Is atheism an ideology?

rozeboosje

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

Ignostic ;-)

Turtwig

rozeboosje wrote: »

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.

Well there are over 1,000 schisms of Christianity so the interpretation of God does obviously vary. Couple this with members of the flock almost never following the same message and you've got a broad spectrum of interpretations. However they all carry the notion of the personal revelation. God revealed himself to the people of Israel. Catholicism is the easiest one to work with here. (If we conveniently ignore the a la cartes!) The Cathechism sets out the characteristics of the Roman Catholic God. There, there's 'God the Father', Jesus and 'God the Holy Spirit'. Regardless, as far as Christians theologians are concerned their God carries various accepted characteristics.

robindch

Jernal wrote: »

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

I disagree completely -- I think most written descriptions, or at least the original ones, of the christian deity are so imprecisely defined that they can be bent by any subsequent author, and especially by the fertile imagination of the believer, into whatever available deity-shaped hole in the believer's heart or head.

I think this was one of christianity's very, very few innovations: the notion of an essentially abstract deity, and certainly one who -- I think for the first time -- didn't actually have a name, and could therefore avoid any firm classification by virtue of his sheer nonspecificity.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

I disagree completely -- I think most written descriptions, or at least the original ones, of the christian deity are so imprecisely defined that they can be bent by any subsequent author, and especially by the fertile imagination of the believer, into whatever available deity-shaped hole in the believer's heart or head.

I think this was one of christianity's very, very few innovations: the notion of an essentially abstract deity, and certainly one who -- I think for the first time -- didn't actually have a name, and could therefore avoid any firm classification by virtue of his sheer nonspecificity.

Disagree the God of the bible, as God's go, is pretty distinct. Contradictory, yes, but he's a detailed character of fiction. Just as a character of a tv show or drama they don't necessarily always have to make sense. Humans don't always behave rationally either. So, I think from that perspective the God of Christianity is all there on paper just to be read about and interpreted. Whereas some other deities are just passed down verbally. Others are nothing than a few words.

CiDeRmAn

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.

Thanks,
Any time.
That's what I'm here for.
It's nice in my galaxy though, you're all welcome to visit!

Cabaal

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

It'll be a very short curriculum,

Lesson One, Section One:
There is no god,

Ok kids, now enjoy the rest of the year

Czarcasm

Cabaal wrote: »

It'll be a very short curriculum,

Lesson One, Section One:
There is no god,

Ok kids, now enjoy the rest of the year

I was thinking that myself - You can't really "teach" nothing?

But I think it's not specifically teaching atheism they mean, more respecting secularist ideology -

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2013/11/atheist-ireland-submission-to-department-of-education-on-inclusiveness-in-primary-schools/


And you can donate to the project here -

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2013/10/please-donate-today-to-help-atheist-ireland-produce-irelands-first-ever-primary-school-course-about-atheism/


They've raised €2,000 so far... only another €48,000 to go then.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

Logically, atheism predates theism so it is wrong to suggest atheism is a response to theism. I can think of two problems with attaching qualifiers to the word atheism. First is that we're moving from an unambiguous general word, which is well defined and unchanged in the last couple of centuries, to an ambiguous term. Using terms such as strong atheist, or capitalizing Atheist to form a proper noun will mean different things to different people. The second issue is that by using a qualifier with the word atheist to provide a more specific meaning, and then assigning that meaning to other people, you risk making an unreasonable association. For example, ethical atheism associates a persons ethics with their atheism, where the two could be entirely coincidental. Thus I wouldn't consider labeling people as strong or weak atheists to be reasonable.

Similarly, the term anti-theist is something of a misnomer, as it suggests that someone is against people who believe in Gods, whereas more often than not they are against the large institutions that promote a belief in a God and the people who run such institutions. For example, I've no problem with Christians or Muslims, but do take issue on a number of fronts with their churches and hierarchies. FWIW, so do a most of my Christian friends.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Taoism / Daoism breaks down into largely separate religious and philosophical sections, where the philosophical section is sane enough. Laozi and Zhuāngzi are worth a read if you're into such things, and provide some fascinating insights into the world as they saw it. Personally, I find it compliments more western reductionist thinking, and merits some study on that basis.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

The Theory of Evolution is absolutely part of the ideology of the strong atheist.

