Is atheism an ideology?

CiDeRmAn

It may be an ideology to some, but not to
others.
If you are the philosophical type, holding your lack of a belief system before you like Wayne and Garth with back stage passes, then atheism may well fall within the definition of an ideology.
Similarly, if you wrap your atheism in the comforting trappings of religious faith, the rituals and social inclusion aspects, as humanists seem to do, then once again it is an ideology.
If, however, atheism to you is simply a name to give your absence of belief in a god and that's that, then no, in that instance I don't think it represents an ideology.
So, in a nutshell, it's all about the weight you attach to your non belief.
Also, to throw the polar bear amongst the penguins, I'd say there are a lot of people who, in a poll, may identify themselves as belonging to a particular faith but, ultimately, it's simply a label that denotes a facet that they have no true belief in and they no longer take part in the rituals or find it directs their behaviour, these people may not be considered to have an ideology either, with their faith having completely atrophied over time.

nagirrac

51 posts and not a single mention of strong versus weak atheism, or positive versus negative atheism, until CiDeRmAn visited from a neighboring galaxy. The idea that atheism has only one meaning is seriously flawed and simply demonstrates that atheists are as prone to the same delusions and dishonesty they accuse theists of. Sorry, forgot about the IDEA that theists evolved brains prone to delusion but atheist brains evolved on a separate evolutionary path that dispels delusion, how amazing is nature.

If atheism were simply a passive lack of belief in deities, then there would be no threads in A&A discussing religion, as there would be nothing to discuss. How many threads are there in A&A discussing spaghetti monsters or flying teapots or for that matter how many threads are there in the Sports forum discussing one's disinterest in soccer? Where is the thread that says "I don't care that Nani's goal was brillaint the other night, because I hate soccer"? As it is, literally 95+% of threads in A&A are anti-theism based, which confirms that almost all modern atheists are simply antitheists and should just man/woman up and accept the obvious.

Where is the evidence I hear some say?, the scientism wing of atheism. The evidence is the absence of the militant atheists on this thread, the ones who are so sure of their position they don't need to express it. A bit like the ones staring at the sun in Knock and shocked to find the result was blindness

To claim that atheism to a strong atheist is not an ideology is simply derisory. Strong atheism is not just a simple ideology, in its militant form it is a dogmatic ideology (yes, I love that word dogma) that replaces the God hypothesis by the human delusion. Primate brains observing the genius that is nature and deciding it is mindless with random origins, using minds that nature created no less.

Turtwig

As it is, literally 95+% of threads in A&A are here because this is the most suitable forum on boards for them.

Fixed that for you.

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

51 posts and not a single mention of strong versus weak atheism, or positive versus negative atheism, until CiDeRmAn visited from a neighboring galaxy. The idea that atheism has only one meaning is seriously flawed and simply demonstrates that atheists are as prone to the same delusions and dishonesty they accuse theists of. {...}

Atheism is not an ideology in itself. Some people might try to make it into one however. One can be an atheist and follow an ideology related to it though.

nagirrac wrote: »

If atheism were simply a passive lack of belief in deities, then there would be no threads in A&A discussing religion, as there would be nothing to discuss. How many threads are there in A&A discussing spaghetti monsters or flying teapots or for that matter how many threads are there in the Sports forum discussing one's disinterest in soccer? Where is the thread that says "I don't care that Nani's goal was brillaint the other night, because I hate soccer"? As it is, literally 95+% of threads in A&A are anti-theism based, which confirms that almost all modern atheists are simply antitheists and should just man/woman up and accept the obvious.

How many people go around telling that you must be interested in soccer? How many schools force children to play soccer every day?

Not all people who are atheists have a boards account, of those that do, not all post in this forum, of those that do, not all start threads. The logic you employed to arrive at "almost all modern atheists are simply antitheists" is simply appalling.

nagirrac wrote: »

Where is the evidence I hear some say?, the scientism wing of atheism. The evidence is the absence of the militant atheists on this thread, the ones who are so sure of their position they don't need to express it. A bit like the ones staring at the sun in Knock and shocked to find the result was blindness

To claim that atheism to a strong atheist is not an ideology is simply derisory. Strong atheism is not just a simple ideology, in its militant form it is a dogmatic ideology (yes, I love that word dogma) that replaces the God hypothesis by the human delusion. Primate brains observing the genius that is nature and deciding it is mindless with random origins, using minds that nature created no less.

Where is your evidence?

Pherekydes

nagirrac wrote: »

... using minds that nature created no less.

Nature or nurture, that is the question!

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

51 posts and not a single mention of strong versus weak atheism, or positive versus negative atheism, until CiDeRmAn visited from a neighboring galaxy. The idea that atheism has only one meaning is seriously flawed and simply demonstrates that atheists are as prone to the same delusions and dishonesty they accuse theists of. Sorry, forgot about the IDEA that theists evolved brains prone to delusion but atheist brains evolved on a separate evolutionary path that dispels delusion, how amazing is nature.

If atheism were simply a passive lack of belief in deities, then there would be no threads in A&A discussing religion, as there would be nothing to discuss. How many threads are there in A&A discussing spaghetti monsters or flying teapots or for that matter how many threads are there in the Sports forum discussing one's disinterest in soccer? Where is the thread that says "I don't care that Nani's goal was brillaint the other night, because I hate soccer"? As it is, literally 95+% of threads in A&A are anti-theism based, which confirms that almost all modern atheists are simply antitheists and should just man/woman up and accept the obvious.

