|
I would like to ask an favor here. Can someone explain how athiesm is not an ideology? The dictionary defines an ideology as "a set of beliefs, values, and opinions that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class thinks, acts, and understands the world." What is it about atheism that does not fit the definition of ideology?
While I am not an atheist, I think it really depends on the person. Since it is not an orginization, it would depend on whether you agree with the idea of it being an ideology or of being an anti-Ideology. If I worded that even slightly coherantly.
|
But, just like religion, it is a set of ideas and opinions that shapes how a person veiws an reacts to the world. Whether it is orginized or not doesn't matter as far as being an ideology. Only that it effects how you see the world. Even gaming is an ideology, because we see and react to the world differently than non gamers do.
|
|
A religion of non belief? I can see secularism as such. and a person could place a self defined limit, by calling themselves thus.
See, here is where people get confused. They use religion and ideology interchangably when they are not the same. Saying that atheism is not an ideology makes aout as much ense as saying that liberalism or conservatism, or holism isn't an ideology. I agree tha religion is a form of ideology, but there are political ideologies, and even ideologies in gaming. For example the edition wars are an ideological driven argument, but certainly not a religiously driven one.
Well we have our fair share of nutcases here in kansasThey picketed Billy Graham.
Like... wow.
Yeah, these SOBs picketed my High School when we put on Laramie Project. I had to film the whole thing for one of my classes. I wanted to throw something at these people so badly. Might have too if the only thing in my hands wasn't a $5,000 camera.
|
Here's my quick thought. Because atheism isn't narrowly defined since there isn't a governing organization behind it, even the term "atheism" is open to interpretation. (As has been seen here on this thread.) I think that most people would agree with you that what they believe about the existence or non-existence of a deity would constitute an "ideology", not all atheists think alike -- even moreso possibly than any religious group -- and therefore lumping them together as an "atheist ideology" might not make as much sense as a "Buddhist ideology" or a "Christian ideology" or similar.
Because atheism isn't narrowly defined since there isn't a governing organization behind it
Granted, there's a small group of anti-religion "New Atheists" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, et al. who do have a distinct ideology. However, to try to extend that description to everyone in the world who doesn't believe in one or more gods is basically committing the same logical fallacy as lumping anyone who goes to church occasionally in with Al Qaida.
Josef Stalin was an non-religious atheist with a militant Communist ideology.
Lao Tse was a Taoist atheist with a pacifist ideology of meekness.
Personally, I'm a Zen Buddhist and an atheist with a pro-gaming, pro-beer ideology.
Overall, describing atheism as an "ideology" seems to be forcing a politically-loaded word onto something that isn't a political issue. By the same token, one does not describe "disbelief in the Easter Bunny" as an "ideology."
However, there's more. Also note that all of the people listed had or have a sinister "survivalist agenda" forcing them to breathe air and eat food... Just like you have "goals" and your enemies have "agendas," people you agree with have "values" whereas people you disagree with are assigned "ideologies." It's nothing but a way to use semantics to demonize certain ideas or people that one dislikes.
Is that why the gays have an 'agenda'?
Is that why the gays have an 'agenda'?
Exactamundo.
No, we actually do have an agenda. If Anita Bryant only knew the half of it...
(Hint: It involves subprime mortgages, SARS, aliens, the boy in the balloon, and Clay Aiken.)
Oh whew! I thought it was something far more sinister, like spreading Gayism.
By the same token, one does not describe "disbelief in the Easter Bunny" as an "ideology."
*sigh* foolishly chimes in -
If the disbelief in the Easter Bunny takes on a format, becomes a lifestyle, involves organized counter arguments, ...
*gives up*
I do not see anyone petitioning to enforce coloring eggs in the springtime into the Constitution.
I do not see anyone petitioning to enforce coloring eggs in the springtime into the Constitution.
Are you following atheism or anti-theism? Or selective anti-theism? ie - Anti-Christian ideals built into the framework of the founding fathers' documents?
There are differences.
Just as an ideal grows beyond oneself into an ideology.