No. It is not. Correlation-Causation type error here. Just because the former often exists in the same brain as the latter, does not mean they are connected in any way.

Being an atheist is merely failing to swallow the unsubstantiated claim there is a god.

Accepting the Theory of evolution is buying into the well substantiated theory.

They are not connected. You could replace "Evolution" in your sentence with any scientific claim and still make just as much sense as you are (that is to say: None).

"Nuclear Theory is absolutely part of the ideology of the strong atheist."
"Accepting the information about the chemistry behind why gun powder explodes is absolutely part of the ideology of the strong atheist."

It simply does not make sense.

wretcheddomain

I would assume evolution is at the forefront as it can be used as part of an argument against the existence of God. Gunpowder, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have the same advantage.

rozeboosje

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would assume evolution is at the forefront as it can be used as part of an argument against the existence of God.

How? First of all, unless we can establish a clear understanding of what a "god" actually IS, I can't see how the fact that life evolves constitutes any kind of evidence either way for or against the existence of such a thing.

Setting aside those who stubbornly cling on to "god" definitions that are clearly logically impossible and that can therefore be ignored, the only people left are those whose "god" concepts are incomprehensible even to themselves. When presented with facts such as "evolution" they simply use it as another cup full of snot to add to the bucket. Don't tell me you never heard someone claim that their "god" thing simply "uses evolution" to achieve its ends, whatever they may be.

So they just fuzz up their "god" a bit further, or as I put it earlier, they add another cup full of snot to the bucket, and then they continue insisting that it's up to YOU, the sceptic, to stick your arms in there, right up to your elbows, and to grab the eel that they insist is in there. Right....

Brian Shanahan

rozeboosje wrote: »

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.

Just because most christians fail bible studies badly (well one of the conditions of disbelieving god is "having read the bible"), doesn't mean he's not well defined. He is described in minute (if highly contradictory) detail within the bible itself.

smacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

one of the conditions of disbelieving god is "having read the bible"

Must've missed out on the T&Cs somewhere myself there. Why would reading the bible be an aid to, let alone a necessity, in not believing in a God?

Turtwig

smacl wrote: »

Must've missed out on the T&Cs somewhere myself there. Why would reading the bible be an aid to, let alone a necessity, in not believing in a God?

It was actually a common defence used by religious theologians. Atheists didn't understand theology. Obviously if they did they'd still believe. Perhaps hilariously we actually have atheist theologians today.

rozeboosje

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He is described in minute (if highly contradictory) detail within the bible itself.

If that were the case and the descriptions were comprehensive and unambiguous then there wouldn't be 1000 or more different branches of Christianity today.

nozzferrahhtoo

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would assume evolution is at the forefront as it can be used as part of an argument against the existence of God. Gunpowder, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have the same advantage.

Who knows. There was a time people thought anything to do with fire was connected with some kind of spirits. I would be unsurprised to find that people might once have thought explosions were something connected with angry spirits.

The point is that any progress in science is liable to paint over some previously held "religious truth". Germ Theory of disease and our knowledge of conditions like epilepsy have all but eliminated belief in things like demonic possession. Evolution all but eliminates the need for some kind of intelligent hand behind the "design" we observe in life. And so on and so on.

So the core point would be that linking any one scientific advancement or discovery.... in this case Evolution..... to atheism at all is simply a non sense from start to finish. All such advancements really do is consistently work without having to presuppose the notion of any deities.

smacl wrote: »

Must've missed out on the T&Cs somewhere myself there. Why would reading the bible be an aid to, let alone a necessity, in not believing in a God?

It is not, by definition at least. Yet of all the people I have ever turned away from god and religion I have pretty much 100% done it by getting them to actually read their bibles.

I never argued them or debated them out of god belief. Rather, I assisted them in learning about the religion they purport to believe in. And when they do so they often come out with a reaction like "I was meant to believe THAT?".

WHY it is an aid to their disbelief I can not presume to tell you. All I can tell you is that the people I specifically have had sit down and actually read the text... lost their faith.

It is a constant, never ending, shock to me how few Christians have actually read the bible or, for that matter, even SEEN one. Atheist Ireland actually started a campaign to try and get MORE people to read the bible.

