How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

[Spearthrower]

Atheist ideology is a set of notions about the world that make one happy as a pig in shit to be an atheist. I have said that often enough, sometimes changing shit to clover. Ideology and propaganda are related.

You deserve a spot on Fundies Say The Darndest Things.


https://fstdt.com/

You’re looking at an archive of the most hilarious, bizarre, ignorant, bigoted, and terrifying quotes from fundies all over the internet.

[Spearthrower]

Your purpose in repeatedly demanding a definition of atheist ideology is exactly, to avoid discussing its effects on the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

In a thread where we're nominally supposed to be looking at how X ideology affects Y and you're the proponent, the fact you can't even define what that ideology is after 5 years is the real evasion. Obviously, for something to have an effect, it has to exist in the first place, and no one else recognizes that it does: it's funny how the only person who agrees there's an ideology is the guy who's not part of that supposed ideology and is hostile to it. The truth is that you haven't inspected your ignorant bias and prejudicial hostility. This thread is testament to your bigotry and the lengths you'll go to in order to express that bigotry.

[Spearthrower]

It is egregious of you to make out that I am labelling evolution as atheist ideology. What I do argue is that the theory of evolution has been taken by atheists as a stick to beat theists with,...

Evolution is a fact: if theists are ideologically motivated to deny that fact, then the problem is with them and their ideology. That doesn't make atheists the bad guys - no one's being tortured, crucified or burned at the stake here... you know, like Christians did to heretics and heathens.

But do tell us more about how you theists are the innocent victims of the nasty atheists with their big sticks of inescapable fact and dastardly plans of perverting the Gospel Truth.

and this has led them increasingly, to tell self-serving stories of human origins

None of which you've ever identified. You've tossed out a couple of strawman arguments, but these have been readily exposed. So you're arguing for more phantoms of your imagination. You really need to engage in some introspection.

in which crudely put, life was created by “Nothing”.

See? A classic fundamentalist strawman of science.

Atheist ideology, not the theory of evolution, is what is messing up the origin story.

a) There's no such thing as atheist ideology
b) Atheism isn't in control of the theory of evolution - it's governed by empirical evidence.
c) Atheism has no means of 'messing up' science.

As you get older JJ, you become ever more like someone shaking his fist at the Moon and haranguing bushes - daft beyond words.

When I said, “Life” being created, I didn’t mean to refer to abiogenesis but about what has happened later, as modelled using the theory of natural selection.

Then life - as in its diversity - was "created" by natural selection and the necessary statistical shuffling of genes in a population. End of. Not employing your ideology to pretend there's more to it is not thereby a corresponding ideology - this is a bog standard falsehood your ideological ilk frequently succumb to.

[Spearthrower]

So, there is a gap between how you say the environment-species relationship is understood, and an actual human origin story put on paper. My argument is about the actual stories.

No; the gap is between reality, and your lack of relevant knowledge and incessant strawmanning.

[Hermit]

Atheist ideology is a set of notions about the world that make one happy as a pig in shit to be an atheist.

That is not a definition of "atheist ideology". You have once again described what "atheist ideology" does. In your opinion anyway, and I don't know how seriously I should take it. Notions "that make one happy as a pig in shit to be an atheist" sounds neither analytical nor scientific.

To attempt a definition of "atheist ideology" you need to do a lot more than waving your hand vaguely in the direction of "a set of notions". All ideologies have sets of notions, so pointing that out is not a factor that distinguishes "atheist ideology" from any other. Go on, list those notions already. If you ever do that - and I am not going to try and hold my breath until you do - we can debate the accuracy of your definition. Only then can we begin to discuss what "atheist ideology" actually does.

Your purpose in repeatedly demanding a definition of atheist ideology is exactly, to avoid discussing its effects on the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

You got that one wrong again, possibly forgetting that I have posted on more than one occasion that it is not possible to discuss the effects of "atheist ideology" on the human origin story without first defining "atheist ideology". It's somewhat like doctors not having much of a chance of curing cancer if they don't know what cancer is.