Where is the evidence I hear some say?, the scientism wing of atheism. The evidence is the absence of the militant atheists on this thread, the ones who are so sure of their position they don't need to express it. A bit like the ones staring at the sun in Knock and shocked to find the result was blindness

To claim that atheism to a strong atheist is not an ideology is simply derisory. Strong atheism is not just a simple ideology, in its militant form it is a dogmatic ideology (yes, I love that word dogma) that replaces the God hypothesis by the human delusion. Primate brains observing the genius that is nature and deciding it is mindless with random origins, using minds that nature created no less.

Anti-theism is another word isn't it. So why say all atheists are anti-theists. When that clearly isn't the case. Even if 99.9999999999999999999% percent of atheists were anti-theists (which they're not) can you honestly say ALL atheists are antitheists? No you can't. Even then you still need a word for people who believe in a god but don't follow any religion. Atheism is probably the most stupidest word and identity ever and it's simply down to the power and influence of theism that the word exists in the first place. There's no label for a person not interested in sports but there are labels for people not interested in religion. Funny but that's how it is.

There have actually been threads about sport, referenda, climate change. Smoking ban, parenting, ethics, sex. Granted these are the minority. Post a thread criticising the catholic church in the vegan forum and see how long you have to wait until it's moved to here. Most threads are here because here is the forum on boards for that stuff. It doesn't mean all the posters who post here are anti-theists. Some are. But it's ridiculous to suggest all are purely because of the thread titles. Do you also judge the other fora on boards purely by their thread titles?

Scientism is scientism. Are buddhists followers of scientism? Maybe, but you cannot say buddhism and scientism are equivalent. They aren't. You also can't say the same for atheism. Painting everyone with the same brush is convenient but utterly dishonest. I don't do it for Christians and you would be wiser not to do it for atheists as it is rather insulting to say the least.

Can an atheist be ideologically driven? Of course, no one is saying they can't be. However, these ideologies can all be described by a different word. Anti-theism, liberal, nihilist, etc. It's silly to refine the definition of atheism to make a point by population because really you've just blurred the lines on the minority of atheist groups. Atheism and theism are no more than one single sentence. The person believes or has an absence of belief in a deity. All other descriptions can be best described by other words or labels. Using theism for Christianity is wrong. Likewise, many Christian denominations e.g United Reformed Church have almost deist leaning. But you cannot say deism means Christianity. Likewise you cannot say Atheism means anti-theism because it won't always and to suggest otherwise is redundant language. Silly and impractical. It does appear a load of people wish to do so and to be honest I don't care. Definitions like nanotechnology concern me more. However, I do think it's extraordinary ignorant and disrespectful to people who are atheists to call them anti-theists. Especially when as far as I can tell many atheists don't have any issue with people stuff as long as those beliefs aren't shoved in their faces!

KyussBishop

Some atheists have a lack of belief in theism (comparable to agnostics perhaps), some actively disbelieve in theism (absent sufficient evidence against - I say this because I don't pin it to any one definition of theism); the former are not ideological, the latter are.

I'm agnostic myself - seems the only sensible position to take given the lack of evidence either way (even if traditional religions are obviously bonkers).

Sofaspud

Poll results should be public, I'd put a bet on it that very few, if any of the "yes" votes come from theists.

nagirrac

As far as I can tell (and I'm not a psychologist) you are a weak atheist Jernal. Only a weak atheist imho could be a mod on d'other forum;) I was referring to strong athiests, so you shouldn't take offense as I am not referring to all atheists. We haven't heard from any strong atheists so you shouldn't talk on their behalf either:rolleyes:

The strong atheism I am referring to is as religious as any religion. I recently visited the Dawkins forum while doing some research and stumbled upon the online chat Richard was having with his followers. One gasped "do you think you will be buried in Westminster Richard, along with Newton and Darwin". I mean seriously, 90% was hero worship and when a decent science question was posed ("what do you think about lateral gene transfer or epigenetics"), it was ignored.. total silence.

Its a bit similar to the "Buddhists don't believe in God" fallacy. There are many strands of Buddhism that believe in God, the ones who do not believe in God believe that God is unknowable and we should focus on how to live our lives rather than trying to understand God.

nagirrac

Sofaspud wrote: »

Poll results should be public, I'd put a bet on it that very few, if any of the "yes" votes come from theists.

There are probably at best 3 theists on this forum and no certainty that they have seen this poll or desire to vote on it.

KyussBishop's post is spot on, one only needs to read it once to understand that "maybe" is the only valid answer to the poll.

oscarBravo

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm agnostic myself - seems the only sensible position to take given the lack of evidence either way (even if traditional religions are obviously bonkers).

Is there a non-traditional religion that isn't obviously bonkers?

nagirrac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there a non-traditional religion that isn't obviously bonkers?

Yes, Buddhism. Its so like Atheism that humans can't decide if its a religion or not.

Sofaspud

nagirrac wrote: »

There are probably at best 3 theists on this forum and no certainty that they have seen this poll or desire to vote on it.

KyussBishop's post is spot on, one only needs to read it once to understand that "maybe" is the only valid answer to the poll.

"Maybe" or "it depends" is the same as no.

