One World Religion

Post Reply New Topic

Atheism doesn't have a perspective? There is a "scientific" world view. If not, do you entertain the idea that spirits exist? Do you consider that it is possible and have you tried to prove or disprove it yourself? If so, do you have the formula that you used to prove it? Do you believe in facts? Where do you get your facts? Do you have creative ideas that challenge these facts? Are you 100 percent sure that there is no God or spirts?

If you are certain that no spirits exist, that is a world view or ideology. If you don't care, you are apathetic and are unable to form an ideology based on the fact that you don't spend time thinking about this subject. Unicornism is a dismissive term used by Atheists who do not challenge their ideology and form their opinions based upon what is taught to be scientific facts. As we have learned from the past, facts often will get discarded when new information is brought to light.

Atheism doesn't have a perspective? There is a "scientific" world view? If not, do you entertain the idea that spirits exist? Do you consider that it is possible and have you tried to prove or disprove it yourself? If so, do you have the formula that you used to prove it? Do you believe in facts? Where do you get your facts? Do you have creative ideas that challenge these facts? Are you 100 percent sure that there is no God or spirts?

If you are certain that no spirits exist, that is a world view or ideology. If you don't care, you are apathetic and are unable to form an ideology based on the fact that you don't spend time thinking about this subject. Unicornism is a dismissive term used by Atheists who do not challenge their ideology and form their opinions based upon what is taught to be scientific facts. As we have learned from the past, facts often will get discarded when new information is brought to light.

That is correct. Particular atheists may have worldviews or epistemological principles by which they buttress their atheism, but atheism itself is merely the abscence of belief in God. Platonic realists and arch-nominalists can both be atheists, though their worldviews are starkly distinct. Faithatheists and anti-theists are both part of the class "atheists", though their ideologies are markedly distinct.



Sure, namely speaking it is a worldview that doesn't needlessly multiply inherently unobservable entities.



I entertain that idea about as much as I entertain the belief that the chair I am sitting on will vannish into thin air in thirty seconds. Namely, as something with an extremely low probability of being true, but shy of impossible.



The way a "spirit" would violate the law of conservation and is causally useless in light of neuroscience count as sufficient inductive and abductive "disproofs" in my mind.



The two arguments above.



I get my facts from a variety of sources, including reasoning, everyday experiences, usually correct expert testimony, memory, and so fourth.



I struggled with feelings that solipsism might be true and developed solipsism syndrome for a few days, so yes I do have "creative ideas" that "challenge these facts".



I am more certain that God and spirits don't exist than I am that the chair I sit on won't vannish into thin air in two seconds. But both probabilities are shy of zero in my assessment.



I think you're having some genuine troubles following my argument. It wasn't about whether my particular worldview, which buttresses my particular atheism is ideological, it was whether atheism is inherently ideological (which is a universal affirmative statement). Whether or not I am 100% certian of my beliefs doesn't matter one iotta to the claim whether atheism in neccessarily an ideology.

And,no, I am not certain. Then again, I am not certain that social democracy is the best system of governance yet I still consider it an ideology and Orwell is certain the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms are true, yet I'd hardly consider that stance "ideological".



I am ideologically anti-theistic, but that doesn't mean that my ideology (or any other ideology) is logically entailed by mere atheism.



It almost seems like your going into some red herring or non-sequitur here, but nevertheless the comparsion is still relevant. "Aunicornists" can be Christians, atheists, materialists, nominalists, platonists, or people who just haven't heard of "unicorns". No ideology whatsoever is implied by lacking a belief in unicorns, the same is true of lacking a belief in God (atheism).



That's a pretty superficial understanding of the history of science. While scientific ideas are being continually refined, there are certainly paradigms that scientific theories will almost certainly never shift back towards.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0[/youtube]

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 02 Dec 2010, 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Solipism has nothing to do with spirituality. There is a spiritual component to people. This aspect is the deepest part of human beings. You say a lot but never get to the point. It's the same old song and dance about elves and unicorns. That has nothing to do with this. I'm not sure if you realize that, or if you are just resorting to cheap debate tactics to get a laugh.

Autistic people tend to be literal and to explain things literally. When I say god, you probably see a man with a beard in the clouds. The abstract stuff can be analyzed though. Feelings are not even abstract if you analyze the roots of them.

Well, I'm not sure what is more sad; solipism syndrome or atheism. I guess it doesn't matter really as long as you don't take your ideology to full circle and rationalize hurting others. That is the problem I see with atheism and fundamentalism. They don't seem to be tolerant and lack the virtues of cooperation.

Sorry for the duplicate posts. My ADHD was making me hit the enter button too much while it was slowly loading and that turkey banner kept saying happy thanksgiving...so annoying...

I'm sorry, Banned_Magnus, but its seems you're pretty much stating red herring after red herring, speaking in glittering generalities and sentimentalities, speaking in deepities and confusing it for genuine insight, and ignoring every point I make.

