Is atheism an ideology?

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.

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.