If "Weak atheism" isn't an ideology, then atheism isn't an ideology. It's a rejection of one.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

As far as I can tell (and I'm not a psychologist) you are a weak atheist Jernal. Only a weak atheist imho could be a mod on d'other forum;) I was referring to strong athiests, so you shouldn't take offense as I am not referring to all atheists. We haven't heard from any strong atheists so you shouldn't talk on their behalf either:rolleyes:

The strong atheism I am referring to is as religious as any religion. I recently visited the Dawkins forum while doing some research and stumbled upon the online chat Richard was having with his followers. One gasped "do you think you will be buried in Westminster Richard, along with Newton and Darwin". I mean seriously, 90% was hero worship and when a decent science question was posed ("what do you think about lateral gene transfer or epigenetics"), it was ignored.. total silence.

Its a bit similar to the "Buddhists don't believe in God" fallacy. There are many strands of Buddhism that believe in God, the ones who do not believe in God believe that God is unknowable and we should focus on how to live our lives rather than trying to understand God.

I wouldn't even consider Dawkins website as proof of anything. If you go onto any website on the internet you'll encounter people who come across as dismissive. This is simply because they either can't or won't put in the effort to communicate anything. Instead they rather let you know where they stand.
"That's so stupid"
"That's just wrong."
You almost never get the detailed why though. And to be fair, explaining the stupidity of something can be rather difficult. But, in my experience at least, most humans simply aren't equipped to communicate ideas. Most see a criticism of their ideas as a personal attack. Everyone does everything to defend their position or just whitewash it by saying they're entitled to have opinions. They'll often expect the other person to read a link that clearly shows this that or the other. They cannot paraphrase the link or put it into their own words, quote the relevant bits and show it's actually their own opinion. Maybe they don't have the time? But then why should somebody else invest their time in reading something only to receive another frank dismissal and possibly another parroted link.

In my opinion the sooner we tackle this issue the more productive the internet will become. Schools could easily address this for future generations. As it stands only about 5% of users on it are actually capable of a discussion on it without insulting people. Facebook is a mess. It's just little chidren shouting at each other over sweets. Even though these are supposedly civilised grown adults.

nagirrac

Sofaspud wrote: »

"Maybe" or "it depends" is the same as no.

If "Weak atheism" isn't an ideology, then atheism isn't an ideology. It's a rejection of one.

"Strong" atheism is not just a rejection of an ideology. It manifests as a rejection of a specific religion, for example most southern Irish atheists reject Catholicism (except when its pointed out to them that all the creationists on the island of Ireland live in NI and are Protestant, which is a bit awkward as most militant atheists, like Dawkins, were raised Protestant).

"Maybe" is not the same as "no", it means yes and no are both valid answers. "Perhaps" is a better word.

oscarBravo

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, Buddhism. Its so like Atheism that humans can't decide if its a religion or not.

Reincarnation isn't bonkers?

Turtwig

In that case I'm a strong atheist because I was a devout Catholic and now wholly reject practically all the RCC teachings. Perhaps ironically, I don't when the a la cartes depressed me more: when I was a devout Catholic or when I wasn't.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

In my opinion the sooner we tackle this issue the more productive the internet will become. Schools could easily address this for future generations. As it stands only about 5% of users on it are actually capable of a discussion on it without insulting people. Facebook is a mess. It's just little chidren shouting at each other over sweets. Even though these are supposedly civilised grown adults.

Great post:). Its both ironic and illuminating that children (as we like to call them, or teenagers/young adults more specifically), are fleeing FB to get away from the stupid. They use it to communicate events and such, but most kids I know, including my own kids, rarely post. Doing so just encourages the stupid.

nagirrac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Reincarnation isn't bonkers?

Do you understand how Buddhists think about reincarnation? Its probably not what you think it is.

Czarcasm

nagirrac wrote: »

51 posts and not a single mention of strong versus weak atheism, or positive versus negative atheism, until CiDeRmAn visited from a neighboring galaxy. The idea that atheism has only one meaning is seriously flawed and simply demonstrates that atheists are as prone to the same delusions and dishonesty they accuse theists of. Sorry, forgot about the IDEA that theists evolved brains prone to delusion but atheist brains evolved on a separate evolutionary path that dispels delusion, how amazing is nature.

That's called changing the meaning of words to suit your argument. Atheism by it's very definition means an absence of belief. You can't quantify something that doesn't exist, so there's no such thing as "being a little bit atheist", strong vs weak atheism, etc.

If atheism were simply a passive lack of belief in deities, then there would be no threads in A&A discussing religion, as there would be nothing to discuss. How many threads are there in A&A discussing spaghetti monsters or flying teapots or for that matter how many threads are there in the Sports forum discussing one's disinterest in soccer? Where is the thread that says "I don't care that Nani's goal was brillaint the other night, because I hate soccer"? As it is, literally 95+% of threads in A&A are anti-theism based, which confirms that almost all modern atheists are simply antitheists and should just man/woman up and accept the obvious.

A person can be atheist and anti-theist too though at the same time, they're really not mutually exclusive, and having gotten to know the place a bit over the last couple of months, I'd say 95% of the forum content is about Atheism and Agnosticism, with a couple of stickys on the hazards of belief (does what it says on the tin), and the funny side of religion (come on, if you can't have a bit of a laugh about something, and there's nothing malicious in there!)

