Religion Becomes Extinct in Several Countires

lightg said:
That's because the only way that one can confront, agree, critique or otherwise deal with an ideology is with an ideology.
Click to expand...
The range of ideological belief found among the atheistic is wide - possibly even wider than that found among the theistic. Some of these ideologies are quite rudimentary, barely qualifying as describable entities - in both the theistic and atheistic.

Someone being confronted with the assertion "God is real" does not necessarily have much clue as to the ideology behind it, and is not necessarily dealing with any ideological aspects of the claim.
 
iceaura said:
Someone being confronted with the assertion "God is real" does not necessarily have much clue as to the ideology behind it, and is not necessarily dealing with any ideological aspects of the claim.
Click to expand...

If they make any kind of reply, vocal or only in their mind (and usually, they do), then they are operating out of an ideology (namely, their own / one they subscribe to).
 
If somebody walks up to you and says: "I have an invisible teaspoon in my hand.. and now i used my mental power to turn it into a live invisible goat"
Which ideology would you make operational to reply to this claim?
 
YoYoPapaya said:
You're using it wrongly again. It's like saying "I find it ironic that christians will work all day at a weapon factory creating bombs that kill people"
You're using a small sample of atheists who happens to also be vocal antitheists on this forum and then generalising their behavior to extend to each and every atheist in the world. I don't know if you're only trolling or you are actually serious. It gets more and more difficult to believe the latter.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal: If you are really so different from those militant atheists/antitheists, you should be able to demonstrate this with more than just "I'm not like them".

Note that the exchange between LG and myself was about a specific atheist.


What I find curious about so many atheists here is that they refuse to take a personal stance on their atheism, or that their personal stance needs to be prodded out of them. Instead, they often resort to some generalized, objective stance, as if their "lack of belief in God" would not really have much to do with them.

For example, here's a sentence completion exercise:

"When I hear the word "God", I get the feeling that ...... and my thoughts are ....."
"When a Mormon missionary stops me in the street or a Jehovah's Witness knocks on my door, I wish that ...... because ....."
"When I see pictures of people praying in a church, I think that ...."

It's the answers to these questions and the justifications for them that make up one's atheism.
 
YoYoPapaya said:
If somebody walks up to you and says: "I have an invisible teaspoon in my hand.. and now i used my mental power to turn it into a live invisible goat"
Which ideology would you make operational to reply to this claim?
Click to expand...

The ideology that it is not on my schedule to talk to random strangers in the street.
 
lightgigantic said:
Its ironic that an atheist will spend hours of their time extolling the glories of their ideology and then clamp down when one highlights the point.

Personally I think its because part of the atheist critique involves the criticism of religious institutions - and in this way atheism is artificially played as some sort of maverick and winning the upper the hand being "beyond institutions" (or doctrine or ideology or value).
Click to expand...

I think many atheists are very reactive (as opposed to responsive) and they are poor with introspection; they seem to be quite out of touch with their thoughts, feelings and actions.

In this regard, there is a characteristic difference between the average Western atheist, and, say, a Zen practitioner (who is also an atheist).
The Zen practitioner seeks to be aware of his thoughts, feelings and actions, and not in terms of a "story", but viscerally, as they happen, moment to moment, in the here and now.
The average Western atheist is, however, quite predictable as if he were operating from a script; there are several of such atheistic scripts, but not too many, so one can learn them quickly.

I'd have all our atheists to take a two-week meditation retreat! :eek:
 
Signal said:
"When I hear the word "God", I get the feeling that ...... and my thoughts are ....."

"When a Mormon missionary stops me in the street or a Jehovah's Witness knocks on my door, I wish that ...... because ....."

"When I see pictures of people praying in a church, I think that ...."
Click to expand...

…That I understand why they would say 'God'. (The rest of my thoughts are in my posts.)

…That the missionary is really wishing to share his insight, although I disagree.

…That they wish to adore God and perhaps have blessings bestowed, which, again, is understandable from the human condition.
 
lightgigantic said:
As far as I can understand, the only way an atheist can respond to the effect that "god is real" is if they corrupt the term ("yes elvis is real, the god of rock n roll") or if they contextualize the statement ("yes god is real ... in the lives of people who have subscribed to mythical belief systems due to a lack of proper understanding in the naturalistic systems which govern our universe") ... both of which require ideologies BTW



One operates out of an ideological framework and the other doesn't.

