I have a question for athiests.

Originally posted by Ericadawn
Just because people claim to be a member of a religion doesn't mean that they are an active member. It is a proven fact that church attendance is not like it was two hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So if you do not attend church and “practice” the rituals you are not a Christian or what ever? I’m sorry that is news to me, just because one doesn’t go to church regularly doesn’t mean that all of a sudden you don’t believe in the faith. They may not be considering a Christian in your eyes but that doesn’t mean they are not and they do not believe in Jesus and God.

the point is that it is a sign society is less religous. It may or may not mean they dont believe in god. Hell some people who go to church might even be agnostic.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You do realise that they got some of their information from a census. You do know if I was to fill in an application form or a census I would put down Catholic. Im not officially heathen but I guess thats what I would call myself or pagan.

Also im pretty sure an Agnostic whos parent happened to be muslim or christian would put down there parents beliefs.

At any rate i'll analysis data later.

Originally posted by Alfheim
the point is that it is a sign society is less religous. It may or may not mean they dont believe in god. Hell some people who go to church might even be agnostic.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Again do you have a slightest clue what a + or – is in a poll?

No I dont have no idea.

Originally posted by Da Pittman

I never said that it was 100% accurate, no poll or survey is that is why there is the + or -.

You got that right.

Originally posted by Da Pittman

You have been making unfounded claims and saying that you read somewhere that is said what you claimed but provided no evidence to back up your claim only that you “read” it somewhere. Even if 10% or the people “lied” about their religion it still would even come close to backing up what you have claimed.

Im not denying that its a discusion forum!! Its food for thought.

Yeah and you right it not accurate.

Organizational reporting: Religious bodies (such as churches or denominations) are asked how many adherents or members they have. This is the simplest and least expensive method,but it can be HIGHLY unreliable. Different faith groups measure membership differently. Some count as members only those who are actively attending services or who have passed through a lengthy initiation process. Others groups count all who have been baptized as infants and are thus on the church records, even though some of those people may have joined other faith groups as adults. Some groups over-report membership and others under-report membership. When asked what religion they consider themselves to be a part of, many may name a religion that does not have them on their rolls. In the United States, for instance, three times as many people claim to be Unitarian Universalists than are actually on church records.

Highly unreliable?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is not a sign that people are less religious only that they either don’t have time, dislike the church or what ever it doesn’t prove that people are less religious but that attendance is down. Just because they don’t go to church makes them believe in God less?

True but it can also be a sign that they dont belive in god. Hell if somebody who goes to chruch because god might exist and doesnt want to take the risk could be agnostic.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No I dont have no idea.

You got that right.

Im not denying that its a discusion forum!! Its food for thought. Did

Yeah and you right it not accurate.

Organizational reporting: Religious bodies (such as churches or denominations) are asked how many adherents or members they have. This is the simplest and least expensive method,[B]but it can be HIGHLY unreliable. Different faith groups measure membership differently. Some count as members only those who are actively attending services or who have passed through a lengthy initiation process. Others groups count all who have been baptized as infants and are thus on the church records, even though some of those people may have joined other faith groups as adults. Some groups over-report membership and others under-report membership. When asked what religion they consider themselves to be a part of, many may name a religion that does not have them on their rolls. In the United States, for instance, three times as many people claim to be Unitarian Universalists than are actually on church records.

Highly unreliable? [/B]

The + or – on a poll or survey is consider to account for misleading information or variables that are beyond the control of the survey such as people not understanding the question, deception or other variables. It is obvious that they can not ask all 6 billion people in the world so they must account for variances in the poll by taking selected groups, this can vary depending on where they take and how many groups they poll and depending on how varied they are. This is how pollers can mess with them to get their desired results, but you can read this information for your self and is common knowledge however I still would like to see one that backs up your claim.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is not a sign that people are less religious only that they either don’t have time, dislike the church or what ever it doesn’t prove that people are less religious but that attendance is down. Just because they don’t go to church makes them believe in God less?

What worldly events or obligations could keep someone from tending to their immortal soul? What could be more important than that?

On the flip side of that, if you can get to heaven without going to church (or paying your tith or volunteering, etc.) then why waste your time going at all? If a person's faith is between them and god, then why the need for ANY organized religion? Apparently you can connect with god while sitting on the toilet, just as easily as you can while sitting in a gold and marble church pew; being told what a bad person you are.

There's a book out on this by Christopher Hitchens that should be read by everyone in this thread. It's called "GOD IS NOT GREAT"

Originally posted by Devil King
What worldly events or obligations could keep someone from tending to their immortal soul? What could be more important than that?

On the flip side of that, if you can get to heaven without going to church (or paying your tith or volunteering, etc.) then why waste your time going at all? If a person's faith is between them and god, then why the need for [b]ANY organized religion? Apparently you can connect with god while sitting on the toilet, just as easily as you can while sitting in a gold and marble church pew; being told what a bad person you are.

There's a book out on this by Christopher Hitchens that should be read by everyone in this thread. It's called "GOD IS NOT GREAT" [/B]

Originally posted by Alfheim
Not to sure but I still think I know what a belief system is.

yes, I am sure you do think you know

I would say you have an interpretation of "belief system" that follows your bias toward how you want to interpret people who call themselves atheists, but that is a human function and hardly something worthy of criticism. However, a belief system (notice how the word system is there) is much more than just a bunch of beliefs. By putting system at the end, you are talking about systemic interaction of beliefs for a purpose. What beliefs accompany AND flow directly from the disbelief in God in a systemic way?

Originally posted by Alfheim
How does that not relate to I dont believe in god therefore.....if you dont believe in god and somethings stems from it it means that the beleifs are connected. 😐

you are saying corelation is equal to causation. For instance, I never became an "atheist", and I would venture other atheists have this same experience. I have an "empirical" worldview, with a large dose of skepticism and cynicism. These lead me to become an atheist because in my interpretation of the facts, the idea of God is idiotic. Now, there are many other things that I think are as, if not more idiotic, than God. But, the reason I don't believe in them is not related to the fact that I don't believe in God, it is related to the fact that God is a type of thing that my belief system doesn't include. /shrug, I'm sure that is confusing, read it a couple of times to try and get the logic.

Oh, and let me add this. Religions are belief systems but belief systems are not religions.

Originally posted by Alfheim
That depends on the athiest.

Right, I should have worded that differently. Atheism dose not propose a worldview that contains systemic absolutes. It can be PART of a belief system that has systemic qualities (empiricism) but it is not the system itself. Again, notice how we are using the word system.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well it doent neccesarily have to be...it depends on the athiest. I dont think its a coincedence that theists tend to belive in the opposite of what thiests belive.

Corelation is not causation. Prove that it is atheism specifically that leads people to other beliefs and not that a prior belief about the world lead to both.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah but this just seems like doube standards to me I could say the samething about Mohammed.

It really depends, and I could get really technically involved in the behavioural differences between Sade and Mohammed (for instance, religiously proscribed pedophilia does not strike me as the same type of psychosis as Sade had, and on the same token, Sade never spoke to dieties). You are essentially looking for a psychoanalysis of historical figures, which would be fun, but its a little too specific for a general discussion forum.

I do get your more apparent point though, and I would certainly agree. An individual should not be judged by the actions of those who believed the same things as that person. The problem with most religions is that they are wholey unable to condemn the attrocities of the past.

Remember when you argue on the internet, you need to look really carefully at what people are saying. I know we have a history of you arguing against points I am not making.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Its like if you deny that atheism can be a belief then they cant be blamed for anything.

the thing is, you are making the assumption that any atheist who does something wrong is doing so because they are an atheist. This is the corelation and causation thing again. You have to prove that Sade commited his evil acts BECAUSE he was an atheist. Good luck.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well what im saying exactly is this bad athiests find different reasons for why they do bad things, a religous person uses scripture but it could be argued that they are also pyshcotic as well. If you are going to deny what Marquis did what he did because of atheism then I could say the same about Mohammed.

I just answered this, but I'll hit it again. Were there a church of Sadism [man I only wish] that taught that brutal rape was allowable, it doesn't matter why Sade did it anymore. It doesn't matter whether Mohammed was schitzophrenic and a biggot, he isn't alive. The religion that refuses to cast out those evil ways is evil. People who practice that religion and do not make a clear stance against such things are evil. I am an atheist and, to be honest, a sadomasochist. I have absolutly no problem saying that the Marquis de Sade commited horrendous acts that I do not support, and were I able to, I would have him tried and punished for them. How many Muslims say that about Mohammed?

Actually, Alfheim has a point about tendencies toward opposite belief systems on a larger scale between atheists and theists. I won't touch on his other points, but that in particular stood out as possibly having some merit.