And when I give copies of it to some Christians their mouths drop open in sheer shock at the size of it. They have been spoon fed the same passages in it over and over in church and in school that they become convinced they know the whole thing. When they see how much more there is, their reaction is often surprise or shock.

rozeboosje

Or let me put it this way... If the descriptions in the bible are actually contradictory, then those descriptions are describing nothing, and the "god" of the bible can be dismissed as such. Not interested.

But there aren't that many Christians who will knowingly maintain a contradictory definition of their "god" to work with. Perhaps a few insane ones. But again, they are of no concern to anybody. So any Christian who wants to maintain a belief in the existence of their "god" must necessarily apply some modifications to whatever he or she reads in the bible. Whether it's picking and choosing those descriptions that contradict other descriptions that the reader considers to be less "desirable" or simply pulling a semantic trick in which descriptions that are clearly contradictory are massaged into meaning something different, something "fuzzier" in order to maintain the fiction that they are not actually contradictory, not REALLY ... and especially considering that those who do this are most likely not even consciously aware that they're engaged in a "square the circle" exercise, that means that all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no actual reference point to which we can turn in order to establish what a person is actually talking about when they are going on about their "god".

Given that, any talk about "evidence" is at best premature.

oldrnwisr

Jernal wrote: »

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.

rozeboosje wrote: »

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.

Jernal wrote: »

Well there are over 1,000 schisms of Christianity so the interpretation of God does obviously vary. Couple this with members of the flock almost never following the same message and you've got a broad spectrum of interpretations. However they all carry the notion of the personal revelation. God revealed himself to the people of Israel. Catholicism is the easiest one to work with here. (If we conveniently ignore the a la cartes!) The Cathechism sets out the characteristics of the Roman Catholic God. There, there's 'God the Father', Jesus and 'God the Holy Spirit'. Regardless, as far as Christians theologians are concerned their God carries various accepted characteristics.

robindch wrote: »

I disagree completely -- I think most written descriptions, or at least the original ones, of the christian deity are so imprecisely defined that they can be bent by any subsequent author, and especially by the fertile imagination of the believer, into whatever available deity-shaped hole in the believer's heart or head.

I think this was one of christianity's very, very few innovations: the notion of an essentially abstract deity, and certainly one who -- I think for the first time -- didn't actually have a name, and could therefore avoid any firm classification by virtue of his sheer nonspecificity.

Jernal wrote: »

Disagree the God of the bible, as God's go, is pretty distinct. Contradictory, yes, but he's a detailed character of fiction. Just as a character of a tv show or drama they don't necessarily always have to make sense. Humans don't always behave rationally either. So, I think from that perspective the God of Christianity is all there on paper just to be read about and interpreted. Whereas some other deities are just passed down verbally. Others are nothing than a few words.

Without seeking to invoke the middle ground fallacy I think that the answer may be somewhere in the middle.

On the one hand, when you compare Christianity to deism or even theism then it is much more well defined. God has a wide range of definitive characteristics such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfection, eternal etc. not to mention being anthropomorphic in the first place.

On the other hand, both the authors and the followers of Christianity place their own interpretation on the scriptures. While the interpretation of followers is of little relevance, the fact that the authors of the books which claim to describe God cannot agree on his characteristics presents a real problem in defining a coherent set of attributes. For example, in the Gospels, you have a conflict between Mark and Matthew over the relevance of adherence to the commandments. You have a conflict between Paul and James over the importance of works in salvation. In the Old Testament too, you have God described as omniscient in Psalm 139 and yet has to hear about the sinfulness of Sodom from another source.
The practical consequence of this is that you have a God which is really nothing more than a mirror of the morality of the reader. We see this all the time in threads with people claiming that Jesus wouldn't have said this or approved that and cherry picking passages in support.This means that the Bible can ultimately be used to support any type of God that the individual chooses. This undermines any idea of a well-defined character.

gaynorvader

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Without seeking to invoke the middle ground fallacy I think that the answer may be somewhere in the middle.

On the one hand, when you compare Christianity to deism or even theism then it is much more well defined. God has a wide range of definitive characteristics such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfection, eternal etc. not to mention being anthropomorphic in the first place.