So, please define "atheist ideology" already. You could begin by defining atheism, and for that I suggest you do a bit of reading. I recommend you start here.

[Fallible]

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.

Just speaking for myself: This is my 73rd post in this thread. Not a single one of my previous 72 attempts to deny that there can be such a thing as atheist ideology. I just keep asking you to define it, which is something you steadfastly refuse to do. As felltoearth wrote (using other words): You can't discuss - let alone deny - the existence of something that lacks a definition.

Atheist ideology is a set of notions about the world

List them.

[Spearthrower]

1) There are no gods
2) See 1

[Jayjay4547]

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.

Just speaking for myself: This is my 73rd post in this thread. Not a single one of my previous 72 attempts to deny that there can be such a thing as atheist ideology. I just keep asking you to define it, which is something you steadfastly refuse to do. As felltoearth wrote (using other words): You can't discuss - let alone deny - the existence of something that lacks a definition.

Atheist ideology is a set of notions about the world

List them.

List of ideological notions held by atheists:

(a)We not in relation with anything more creative than us.

(b)There is nothing special about human beings

(c) There is no purpose in evolution

(d) We are apes with smarts.

(e) Evolution is a bushing out of life into a variety of forms.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

[Fenrir]

List of ideological notions held by atheists:

(a)We not in relation with anything more creative than us.

(b)There is nothing special about human beings

(c) There is no purpose in evolution

(d) We are apes with smarts.

(e) Evolution is a bushing out of life into a variety of forms.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

A) meaningless gibberish

B) entirely open to contextual interpretation.

C) this is a simple fact

D) this is a simple fact

E) no it isn't, that isn't remotely what evolution "is". Evolution does however lead to a "bushing out", this is also a fact.

Each of these notions is either entirely open to interpretation or a simple fact. Did you think you could fob us off with lazy wank?

Now how about doing some work and attempting to define this alleged atheist ideology and how it can be factually associated with some documented failing in evolutionary notions wrt homo sapiens.

I won't be holding my breath.

[Svartalf]

1) There are no gods
2) See 1

well, there is no proof, or even real evidence, of the existence of divine being(s).... nor is the existence of such necessary to explain the world.

[Jayjay4547]

Now how about doing some work and attempting to define this alleged atheist ideology and how it can be factually associated with some documented failing in evolutionary notions wrt homo sapiens.

I won't be holding my breath.

Be hard to beat your posts for laziness

[Fenrir]

Now how about doing some work and attempting to define this alleged atheist ideology and how it can be factually associated with some documented failing in evolutionary notions wrt homo sapiens.

I won't be holding my breath.

Be hard to beat your posts for laziness

I keep telling you JJ. Shorn of the misrepresentations and lies your posts have no actual content.

Given that your stock misrepresentations and lies have been addressed on numerous occasions by numerous people with absolutely zero impact you will have to give me a reason to delve too deeply into your garbage.

I note you have nothing to say about my responses to your rubbish list. Well done, nothing like engaging with substance.

[Cito di Pense]

Atheist ideology is a set of notions about the world

List them.

List of ideological notions held by atheists:

(a)We not in relation with anything more creative than us.

(b)There is nothing special about human beings

(c) There is no purpose in evolution

(d) We are apes with smarts.

(e) Evolution is a bushing out of life into a variety of forms.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

a) would you have us assume we ARE in relation with anything more creative than us?
If you could demonstrate that we are, instead of publishing lazy wank about it, you wouldn't be able to list this one.

b) each of your assertions about how special human beings are should be listed in one go so they can be addressed; oh, dear! That promises another list of lazy wank from JJ, probably a restatement of your ideas about relation to a Creator, so, not really different to your a). Many attempts have been made at "hoomins is speshul", but these are non-scientific opinions and wishes.

c) would you have us assume there is a purpose in evolution?
See also: your a), you know, about a Creator.

d) why don't you start by defining "smarts", and after doing that, explain how humans are NOT apes, which includes the creationist stipulation that humans are not evolved from a common ancestor of other genera of modern primates.
See also: your a), you know, about a Creator.

e) the creationist assumption is that all "forms" were created at the same time, rather than starting simple and "bushing"
If you are not a YEC, then you should abandon your e) as a "tenet" of "atheist ideology" as there is no evidence for the creationist gibbering about "forms", which is a leftover from medieval (or earlier) metaphysics. See also: your a) about a Creator.

