Is atheism an ideology?

pauldla

Pursuant to a conversation on t'udder forum, I'd like to ask the godless heathens who gather here (and true believers as well, of course) to offer their opinion as to whether or not atheism could be considered an ideology.

My own opinion on the matter is 'no', as it is a POV on a single issue, and ideologies tend to be much more complex (a collection of positions, if you will). But I'm sure others hold contrary views, and I'd like to get a range of opinion.

Apologies if this is a duplicate: a very thorough 30 second search of the forum lead me to conclude that this question hasn't been polled before.

Nervous Wreck

Atheism could be considered an ideology but only to the same extent as not liking peanut butter could.

smacl

I also went for no. For me atheism is little more than a narrowing of what you find credible. Outside of that, it doesn't preclude you from having one or more ideological or philosophical leanings out a vast number of possible choices.

Beruthiel

I would have thought no, it's the lack of one surely?

Pherekydes

Dictionary definition:


Ideology

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. Philosophy a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

A more definite no from me, then.

nozzferrahhtoo

Likely Herr Nugent will be in soon to explain why he thinks it is, with arguments compelling enough to at least make you think if not agree.

But for me I think Atheism is the result of a world view, not a world view in itself, and I think some people too easily conflate the two.

My world view is that ideas should be at least partially substantiated before you adopt them.

The idea there is a god lacks even a modicum of substantiating arguments, evidence, data or reasoning. Therefore I do not adopt that idea.

So my "atheism" (Though I rarely, if ever, use that word to describe myself.) is a consequence of my world view rather than a world view in and of itself.

lazygal

I'm far too lazy to follow an ideology.

andy1249

Pherekydes wrote: »

A more definite no from me, then.

From that definition , point one to me reads as a definite yes.

If ideology is taken to be a belief system that guides and individual then Atheism is indeed an ideology.

Cabaal

andy1249 wrote: »

From that definition , point one to me reads as a definite yes.

If ideology is taken to be a belief system that guides and individual then Atheism is indeed an ideology.

How exactly does not believing in a deity guide you? What are the commandments and readings that guide you're life?

It makes as much sense as looking at people that aren't into watching or taking part in any sporting event, but saying they are sporting fans.

andy1249

If an ideology is taken to be a belief system , then what you do / dont believe constitutes your belief system.

That being the case , atheism is an ideology.

If you choose not to believe without evidence , then that constitutes part of your belief system , and is a personal "commandment" if you like , and most definitely constitutes part of an ideology.

Not believing in a Diety guides you away from the nonsense such beliefs propogate , and I cant see how that is not an ideology !

Pherekydes

andy1249 wrote: »

If an ideology is taken to be a belief system , then what you do / dont believe constitutes your belief system.

That being the case , atheism is an ideology.

Atheism is a lack of belief, so not an ideology.

I don't know why people can't grasp that simple fact: atheism is NOT a belief [system].

Bogwoppit

Atheism is a lack of belief, how can that be an ideology?

I don't believe in Santa Claus,does that mean my lack of belief in Santa Claus is an ideology?

Cabaal

andy1249 wrote: »

If an ideology is taken to be a belief system , then what you do / dont believe constitutes your belief system.

That being the case , atheism is an ideology.

If you choose not to believe without evidence , then that constitutes part of your belief system , and is a personal "commandment" if you like , and most definitely constitutes part of an ideology.

Not believing in a Diety guides you away from the nonsense such beliefs propogate , and I cant see how that is not an ideology !

err not its not

So now you're reading into it and your basically trying to force a round peg into a nice square box that you've constructed to fit your idea of what atheism is
:rolleyes:

So not having a belief creates a commandment, just the one?
Doesn't really fit this

he body of doctrine, myth, symbol, etc., with reference to some political or cultural plan, as that of communism, along with the procedures for putting it into operation

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My world view is that ideas should be at least partially substantiated before you adopt them.

Sometimes it is useful to work from abstracts, even where you can't substantiate them with direct observations, string theory being a good example. Progression isn't always forward from where you're at, you also get results by making a leap of faith and and working your way backwards.

iDave

Secularism perhaps but not atheism. Theres no one singular voice in atheism aiming for the same goal. Everyone has an opinion on certain issues but they can differ unlike religious, political or economic viewpoints whose followers tend to all have very similar opinions.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Sometimes it is useful to work from abstracts, even where you can't substantiate them with direct observations, string theory being a good example. Progression isn't always forward from where you're at, you also get results by making a leap of faith and and working your way backwards.