Hmmm...
I would like to ask an favor here. Can someone explain how athiesm is not an ideology? The dictionary defines an ideology as "a set of beliefs, values, and opinions that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class thinks, acts, and understands the world." What is it about atheism that does not fit the definition of ideology?
The key is in the term 'set of beliefs'
Firstly, it is a singular belief. It is indepentant of anything else. One can be an atheist and believe in faries , magic and niberu. All that it means is that you do not believe in one specific thing.
Atheism has not innately associated with a set of values ect all.
Secondly; atheism isn't really a belief, but rather the absense of a belief.
You are, at a guess, an atheist when discussing 99.9999999999% of all deities ever described by man. Would you describe your dismissal as being the foundation of an ideology? Is it your absense of belief in thor, that shapes who you are, or is it you belief in which ever deity you believe in.
Now there are ideologies, of which atheism is a defining element, such pearl, a term coined by relatively famous You tube atheist thunderfoot, used to describe a ideology based around rationalism. From what i remember, thunderfoot managed to sum up my ideological views, pretty well and i am not against being described as a pearlist, if i really have to be described as anything.
If the disbelief in the Easter Bunny takes on a format, becomes a lifestyle, involves organized counter arguments, ...
*gives up*
That was my point. My lifestyle is totally different from Josef Stalin's, even if you don't want to believe that. There are no "organized counter-arguments" except among specific sub-groups. Dawkins speaks only for his little clique of self-proclaimed "New Atheists," not for everyone in the world who happens to not believe in a god. Saying all atheists share the same ideology is like saying "all people who believe in one or more gods" share the same ideology.
Also, as noted, there are a number of religions that are equally compatible with atheism or theism (including my own), muddying the waters still further.
I do not see anyone petitioning to enforce coloring eggs in the springtime into the Constitution.Are you following atheism or anti-theism? Or selective anti-theism? ie - Anti-Christian ideals built into the framework of the founding fathers' documents?
I believe it is unlikely there is a Judeo-Christian god.
Which label does that buy me?
Because atheism isn't narrowly defined since there isn't a governing organization behind itGranted, there's a small group of anti-religion "New Atheists" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, et al. who do have a distinct ideology. However, to try to extend that description to everyone in the world who doesn't believe in one or more gods is basically committing the same logical fallacy as lumping anyone who goes to church occasionally in with Al Qaida.
They certainly do have an ideology, which might be summed up as 'reason trumps everything' combined with 'people should be educated so that they do not fall pray to the dangers of irrationality.' The fact that they are atheists is a by product of their ideology, not the ideology itself.
Overall, describing atheism as an "ideology" seems to be forcing a politically-loaded word onto something that isn't a political issue. By the same token, one does not describe "disbelief in the Easter Bunny" as an "ideology."
Or for that matter disbelief in the existance of unicorns, old shuck, alien ghosts within all of us, or 80's pop music.
80's pop music.
I believe Stewart Copeland is the greatest rock drummer living. Is that an ideology?
80's pop music.I believe Stewart Copeland is the greatest rock drummer living. Is that an ideology?
No, but add in that 'you can predict economic behaviour based upon the awesomeness of his drumming', 'Drumming is the greatest form of art, because stewart Copeland is awesome' and 'stewart Copeland is our natural leader' and You'd cross over into the realms of ideology.
I do not see anyone petitioning to enforce coloring eggs in the springtime into the Constitution.Are you following atheism or anti-theism? Or selective anti-theism? ie - Anti-Christian ideals built into the framework of the founding fathers' documents?I believe it is unlikely there is a Judeo-Christian god.
Which label does that buy me?
Seeing my stmts as an attack? You needn't.
Whichever label you choose for yourself, or none if the word bothers you that much.
Srsly, labels are just words. The brain compartmentalizes its input into manageable 'boxes'. Try to make it a day without doing that.
I'll leave you guys to your 'discussion', and label this thread as a 'why bother' one.
