Is atheism an ideology?

Turtwig · 27-11-2013 09:44PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would imagine some would argue that, by extension, atheism could be considered an ideology.

For instance, if you don't believe in God then, by extension, you must believe that morality does not come from Gods. This can play a role in society as individuals who adhere to such a view may criticise a constitution which contains even the mention of a God. Thus, secularism will also be linked to atheism. You get the message by now...

I'm not adhering to that view, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I assume this will be the view adopted by the Nugentiles.

Not really,

You've already added more criteria onto the definition of atheism. But let's ignore that. Suppose you have a person who believes they know exactly how morality works before they decide they don't believe in God. Or suppose you have a person who has no morals and doesn't recognise morals and also doesn't believe in God. (Or does believe in God, whichever you prefer). The description for all these people is that they are atheists (theists) because they have no (do have) belief in a deity. Morality and their philosophy of ethics, politics, science etc. have no real bearing on the actual definition of atheism. Just because two things appear linked does not mean they are the same. Nugentites can claim whatever crap they like about people requiring moral laws fact of the matter is that for a person to be an atheist they can believe whatever they like as long as they don't believe in a deity. Everything else, after, that they believe is used to see what other categories they fall under.

wretcheddomain · 27-11-2013 09:51PM

Jernal wrote: »

Morality and their philosophy of ethics, politics, science etc. have no real bearing on the actual definition of atheism.

Nugentites can claim whatever crap they like about people requiring moral laws fact of the matter is that for a person to be an atheist they can believe whatever they like as long as they don't believe in a deity. Everything else, after, that they believe is used to see what other categories they fall under.

I would agree entirely.

The bolded part above may cause some consternation among the Nugentites/Nugentiles given that they believe that the definition of the word 'Atheism' has changed over time to incorporate these new 'attachments'. How would you reply against this?

Turtwig · 27-11-2013 10:03PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would agree entirely.

The bolded part above may cause some consternation among the Nugentites/Nugentiles given that they believe that the definition of the word 'Atheism' has changed over time to incorporate these new 'attachments'. How would you reply against this?

Some words are defined on popular usage. However, this cannot work for everything. We also need definitions for just about every concept we can describe with words. So, no matter how one looks at it a term is going to be needed for the categories of belief in deities. Then it's about choosing definitions that become redundant on themselves. No point defining theism to mean religious belief if you already have the word religious belief. Unless you plan on removing one word entirely from the language. However, the problem here is that if you wish to have a rational discussion through the use of concepts e.g a discussion on the ethics of abortion. you'll need exact words to describe those concepts. Having redundant terms only serves to cross wires and hinder communication. From the point of view of discussing those concepts clarity for words comes when the word has the least amount of redundancy possible. This is why scientific definitions are hotly debated and tend to be very exact whereever possible. A definition that is of itself redundant carries the risks of multiple interpretations. By defining a singular belief as part of an ideology you conflate both the properties of the ideology and the belief. In effect, you make theism and Christianity potentially one and the same. So when having a discussion about the legitimacy of theism, strawmen for the default theist position become acceptable.

I hope this makes some sense as it is a rather pedantic point of language and word definition. I like to think all definitions should be approached the way they are in science. Utility, rather than popularity. However, I understand that languages work different. I do think though for discussions and debates the definitions used need to have minimum redundancy for any constructive discussion to occur. We need to be exact about what we talk about. So by including atheism as an ideology we blur lines for unnecessary reasons.

Czarcasm · 27-11-2013 10:23PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I would agree entirely.

The bolded part above may cause some consternation among the Nugentites/Nugentiles given that they believe that the definition of the word 'Atheism' has changed over time to incorporate these new 'attachments'. How would you reply against this?

I would say to these people that just because they believe that something has changed, doesn't mean it actually has. They can redefine the meaning of words all they like to suit their ideology, but that doesn't mean it changes the commonly understood meaning of the word.

wretcheddomain · 27-11-2013 11:30PM

Jernal wrote: »

I hope this makes some sense as it is a rather pedantic point of language and word definition. I like to think all definitions should be approached the way they are in science. Utility, rather than popularity.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I would say to these people that just because they believe that something has changed, doesn't mean it actually has. They can redefine the meaning of words all they like to suit their ideology, but that doesn't mean it changes the commonly understood meaning of the word.

Agreed.

I now await the Nugentophiles for the defence.

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2013 11:34PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I now await the Nugentophiles for the defence.

You are like a dog with a bone on this ...

This is what, the fourth time? you have thrown down the gauntlet to those you term 'Nugentophiles' - yet none have appeared.

Funny that.

As a matter of interest, would you term Michael Nugent a Nugentophiles or is he simply the Big Nug?

Gordon · 27-11-2013 11:45PM

Is Anugentophilia an ideology?

wretcheddomain · 27-11-2013 11:46PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are like a dog with a bone on this ...

This is what, the fourth time? you have thrown down the gauntlet to those you term 'Nugentophiles' - yet none have appeared.

Funny that.

As a matter of interest, would you term Michael Nugent a Nugentophiles or is he simply the Big Nug?

I think it's pretty well known at this stage that the views of Atheist Ireland do involve a change in word definitions as described above.

It's no different to calling followers of King William, Williamites, or adherents of Dawkins as Dawkinites etc.

If proponents of what was described above fail to appear, then they fail to appear. I hope they do arrive as it'll make for an interesting discussion within atheism.

As for terming Michael Nugent, I can't possibly call him a Nugentophile.

Pope Nugent? -- Pungent?

I don't know.

robindch · 27-11-2013 11:47PM

Gordon wrote: »

Is Anugentophilia an ideology?

