Is atheism an ideology?

nagirrac

In a shocking result, atheists who believe atheism is not an ideology, voted to state that atheism is not an ideology, and claimed victory. Can we all go home now?

For full disclosure I voted "maybe", which is the correct answer, naturally . If atheism is defined as simply a lack of belief, then it is not an ideology. If atheism is defined as a rejection of the God hypothesis as an explanation for the universe, then it is an ideology. Atheists who subscribe to the latter definition should embrace their ideology and be proud of it, many do (the Atheist Ireland leader for example). It is a fine ideology, and very rational.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

In a shocking result, atheists who believe atheism is not an ideology, voted to state that atheism is not an ideology, and claimed victory. Can we all go home now?

Those aren't the results I'm seeing.

Tigger

did someone mess with the poll?

pathetic

gaynorvader

Tigger wrote: »

did someone mess with the poll?

pathetic

Personally I blame Jernal, he's a wascally wabbit.

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

In a shocking result, atheists who believe atheism is not an ideology, voted to state that atheism is not an ideology, and claimed victory. Can we all go home now?

For full disclosure I voted "maybe", which is the correct answer, naturally . If atheism is defined as simply a lack of belief, then it is not an ideology. If atheism is defined as a rejection of the God hypothesis as an explanation for the universe, then it is an ideology. Atheists who subscribe to the latter definition should embrace their ideology and be proud of it, many do (the Atheist Ireland leader for example). It is a fine ideology, and very rational.

Seriously? You know I did already explain this. Was my volume turned right down or something?

If you want to use the words rejection and hypothesis and be technical about it, then the explanation that God created the Universe is the hypothesis which we are seeking to test. The null hypothesis by contrast is that God did not create the universe. A failure to reject the null hypothesis or as you state a rejection of the God hypothesis is simply an acknowledgement of the failure of those proposing the hypothesis to sufficiently support it with reason and evidence.

The failure to reject a null hypothesis cannot be considered an ideology in any field whether that's biology, chemistry or theology.

Since the point seems to have been missed I think it bears repeating. I am an atheist, I lack belief in gods. Since I don't know what type of God concept I will be presented with in a debate, the best all-purpose description of my theological stance is lack of belief. If you care to elaborate on your particular god concept then my response to it will become more precise. However, at any point my rejection of a particular God concept is based on an evaluation of the evidence presented by its proponent. In no way can this qualify atheism as an ideology.

Zillah

nagirrac wrote: »

In a shocking result, atheists who believe atheism is not an ideology, voted to state that atheism is not an ideology, and claimed victory. Can we all go home now?

A poll is descriptive in nature rather than argumentative. Attacking it for being a tautology is a non sequitor, really. It shows a profound lack of understanding, not to mention impotent contrariness.

Do you attack all polls as such?

In shocking result, gay marriage advocates that support gay marriage, voted to state that gay marriage should be allowed, and claimed victory.

Turtwig

gaynorvader wrote: »

Personally I blame Jernal, he's a wascally wabbit.

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I think ya'll may have fallen for this type of illusion.

rozeboosje

Well, I DID vote "maybe", but only because "No, but ..." wasn't listed amongst the options.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Seriously? You know I did already explain this. Was my volume turned right down or something?

Maybe you need to shout louder?

There is simply no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, whatever discipline you choose. Discussions on the God hypothesis versus the null hypothesis of atheism are simply fun to have, as this thread demonstrates, but are ultimately incoherent and lead nowhere, something fundamentalists on both sides should recognize.

What you are defending is weak atheism which is an agnostic position in terms of knowledge and highly defensible, as is agnostic belief.

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

Maybe you need to shout louder?

There is simply no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, whatever discipline you choose. Discussions on the God hypothesis versus the null hypothesis of atheism are simply fun to have, as this thread demonstrates, but are ultimately incoherent and lead nowhere, something fundamentalists on both sides should recognize.

What you are defending is weak atheism which is an agnostic position in terms of knowledge and highly defensible, as is agnostic belief.

I don't believe in strong or weak atheism, I think it's a term coined to give atheism a negative connotation in order to undermine people's move towards atheism.

rozeboosje

nagirrac wrote: »

There is simply no way to prove or disprove the existence of God

Really? Please show why this is so.

nagirrac

Zillah wrote: »

Do you attack all polls as such?

No, just polls like this, where the results are self evident. If you already believe something to be true you will likely vote yes, no?

nagirrac

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't believe in strong or weak atheism, I think it's a term coined to give atheism a negative connotation in order to undermine people's move towards atheism.

How about a poll?

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

How about a poll?

I don't think polls tell you much about the veracity of anything, just what people think at a certain time.

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

There is simply no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, whatever discipline you choose.

The lack of a method to prove or disprove God is only a problem for those on one side of the argument, those making the positive claim. The fact that you can't prove or disprove God doesn't make both positions equally valid.

If you have no evidentiary means to separate the existence of God from the non-existence of God, then you should reject the claim.