Where is the evidence I hear some say?, the scientism wing of atheism. The evidence is the absence of the militant atheists on this thread, the ones who are so sure of their position they don't need to express it. A bit like the ones staring at the sun in Knock and shocked to find the result was blindness

Atheism doesn't have a scientific wing (a term that fits nicely with your ideology hypothesis), atheism has been around since the dawn of man, long before science became a formal study. There were cavemen who worshipped all manner of gods, spirits, etc, and there were cavemen who just didn't give a shìt. They had better things to be doing than thanking stones for killing a mammoth for them.

The absence of a component is not evidence. You can't walk into a Court and say "He was killed with a bullet", and when the judge asks "And how do you know this?", reply "Well it's obvious, there were five bullets in the gun, one was missing, we can't find it, but we're pretty sure it was in there!". Scientific theory requires evidence, not just hunches!


I think you have the militant atheist bit arseways too tbh - militant atheists, or fundamentalist atheists as I call them, are the people who wear their atheism on their sleeve, as if it defines who they are as a person, they are the type more likely to be anti-theist alright, that might conflate their atheism with their humanitarian or secular ideologies, but that doesn't mean Atheism is THE ideology.

To claim that atheism to a strong atheist is not an ideology is simply derisory. Strong atheism is not just a simple ideology, in its militant form it is a dogmatic ideology (yes, I love that word dogma) that replaces the God hypothesis by the human delusion. Primate brains observing the genius that is nature and deciding it is mindless with random origins, using minds that nature created no less.

Well that's why man created standards and systems of measurement so that we could better understand nature and quantify and eliminate as much of the randomness as possible, and while we have yet so much to learn, I think we've made a pretty good stab at quantifying our environment and our evolution using the scientific method in the last few centuries.

There will always be a place for religion of course, because it's useful for people who need to fill in the blanks so to speak, but more and more, science is providing answers to questions that for a long time would require a leap of faith to be deemed possible, and that's why religion became popular - because, at the time, it answered questions that science couldn't.

"atheism+" is an ideology. Atheism on it's own as a concept however, is not.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you understand how Buddhists think about reincarnation? Its probably not what you think it is.

Nor is Karma.

endacl

I'm a strong atheist. I can do a chin-up.

oscarBravo

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you understand how Buddhists think about reincarnation? Its probably not what you think it is.

Is it consistent with evidence-based science, or is it - like all the bonkers religions - something you just have to choose whether or not to believe?

oldrnwisr

I'm sorry nagirrac but I think there's an awful lot wrong with what you've just said.

nagirrac wrote: »

51 posts and not a single mention of strong versus weak atheism, or positive versus negative atheism, until CiDeRmAn visited from a neighboring galaxy. The idea that atheism has only one meaning is seriously flawed and simply demonstrates that atheists are as prone to the same delusions and dishonesty they accuse theists of.

Atheism has only one meaning, or at least it should. Atheism is a lack of belief, pure and simple. If you want to describe a concept which is ideological like ethical atheism or strong atheism then you need to add extra descriptors. As I outlined in a previous post, words carry general meanings for a reason. If you want to be specific then you add extra descriptors. For example, the word chair is vague and nondescript. If you want to give the person you're talking to a better idea of what you're on about then you can add extra descriptors i.e. a leather backed wooden chair. However, the base term chair must remain necessarily general. So it is with atheism. Thus the idea that atheism is an ideology is ludicrous. Strong atheism yes, ethical atheism yes but atheism, not a chance.

nagirrac wrote: »

If atheism were simply a passive lack of belief in deities, then there would be no threads in A&A discussing religion, as there would be nothing to discuss. How many threads are there in A&A discussing spaghetti monsters or flying teapots or for that matter how many threads are there in the Sports forum discussing one's disinterest in soccer? Where is the thread that says "I don't care that Nani's goal was brillaint the other night, because I hate soccer"? As it is, literally 95+% of threads in A&A are anti-theism based, which confirms that almost all modern atheists are simply antitheists and should just man/woman up and accept the obvious.

OK, two points here. First of all, just because you don't have a religion doesn't mean you shouldn't find religion an interesting topic of discussion. Personally, I find religion fascinating particularly Christianity. Mostly its for the same reason that I find homeopathy or anti-vaxers fascinating because of how people get sucked in by something so patently absurd. I also find religion interesting because there have been quite a few times here and in RL where I have been faced with someone claiming that religion X is the truth. Discussing religious topics and picking through the finer details can help to counter religious arguments.
The second point relates to the idea that 95% of threads are anti-theist. Firstly, this is Boards.IE. Its a safe bet that most of the atheists here are Irish and hence ex-Catholics, in a country where the Catholic Church has been involved in a systematic cover-up of child sexual abuse, controls 90% of primary schools and lobbies heavily against womens rights and gay rights, so a backlash against such an institution is to be expected. However it is hardly anti-theism in the strict sense of the word. I seriously doubt if we were having the same conversation on Boards.se or Boards.jp that the same "anti-theist" threads would be evident. Atheism as much correlation as there might be here is not necessarily a component of atheism.
Secondly, even if there are lots of anti-theist threads, there are also lots of threads on evolution. In fact, the original Origin of Specious Nonsense thread reached the limit of 10,000 posts and the new one is well on the way. Still, you wouldn't or at least shouldn't claim that on that basis that evolution is a necessary component of atheism. That would be silly. This whole idea is really just an example of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

nagirrac wrote: »

To claim that atheism to a strong atheist is not an ideology is simply derisory. Strong atheism is not just a simple ideology, in its militant form it is a dogmatic ideology (yes, I love that word dogma) that replaces the God hypothesis by the human delusion. Primate brains observing the genius that is nature and deciding it is mindless with random origins, using minds that nature created no less.