Kind of like saying all 6 year olds display a higher degree parental responsibility than 26 year olds because they don't beget unwanted progeny
:shrug:
Click to expand...
I'm tired of your nonsensical replies. If you don't mind I'll let you bother someone else with them for a while.
 
iceaura said:
The range of ideological belief found among the atheistic is wide - possibly even wider than that found among the theistic. Some of these ideologies are quite rudimentary, barely qualifying as describable entities - in both the theistic and atheistic.
Click to expand...
Some ideologies may be more variegated than others but it doesn't detract any that they are derivative from a singular cause. For instance the range of approaches to feminism doesn't suggest that feminsim is without ideology, values, etc

Someone being confronted with the assertion "God is real" does not necessarily have much clue as to the ideology behind it, and is not necessarily dealing with any ideological aspects of the claim.
Click to expand...
The point is that if they contextualize the claim as true, false , inconsequential or anything in between they are dealing with their own ideological stance on the matter
 
YoYoPapaya said:
Ok this is the most reasonable post you have made so far in this debate, so i will provide a reasonable answer.
If the whole world was atheist the term would make no sense. You wouldn't define yourself as an atheist because there are no religious with various invisible deities to contrast your non belief. The term only exists because people still believe in gods. Otherwise it would be obsolete.

Antitheism is the belief that religion is harmful to mankind and actively seek to combat it at every given opportunity. There are some like Cristopher Hitchens that are really extreme about their antitheism and i would think that it would offend religious people. It's far from every atheist that backs up on this battle. Most atheists I know say that he's too much. That you shouldn't tell people how to think or make fun of religion the way he does. I don't think i can be clearer than that. There is a huge difference between atheism and antitheism. Just the fact that you can believe in God and be an antitheist (but not an atheist) should prove this to you.

Cristopher Hitchens is not a spokesperson for atheists. He's a spokesperson for anti theism. A good example to explain my stance in this debate.
Click to expand...
I still don't follow how all this leads one to the conclusion that atheism is a non-ideological stance amongst persons who are actually contextualizing the claims of theists (regardless of the political intensity driving the ideology).

IOW its not sufficient to lump them in with persons bereft of any knowledge base anymore than its sufficient to lump new born babies in china in a discussion about apolitical indifference of the Irish.
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
I'm not lumping anything in. I'm just telling you what the word means. I think it's really more of a linguistic discussion than anything.
 
YoYoPapaya said:
I'm not lumping anything in. I'm just telling you what the word means. I think it's really more of a linguistic discussion than anything.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you are trying to tell us that atheism is bereft of ideology. The exact reason behind such thinking is not really clear, but it appears that you are trying to suggest that its anti-theism that has an ideology.

I call it a problem because the very nature of being labeled an atheist means that one is capable of contextualizing the claims of theism, regardless whether one follows through with the political intensity of an anti-theist ... much like the Irish could contextualize the issue of british involvement in their local politics regardless whether they were fired up enough to join the IRA.
 
lightgigantic said:
The problem is that you are trying to tell us that atheism is bereft of ideology. The exact reason behind such thinking is not really clear, but it appears that you are trying to suggest that its anti-theism that has an ideology.

I call it a problem because the very nature of being labeled an atheist means that one is capable of contextualizing the claims of theism, regardless whether one follows through with the political intensity of an anti-theist ... much like the Irish could contextualize the issue of british involvement in their local politics regardless whether they were fired up enough to join the IRA.
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't mean that. You don't need to be able to contextualise claims of theism. You just need to not believe in supernatural stuff. Whether it's a conscious choice to do so or not is besides the point.
 
YoYoPapaya said:
No. It doesn't mean that. You don't need to be able to contextualise claims of theism. You just need to not believe in supernatural stuff. Whether it's a conscious choice to do so or not is besides the point.
Click to expand...
so labeling it "supernatural" and deciding not to believe it is not a conscious choice?
:eek:
 
It is a conscious choice, but I am not all atheists.
Would you describe God a a natural phenomenon?
 
Naturalism is not the same as atheism.

And yes, atheists who never encounters supernatural beliefs don't decide to disbelieve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top