The same goes for homeopathy, crystal healing and all the other bullsh1t claims that people make. If you want to personally believe it that's fine. If you want to claim that it's the truth, then you better have something to back it up.

rozeboosje

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The fact that you can't prove or disprove God

Fact? Please show that this is, indeed, a fact.

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

Really? Please show why this is so.

Because even though I believe that God exists, I do not know that God exists. Just as a (strong) atheist who does not believe that God exists, does not know that God does not exist. The only way around this is seeking to find a middle way, which leads nowhere. My use of the term "God hypothesis" was unfortunate in this regard as it just leads to the middle way.

rozeboosje

Sorry, nagirrac, you're not answering the question.

oldrnwisr

rozeboosje wrote: »

Fact? Please show that this is, indeed, a fact.

Sorry, poor choice of words. A better phrasing would be "the idea that there is no way to prove or disprove god".

However, it should be pointed out that there are some deists and theists who posit that their God is supernatural and thus outside the realm of testable science meaning that there is no way to prove or disprove their existence. It's a silly argument but you see it pop up nonetheless.

gaynorvader

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sorry, poor choice of words. A better phrasing would be "the idea that there is no way to prove or disprove god".

However, it should be pointed out that there are some deists and theists who posit that their God is supernatural and thus outside the realm of testable science meaning that there is no way to prove or disprove their existence. It's a silly argument but you see it pop up nonetheless.

I think another word for it is "imaginary".

nagirrac

[QUOTE=oldrnwisr;87839469The same goes for homeopathy, crystal healing and all the other bullsh1t claims that people make. If you want to personally believe it that's fine. If you want to claim that it's the truth, then you better have something to back it up.[/QUOTE]

Careful now with that bullsh1t word, as it frequently comes back to bite people in the ass. Claims for self directed neuroplasticity were called bullsh1t up to very recently. Except for the strange thing that people who actually practiced this technique obtained persistent relief from their medical conditions, as opposed to drugs or placebos which give temporary relief. "Delusional" snorted the experts. Well, we just didn't understand an aspect of how nature works is all, we know better now.

The same is true of God belief. Belief in God leads to positive psychological benefits for many people. Whether you or anyone else lacks belief in God is irrelevant to them.

rozeboosje

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, it should be pointed out that there are some deists and theists who posit that their God is supernatural and thus outside the realm of testable science meaning that there is no way to prove or disprove their existence.

Well, there's my bug bear... throwing MORE ill- or even UNdefined terms at it isn't going to make the fact that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes go away. I wouldn't accept such a rebuke from a deist or a theist, unless they can give me a clear explanation of what they mean by "supernatural" ... [grin]

Mathematics is also a realm of the purely conceptual, but when Kurt Gödel presented the assertion of the Incompleteness Theorem he managed to prove the veracity of the claim, even though nobody has actually ever seen or presented a Gödel Statement. His claim is based on a firm foundation. I have yet to see anybody present such a foundation for the "god" claim. Nobody has ever seen a Gödel Statement. But we know what a Gödel Statement actually IS, and so we know that it is mathematically proven that such statements CANNOT be proven true or false within the system in which they are represented. But the "god" hypothesis? Empty waffle.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, it should be pointed out that there are some deists and theists who posit that their God is supernatural and thus outside the realm of testable science meaning that there is no way to prove or disprove their existence. It's a silly argument but you see it pop up nonetheless.

I agree, and used to make that argument myself once, and now accept it is silly. Everything is natural, whether we can measure it today using the tools of science is the question.

Pherekydes

nagirrac wrote: »

For full disclosure I voted "maybe", which is the correct answer, naturally .

Maybe it's just me but your answers always smack of "my opinion is the only correct one"

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

Because even though I believe that God exists, I do not know that God exists. Just as a (strong) atheist who does not believe that God exists, does not know that God does not exist. The only way around this is seeking to find a middle way, which leads nowhere. My use of the term "God hypothesis" was unfortunate in this regard as it just leads to the middle way.

I think the phrase middle way is inappropriate, as it suggests the possibility of the existence of a god or the lack thereof is balanced. As an atheist, I am unable to prove the existence of a god in the same way I'm unable to prove the existence of any random fantasy that might occur to me or anyone else, where there are an infinite number of such fantasies. Thus your middle way actually lies somewhere close to the point where asymptote of the probability curve reaches the axis. As such, while I can't prove that one or more gods don't exist, I can be very confident that they don't.

Rephrased, the middle way for me lies somewhere between atheism and atheism with an infinitesimal dash of agnosticism

nagirrac

Pherekydes wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but your answers always smack of "my opinion is the only correct one"

It was a self directed joke, see smiley.

oldrnwisr

Really nagirrac I expect more from you than a brace of logical fallacies.

nagirrac wrote: »

Careful now with that bullsh1t word, as it frequently comes back to bite people in the ass. Claims for self directed neuroplasticity were called bullsh1t up to very recently. Except for the strange thing that people who actually practiced this technique obtained persistent relief from their medical conditions, as opposed to drugs or placebos which give temporary relief. "Delusional" snorted the experts. Well, we just didn't understand an aspect of how nature works is all, we know better now.

