Jayjay4547 wrote:And the atheist ideology isn’t a fantasy.
It is. Once again,
NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS NOT AN "IDEOLOGY", IT'S THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF. Fucking learn this elementary lesson once and for all, will you?
Jayjay4547 wrote:Give a sample of people a shared important idea, give them opposition and soon they will develop an ideology that protects and develops that belief.
Oh you mean the way supernaturalists have been protecting their beliefs from scrutiny? Projection, much?
Here's a clue for you. Unsupported assertions treated as fact are what ideologies are all based on. Which means that
not treating unsupported assertions as fact, once again, is the very
antithesis of an "ideology". Going to learn this lesson, after much schooling with respect thereto?
Jayjay4547 wrote:They might develop their own origin narrative, if their opposition has one.
JayJay, stop peddling this blatant lie you keep vomiting up here, that
developing ideas about observed phenomena on the basis of observational evidence purportedly constitutes an "ideology". It fucking doesn't. It's
precisely because doing so doesn't involve injecting superfluous assertions from sources other than the observational data that once again, it's the
antithesis of an "ideology". Now drop this blatant creationist lie you keep peddling here once and for all, will you?
Just because scientists have been able to develop an extremely successful theory without once bothering with superfluous mythological assertions, does
not mean they're engaged in an "ideological" process. Your assertion that they are, is steaming bullshit. What part of "why bother introducing assertions that are manifestly superfluous to requirements and irrelevant" do you not understand as being a perfectly proper course of action in any proper, rigorous discipline?
The only reason for erecting your bullshit about scientific practice being an "ideology", is because you can't stand the fact that they're not genuflecting before
your ideology.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m baffled why you should deny it.
That's because you can't imagine the existence of a view of the world
without unsupported assertions treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world. And as a corollary, when faced with an example of one, you have to force-fit its existence to your own ideological presuppositions, in order to deal with the cognitive dissonance said existence elicits. The reason we don't accept your blatant creationist fabrication, is because
all the evidence says it's a blatant fabrication. See above.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Maybe it’s to do with a culturally dominant ideology gaining power by presenting itself to be the whole world.
Oh wait, we saw that in action in Europe in the past, when supernaturalism ran riot. Did supernaturalism once present
evidence for the assertions it insisted constituted established fact? No. What happened was that supernaturalists
forced people to treat those assertions as fact, using dungeons, torture instruments, and murderous suppression of any alternative. Which is why we in Europe expended a lot of effort ridding ourselves of supernaturalist control of discourse and policy, because supernaturalists demonstrated routinely that they couldn't be trusted to behave themselves when they wielded power.
On the other hand, no one has ever been thrown into a dungeon for failing to accept a scientific hypothesis. The worst thing a scientist will do to you is is say to you, "present evidence for your hypothesis, otherwise I have no need for it". But of course I can see how supernaturalists regard this as some sort of personal affront, mostly because supernaturalists don't have any evidence for their assertions, and consequently, they think that asking them to get in line behind physics, chemistry and biology, instead of being given privileged access to the front of the queue, is some sort of malicious imposition. To which my answer is quite simply, fucking tough. The reason scientific ideas survive, is because
evidence support them. Scientists don't
need special privileges to put forward their ideas, they get off their backsides and do the hard work of supplying the
evidence for those ideas, and asking supernaturalists to do the same is long overdue. All of which flushes your assertions about "ideology" down the fucking toilet. You've been schooled on this repeatedly, JayJay, and your continued peddling of the "atheist ideology" bullshit
after said schooling is starting to emanate a truly unpleasant smell of mendacity,to borrow a phrase from
Cat On A Hot Tin Roof.
Now can we put this "atheist ideology" bullshit back in its hole in the ground where it belongs, and bury it once and for all?