This would appear to just be a distinction between the actual adoption of ideas as true.... and how one works. I am more than happy to be more abstract when working on ideas or concepts or the like. But I will not adopt any idea as actually being true or likely until such time as it has substantiation.

So I do not think we disagree, we are just talking about different stages in the overall process.

Sarky

Atheism an ideology?

Heh, that does sound like the kind of thing that'd come out of the other place. I bet some of them try to call it an ethos as well to make them feel better.

Delirium

No, it's not.

Any time I've seen it suggested that it is, it's usually someone on the theistic side attempting to suggest hypocrisy on an atheists thinking/stance.

Generally this is a result of someone conflating secularism/science/<insert other topic here> with atheism. E.g. supporting secularism in schools is "imposing your irreligious/atheistic ideology on children".

Czarcasm

pauldla wrote: »

Pursuant to a conversation on t'udder forum, I'd like to ask the godless heathens who gather here (and true believers as well, of course) to offer their opinion as to whether or not atheism could be considered an ideology.

My own opinion on the matter is 'no', as it is a POV on a single issue, and ideologies tend to be much more complex (a collection of positions, if you will). But I'm sure others hold contrary views, and I'd like to get a range of opinion.

Apologies if this is a duplicate: a very thorough 30 second search of the forum lead me to conclude that this question hasn't been polled before.

This would be my understanding of Atheism also. It's just a lack of belief in a deity. As I said in another thread -

Czarcasm wrote: »

The bolded bit there, is my understanding of Atheism, nothing more, nothing less. Now, I know what you mean by people with many different agendas trying to pull in all sorts of ideas about social philosophy under the term "atheism" and try to make Atheism some sort of humanitarian ideal that separates them from, well, atheists who they perceive to be individuals of a lesser intellect or lesser "enlightened" individuals, and that's what I understand to be "atheism+" (In other words, a ball of shìte for a minority of atheists who think they're better than everyone else), but no, that wouldn't be the definition of Atheism for me at all. Atheism stands on it's own as a concept - a lack of belief in a deity. Anything else is just people just looking to segregate themselves from mainstream Atheism - elitists, if you will.

I suppose different people will form their lack of belief in a deity in different ways is the thing -

For some people, they used the scientific method to eliminate all other possibilities.

For some people it was a rejection of religion, a sort of two fingers to established religions, or the religion into which they were indoctrinated.

And then there are the people who just never gave a ****. They had no interest in questioning the existence of a deity because for them they never felt the need to prove something didn't exist. The notion itself even sounds ridiculous so it's just something they wouldn't even entertain as they know religion is a man-made construct.

gaynorvader

andy1249 wrote: »

{...}

If you choose not to believe without evidence , then that constitutes part of your belief system , and is a personal "commandment" if you like , and most definitely constitutes part of an ideology.

{...}

This is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever read. If you don't have evidence, you shouldn't believe. Otherwise you're just going to end up believing everything you ever hear. Harry Potter, the Grinch, Gandalf, Xavier, unicorns, Odin, Zeus, zombies are all real, I mean, there's no evidence for them, right?

oscarBravo

andy1249 wrote: »

If an ideology is taken to be a belief system , then what you do / dont believe constitutes your belief system.

Logic fail. A belief system can't logically be constructed from things you don't believe. That's a disbelief system (to coin a phrase).

If you're going to argue that an ideology is either a belief or a disbelief system, you're going to have to explain that assertion - but as it stands, it's not what you said, so you made an unwarranted logical leap in your first sentence.

[-0-]

It's not.

Bannasidhe

I am ideologically opposed to having an ideology therefore it cannot be.

I also do not have a 'gay lifestyle' even though some people insist I do. I have a life and I am gay.

Turtwig

Atheism is at it's core a singular position. Just like theism. Neither of them by themselves can be ideologies. You can define to be so but you probably have some political motive there. A brick by itself does not make a wall but you could always change the definition of a wall to include a singular brick. But why do it? The definition for single brick wall becomes silly and redundant. Atheism and Theism are positions of belief. Alone they don't constitute anything else. When you add other beliefs to them they become part of an ideology.


