Posted: Jan 16, 2020 5:32 am
THWOTH wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:THWOTH wrote:
You described 'ideology' there, not the content of a specifically 'atheist ideology'. So the complete 'atheist ideology' presented stands I reckon. If you take issue with that perhaps you could explain your grounds while providing a breviloquent formulation of you own?
Given that there is a self-serving atheist ideology, I am trying here to map out its form by describing how it has messed up the human origin story. In post 4895 I argued that Robert’s “The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being” told a story in which relations with other species were hardly mentioned. Crudely put, we created ourselves. I argue that ideologies are grounded on very simple crude concepts. For example, Marxist ideology was based on the simple belief that oppression of the workers was a bad thing and good would inevitably triumph.
OK. So your implicit response to my question is: No, you cannot explain why the complete 'atheist ideology' I presented should not stand, nor provide even a concise description of what a the presumed 'atheist ideology' does or might otherwise contain. I must admit that I'm not entirely surprised at your reluctance to address that matter either.
The first clause of your first sentence contains an objective statement: 'there is a self-serving atheist ideology'. You are saying here that a thing which we might call an 'atheist ideology' exists, and does so in the manner of a known or established fact or situation. If this is not what you're saying please feel free to correct me.
You move swiftly on from this to again discuss the nature of 'ideology', as if this is a term that is either disputed or requires some context which is otherwise absent. I would suggest that nobody you are interacting with here is in any doubt as to the meaning of 'ideology' or the context in which it is being discussed. Simply put, you have merely repeated your previous reply to me on this matter, describing 'ideology' but not the content of a specifically 'atheist ideology'.
It might be true that nobody here misunderstands the word “ideology” but the first line of defence is to deny that there can be such a thing as atheist ideology.
THWOTH wrote: The best you can do is assume that the thing you say exists exists, and then cast around for something to confirm that assumption, or as you put it, to 'try to map out its form by describing how it has messed up the human origin story'.
Nah. like I said before, I didn’t assume there was an atheist ideology and then try to map it. I saw that the human origin narrative had been messed up (Robert’s “The incredible Unlikeness of Being” is the example I discussed recently) and then I looked for an ideological explanation. And I know that I am partly wrong; I am failing to distinguish between the effects of atheist ideology and those merely arising from dialectic; reaction in Western societies to a former strong belief in Genesis, in the face of persistent continued belief in that religious origin story.
Then, in order to find an authentic position, I sought out a local church in the denomination that has been most affected by this dialectic, that is, where the deep problem is presented most bafflingly, which is the Anglican church. That was 18 years ago. The same drive for authenticity led me to identify as Creationist. Now you don’t have to deal with someone who seems to be on your side but who carps. I’m not on your side. And you-all really could do with some opposition.
THWOTH wrote: Let me explain again what this means. You're saying that a thing called 'atheist ideology' definitely exists, that this thing 'messed up the human origins story', but you can only describe what this ideology contains once you have identified exactly how it 'messed up the human origins story.' Until then you have nothing to say about what an atheist ideology might be or actually is. Unfortunately, in this situation declarations citing the existence of this so-called ideology remain completely unsupported along with all the subordinate claims that necessarily rely on its existence.
In post 4895 I argued that Robert’s book tells a human origin narrative in which relations between our ancestors and other actors hardly appear and when they do appear, our ancestors play the dominant role (“predators”) and those relations are distinctly weak and short-lived. That is one way that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story.
Your only response to that argument was to leap on my mentioning the “job” of the male lion, when you presented the fashionable take about males being parasites.
To tell the human origin story right, you need start with the right dramatis personae and you can get quite far with a small cast: hominins, leopard, baboons, the sycamore fig and the C4 grasses. Of those, only hominins figure in Robert’s story.
THWOTH wrote: Nonetheless, and aside from all that being an exercise in confirmation bias, you comment does rather lead one to wonder what might be 'the human origins story' that some kind of 'atheists ideology' actually 'messed up'.
So, I'll ask in all seriousness, what was or is the un-messed up human origins story, the story that stood aside or stands apart from that messing up 'atheist ideology'? Now here, surely, is a question you can answer in some detail?
“Confirmation bias” my foot. An origin story I can believe is one that DETAILS how humans were created through natural selection responses to creative, sustained and intimate relations with other African species.