I do not see anyone petitioning to enforce coloring eggs in the springtime into the Constitution.Are you following atheism or anti-theism? Or selective anti-theism? ie - Anti-Christian ideals built into the framework of the founding fathers' documents?I believe it is unlikely there is a Judeo-Christian god.
Which label does that buy me?
Seeing my stmts as an attack? You needn't.
Whichever label you choose for yourself, or none if the word bothers you that much.
Srsly, labels are just words. The brain compartmentalizes its input into manageable 'boxes'. Try to make it a day without doing that.
I'll leave you guys to your 'discussion', and label this thread as a 'why bother' one.
What exactly is it that you wonder 'why bother about'?
|
|
They certainly do have an ideology, which might be summed up as 'reason trumps everything' ...
While I understand what you are saying and largely agree, this statement kind of bugs me. "Reason"? Whose "reason"? Dawkins? I don't find him terribly "reasonable" at all.
While I understand what you are saying and largely agree, the people mentioned where mentioned because they are fairly extreme cases -- and "extreme" is often at odds with "reason".
Seeing my stmts as an attack? You needn't.
No. I see labels as a necessary evil for effective communication. A person's name is a label, yet it does not sum up everything that a person is. Should we stop using names?
My point was more that I am sure most people would label me an atheist, however, that fails to convey the subtlety that I do not profess to know for certain there is no god. I do not even profess to know for certain there is no Judeo-Christian god. I simply find the possibility highly unlikely.
This has certainly made me more aware of the error of throwing all Christians together. It also presents a problem for future discussion. To communicate, we must all agree on terminology and that is clearly not happening here.
...and "extreme" is often at odds with "reason".
We can not be extremely reasonable?
Dawkins? I don't find him terribly "reasonable" at all.
Out of curiosity, have you read any of his books? He comes across a lot differently in person than on paper, and neither type of appearance very closely resembles his reputation.
That said, his logic in places has holes big enough to drive trucks through (my copy of The Greatest Show On Earth has innumerable marginal notes -- flaws I saw while reading and wanted to follow up on later). Overall, I agree with a lot of his premises. I do think he's one of our best evolutionary thinkers. I disagree that he's as infallible as he seems to assume he is, however.
|
|
Out of curiosity, have you read any of his books? He comes across a lot differently in person than on paper, and neither type of appearance very closely resembles his reputation.
Actually, I have a lot less of an issue with what he says as opposed to how he says it.
No I haven't read any of his stuff. Not sure yet if I care to. Everything I've seen suggests that he is unwilling to even look at any thinking that is opposed to his. I don't care if he's brilliant -- that kind of attitude rubs me wrong.
Actually, I have a lot less of an issue with what he says as opposed to how he says it.
It might surprise you to find him warm, generally polite, and often quite amusing. But you're right about him airily dismissing any thoughts that don't parallel his, without giving them serious consideration -- that's the underlying flaw in all his anti-religion arguments. He'd be far better off simply sticking to what he does know best -- strict discussion of evolution, without the side commentaries.
Seeing my stmts as an attack? You needn't.
No. I see labels as a necessary evil for effective communication. A person's name is a label, yet it does not sum up everything that a person is. Should we stop using names?
My point was more that I am sure most people would label me an atheist, however, that fails to convey the subtlety that I do not profess to know for certain there is no god. I do not even profess to know for certain there is no Judeo-Christian god. I simply find the possibility highly unlikely.
This has certainly made me more aware of the error of throwing all Christians together. It also presents a problem for future discussion. To communicate, we must all agree on terminology and that is clearly not happening here.
Hence your interjection of the term 'label' in response to my attempt at drawing distinction btwn the terms atheism and anti-theism with an example. Personalizing the term 'label', though I didn't use it all.
Yep. Clearly not happening here.
Hence, the 'why bother'.
Personalizing the term 'label', though I didn't use it all.
I have obviously misunderstood you. Would you please rephrase for me?
|
|
It might surprise you to find him warm, generally polite, and often quite amusing.