The population of people who think otherwise has no bearing here. Nor does the population of people who belong to an atheist or theist ideology. This is semantics maybe but I don't like it. It enables those in ideologies to include others who blatantly don't want any part in their ideology to be counted as their flock. We don't define Christianity by the Phelps family. We shouldn't define atheism by those groups of atheists. We should define definitions by their utility and pragmatism for speaking and conveying concepts to one another. Otherwise let's also consider concrete blocks to be walls.

smacl

Jernal wrote: »

Atheism is at it's core a singular position. Just like theism. Neither of them by themselves can be ideologies.

While this is true, as I understand it the vast majority of theists subscribe to one of the major world religions, which invariably brings with it baggage that goes beyond the simple notion of belief in a God or gods. For example, Christians follow in the teachings of Jesus Christ to a greater or lesser extent, which includes prescribed ethics such as the ten commandments. I don't believe the same can be said of atheists, insofar they form a much looser heterogeneous group.

Turtwig

smacl wrote: »

While this is true, as I understand it the vast majority of theists subscribe to one of the major world religions, which invariably brings with it baggage that goes beyond the simple notion of belief in a God or gods. For example, Christians follow in the teachings of Jesus Christ to a greater or lesser extent, which includes prescribed ethics such as the ten commandments. I don't believe the same can be said of atheists, insofar they form a much looser heterogeneous group.

Yeah but even if 99.999999999% of theists follow Jesus Christ you still need a word for the theist that only believes in God. Otherwise you basically have to call someone a theist and then add the caveat that they just believe in God. Which makes it redundant because Christianity is a more appropriate term for followers of Jesus Christ they just happen to be theist as well. It's bit like calling the car engine a Car. The engine is part of the car and most cars have engines but that doesn't mean a car is an engine. Regardless of whether all car have engines or not. (Replace belief for engine and car for ideology.)

Absoluvely

Pherekydes wrote: »

Atheism is a lack of belief[system].

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Atheism is a lack of belief

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's just a lack of belief in a deity.

I agree, but just to be extra pedantic, I would use the word absence instead of lack.

Lack suggests an insufficiency or deficiency. Absence means nonpresence.

robindch

Absoluvely wrote: »

[...] just to be extra pedantic [...]

Hell, that's what A+A is for!

Absoluvely

robindch wrote: »

Hell, that's what A+A is for!

Nice double entendre there

wretcheddomain

I would imagine some would argue that, by extension, atheism could be considered an ideology.

For instance, if you don't believe in God then, by extension, you must believe that morality does not come from Gods. This can play a role in society as individuals who adhere to such a view may criticise a constitution which contains even the mention of a God. Thus, secularism will also be linked to atheism. You get the message by now...

I'm not adhering to that view, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I assume this will be the view adopted by the Nugentiles.

lazygal

If it is an ideology, do I have to do anything? I'm rather busy as it is.

Turtwig

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would imagine some would argue that, by extension, atheism could be considered an ideology.

For instance, if you don't believe in God then, by extension, you must believe that morality does not come from Gods. This can play a role in society as individuals who adhere to such a view may criticise a constitution which contains even the mention of a God. Thus, secularism will also be linked to atheism. You get the message by now...

I'm not adhering to that view, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I assume this will be the view adopted by the Nugentiles.

Not really,

You've already added more criteria onto the definition of atheism. But let's ignore that. Suppose you have a person who believes they know exactly how morality works before they decide they don't believe in God. Or suppose you have a person who has no morals and doesn't recognise morals and also doesn't believe in God. (Or does believe in God, whichever you prefer). The description for all these people is that they are atheists (theists) because they have no (do have) belief in a deity. Morality and their philosophy of ethics, politics, science etc. have no real bearing on the actual definition of atheism. Just because two things appear linked does not mean they are the same. Nugentites can claim whatever crap they like about people requiring moral laws fact of the matter is that for a person to be an atheist they can believe whatever they like as long as they don't believe in a deity. Everything else, after, that they believe is used to see what other categories they fall under.

wretcheddomain

Jernal wrote: »

Morality and their philosophy of ethics, politics, science etc. have no real bearing on the actual definition of atheism.