Belief in a religion (or a God) is a specific cultural inheritance (I'll call it a 'meme' to borrow Dawkins' term for it). This is a replicating entity that exists in the form of an idea, an idea of belief...which replicates inside other minds through human expression. Often, memes are cooperative and help reinforce one another. A meme for free will, for example, would reinforce a meme for a belief in the Christian God. They are likely to be found together. Similarly, memes for atheistic tendencies tend to form cooperative 'meme-complexes'.

It isn't a rigid rule, but I think a lot could be said for the meme-complexes of both in terms of their fundamental divisions. And this is just a personal musing off of the accepted idea of meme cooperation ("cooperation" in an unconscious sense...they don't actually cooperate, they merely act in a way that naturally enhance each other, so it is convenient to label them as cooperating). It would be interesting to see studies in this direction....there may already be, and I'm just unaware of them.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Actually, Alfheim has a point about tendencies toward opposite belief systems on a larger scale between atheists and theists. I won't touch on his other points, but that in particular stood out as possibly having some merit.

I will definatly get into the memes below. I love memes. 🙂

But I think an idea of what "opposite" belief systems means may be in order...

yes, atheist is the opposite of theist... but neither of those are belief systems, that are particular beliefs. To put it memetically, the meme you have that refers to your opinion about the existance of god is a co-adaptive meme, not a co-adaptive memeplex.

For belief systems to be opposite, one would always have to come to the opposite conclusion of another. Since it is possible for atheists and theists to agree on things, they are not opposite memeplexes, they just contain memes that are not co-adaptive with eachother. I don't actually think it is realistically possible for a "belief system" to be the opposite of another "belief system"

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Belief in a religion (or a God) is a specific cultural inheritance (I'll call it a 'meme' to borrow Dawkins' term for it). This is a replicating entity that exists in the form of an idea, an idea of belief...which replicates inside other minds through human expression. Often, memes are cooperative and help reinforce one another. A meme for free will, for example, would reinforce a meme for a belief in the Christian God. They are likely to be found together. Similarly, memes for atheistic tendencies tend to form cooperative 'meme-complexes'.

indeed. However, is "there is no god" a meme? It is a tough one... let me speculate here.

To begin with, if there is a meme for everything that you don't believe in, then the whole idea makes no sense. Our brains do not have infinite storage capacity, so there can be no meme for "there is no 18 foot tall fire breathing giant" or "there are no fish in outterspace" (aside from the fact that by writing those here I have made them into memes). We can think of an infinite amount of things that cannot exist, from the mundane to the remarkable. Each of those things is not specifically stored as a meme in our brains.

However, we (I am assuming the north american we) live in a culture dominated by God. The idea of God is not something that is as esoteric in our lives as outerspace fish. In fact, for many people, the truth of God is something that they are exposed to early in life, and thus it becomes a physical part of their memory system. I was raised Anglican, so I already had the meme for God exists. The question here is, did I lose that meme or just adopt another?

Here is where it gets very much like the "chicken and the egg". My take on it is this: We each have cognitive schema about everything. We have a schema for chairs, for computers, for food, for how to behave in a resturant, and for how lines work at the bank. These schema are based upon all of our previous experience with similar situations. If you have ever pulled out your keys absentmindedly and pressed the car unlock button when you try to open your office door, that is the activation of the wrong schema (to a similar situation mind you). God I hope that is understandable...

Anyways, a personal hypothesis of mine (meaning that this, unlike the concept of schemas in general, is not really tested) is that we have a schema for memes that we will accept as being true. So, this schema could include important words (jesus, god, science), presentation (magazing, news program, documentary), emotional impact, all of the qualities in the meme that make you think it is more true.

So, to apply this to above. I would say that there are 2 (this is off the top of my head of course) ways that people become atheists, 1) They have a schema for truth that no longer is able to accept God as part of their reality or 2) they recieved the meme for "there is no God" and it meshed with their truth schemata. I would think it is more of the latter than the former, however, the latter does require the former be in place to some degree.

Bringing this to the level of memes, while insanely interesting, is very difficult. I also will say I do not think that "there is no God" being a meme in any way makes that meme a belief system, nor do I think that new memes stem specifically from that one without a co-adaptive system in place that just happens to have atheism as a part of it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
[B]It isn't a rigid rule, but I think a lot could be said for the meme-complexes of both in terms of their fundamental divisions. And this is just a personal musing off of the accepted idea of meme cooperation ("cooperation" in an unconscious sense...they don't actually cooperate, they merely act in a way that naturally enhance each other, so it is convenient to label them as cooperating). It would be interesting to see studies in this direction....there may already be, and I'm just unaware of them.

