Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Is atheism an ideology?

12346

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭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. ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,701 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    did someone mess with the poll?

    pathetic


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Tigger wrote: »
    did someone mess with the poll?

    pathetic

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    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.
    cPlz5.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    nagirrac wrote: »
    There is simply no way to prove or disprove the existence of God

    Really? Please show why this is so.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    The fact that you can't prove or disprove God

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭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".


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,256 ✭✭✭✭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"


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,256 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement