serve society's interests, but simply to survive as a meme, much like a virus (Dennett made the analogy of the lancet fluke microbe that influences an ant's behavior to maximize its own survival). Religions can and do serve social interests, and that helps to maximize the survival of the meme, so I place memetic selection at the center of religion theory.
It just seems like a rehashing to me. If the sacred (gods, for example) is a symbol/attempted manifestation of society, it will rise and fall based on how well it does that. That directly correlates to its "persuasiveness" in meme theory. For example, totem religions aren't going to mesh well with large empires or nation-states. As such, the idea is not going to spread virally throughout such a culture (although it might attract a following in some subgroups).

[ApostateAbe]

It just seems like a rehashing to me. If the sacred (gods, for example) is a symbol/attempted manifestation of society, it will rise and fall based on how well it does that. That directly correlates to its "persuasiveness" in meme theory. For example, totem religions aren't going to mesh well with large empires or nation-states. As such, the idea is not going to spread virally throughout such a culture (although it might attract a following in some subgroups). That sounds reasonable to me. I think of YHWH-Elohim as starting out as something like a tribal totem, a god designed for a very specific society. It has since adapted to a diversity of cultures, something that other tribal gods have not done.

[wordy]

Abe, allow me to make a friendly teaser?

The fact that this thread dies now shows that this concept however true is trivially true, so it has not the ability to motivate people to continue to be inspired by it.

This was a teaser friendly meant.

It has no bearing on what you do. Do go on using ideatheist as you are doing now. Only your experience based on real actual feedback with show you if you have to reconsider it.

I would try to expand on it. Reading more of Pascal Boyer and William Irons and Paul Bloom and such voices.

[wordy]

Abe here is a wild variation on ideatheism that I tested around 1983 when I was in my most activist atheistic outreach mode. I tried to reach the Fundies using their own tactic of claiming to have the most true interpretation of what God say in the bible. Something like this short retelling of an episode at a local haven for fundies.

I tested this on a Bible Study group here in Stockholm Sweden.