Maybe it's how the rest of the world lifts him up or tries to make him appear -- as though he's the spokesperson that has incontrovertible "proof" that there is no god or something. I have similar attitudes about Christian (or other religious) leaders where people make the person more important than the message. It reminds me of the archeology guy that Samnell was using. I tried to look up reviews of his books and there were a whole mess of atheist sites that hailed this guy as some kind of "god" that has somehow proven that the Bible is 100% wrong or something. The archeology book that I have (written by a Christian archeology professor) mirrored 95% of what Samnell paraphrased (and was older than what this author put out) -- so the guy is most likely right, but that doesn't necessarily make the "conclusions" correct and it doesn't discount the entire Bible.
I guess what bugs me is the "pedestal" that others create for these people.
|
|
I do not see anyone petitioning to enforce coloring eggs in the springtime into the Constitution.Are you following atheism or anti-theism? Or selective anti-theism? ie - Anti-Christian ideals built into the framework of the founding fathers' documents?I believe it is unlikely there is a Judeo-Christian god.
Which label does that buy me?
Hell bound :P
Sorry I couldnt resist. ;)
They certainly do have an ideology, which might be summed up as 'reason trumps everything' ...While I understand what you are saying and largely agree, this statement kind of bugs me. "Reason"? Whose "reason"? Dawkins? I don't find him terribly "reasonable" at all.
While I understand what you are saying and largely agree, the people mentioned where mentioned because they are fairly extreme cases -- and "extreme" is often at odds with "reason".
To be honest, I think dawkins gets a rum old time of it. I read his work, i have listened to him speak and honestly, i consider him to be immensely reasonable. he does have problems, he can't talk to 'normal people' for toffee, for instance. But the issues run deeper. Because he is willing to question anything which appears to be based on faith rather than rationality, he steps over lines which most people, even the non-religions consider taboo. The simple fact is that it shouldn't be a taboo to point out that some of the actions of 'god', if the bible is literal are great evils. It shouldn't be taboo to say that by modern standard, many of the religious laws, backed by god are barbaric and so on. But they are taboo, and his reasonable questions make him appear unreasonable.
It doesn't help that he keeps some company that is more than a little questionable....i'm looking at you mr hitchens :P *... but really he desperately tries to fight for atheist rights, to build bridges with the more rational theists and prevent the worse excesses the less rational theists.
I don't know how much dawkins you have actually read or listened too, so for now, i will say that i hope your oppinion is based more on received bias. If it is based on his actual writing, films and lectures, i would love to know exactly why you consider him unreasonable.
Once he was debating with a ID proponant, and was asked if he could think of anyway that he would consider ID to be a reasonable idea, and he tried to meet them half way, saying 'i suppose it would be possible that an alien race could have set up conditions where it would occure, but that alien race would really need to have comfrom somewhere, and the most reasonable explination for that is Evolution by natural selection.' Pretty reasonable responce. It got translated into 'Dawkins believes in little green men.'
I guess what bugs me is the "pedestal" that others create for these people.
QFT. I have to remind myself not to read their blogs. The "comments" sections are typically nothing but sycophantic "Ooh! You told 'em! You're my hero!" Then it goes to their heads, and you get people like Jerry Coyne (an absolutely brilliant biologist and otherwise super guy) descending to the level of grade-school-calibre sniping at anyone within the biological community or outside of it who might have views even slightly different from his own.
Dawkins? I don't find him terribly "reasonable" at all.Out of curiosity, have you read any of his books? He comes across a lot differently in person than on paper, and neither type of appearance very closely resembles his reputation.
That said, his logic in places has holes big enough to drive trucks through (my copy of The Greatest Show On Earth has innumerable marginal notes -- flaws I saw while reading and wanted to follow up on later). Overall, I agree with a lot of his premises. I do think he's one of our best evolutionary thinkers. I disagree that he's as infallible as he seems to assume he is, however.
Aside from those flaws, is greatest show on earth any good? Haven't had a chance yet to look at it.
Personalizing the term 'label', though I didn't use it all.I have obviously misunderstood you. Would you please rephrase for me?