Nugentites can claim whatever crap they like about people requiring moral laws fact of the matter is that for a person to be an atheist they can believe whatever they like as long as they don't believe in a deity. Everything else, after, that they believe is used to see what other categories they fall under.

I would agree entirely.

The bolded part above may cause some consternation among the Nugentites/Nugentiles given that they believe that the definition of the word 'Atheism' has changed over time to incorporate these new 'attachments'. How would you reply against this?

Turtwig

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would agree entirely.

The bolded part above may cause some consternation among the Nugentites/Nugentiles given that they believe that the definition of the word 'Atheism' has changed over time to incorporate these new 'attachments'. How would you reply against this?

Some words are defined on popular usage. However, this cannot work for everything. We also need definitions for just about every concept we can describe with words. So, no matter how one looks at it a term is going to be needed for the categories of belief in deities. Then it's about choosing definitions that become redundant on themselves. No point defining theism to mean religious belief if you already have the word religious belief. Unless you plan on removing one word entirely from the language. However, the problem here is that if you wish to have a rational discussion through the use of concepts e.g a discussion on the ethics of abortion. you'll need exact words to describe those concepts. Having redundant terms only serves to cross wires and hinder communication. From the point of view of discussing those concepts clarity for words comes when the word has the least amount of redundancy possible. This is why scientific definitions are hotly debated and tend to be very exact whereever possible. A definition that is of itself redundant carries the risks of multiple interpretations. By defining a singular belief as part of an ideology you conflate both the properties of the ideology and the belief. In effect, you make theism and Christianity potentially one and the same. So when having a discussion about the legitimacy of theism, strawmen for the default theist position become acceptable.

I hope this makes some sense as it is a rather pedantic point of language and word definition. I like to think all definitions should be approached the way they are in science. Utility, rather than popularity. However, I understand that languages work different. I do think though for discussions and debates the definitions used need to have minimum redundancy for any constructive discussion to occur. We need to be exact about what we talk about. So by including atheism as an ideology we blur lines for unnecessary reasons.

Czarcasm

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would agree entirely.

The bolded part above may cause some consternation among the Nugentites/Nugentiles given that they believe that the definition of the word 'Atheism' has changed over time to incorporate these new 'attachments'. How would you reply against this?

I would say to these people that just because they believe that something has changed, doesn't mean it actually has. They can redefine the meaning of words all they like to suit their ideology, but that doesn't mean it changes the commonly understood meaning of the word.

wretcheddomain

Jernal wrote: »

I hope this makes some sense as it is a rather pedantic point of language and word definition. I like to think all definitions should be approached the way they are in science. Utility, rather than popularity.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I would say to these people that just because they believe that something has changed, doesn't mean it actually has. They can redefine the meaning of words all they like to suit their ideology, but that doesn't mean it changes the commonly understood meaning of the word.

Agreed.

I now await the Nugentophiles for the defence.

Bannasidhe

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I now await the Nugentophiles for the defence.

You are like a dog with a bone on this ...

This is what, the fourth time? you have thrown down the gauntlet to those you term 'Nugentophiles' - yet none have appeared.

Funny that.

As a matter of interest, would you term Michael Nugent a Nugentophiles or is he simply the Big Nug?

Gordon

Is Anugentophilia an ideology?

wretcheddomain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are like a dog with a bone on this ...

This is what, the fourth time? you have thrown down the gauntlet to those you term 'Nugentophiles' - yet none have appeared.

Funny that.

As a matter of interest, would you term Michael Nugent a Nugentophiles or is he simply the Big Nug?

I think it's pretty well known at this stage that the views of Atheist Ireland do involve a change in word definitions as described above.

It's no different to calling followers of King William, Williamites, or adherents of Dawkins as Dawkinites etc.

If proponents of what was described above fail to appear, then they fail to appear. I hope they do arrive as it'll make for an interesting discussion within atheism.

As for terming Michael Nugent, I can't possibly call him a Nugentophile.

Pope Nugent? -- Pungent?

I don't know.

robindch

Gordon wrote: »

Is Anugentophilia an ideology?

Now, you're just taking the Mickey.

wretcheddomain

Gordon wrote: »

Is Anugentophilia an ideology?

I'm actually an Agnugentic until I hear a rational response against the propositions outlined above.