There is lots more that will play a role in this. Cognitive dissonance, emotional salience of ideas, desire to believe, the way our brains incorrectly recreate reality for us. Memes are incredably complex.

If you really like them, check out Susan Blackmore, specifically here book "the meme machine".

As far as the study of memetics goes, it is pretty much unheard of in the cognitive sciences. Most anything that tries to talk about consciousness is ignored by real scientists (to both the benefit and the detriment of the field). There is no real prediction made by the theory yet, given how little is understood about the neurology of higher cognitive functioning. When we can determine how a "meme" might be stored in the brain as a pattern of neuronal firing, then predict how that will change based on the introduction of new memes, the theory will be amazing. Thats a very long way off though. Memes are almost like the string theory of cognitive neuroscience, so powerful as a tool for explaining, but entirely untestable at this point.

Originally posted by inimalist
I will definatly get into the memes below. I love memes. 🙂

But I think an idea of what "opposite" belief systems means may be in order...

yes, atheist is the opposite of theist... but neither of those are belief systems, that are particular beliefs. To put it memetically, the meme you have that refers to your opinion about the existance of god is a co-adaptive meme, not a co-adaptive memeplex.

For belief systems to be opposite, one would always have to come to the opposite conclusion of another. Since it is possible for atheists and theists to agree on things, they are not opposite memeplexes, they just contain memes that are not co-adaptive with eachother. I don't actually think it is realistically possible for a "belief system" to be the opposite of another "belief system"

I was simply defining 'opposite' in more narrow terms. I didn't mean to imply entire meme-plexes would be opposite, just specific instances within them (like the free will meme I mentioned, which would likely find it's opposite in 'determinism', which would be more likely to form part of an atheist meme-plex than an theistic one). So I think we're in agreement if I understand you correctly.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed. However, is "there is no god" a meme? It is a tough one... let me speculate here.

To begin with, if there is a meme for everything that you don't believe in, then the whole idea makes no sense. Our brains do not have infinite storage capacity, so there can be no meme for "there is no 18 foot tall fire breathing giant" or "there are no fish in outterspace" (aside from the fact that by writing those here I have made them into memes). We can think of an infinite amount of things that cannot exist, from the mundane to the remarkable. Each of those things is not specifically stored as a meme in our brains.

True, but that doesn't mean they aren't memes. They simply aren't memes with any 'lasting power'. If I thought of 20 things that don't exist, chance are after a few days I'd never think of any of them again. But the idea of "there is no god" is a prevalent idea for atheists, something that is ingrained into their consciousness....especially in such a predominantly theistic society. Therefore, it has its own memetic properties, namely the ability to replicate itself in the minds of others.

Originally posted by inimalist
....{cut for brevity}

So, to apply this to above. I would say that there are 2 (this is off the top of my head of course) ways that people become atheists, 1) They have a schema for truth that no longer is able to accept God as part of their reality or 2) they recieved the meme for "there is no God" and it meshed with their truth schemata. I would think it is more of the latter than the former, however, the latter does require the former be in place to some degree.

Bringing this to the level of memes, while insanely interesting, is very difficult. I also will say I do not think that "there is no God" being a meme in any way makes that meme a belief system, nor do I think that new memes stem specifically from that one without a co-adaptive system in place that just happens to have atheism as a part of it.

Interesting. I almost thought you were about to come to the same conclusion as me, but you pulled back from it somewhat. If someone, say, was raised with "there is no God" (some are, just not the majority) then it could exist as an independant meme and eventually provide the base for a more complex meme system. But we both see it as a meme though (again, if I'm reading correctly) just differ as to its place, limitations, and role.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is lots more that will play a role in this. Cognitive dissonance, emotional salience of ideas, desire to believe, the way our brains incorrectly recreate reality for us. Memes are incredably complex.