On the other hand, both the authors and the followers of Christianity place their own interpretation on the scriptures. While the interpretation of followers is of little relevance, the fact that the authors of the books which claim to describe God cannot agree on his characteristics presents a real problem in defining a coherent set of attributes. For example, in the Gospels, you have a conflict between Mark and Matthew over the relevance of adherence to the commandments. You have a conflict between Paul and James over the importance of works in salvation. In the Old Testament too, you have God described as omniscient in Psalm 139 and yet has to hear about the sinfulness of Sodom from another source.
The practical consequence of this is that you have a God which is really nothing more than a mirror of the morality of the reader. We see this all the time in threads with people claiming that Jesus wouldn't have said this or approved that and cherry picking passages in support.This means that the Bible can ultimately be used to support any type of God that the individual chooses. This undermines any idea of a well-defined character.

Both and neither. There is a simple explanation for all of this though. Maybe He has multiple personality disorder. It would also explain the trinity.

Sarky

Characteristics like omnipotence and omnipresence aren't actually all that specific. the Christian god is surrounded in doublethink.

rozeboosje

oldrnwisr wrote: »

On the one hand, when you compare Christianity to deism or even theism then it is much more well defined. God has a wide range of definitive characteristics such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfection, eternal etc. not to mention being anthropomorphic in the first place.

Certainly. Until you start pointing out that many of these supposed characteristics are logically impossible and that if they insist that their "god" thing possesses those then we can simply conclude that said "god" thing cannot exist, and move on.

There are a number of ways a theist can respond to this. The biggest howler is the retort that, and this is stated in all seriousness "God is not subject to our puny human logic".

Of course the theist who retorts with that is missing a very crucial point. Nobody is subjecting "god" - whatever THAT is - to anything. What we are doing is subjecting STATEMENTS to logical scrutiny. Since these STATEMENTS are created by human beings, presented in a human language and following the grammatical and semantic rules of whatever human language they're presented in, it is just as valid to subject statements about some alleged "god" entity to logical scrutiny as it would be to subject any OTHER statement uttered by a human being to same. That retort can therefore be safely dismissed as idiotic and not worthy of a response.

But the only other alternative open to a would be apologist is to then revisit the actual semantics behind words such as "omnipotent" or "omniscient". It's all too common to see theists start arguing that, no, we don't understand, "omniscient" doesn't actually mean "all knowing", it JUST means .... and so the fuzzing up exercise proceeds. So is the Christian concept of "god" well defined? Not on yer Nelly. The only variations on the Christian "god" theme that ARE "well defined" are, sadly, precisely the ones that can be dismissed out of hand. That leaves only variations that are as vague and non-descript as any Deist "god" notion.

CiDeRmAn

I might suggest that an assumption of a supernatural entity that controls or influences the world around us is as old as language, certainly when early man was attempting to model the world around them and hoping to predict what was going to happen into the future they may have assumed things happemed either by their own hand or by the hand of an unseen operator.
I'm not suggesting for a minute they were right but, in the absence of a more sophisticated mental toolkit and without the rigor of scientific method and recorded results from events past, its easy to be drawn into a world view that erroneously includes a god.
To suggest that early man was inevitably an atheist as he had not developed a theistic POV is equivalent to considering frogs, trees, rocks and stars as being atheist in nature as they too have not expressed a belief in god, and is nonsense.

rozeboosje

Humans are born with several instincts that determine how they perceive the world. For example, we are hard-wired to think of the world in terms of "objects" and "actions", and we have a tendency to categorise objects: "these two things have a lot in common so I will invent a category and consider the two objects as two representatives of that category". Another natural thing to do is to consider the world in terms of "inanimate objects" that are passive and that lie around ready to be picked up and used, eaten or whatnot, and "agents" which are autonomous entities that have a "will" of their own and that act out of their own volition in order to pursue their desires.

Which works pretty well for the sort of stuff you're likely to encounter while you got your head down and you're foraging around the forest. If it just lies around doing nothing, it's likely to be a tool or food. If it tries to run away it's prey, and if it's staring at you it's a predator and it wants something - most likely to EAT YOU!