One way invites the reader to make a distinction if they wish, akin to 'how would you describes yourself?'. The other 'inflicts' a label on them.
Your description of anti-Jedo-Christian makes that distinction. That's all that's there. Narrow brush versus broad one, and the choice to choose it yourself or not choose one at all.
The distinction helps both parties to understand the 'limits' of the argument, and avoid the broad brush and subsequent blanket stmts or perceptions.
Aside from those flaws, is greatest show on earth any good? Haven't had a chance yet to look at it.
The humor evident throughout God Delusion is all but lacking here, and Dawkins' enthusiasm isn't quite as infectuous as it used to be -- certainly not enough to buoy the reader through chapter-long digressions that don't support the main arguments that spawned them. In particular, he expects the reader to share his quasi-sexual preoccupation with the pollination of flowers by insects, a topic that I was glad to finally be done with.
Overall, Coyne's Why Evolution is True sticks to the point a lot better, I'm told, and the sections I've read are generally more lucid -- although Coyne's grasp of the geological evidence in general, and of radiometric dating in particular, is hazy at best (GSoE did a much better job with these topics).
Actually, I have a lot less of an issue with what he says as opposed to how he says it.It might surprise you to find him warm, generally polite, and often quite amusing. But you're right about him airily dismissing any thoughts that don't parallel his, without giving them serious consideration -- that's the underlying flaw in all his anti-religion arguments. He'd be far better off simply sticking to what he does know best -- strict discussion of evolution, without the side commentaries.
If i had to guess, his prepensity to airily dismiss, has a lot to do with the quality of argument usually put to him.
When you get asked 'what if your wrong' as though it is a killer question, after half the audience has asked you mind numbingly banal questions, keeping it together enough to come up with funny and cogent, if slightly dismissive answers must really start to make it hard to beleive anyone is ever going to raise a real argument.
If i had to guess, his prepensity to airily dismiss, has a lot to do with the quality of argument usually put to him.
Reminds me of Stephen King, on why he hates meeting fans. "People always ask me, 'Where do you get your ideas?' which is the most inane question you can possible ask a writer. I think them up! Where else would I get them, from a cereal box?" And his other 'favorite':
Fan: "That was a really creepy book. You must basically be a creepy person."
King: "Thank you so much."
The distinction helps both parties to understand the 'limits' of the argument, and avoid the broad brush and subsequent blanket stmts or perceptions.
Is the term 'Christian' of any use then in this thread? I have found Moff's self identification a stark difference from any understanding of 'Chrisitan' I had. There are some very important commonalities, but also some very important differences.
Sorry to drag you into this, Moff. I think you just make a good example of my floundering of understanding.
is it just me or is it fair game to attack Christians and not so much other religous groups?
Speaking only for myself, I do not feel 'attacked' by other religious groups…except for maybe militant muslims.
is it just me or is it fair game to attack Christians and not so much other religous groups?
Is it just me, or has it always been, and is it still, fair game to attack atheists -- and even actively discriminate against them -- far more than for Christians?
I assume your question is rhetorical. Certainly it ignores the Sikhs who were beaten to death in Texas after 9/11, because people saw their turbans and assumed they were muslims.
|
|
is it just me or is it fair game to attack Christians and not so much other religous groups?
Probably has to do with size. As Kirth has pointed out, "Christian" incorporates a fairly large percentage of Americans. And as far a "labels" are concerned -- with that in mind, there is a rather large disparity between what "Christians" believe. (Especially considering Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are usually thrown in with "Christian" in addition to other considerably loose groups.)
|
|
is it just me or is it fair game to attack Christians and not so much other religous groups?Is it just me, or has it always been, and is it still, fair game to attack atheists -- and even actively discriminate against them -- far more than for Christians?
I assume your question is rhetorical. Certainly it ignores the Sikhs who were beaten to death in Texas after 9/11, because people saw their turbans and assumed they were muslims.
I think he meant in terms of beliefs.
But then, I think the "attacks" we see are often colored by our individual perspectives.
+1