The WP Strident Atheists
And thats exactly our point. Magnus is having a hard time with it. We are all ideological about a million big and tiny things. But a comatose body with brain death cannot believe in god. Or anything. Magnus would suggest that they have an ideology because they dont believe in god.
When I die my mind will disappear. How do I feel about that? I dont. It is neither good nor bad because there is no experience attached to it. I am neither there yet, nor will I be there after death.
But do I have opinions about organized religion? You bet. But thats no more atheism than my dogs dislike of bread and wine makes him an anti-catholic.
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
I made the case several times to Banned_Magnus that while many atheists are anti-theists and anti-theism is an ideology, mere "atheism" with no further information is not an ideology.
Fuzzy, in the Western world atheism doesn't just mean "lack of belief in God." It exists as a reaction to Christianity, and it carries with it an alternate, materialistic worldivew.
Certainly atheism defined simply as "not believing in God" is too broad to mean anything. There are a large number of religious people who are atheists, especially within the Buddhist faith. There are even a handful of atheistic (or "post-theistic") Christians out there.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Etymological fallacy. Words don't always mean what they sound like.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Etymological fallacy. Words don't always mean what they sound like.
How the hell is that the entymological fallacy? Atheism either means a lack of belief in God or the belief that God doesn't exist. That definition does not entail a positive ideology at all, I did make it clear that many atheists hold ideological systems which buttress their atheistic beliefs, though.
No worse than forming a group to pat each other on the back for believing in God in some special way.
Yah, and I wouldn't do either.
No worse than forming a group to pat each other on the back for believing in God in some special way.
Yah, and I wouldn't do either.
Which indicates group forming is irrelevant to deeply held beliefs or non-beliefs. You just don't like groups.
Look, I think I cut to the heart of the issue by pointing out that atheism has two meanings. This broadly agrees with Orwell's point. However, I think Orwell goes too far. There are going to be people who are atheists but who do not mesh well with the atheist movement, and this has to be recognized.
OK? There are people who are Christians but do not mesh well with the Christian movement. Does this mean Christianity is not an ideology? There are people who are liberals and don't mesh well with the Democratic party; is liberalism not an ideology?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Is a-unicornism an ideology?
OK? There are people who are Christians but do not mesh well with the Christian movement. Does this mean Christianity is not an ideology? There are people who are liberals and don't mesh well with the Democratic party; is liberalism not an ideology?
Well, the issue is that Christianity still has some unifying core of beliefs. One is a Christian by affirming some sort of doctrines about God and Christ. Atheism still has a lack. Now, it may be true that a large number of atheists in the West are materialists, it is still entirely possible (and likely actual) that there are atheists who are not materialists, and who generally do not have many ideas in common with the Atheist movement. That's the real problem I am trying to get at.
That was really the concept I was trying to illustrate with my rhetorical question "Is a-unicornism an ideology?"
Christians and materialists could both be a-unicornists - but for entirely distinct rationales. Hence, a-unicornism really isn't an ideology so much as a tidbit of information regarding what isn't one's beliefs. To me, at least, ideologies require broader and more affirmative propositions about the way the state of affairs in the world is or should be.
That was really the concept I was trying to illustrate with my rhetorical question "Is a-unicornism an ideology?"
Christians and materialists could both be a-unicornists - but for entirely distinct rationales. Hence, a-unicornism really isn't an ideology so much as a tidbit of information regarding what isn't one's beliefs. To me, at least, ideologies require broader and more affirmative propositions about the way the state of affairs in the world is or should be.
I know, but such an example might have a greater probability of talking past the other person. Maybe it won't. I don't know.
If we're not shouting at each other, then we're shouting past each other!
I'd also comment on mild irony of me contrasting "materialists" and "Christians", as there is a very, very small intersection between those two categories, and Orwell (the bearded Irish-Ohioan, not the English author) is a member of that tiny intesection.