Now, you're just taking the Mickey.

wretcheddomain · 27-11-2013 11:48PM

Gordon wrote: »

Is Anugentophilia an ideology?

I'm actually an Agnugentic until I hear a rational response against the propositions outlined above.

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2013 11:54PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think it's pretty well known at this stage that the views of Atheist Ireland do involve a change in word definitions as described above.

It's no different to calling followers of King William, Williamites, or adherents of Dawkins as Dawkinites etc.

If proponents of what was described above fail to appear, then they fail to appear. I hope they do arrive as it'll make for an interesting discussion within atheism.

As for terming Michael Nugent, I can't possibly call him a Nugentophile.

Pope Nugent? -- Pungent?

I don't know.

Since we are talking about terms being redefined - I see you have done the same yourself by comparing what you term 'followers' and blurring the lines to make an ideological ( :P ) point
Firstly: those who supported/followed King William were either his subjects, his prospective subjects or hired mercenaries .... do Dawkins and Nugent hire many mercenaries? Or are they perhaps prospective monarchs of somewhere or other?

Or, secondly, are you suggesting the members of Atheist Ireland are either a) Hired to make up the numbers or b) Vassal subjects of a king bound by oath to serve the crown?

wretcheddomain · 28-11-2013 12:00AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since we are talking about terms being redefined - I see you have done the same yourself by comparing what you term 'followers' and blurring the lines to make an ideological ( :P ) point
Firstly: those who supported/followed King William were either his subjects, his prospective subjects or hired mercenaries .... do Dawkins and Nugent hire many mercenaries? Or are they perhaps prospective monarchs of somewhere or other?

O, secondly, are you suggesting the members of Atheist Ireland are either a) Hired to make up the numbers or b) Vassal subjects of a king?

Well, thanks for throwing down your own gauntlet.

I'm not redefining the term - rather, I'm using it as an extended metaphor as a follower of something or someone.

I firmly believe the Nugentoids will understand this nomenclature.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2013 12:02AM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Well, thanks for throwing down your own gauntlet.

I'm not redefining the term - rather, I'm using it as an extended metaphor as a follower of something or someone.

I firmly believe the Nugentoids will understand this nomenclature.

No Gauntlet - simply an observation.

Pretty insulting metaphor, imo, when one examines it.

And I think that is 5 times now.

wretcheddomain · 28-11-2013 12:17AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No Gauntlet - simply an observation.

Pretty insulting metaphor, imo, when one examines it.

And I think that is 5 times now.

I don't believe so, nor is it intended to be. As I said, we often hear of Dawkinites and Williamites, Jacobites etc. They're not intended as insulting when reading history so why make it an insult for no reason?

I could think of loads, like the manifesto of Atheist Ireland as Nugentics, playing on Dianetics from Scientology. I wouldn't take it too seriously if I were you.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2013 12:25AM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I don't believe so, nor is it intended to be. As I said, we often hear of Dawkinites and Williamites, Jacobites etc. They're not intended as insulting when reading history so why make it an insult for no reason?

I could think of loads, like the manifesto of Atheist Ireland as Nugentics, playing on Dianetics from Scientology. I wouldn't take it too seriously if I were you.

I'm not taking it even slightly seriously. I am simply commenting that it appears to me that you have ideological issues with Atheist Ireland and seem to be engaging in some 'calling them out' for having an ideology you don't agree with.

By the way - I might read such a conflating of the term 'followers' in a history essay - I would also produce my green marker and comment that is this instance (king William/ Richard Dawkins/ Michael Nugent ) the use of the term followers for all three is not strictly accurate as one is not comparing like for like and suggest that the writer check that their personal bias is not impacting on their work....oh and they might also consider saving the metaphors for English Lit. *sniff*

endacl · 28-11-2013 12:27AM

Meh.

Answered a couple of years ago. Atheism is most definitely an ice cream.

MagicMarker · 28-11-2013 12:29AM

I actually do think it's an ideology.

Oh, wait, no, in actual fact I don't.

oscarBravo · 28-11-2013 12:58AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I actually do think it's an ideology.

Oh, wait, no, in actual fact I don't.

If you don't believe it's an ideology, does that absence of belief form a belief system, and - ipso facto - an ideology?

SmilingLurker · 28-11-2013 08:06AM

Absence of a belief does not form a belief. I don't believe in multi coloured fire farting dragons.

Do I need to come up with a name for such an ideology if it is such?

Any name suggestions?

[-0-] · 28-11-2013 08:16AM

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Absence of a belief does not form a belief. I don't believe in multi coloured fire farting dragons.

Do I need to come up with a name for such an ideology if it is such?

Any name suggestions?

The non-puff-the-magic-dragoners.

CiDeRmAn · 28-11-2013 08:22AM

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

nagirrac · 28-11-2013 08:16PM

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

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

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

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

Turtwig · 28-11-2013 08:24PM

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

Fixed that for you.

gaynorvader · 28-11-2013 08:27PM

nagirrac wrote: »

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

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

nagirrac wrote: »

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

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

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

nagirrac wrote: »

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

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

Where is your evidence?

Pherekydes · 28-11-2013 08:29PM

nagirrac wrote: »

... using minds that nature created no less.

Nature or nurture, that is the question!

Turtwig · 28-11-2013 08:49PM

nagirrac wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KyussBishop · 28-11-2013 08:58PM

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

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

Sofaspud · 28-11-2013 08:59PM

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

nagirrac · 28-11-2013 09:07PM

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

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

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

nagirrac · 28-11-2013 09:15PM

Sofaspud wrote: »

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

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

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

Is atheism an ideology?

Comments