Well of course not. Strong atheism when applied evenly to all god concepts could be described as an ideology because it rests on an a priori assumption that no god exists. However, there are two caveats here.
Firstly, I expect that quite a few atheists would be strong atheists with respect to some concepts of God. For example I would describe myself as a 6.9 bordering 7.0 out of 7 with respect to the Christian god. Between the contradictions, mistakes and syncretic borrowings present in the Christian depiction of God, I'm pretty sure he doesn't exist. However this doesn't describe my position on all god concepts because not all god concepts are the same.
Secondly, a point I have raised before is the null hypothesis. I try not to make a habit of visiting t'udder forum and when I do it is usually on some social justice issue (i.e. gay marriage) so I don't make a habit of making unprovoked proclamations to Christians that there is no God. Instead it is usually Christians who come in here proclaiming the truth of their beliefs. In doing so they give themselves a rather large burden of proof. So to those who like to claim that their God exists, I give you the null hypothesis, there are no gods. This is not a faith based position. It is a restatement of where the burden of proof actually lies.

Ultimately, my point is that words are just labels. If you want to find out if an individual's atheism is ideological in nature then have a discussion with them. But tarring all atheists with the same brush isn't correct. And it's not all that polite either.

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there a non-traditional religion that isn't obviously bonkers?

Depends on how you define religion, and what religions are out there (that would be a good poll option - 'Depends', heh)
As nagirrac mentioned, Buddhism doesn't seem to require a belief in god, but I don't know enough about that myself to comment.

I'm sure there's probably some religion out there, that doesn't have any obviously false (or easily falsified) beliefs, and is theistic - you could even just create a religion saying "there is a god, but we don't know exactly what that is", and it wouldn't be any more/less true than the what the 'strict' atheists believe, in saying there is no god (both viewpoints equally lacking evidence).

nagirrac

Czarcasm wrote: »

Atheism doesn't have a scientific wing (a term that fits nicely with your ideology hypothesis), atheism has been around since the dawn of man, long before science became a formal study.

There will always be a place for religion of course, because it's useful for people who need to fill in the blanks so to speak, but more and more, science is providing answers to questions that for a long time would require a leap of faith to be deemed possible, and that's why religion became popular - because, at the time, it answered questions that science couldn't.

I said scientism not science. There is a huge difference between the two, perhaps as big as the gap between atheist and theist:).

Science does not answer metaphysical question, nor can it. It poses many interesting metaphysical questions, like "I have developed a nuclear bomb using science, should I drop it on a large group of humans to settle a dispute"?

oscarBravo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Depends on how you define religion, and what religions are out there (that would be a good poll option - 'Depends', heh)
As nagirrac mentioned, Buddhism doesn't seem to require a belief in god, but I don't know enough about that myself to comment.

I'm sure there's probably some religion out there, that doesn't have any obviously false (or easily falsified) beliefs, and is theistic - you could even just create a religion saying "there is a god, but we don't know exactly what that is", and it wouldn't be any more/less true than the what the 'strict' atheists believe, in saying there is no god (both viewpoints equally lacking evidence).

Meh. I define myself as an atheist on the basis that there is no evidence that a god exists. I'm not agnostic about invisible flying dragons; I don't see a reason to be agnostic about deities either.

KyussBishop

Jernal wrote: »

In that case I'm a strong atheist because I was a devout Catholic and now wholly reject practically all the RCC teachings. Perhaps ironically, I don't when the a la cartes depressed me more: when I was a devout Catholic or when I wasn't.

Ah I think that's different though, and doesn't have to make you a strong atheist - you can reject RCC for many rational evidence-based reasons, without having to reject theism outright (or rather, staying agnostic on it).

oscarBravo

nagirrac wrote: »

Science does not answer metaphysical question, nor can it. It poses many interesting metaphysical questions, like "I have developed a nuclear bomb using science, should I drop it on a large group of humans to settle a dispute"?

Religion has also proven less than conclusive when it comes to answering such questions.

Turtwig

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ah I think that's different though, and doesn't have to make you a strong atheist - you can reject RCC for many rational evidence-based reasons, without having to reject theism outright (or rather, staying agnostic on it).

Agreed. It was in response to Nagirrac's post about it strong atheism being a rejection of a specific religion.

rozeboosje

I answered "Maybe".

At its most basic level "atheism" just means that you're not bothering your arse with all that "belief" stuff, and as such - as some people never tire of pointing out - atheism would be no more an "ideology" or a "religion" than not collecting stamps would be a "hobby".

But it isn't always that easy, is it? When you see some atheists reciting the God Delusion like it is some kind of Atheist Gospel, gathering in little clubs calling themselves "Brights" or "Pearls" or arguing like mediaeval theologians about how many angels fit on the head of a pin or whether babies are atheists, then it's pretty damn clear to me that there are some atheists who take not believing in nonsense WAY too seriously. Some Atheists are so zealous about what they reckon is their superior worldview that it would be hopelessly naive to focus exclusively on the "non stamp collecting" aspect of what Atheism is in order to justify why you can't point out the blatantly obvious fact that these people are as much followers of whatever atheistic ideology they espouse as religious zealots are of their particular religion.

Thankfully, though, militant atheists don't tend to strap bombs to themselves. Thank the FSM for small favours.