But once the head goes up it gets confusing. Up there, in the sky, things are moving without agents pushing them.... But because we're hard wired to LOOK for agents, we make them up. And it takes a conscious effort to snap out of that mindset.

Sure, nobody is born believing in "Yahweh". but I think CiDeRmAn makes a valid point: we are probably born with a "theistic instinct" and that is a natural tendency to make up "god"s when we are confronted with objects that appear to behave like agents, or when we observe a level of organisation in a naturally occurring phenomenon that we normally only observe when a human applies tools to objects in order to produce an artefact. When humans can achieve small scale phenomena and we observe large scale phenomena in the heavens above, naturally we imagine that an agent vastly superior to a mere human is responsible for those.

CiDeRmAn

Theism is probably an aspect of human thought that has been artificially propped up over the centuries by things other than a heartfelt belief in a god.
The need to define a people, the need to control those people both require a suitable stick and carrot and religion seems to fulfill these requirements.
It's no wonder then that states have gotten so involved in promoting a faith as integral to their nature over such a long time.
Secular states seem to still contain elements that venerate their religious past, acknowledging a faiths function as a glue that kept the integrity of a nation together in the face of an enemy, sometimes a secular nation can fall back on this way of thinking once again, so powerful a device is religion to define "us" and "them", witness the actions and language of the Bush Jr administration, referencing crusades and so on.
So religion is a tool, but i none of this presupposes any of it is actually real.
It's an ideology that the people take on as a mantle of identity, a label for themselves.
Socialism, Fascism, Libertarianism, Liberalism, Right/Left, these too are ideologies that we use, like an Emo with guy-liner, to feel collectively comfortable and secure while defining "them" or "other than us".
By it's nature it's a defensive posture then, to have an ideology, it's an act of opposition to something that is not that ideology.
So Atheism must exist in a world with Theism, perhaps someday just the memory of Theism.
Theism must have been borne only when faced with opposition with a faith that was incomprehensible to us as a legitimate, and so we defined them as "savage".
It's easy to see how, mixed with the worst and, most unfortunately, typical human behaviour it has led to misery and exploitation throughout history.

rozeboosje

Well that's the difference between a "belief" and a "religion", isn't it?

There are a number of fairly basic human instincts at work here.

The things I was talking about would lead people to think that there are "super agents" who are in control of all the things that appear to behave like they are moving with some kind of "purpose" but that clearly aren't the result of the actions of human beings. We are hard-wired to look for agency in anything that "moves", and if agency isn't immediately obvious to us we make things up.

Given that we're naturally inclined to create narratives around agency even when we don't have sufficient data to come to a properly informed conclusion, we end up inventing these "super agents" - "god"s - all over the place. And THEN another human instinct kicks in: the instinct to arrive at heuristic conclusions. When B follows A we have a natural tendency to assume that A implies B, or that B is the natural result of A. I scratched my arse in a particular way and the torrential rain stopped. Blimey, I must have a magic way of scratching my arse!

And I must be communicating with the Gods! And so a THIRD instinct kicks in: the instinct to want to strive to be the Top Dawg. Faced with natural phenomena that we have no control over whatsoever, but convinced by our heuristic mindset that the performance of bizarre rituals has an effect on how these phenomena play out, we convince ourselves and others that we possess some kind of mystic powers and we have a direct line to God. And so we assume a position of authority and control over other people.

I think religion is a perfect storm of at least these three instincts going off the rails and feeding into each other.

pauldla

Thanks for all the replies, folks. I had a lot of fun reading that: some very thoughtful responses.

FWIW, I still hold the same opinion as I did at the beginning of all this. Such is life.

Red Nissan

pauldla wrote: »

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.

Atheism becomes and ideology as other ideologies just won't stay out of its way. An atheist generally feels superior to believers and it's very often the case that they are more educated as well thus enhancing the notion of superiority and confidence.

Absoluvely

Red Nissan wrote: »

An atheist generally feels superior to believers and it's very often the case that they are more educated as well thus enhancing the notion of superiority and confidence.

I'm not so sure what that opinion has to do with atheism being an ideology. There could be all sorts of statistical prevalences of certain traits among atheists but it wouldn't make atheism any more or less of an ideology.

pauldla wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies, folks. I had a lot of fun reading that: some very thoughtful responses.