And if you were curious as to what deepities are...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg-4fmbpZ-M[/youtube]

Your main question seemed to be whether I ever questioned my worldview, ontology, and epistemology. The instance of soliphism indicated that, yes, I do have moments of radical doubt and I am not dogmatic in my beliefs.



Once again, your simply repeating the assertion and pretending that justifies it. I detailed work Boyer Pascal and others have done and postulated that religion is a supernormal stimulus that serves a variety of unrelated facets - like interpersonal needs and the need for legacy and hope.



You say a lot, the problem is most of it is meaningless. I've gotten to the point many times, you've chosen to ignore my many pertinent points.



Yes, it pretty much has everything to do with your point on atheism being an ideology. I did a pretty precise job at identifying the flaws in your categories and terminology.



I mean 100% of the content, the rhetorical undertone is mainly tool for catharsis given the extreme fustration over arguing with people who aren't even reading what I type.



I wouldn't regard literalism as a problem for me, as I've been abe to understand numerous jokes, sacrastic references, ironies, analogies, and so fourth (some times better then my neurotypical peers).



Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or did you just choose to ignore my explanation of why mere atheism, uncoupled with any set of beliefs, is not an ideology?

NOTE
_____________________________________________________---
* While a concept as abstract as abstract thought is hard to define, it defintely doesn't mean stating red herring after red herring and speaking in meaningless generalities.

"That is correct. Particular atheists may have worldviews or epistemological principles by which they buttress their atheism, but atheism itself is merely the absence of belief in God. Platonic realists and arch-nominalists can both be atheists, though their worldviews are starkly distinct. Faithatheists and anti-theists are both part of the class "atheists", though their ideologies are markedly distinct. "

I guess neither of us has truly learned and internalized that appealing to definitions is a non-starter in free-fall debate.

While I am not such a purist as my father, faithatheist while more comprehensible than labradoodle [as some would style our dog] grates on my ear pretty much the same way. I am not blaming you for it.

M_P is correct Banned_Magnus. A nihilist could be(would be) an atheist without holding any virtue in science(or anything else).

Likewise an infant or profoundly autistic person could be an atheist because they are unable to grok the social concept or to imagine a superbeing. They are true solipsists. Other examples: the blind/deaf and feral children. They qualify (unknowingly) as atheist without touching the ideology of anti-theism. They simply dont know theism exists.

Everyone has a worldview or ideology. To think that you are free of brainwashing or cultural conditioning is wishful thinking. An absence of a belief in God has roots in a particular worldview. Everything we believe is based on perception. Whatever your beliefs are, if they cannot be changed shows that you have an ideology. When you try to convince others of your beliefs, it is also proof that you have an ideology.

I'll post the definition here once again.

wiki

People who don't have ideologies are either very open minded and lack a theory of mind, or they were never exposed to cultural conditioning, or they are just zombies who follow popular thought and don't have an opinion about anything.

If something grates on your nerves, it is because it is hitting some part of you that you don't wish to acknowledge. A person who is able to change his mind when new knowledge comes to light while having discernment demonstrates wisdom and lack of brainwashing. Emotions can be easily manipulated if we are not aware of their roots. If you become emotionally charged with this discussion, analyze that honestly. Do you think you have an ideology based system from which you perceive the world?

Quote:

Ideology is a coherent system of ideas, relying upon a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis, but are subjective choices that serve as the seed around which further thought grows. According to this perspective, ideologies are neither right nor wrong, but only a relativistic intellectual strategy for categorizing the world. The pluses and minuses of ideology range from the vigor and fervor of true believers to ideological infallibility. Excessive need for certitude lurks at fundamentalist levels in politics and religions.

Back to the topic, assuming that most people do have an innate desire to understand the meaning of life and the mysteries of the universe, is it possible to steer these natural drives to a common ideology where people can cooperate better and stop trying to change each other? If so, would that be ethical to form a world religion or Atheist cult religion? If everyone agreed and didn't ridicule each other or dehumanize others for having different ideologies, this world could be a more peaceful place.

To create ideologies, like I suggested the NWO do if they really want to get control of people, they need to key into basic human emotions that drives them to form world views.

For those who still do not believe that Atheism is an ideology, check out this thread. Here is an honest hard look into the psychology of Atheism.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt128417.html

Magnus is correct, Atheism is an ideology in the fact that it is: "a belief in the absence of a deity."

One Religion to Rule Them All
One Religion to Find Them
One Religion to Bring them All
And in the Darkness to Bind Them

(apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien)

ruveyn

No because infants and snails do not believe in a god. What does that make them?

It is an absence of belief, not a belief in an absence. To play off the Nag Hammadi.

A subtle distinction, but an important one. Atheism is not a religion, just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby. NonStampCollector on YouTube has many good videos including the following one that specifically addresses this issue:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGT25Oj-6rc[/youtube]

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 02 Dec 2010, 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.