Indeed. At this point, like you mentioned, it's much easier to talk on a theoretical and philosophic level about memes than a scientific ones, since their complexity defies our methods of current research. I might check out that book at some point, or others like it, because all of this is quite fascinating.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I was simply defining 'opposite' in more narrow terms. I didn't mean to imply entire meme-plexes would be opposite, just specific instances within them (like the free will meme I mentioned, which would likely find it's opposite in 'determinism', which would be more likely to form part of an atheist meme-plex than an theistic one). So I think we're in agreement if I understand you correctly.

ya, completely. LOL, I think that may have been more directed toward Alf, as it was he and I who were having the discussion about "systems"

I don't like the term opposite in general if one is trying to talk at a very specific level, but I do get what you are saying and do agree

Originally posted by DigiMark007
True, but that doesn't mean they aren't memes. They simply aren't memes with any 'lasting power'. If I thought of 20 things that don't exist, chance are after a few days I'd never think of any of them again. But the idea of "there is no god" is a prevalent idea for atheists, something that is ingrained into their consciousness....especially in such a predominantly theistic society. Therefore, it has its own memetic properties, namely the ability to replicate itself in the minds of others.

Blackmore says specifically in her book that a meme that is not shared (ie, you just think of something) is not a meme. It needs to be imitated to be a meme (I don't necessarily agree).

I don't necessarily think they are memes at the time you think of them (lol, the memetic moment of conception). I would say that it is a codon for your schema of things that can't exist. A codon is any particular example from a shema, so you have a schema for "things I can lay on", a codon for that would be your own bed. So, imho, thinking of examples of things that don't exist is picking codons and asembling them into a meme. However, since the codons of what can't exist are very abstract things and are probably comprised of memes that you previously adopted, it just becomes funny 🙂

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Interesting. I almost thought you were about to come to the same conclusion as me, but you pulled back from it somewhat. If someone, say, was raised with "there is no God" (some are, just not the majority) then it could exist as an independant meme and eventually provide the base for a more complex meme system. But we both see it as a meme though (again, if I'm reading correctly) just differ as to its place, limitations, and role.

I don't disagree, I specifically didn't use the example of someone who has raised as an atheist because it didn't support my point as much, and it would have further complicated an already complex post.

I guess a good question is whether or not something being a "meme" is akin to it being a "belief". For instance, the way I roll a joint is a meme, and a schemata 🙂, but I am pretty sure it isn't a belief.

I must think more on this "there is no God" meme. It is somewhat counterintuitive to me, but it wouldn't be the brain if it wasn't

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Indeed. At this point, like you mentioned, it's much easier to talk on a theoretical and philosophic level about memes than a scientific ones, since their complexity defies our methods of current research. I might check out that book at some point, or others like it, because all of this is quite fascinating.

oh for sure. I'd love to see it adopted or at least a little more known within the scientific community, but even in memetics alone, there is a huge variety of people with radically different agendas for memes.

Damn this is getting heavy...im going to have to read your post several times ini. I might not even respond to it tomorrow.

The idea that it's not a meme until it's shared sounds like a lot of other examples, such as a language not being a "language" until there's 2 people who speak it. It doesn't change the nature of the concept (meme/langage) just the semantic distinction. If that's the case, by that definition I'll happily concede that random things that don't exist aren't memes.

And in the case of someone raised atheist, they presumably inherited the meme from a parent/guardian. So even though it might stand alone for a long time before being the base for a meme-plex, it is a copy of the parental atheist-meme, so it would fit any criteria for a meme.

I haven't really touched the "Is a belief a meme?" question because I don't feel like I could answer it well. Intuitively, I would think that a belief is a meme, but a meme doesn't necessarily have to be a belief (if that makes sense). "Memes" is the broad category, and "beliefs" is a sub-set of it (one of many). But that's just my own thoughts on it.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Damn this is getting heavy...im going to have to read your post several times ini. I might not even respond to it tomorrow.

My apologies. We've gotten quite off the topic because I interjected memes into the discussion. Feel free to shut me up and get back to the original discussion at any point.

🙂

Originally posted by Alfheim
1. Its not? You said probably.
2. What so I have to go through the long list of people that have died without religon being the cause, you're an intelligent man use your imagination.

The difference though would have something to do with organisation and motivation. Yes, people will find a way to justify what they have done, and others will find a way of using a system as a means of control to influence the way others behave and the kind of things they are prepared to do.

Religion is a great example, politics and ideology also pretty good, Atheism a very poor example.

Hell I knew somebody who was muslim, he was a bully and a jerk and used islam as an excuse to bully people. When he stopped being muslim he was still a bully and a jerk and apparently he was like that before he became muslim. You get the picture.

So he was what... an Atheist who became a Muslim and then became an Atheist again?

If you ask an Anarchist they will tell you that its not. Just because you have some decent Athiest friends doesnt stop it from being an Athiest principle im pretty sure thats something that Marquis de Sade would follow (but I can stand to be corrected).