FWIW, I still hold the same opinion as I did at the beginning of all this. Such is life.

What's with the poll? I haven't seen this type before.

Who gets to see the hidden results?

pauldla

Absoluvely wrote: »

What's with the poll? I haven't seen this type before.

Who gets to see the hidden results?

I thought it might be better to make the poll anonymous. Apparently, only mods and the thread starter gets to see who voted for what.

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

I thought it might be better to make the poll anonymous.

Why, out of curiosity?

Its anonymous anyway, I'm sure most would be interested in the poll results.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

Why, out of curiosity?

Its anonymous anyway, I'm sure most would be interested in the poll results.

Because.



I can see the resul-ts. I can see the resul-ts!
Toodles

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

Why, out of curiosity?

Its anonymous anyway, I'm sure most would be interested in the poll results.

I thought it would be fairer to have an anonymous poll, that's all.

rozeboosje

Anonymous, certainly, but now we can't see any results. Not even the total percentages. At least, I can't here in my FireF***s.

pauldla

rozeboosje wrote: »

Anonymous, certainly, but now we can't see any results. Not even the total percentages. At least, I can't here in my FireF***s.

You can't see the percentages? Sorry about that, I thought the results could be viewed by all, but the voting would be hidden.

Yes 6.31%
No 84.68%
Maybe 6.31%
I don't know 2.70%

Obliq

Ah ha! Worth the wait.

pauldla

Rats, as said above I thought the results could be seen by all! My apologies, laizengeminen. Mods, would it be possible to make the results of the poll public?

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

Mods, would it be possible to make the results of the poll public?

I've made it as public as possible -- can everybody see?

Absoluvely

robindch wrote: »

I've made it as public as possible -- can everybody see?

Yeah, we can see the percentages now but not the voters.
Which is what you were going for, I assume

Banbh

There was an interesting discussion on Newstalk this morning on the subject of religion. Guests included Colette Colfer, an expert on world religions.

Anyway, she described herself: "I wouldn't say I'm a believer or an atheist but somewhere in the middle."

Doctor DooM

Banbh wrote: »

There was an interesting discussion on Newstalk this morning on the subject of religion. Guests included Colette Colfer, an expert on world religions.

Anyway, she described herself: "I wouldn't say I'm a believer or an atheist but somewhere in the middle."

I heard that. Was a rather painful discussion.

endacl

Banbh wrote: »

Anyway, she described herself: "I wouldn't say I'm a believer or an atheist but somewhere in the middle."

"I don't want to think about the question in case I have to face the reality of the answer."

Banbh

...a rather painful discussion.

Indeed it was. It was a measure of how irrelevant the Catholic Church has become. The interviewers were clearly gob-smacked by the crazy pro-lifer.

rozeboosje

Thanks!

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

I've made it as public as possible -- can everybody see?

Thank you! Should I poll again, I will make sure the results can be viewed by all.

smacl

pauldla wrote: »

Thank you! Should I poll again, I will make sure the results can be viewed by all.

Good to see the results. It would be interesting to run the poll on the Christianity forum to compare the results, to see whether atheism is viewed differently from the outside. Purely a hunch, but I reckon you'd see something closer to a 50/50 split.

Brian Shanahan

I'm going to make a guess here and say all 7 of the "yesses" were religious believers.

I'd say I was going out on a limb, but it is a common tactic of religious detractors of the idea of atheism to paint it as a fellow religion. Somehow they think that it makes their arguments stronger to denigrate something they believe to be another religion.

Sarky

"You're just as bad as us, which makes you worse!"

Zillah

Sarky wrote: »

"You're just as bad as us, which makes you worse!"

When presented with a superior foe, if you can do something to reduce them to your level, doing that is a sound tactical move.

I find it fascinating that religious people are subconsciously brilliant at game-theory.

FamousSeamus

True atheism is not an ideology as its based on the reasoning of what is more likely to be correct as opposed to an ideology which is based on what we believe to be more correct. If an atheist says I don't believe in anything then they don't mean believe like a faith they mean they want facts and scientific research and from this they can draw their conclusions as to what is more likely to be correct.


Well that's my two cents on the question, didn't read the full thread so my apologies if this has been previously said:)