Czarcasm

nagirrac wrote: »

I said scientism not science. There is a huge difference between the two, perhaps as big as the gap between atheist and theist.

Ahh now naggirac, don't have me breaking out the oxford dictionary. I really shouldn't have to. Scientism is derived from science, in that science is the only answer to all questions. Atheist and theist are polar opposites of each other.

Science does not answer metaphysical question, nor can it. It poses many interesting metaphysical questions, like "I have developed a nuclear bomb using science, should I drop it on a large group of humans to settle a dispute"?

That would be an ecumenical ethical matter

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But tarring all atheists with the same brush isn't correct. And it's not all that polite either.

Except I'm not tarring all atheists with the same brush, that would be the equivalent as saying all Christians are Westboro Baptists and I would never say that.

Just on one specific point, on a subject near and dear to both our hearts. The Theory of Evolution is absolutely part of the ideology of the strong atheist. For many atheists it is the proof they seek that life emerged randomly from inert matter (which as we both know is a question the Theory of Evolution does not even approach) and that life evolved on this planet due to "random" events. Without even understanding the meaning of random in science. Science involves investigating what the forces are that result in apparent randomness. Everything appears random until we understand it.

"Random" is a somewhat unfortunate qualifier word attached to mutation in much the same way that "strong" is attached to atheism. I agree that atheism alone is not an ideology, but atheism does not exist in isolation as it is a response to something (theism). Qualifying Atheism is about the best we can do in trying to attach meaning to it.

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Meh. I define myself as an atheist on the basis that there is no evidence that a god exists. I'm not agnostic about invisible flying dragons; I don't see a reason to be agnostic about deities either.

The trouble with theism, is that we don't even know what god is meant to be, or what's beyond our own universe - we can't even see to the edge of our own universe, only as far as light allows us to see, before the expansion of the universe exceeds the speed of light and we can't see any further (meaning there is a lot of stuff that it is physically impossible for us to ever see or find out about).

Add to that, our (still) very big lack of knowledge of physics on the small scale, and in general how the universe really works (string theory is currently untestable and unfalsifiable, and absent a massive breakthrough, will be that way for centuries - is that still a science? When will it become comparable to a religious belief?) - we don't know we're not just a universe-in-a-lab, with a mad scientist as our creator/god (we don't even know if that's implausible either)

We don't need to pick something ridiculous to believe in (flying dragons/meatballs+spaghetti), in order to be theistic, and equally, it's not really any more rational to disbelieve in theism (be anti-theistic) just because some (even many/most) theistic beliefs are ridiculous.
You can acknowledge the lack of evidence for either though, and still be agnostic and/or a 'weak' atheist.

KyussBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's called changing the meaning of words to suit your argument. Atheism by it's very definition means an absence of belief. You can't quantify something that doesn't exist, so there's no such thing as "being a little bit atheist", strong vs weak atheism, etc.

There is though, atheists (like almost every other group of people that have a label attached to them) are not homogenous, and there are atheists who have a lack of belief in theism (like agnostics), and those who actively disbelieve it.

'Atheism' isn't ideological (to say that would be a generalization), but some of the atheist subgroups are.

When discussing atheism and atheists, I think it's important to focus on atheists as a social group, not necessarily as one well-defined word.

nagirrac

Where is Michael to sort all this out? Atheism Ireland promote the idea that Atheism should be taught in schools. Can I write the curriculum? I would seriously love that job.

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

Except I'm not tarring all atheists with the same brush, that would be the equivalent as saying all Christians are Westboro Baptists and I would never say that.

Fair enough. My apologies.

nagirrac wrote: »

Just on one specific point, on a subject near and dear to both our hearts. The Theory of Evolution is absolutely part of the ideology of the strong atheist. For many atheists it is the proof they seek that life emerged randomly from inert matter (which as we both know is a question the Theory of Evolution does not even approach) and that life evolved on this planet due to "random" events. Without even understanding the meaning of random in science. Science involves investigating what the forces are that result in apparent randomness. Everything appears random until we understand it.

Again, I would point out the highlighted words above. Many does not mean all. Evolution is not necessarily a component of atheism, even strong atheism. While there are quite a few atheists (myself included) for whom the truth of a proposition is important, it is not the case for everyone. I've posted about this before, particularly about two strong atheists work colleagues:

1. Work colleague A.

Read the DaVinci Code followed by Angels & Demons and some other out there stuff like Lynn Picknett. Bought into a slick narrative and is now convinced that everything the Catholic church claims is wrong. Because Catholicism was the only religion she had any practical knowledge of, she is now convinced that all religion is bull**** and therefore identifies as atheist.

2. Work colleague B.

Watched a couple of documentaries by Richard Dawkins on BBC and then bought the God Delusion. Now identifies as atheist. Not because they were convinced by the arguments propounded in the book but rather because they think Dawkins is awesome, so they've just made a really bad argument from authority.
Both of these are strong atheists in that they are convinced that there is no god. However, neither of them have even the first clue what evolution is or how it works. In fact, one day I struggled to explain to one of them how and why humans qualified as animals.

The same is true of theists to a greater or lesser extent. There are some Christians I know who are convinced that the bible is true in every detail. Others however, have no interest in its truth value but rather identify as Christian because of the sense of spirituality which they get from indulging in the rites and practices of Catholicism.