Bannasidhe

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think it's pretty well known at this stage that the views of Atheist Ireland do involve a change in word definitions as described above.

It's no different to calling followers of King William, Williamites, or adherents of Dawkins as Dawkinites etc.

If proponents of what was described above fail to appear, then they fail to appear. I hope they do arrive as it'll make for an interesting discussion within atheism.

As for terming Michael Nugent, I can't possibly call him a Nugentophile.

Pope Nugent? -- Pungent?

I don't know.

Since we are talking about terms being redefined - I see you have done the same yourself by comparing what you term 'followers' and blurring the lines to make an ideological ( :P ) point
Firstly: those who supported/followed King William were either his subjects, his prospective subjects or hired mercenaries .... do Dawkins and Nugent hire many mercenaries? Or are they perhaps prospective monarchs of somewhere or other?

Or, secondly, are you suggesting the members of Atheist Ireland are either a) Hired to make up the numbers or b) Vassal subjects of a king bound by oath to serve the crown?

wretcheddomain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since we are talking about terms being redefined - I see you have done the same yourself by comparing what you term 'followers' and blurring the lines to make an ideological ( :P ) point
Firstly: those who supported/followed King William were either his subjects, his prospective subjects or hired mercenaries .... do Dawkins and Nugent hire many mercenaries? Or are they perhaps prospective monarchs of somewhere or other?

O, secondly, are you suggesting the members of Atheist Ireland are either a) Hired to make up the numbers or b) Vassal subjects of a king?

Well, thanks for throwing down your own gauntlet.

I'm not redefining the term - rather, I'm using it as an extended metaphor as a follower of something or someone.

I firmly believe the Nugentoids will understand this nomenclature.

Bannasidhe

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Well, thanks for throwing down your own gauntlet.

I'm not redefining the term - rather, I'm using it as an extended metaphor as a follower of something or someone.

I firmly believe the Nugentoids will understand this nomenclature.

No Gauntlet - simply an observation.

Pretty insulting metaphor, imo, when one examines it.

And I think that is 5 times now.

wretcheddomain

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No Gauntlet - simply an observation.

Pretty insulting metaphor, imo, when one examines it.

And I think that is 5 times now.

I don't believe so, nor is it intended to be. As I said, we often hear of Dawkinites and Williamites, Jacobites etc. They're not intended as insulting when reading history so why make it an insult for no reason?

I could think of loads, like the manifesto of Atheist Ireland as Nugentics, playing on Dianetics from Scientology. I wouldn't take it too seriously if I were you.

Bannasidhe

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I don't believe so, nor is it intended to be. As I said, we often hear of Dawkinites and Williamites, Jacobites etc. They're not intended as insulting when reading history so why make it an insult for no reason?

I could think of loads, like the manifesto of Atheist Ireland as Nugentics, playing on Dianetics from Scientology. I wouldn't take it too seriously if I were you.

I'm not taking it even slightly seriously. I am simply commenting that it appears to me that you have ideological issues with Atheist Ireland and seem to be engaging in some 'calling them out' for having an ideology you don't agree with.

By the way - I might read such a conflating of the term 'followers' in a history essay - I would also produce my green marker and comment that is this instance (king William/ Richard Dawkins/ Michael Nugent ) the use of the term followers for all three is not strictly accurate as one is not comparing like for like and suggest that the writer check that their personal bias is not impacting on their work....oh and they might also consider saving the metaphors for English Lit. *sniff*

endacl

Meh.

Answered a couple of years ago. Atheism is most definitely an ice cream.

MagicMarker

I actually do think it's an ideology.

Oh, wait, no, in actual fact I don't.

oscarBravo

MagicMarker wrote: »

I actually do think it's an ideology.

Oh, wait, no, in actual fact I don't.

If you don't believe it's an ideology, does that absence of belief form a belief system, and - ipso facto - an ideology?

SmilingLurker

Absence of a belief does not form a belief. I don't believe in multi coloured fire farting dragons.

Do I need to come up with a name for such an ideology if it is such?

Any name suggestions?

[-0-]

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Absence of a belief does not form a belief. I don't believe in multi coloured fire farting dragons.

Do I need to come up with a name for such an ideology if it is such?

Any name suggestions?

The non-puff-the-magic-dragoners.