I am sorry - Atheist principle? Atheism, by its very nature, is not an organised thing. It is, by any definition just the lack of a God. Which is the point - it has trouble being used as a motivator/justifyier for actions since it doesn't subscribe any. It doesn't advocate the overthrow of governments or the flying of planes into buildings or anything else. It is simply not believing in God.

Don't mistake actual philosophical stances such as those of the extreme libertines to equate with Atheism as a motivator. Certainly it can be seen that those who followed them, such as the Marquis, were Atheist, but they needed something more advanced to develop their particular brand of social idealism. Sade has views that went against things most Atheists support - including ethical, lawful behaviour. But that stems from the kind of libertine he was. As in Atheism had nothing to do with his actions/world view, it was another system entirely he subscribed to that motivated him.

Unless you can provide further illumination on "Atheist principles" that show "take what you can and don't get caught" is one of them then it is not an argument. I would be surprised if you could, since that wouldn't be Atheism which is simply not believing in a God/gods.

Well when you have an athesist pope and an atheist Mecca then maybe I can start getting some stats. Until then Im just going to have to do my best. This might help sometime in the early 90s there was a survey in SOAS and most men said that they would rape a women if they could get away with it. Now.... I dont know what they're beliefs were but since we live in a less religous society I would assume most of them were agnostic. Since "It doesnt matter if I dont get caught is not a relgious principle", I would assume those people probably were not very religous.

And when we have an Atheist Pope and an Atheist Mecca we won't be Atheists. You are trying to shoe horn Atheism into some sort of ideology with goals and aims like a political or religious theory. It doesn't have such things. People who are Atheists do, but they can't say "I fight for Atheism, Atheism wants me to do this" because there is no Atheist doctrine, no set of Atheist laws, no five year Atheist plan, no Atheist utopia on the horizon if they do things for Atheism. Which is why there is no superpowerful Atheist lobby group influencing politics.

And sorry, but that is no good - a lot of assumptions there on a study you don't seem to remember well. I can remember it, and I know the findings did not indicate any connection between religious belief or lack of it - there was no finding of "Religious men between 20 and 35 say no while Atheist/Agnostic men between 20 and 35 say yes if they aren't caught" because the view was spread across the sample. And it was not most men, it was 35% of those surveyed. The only surveys that have found higher are ones done exclusively in collages and the like which apparently highlighted poor awareness of laws and social ethics. And both indicated the figure was as high as it was in part due to some ignorance on the part of men ie. men "rape is ok in marriage" because they didn't think it could be rape in marriage, thus giving the "then I guess I would commit rape if I wasn't going to get caught." And the survey occurred in the US, which or the Western, Secular nations is one of the most religious still.

Thus no proof there to support the idea that an Atheist's morals and ethics change to the point where they live by "take what you can and don't get caught." What we have is your belief that is how it is, against actual Atheists saying they have never encountered such a thing within themselves or with other Atheists.

All that is irrelevant. Do you know what a belief system is? If you dont believe in god and other beliefs stem from that its a belief system. All that is completely irrelevant. Even if atheism is a disbleief there are beliefs that stem from it.

What beliefs, other then "there is no God" stem from Atheism?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The idea that it's not a meme until it's shared sounds like a lot of other examples, such as a language not being a "language" until there's 2 people who speak it. It doesn't change the nature of the concept (meme/langage) just the semantic distinction. If that's the case, by that definition I'll happily concede that random things that don't exist aren't memes.

Here is where I go with this: In our inner ear there are cells that detect sound and send the signals of "sound" to other parts of our brain. When we think about something in the most colloquial sense, as in using language to mull over a problem in our heads, the part of our brain responsible for hearing and the part responsible for language light up, as if you are speaking to yourself and hearing it right in your own ear. If you think of something new that influences your personal memeplex (which brings up the philosophical "can you ever think of something new?"😉 to your brain it would be exactly like having someone say it to you.

Also, in some models of cognition, to keep a thought in working memory you must repeat it to yourself before it can be stored in long term memory. Since there is no imitation specifically, I hesitate to call whatever comes out of something like this a meme. However, it can interact with memes. I guess that is one of the things with not having a mechanistic understanding of memes, it is hard to say definitively what is or what isn't a meme.