I do agree with you about using evolution as some kind of proof of atheism. The idea that you would treat atheism as some sort of positive claim to be supported by things like evolution and the big bang theory is misguided. In this respect I agree with Feynman:

"I'd think its much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

nagirrac wrote: »

"Random" is a somewhat unfortunate qualifier word attached to mutation in much the same way that "strong" is attached to atheism. I agree that atheism alone is not an ideology, but atheism does not exist in isolation as it is a response to something (theism). Qualifying Atheism is about the best we can do in trying to attach meaning to it.

Agreed.

Czarcasm

KyussBishop wrote: »

There is though, atheists (like almost every other group of people that have a label attached to them) are not homogenous, and there are atheists who have a lack of belief in theism (like agnostics), and those who actively disbelieve it.

'Atheism' isn't ideological (to say that would be a generalization), but some of the atheist subgroups are.

When discussing atheism and atheists, I think it's important to focus on atheists as a social group, not necessarily as one well-defined word.

There's something I'm clearly missing here. Agnostics are not the same as atheists, therefore they can't really be tied in as a sub-group of Atheism, and I'm not sure what you mean KB by actively NOT believing in a deity? It's not something that requires effort NOT to NOT believe?

oscarBravo

KyussBishop wrote: »

(string theory is currently untestable and unfalsifiable, and absent a massive breakthrough, will be that way for centuries - is that still a science? When will it become comparable to a religious belief?)

It will be comparable to religious belief when it has been demonstrated to be implausible, and yet people are proud to proclaim their irrational belief in it.

We don't need to pick something ridiculous to believe in (flying dragons/meatballs+spaghetti), in order to be theistic, and equally, it's not really any more rational to disbelieve in theism (be anti-theistic) just because some (even many/most) theistic beliefs are ridiculous.
You can acknowledge the lack of evidence for either though, and still be agnostic and/or a 'weak' atheist.

I used to subscribe to a similar view and describe myself as agnostic, with similar lines of argument to those you're espousing here. Then I examined those arguments more closely, and realised that I was effectively arguing for the possible existence of a deity that was, by definition, permanently unknowable (existing, for example, outside of space and time). It struck me as tautological to claim agnosticism about something that can never be known, which is why atheism has always more accurately described my beliefs - even while I was claiming to be agnostic.

KyussBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's something I'm clearly missing here. Agnostics are not the same as atheists, therefore they can't really be tied in as a sub-group of Atheism, and I'm not sure what you mean KB by actively NOT believing in a deity? It's not something that requires effort NOT to NOT believe?

You can have a lack of believe in a deity (not have a belief either for or against), and you can actively disbelieve in a deity (have a belief against); lack of believe would be where atheists crossover with agnostics ('weak' atheists), and active disbelief would be the 'strong' atheists.

It's probably true that not all of the social group that label themselves 'atheists', fit the strict definition of atheism - but it's hard to discuss atheists without acknowledging those subgroups.

Czarcasm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Many does not mean all. Evolution is not necessarily a component of atheism, even strong atheism. While there are quite a few atheists (myself included) for whom the truth of a proposition is important, it is not the case for everyone. I've posted about this before, particularly about two strong atheists work colleagues:

This is an important point that should be made more note of when it comes to discussions about Atheism as a concept. I think far too many people think that Atheism is something that is borne of a conclusion derived of the scientific method that requires evidence.

But for the few people I know who identify as Atheist, they were atheist and had never even heard of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. They just didn't, or couldn't, buy into the whole ideology of theism. They didn't question the existence of a deity, they were just non-believers, and that was it.

People who treat Dawkins like a demi-god are a pain in the tits tbh as most of the time they're just parroting the God Delusion, without any real understanding of what they've actually read, unable to form an opinion of their own.

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

It will be comparable to religious belief when it has been demonstrated to be implausible, and yet people are proud to proclaim their irrational belief in it.

Yes but when you believe in theism, that a god exists (which can include not having a solid definition for 'god'), then that isn't always demonstrable as being implausible either, so the lines of what is and is not religion, get blurred there.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I used to subscribe to a similar view and describe myself as agnostic, with similar lines of argument to those you're espousing here. Then I examined those arguments more closely, and realised that I was effectively arguing for the possible existence of a deity that was, by definition, permanently unknowable (existing, for example, outside of space and time). It struck me as tautological to claim agnosticism about something that can never be known, which is why atheism has always more accurately described my beliefs - even while I was claiming to be agnostic.

Agnosticism is just acknowledging you don't (and presently can't) know though - how is that a tautology?

We can't even say it's permanently unknowable either, since we just don't know if that is the case either.

Anyway, I think we're much in agreement, just a bit stuck on the details/definitions

oscarBravo

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes but when you believe in theism, that a god exists (which can include not having a solid definition for 'god'), then that isn't always demonstrable as being implausible either, so the lines of what is and is not religion, get blurred there.

Let's compare string theory to religion again. String theory (from what little I understand of it) has been advanced as a way to describe the universe at a quantum mechanical level. Religions mostly started as a way to explain the way the world worked at levels that weren't understood at the time. So far, so superficially similar.

The difference is that the adherents of string theory don't use it as a way of telling others how they should live their lives, and also that if experimental evidence contradicts string theory, it will be either discarded or modified to fit the observations.

Agnosticism is just acknowledging you don't (and presently can't) know though - how is that a tautology?

I don't know, and can't know, whether there's an identical planet on the other side of the universe where your doppelganger and mine are having this same conversation simultaneously. That doesn't make me agnostic about such a planet; by any useful and objective measure, it doesn't exist and I have no reason to believe in it.