Given your usually spirited discussion of science, I am rather surprised that you would use the "science was wrong before" argument. As an example of the continuum fallacy, it is a really awful argument. The fact that some people might have been wrong about neuroplasticity has no bearing whatsoever on the lack of evidence for something like homeopathy. So we are perfectly entitled to call bullsh1t on something which has had, to quote Ben Goldacre "200 years of fail".

Science is a self-correcting process, a system of provisional truths. Yes, there have been times when we have been wrong but unless you've got evidence regarding the specific examples I listed then this is all just empty rhetoric.

nagirrac wrote: »

The same is true of God belief. Belief in God leads to positive psychological benefits for many people. Whether you or anyone else lacks belief in God is irrelevant to them.

I'm used to Christians making the appeal to consequences of a belief argument but hearing it from a deist is new. We were discussing the idea of determining whether or not the God hypothesis is true. How it makes someone feel about themselves is irrelevant.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Really nagirrac I expect more from you than a brace of logical fallacies.

I'm tired today oldrnwisr, it's when you fall into all the fallacy potholes, and there are surely a lot of them out there:).. at least a few for every statement.

Pherekydes

nagirrac wrote: »

It was a self directed joke, see smiley.

Ah, I see. It didn't look like it earlier in the thread:

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

nagirrac

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ah, I see. It didn't look like it earlier in the thread:

Earlier in the thread was during the rough and tumble of the debate. After the votes are in and the results made public it's time to relax, have a beer, and discuss the results.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm used to Christians making the appeal to consequences of a belief argument but hearing it from a deist is new. We were discussing the idea of determining whether or not the God hypothesis is true. How it makes someone feel about themselves is irrelevant.

There's a first time for everything oldrnwisr, life after all is a box of chocolates:).

I read a comparison once of logical fallacies employed most commonly by theists versus skeptics, and I think they were about evenly spread. It's the main reason I don't engage in discussions on fallacies, as they tend to go round in circles. It was a while ago, but the one that stuck in my mind was as follows, which I believe is called the appeal to reason.

Humans tend to be irrational and things like superstition and religion are the result of biological evolution. Our brains are just wired to believe in nonsense. Our old friend Zombrex as I'm sure you recall was a big proponent of this argument. We should reject all this old nonsense as materialism is a better worldview as it is based on reason. The evidence for this view is that something like 95% of the world's population believe in some transcendental realm, even if not always a specific God concept, so if this indeed is a "coping mechanism", it has to have evolved and been selected for, in spades.

Except, hold on a minute, how can you trust materialism, a philosophical worldview, if based on evolutionary biology humans tend to be irrational? Are we to suppose those who hold to materialism are immune from the effects of evolutionary biology, somehow escaped the irrational bit? Isn't this a significant intellectual challenge to atheists? If religious beliefs survived because they conferred survival value, but are completely false, and yet they are the most common beliefs humans hold and have held for the history of humans, how can we trust any belief?

This is what convinced me to stop listening to theists and skeptics alike and start looking at the actual evidence myself, as much of it as possible, and try and determine whether I find it convincing or not, and explore where I can seek my own evidence. Maybe the conclusions I reach are irrational, but at least I didn't accept them on faith. Maybe that approach brings with it the danger of believing a bit of nonsense here and there, but thankfully we no longer get burned at the stake for holding beliefs (some of mine are neo-pagan so I would have immolated long ago in other times).

For what its worth I do not claim the appeal to consequences for myself, which is why I referred to "psychological benefits for many people", although I should have been more clear. Belief in God is not much of a thing in my own life, I am an agnostic who tends to believe in a God concept, but I don't spend much time on it. I do however know many theists personally (hard to avoid in the US:)) and I would have to say that their religious practices (going to church, participation in various events, etc.), appear not just ritualistic behavior, but also bring social and psychological benefits. Hell, I have to admit some of the nicest, warmest, welcoming, charitable people I know are Mormons, and I cant ever start to get my head around their beliefs, nor do I feel the need to. I agree none of this proves anything with regard to the likely presence or absence of God.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

I would have to say that their religious practices (going to church, participation in various events, etc.), appear not just ritualistic behavior, but also bring social and psychological benefits. Hell, I have to admit some of the nicest, warmest, welcoming, charitable people I know are Mormons, and I cant ever start to get my head around their beliefs, nor do I feel the need to. I agree none of this proves anything with regard to the likely presence or absence of God.

OT, but I agree entirely, and one concern I have about a collapse in religious belief is what will fill the vacuum. Having people in a given locality meet on a regular basis, in an environment ostensibly devoid of political and consumer pressures, to consider what is good and what is right, may be important. Certainly the social aspect is important to many elderly types, as is being a part of a community for many others.