On a totally different note, I took a learning psychology class last term, and imitation wasn't mentioned once 🙁

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And in the case of someone raised atheist, they presumably inherited the meme from a parent/guardian. So even though it might stand alone for a long time before being the base for a meme-plex, it is a copy of the parental atheist-meme, so it would fit any criteria for a meme.

I agree simply because any child being raised around where I grew up would have had to have heard of God. Even if a child was raised by their parents with no reference to religion, they will interact with it. I guess, given that memes are cultural units, and that is culture, "there is no God" is a meme. "God is dead" certainly is one.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I haven't really touched the "Is a belief a meme?" question because I don't feel like I could answer it well. Intuitively, I would think that a belief is a meme, but a meme doesn't necessarily have to be a belief (if that makes sense). "Memes" is the broad category, and "beliefs" is a sub-set of it (one of many). But that's just my own thoughts on it.

I'd agree entirely

Originally posted by Alfheim
Damn this is getting heavy...im going to have to read your post several times ini. I might not even respond to it tomorrow.

hahaha, you guys got me on one of my stronger and favorite subjects. Take all the time you need, I'm just giddy to get to talk memes with people.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
My apologies. We've gotten quite off the topic because I interjected memes into the discussion. Feel free to shut me up and get back to the original discussion at any point.

🙂

NO

more memes!

Global warming is caused by the decline in the pirate population. I saw a study somewhere.

Global warming is false. Environmental concerns exist, but that isn't one of them.

I realize that's a sacreligious statement in today's culture, but there definitely IS another side to the argument that gets swept under the rug all too often in favor of doom-saying environmentalists. I realize we're not talking about global warming in this thread, but it's not like memes are terribly on-topic either. If anyone wants to pursue this, I'm more than willing to explain myself.

...

As for memes, I'll need to regroup and and get back to you inamilist. For once, I'm not sitting on my ass doing nothing, so I don't have time to fully respond well.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Global warming is caused by the decline in the pirate population. I saw a study somewhere.

It's great...

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Originally posted by inimalist
Here is where I go with this: In our inner ear there are cells that detect sound and send the signals of "sound" to other parts of our brain. When we think about something in the most colloquial sense, as in using language to mull over a problem in our heads, the part of our brain responsible for hearing and the part responsible for language light up, as if you are speaking to yourself and hearing it right in your own ear. If you think of something new that influences your personal memeplex (which brings up the philosophical "can you ever think of something new?"😉 to your brain it would be exactly like having someone say it to you.

Also, in some models of cognition, to keep a thought in working memory you must repeat it to yourself before it can be stored in long term memory. Since there is no imitation specifically, I hesitate to call whatever comes out of something like this a meme. However, it can interact with memes. I guess that is one of the things with not having a mechanistic understanding of memes, it is hard to say definitively what is or what isn't a meme.

On a totally different note, I took a learning psychology class last term, and imitation wasn't mentioned once 🙁

Yeah, the formal definition of "cultural unit" is vague enough as to negate specific labeling of it in cognitive terms.

I can see how parts of memory wouldn't qualify as memes though. The feeling you got as a child from visiting your grandparents, for example....an intuitive feeling, and part of memory, but not a meme in that it's not something that can be (acurrately) passed on. And most wouldn't try to pass something like that to others. Stories about the grandparents could become inter-family memes, but not the feeling itself. That probably goes back to your "needs to be shared" criteria.

As for teaching it, I'm beginning to realize just how much was left out of my science upbringing, both in family terms and also in school. It's a shame, but of course this is an abstract form of Darwinism, so we'd probably be burned at the stake for teaching it.

Originally posted by inimalist
I agree simply because any child being raised around where I grew up would have had to have heard of God. Even if a child was raised by their parents with no reference to religion, they will interact with it. I guess, given that memes are cultural units, and that is culture, "there is no God" is a meme. "God is dead" certainly is one.

Nietzsche, eh? Or maybe just coincidence. Anyway, yes, mutual agreement....this seems rare to me on this forum, since we seem to be working toward a shared understanding of the subject. Usually it's just squawking with those of different beliefs with neither budging.

Originally posted by inimalist
more memes!

😂

"meme" itself is a meme, and apparently a powerful one. Just be careful not to become a 'memeoid', obsessed with a single meme or single meme-plex. I know you aren't....I just wanted to insert the word memeoid into the conversation. Fundamentalist religious people could be considered memeoids since they've become so one-tracked in their thinking due to their beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆

It's great...

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I love that the current estimate for pirates is "17".

😂