I don't know, and can't know, whether there's a creator deity that is so completely separate from the concepts of space and time that it existed before the big bang - and that's leaving aside the meaninglessness of "before" outside of the frame of reference of time itself. I don't bother considering myself agnostic about such a deity either: by any useful and objective measure, it doesn't exist and I have no reason to believe in it.

We can't even say it's permanently unknowable either, since we just don't know if that is the case either.

Maybe we'll someday have a way of conceptualising something that exists outside of space and time. Maybe then there will be evidence for a god. Show me compelling evidence that there's a god, and I'll be a theist. Until then, I'm an atheist.

Anyway, I think we're much in agreement, just a bit stuck on the details/definitions

Maybe. I don't like the suggestion that you have to actively believe (or even actively disbelieve, which is a concept I can't quite get my head around) something.

rozeboosje

KyussBishop wrote: »

You can have a lack of believe in a deity (not have a belief either for or against), and you can actively disbelieve in a deity (have a belief against)

Let's take a step back for a moment. What is a "deity"? What is a "god"?

This is what cracks me up about atheists - even though I guess I am one myself. It seems so straightforward: a "theist" is somebody who believes in "god"s. You either DO believe in such "god"s, in which case you're a "theist", or you don't, in which case you're an "atheist".

But like every dichotomy there's an obscured level of confusion that everybody is ignoring. And that's why I'm asking: what, exactly, is a "god"? The more I hear people talk about such things, the more I have to conclude that nobody has a clue, "theists" and "atheists" alike, what they're actually arguing about.

Trying to fit angels on the head of a pin, again.

Turtwig

The Christian God, for instance, is incredibly well defined. Christians enter a personal relationship with Him. A vaguer concept of a deity is more involved with the realm of ignosticism. So being pedantic beyond pernickety I'm an atheist to all personal gods and deities who's concepts I understand. I'm also agnostic to these gods as its impossible to ever know anything for certain. I'm ignostic towards deities that haven't yet been coherently or sufficiently described.

endacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

Trying to fit angels on the head of a pin, again.

The pin is occupied.

rozeboosje

Jernal wrote: »

The Christian God, for instance, is incredibly well defined.

I would have to disagree, after having spoken to many Christians about the "god" they claim to believe in, I would have to conclude that Christians are just as confused as everybody else.

KyussBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's compare string theory to religion again. String theory (from what little I understand of it) has been advanced as a way to describe the universe at a quantum mechanical level. Religions mostly started as a way to explain the way the world worked at levels that weren't understood at the time. So far, so superficially similar.

The difference is that the adherents of string theory don't use it as a way of telling others how they should live their lives, and also that if experimental evidence contradicts string theory, it will be either discarded or modified to fit the observations.

That's true and a good way of distinguishing it from religion - one thing to point out about string theory though, is that (absent a massive breakthrough) it won't be testable for centuries, because the energy requirements to test it are so vast.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know, and can't know, whether there's an identical planet on the other side of the universe where your doppelganger and mine are having this same conversation simultaneously. That doesn't make me agnostic about such a planet; by any useful and objective measure, it doesn't exist and I have no reason to believe in it.

I don't know, and can't know, whether there's a creator deity that is so completely separate from the concepts of space and time that it existed before the big bang - and that's leaving aside the meaninglessness of "before" outside of the frame of reference of time itself. I don't bother considering myself agnostic about such a deity either: by any useful and objective measure, it doesn't exist and I have no reason to believe in it.

There is no objective measure at the moment just personal judgment.

I think that what you've described, does fit agnosticism though - agnosticism has a few different definitions, and I believe that would fall under one of them (probably agnostic atheism).

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe. I don't like the suggestion that you have to actively believe (or even actively disbelieve, which is a concept I can't quite get my head around) something.

Yes the wording is a bit tricky, the way I look at it is:
- "I believe in theism" = Ideological, theist, belief without evidence
- "I don't believe in theism" = Not clear if it's ideological, can be an agnostic or weak-atheist (taking an "I don't know" position), or strong-atheist
- Subset of above: "I believe there is no god" = Ideological, 'actively disbelieve', strong-atheist, belief without evidence

I think the term I used, 'actively disbelieve', is actually a bit confusing because it's not really the right definition for when there is "belief in no god".

KyussBishop

rozeboosje wrote: »

Let's take a step back for a moment. What is a "deity"? What is a "god"?

This is what cracks me up about atheists - even though I guess I am one myself. It seems so straightforward: a "theist" is somebody who believes in "god"s. You either DO believe in such "god"s, in which case you're a "theist", or you don't, in which case you're an "atheist".

But like every dichotomy there's an obscured level of confusion that everybody is ignoring. And that's why I'm asking: what, exactly, is a "god"? The more I hear people talk about such things, the more I have to conclude that nobody has a clue, "theists" and "atheists" alike, what they're actually arguing about.

Trying to fit angels on the head of a pin, again.

True, there isn't really any workable definition of 'god' - another good reason to be agnostic about it I think

rozeboosje

There are, of course, exceptions. Those who present a very clear, unambiguous and logically impossible "god" concept. Obviously, with it being logically impossible, those can be dismissed and ignored. Impossible things don't exist, period. What's left are hopelessly fuzzy "god" concepts that are about as easy to grasp as an eel in a bucket full of snot.