Unless you can address this single point, about the Creator it seems you would just have us assume, you have not robustly presented the components of "atheist ideology". If you were competent to do so or "atheist ideology" was something besides your pipe dream, you could have done so at one go. What do you suppose I conclude from that, JJ? Here's a hint for you: atheist ideology is your pipe dream, and your a) through e) are not a demonstration of your competence in any field.

Did you think you could fob us off with lazy wank?

The fact that you tried to do it is a demonstration of your laziness and/or incompetence and/or confusion. You could fix everything simply by accepting that you disagree with the conclusions of science and that you promote the lazy wank of creationism. Frankly, I don't take this as devoutly-held belief on your part as much as I take it as presenting symptoms of mental illness that you have not had diagnosed previously. You could simply admit that you experience and enjoy expressing bigotry toward those whom you believe to be "denying their Creator" in order to dispel that inference. In that case, it would not be signs of mental illness, but only of devoutly-held religious belief. You'd then have the problem of figuring out why devoutly-held religious belief inspires so much bigotry.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

There's really only one notion, JJ. You're a creationist, and you reject the discoveries of science. Not just in biology, but in astrophysics, to name another field, as well. You are stealthily suggesting the rejection of all basic science, are you not? I don't know how you believe the surveying equipment you used to play with actually was developed, but basic science was involved. I don't know how you believe the internet you're using to spread your filthy lies was developed, but basic science was involved. If you appreciate that the food you eat does not regularly make you ill from microbe-borne toxins, you have science to thank. You really owe your life of lazy wank to science, rather than to some devoutly-believed-in Creator. And you lie about not recognizing this.

[Cito di Pense]

Now how about doing some work and attempting to define this alleged atheist ideology and how it can be factually associated with some documented failing in evolutionary notions wrt homo sapiens.

I won't be holding my breath.

Be hard to beat your posts for laziness

Well, great, JJ. You're here to trade opinions. Your other responses don't rise above this level, either. If you want to discuss the science behind human evolution, Spearthrower is ready for your call. But be reasonable. You're unable to determine the sex of a hominid fossil, or even what paleontological genus it belongs to.

You could learn something, but you're kept too busy trying to invent "atheist ideology" and trolling rationalist websites. If you didn't take yourself so seriously, there'd be no one who didn't treat you like a clown.

Thousands of column-inches of toothless drivel from JJ inform us intimately about how "speshul" some "hoomins" (the creationist strain) actually are.

[Spearthrower]

List of ideological notions held by atheists:

(a)We not in relation with anything more creative than us.

(b)There is nothing special about human beings

(c) There is no purpose in evolution

(d) We are apes with smarts.

(e) Evolution is a bushing out of life into a variety of forms.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

Can you spell idiosyncrasy? I expect you're too busy making stuff up to try!

a) I'm in relation with all manner of creative people. If you want to contend that there is something not human which is more creative than us, do feel free to provide evidence. This is really just you saying that there is a god, atheists don't believe in god, therefore you're just saying that atheists don't believe in god.

b) There are plenty of things special about humans - this has nothing to do with atheism as an atheist might disbelieve my position or not depending on how they think about shit. However, from a comparative biological and social point of view, there are plenty of things particular to us - just not the mindless guff you trot out.

c) Not atheism - this is literally the scientific explanation of all forces: none of them posit teleology because teleology cannot be quantified, observed, or appealed to with evidence.

d) We are smart apes: this cannot be argued but is, of course, nothing to do with atheism, but rather what the empirical evidence shows us. We're not 'that' smart either in comparison to other animals, just we have a particular suite of cognitive abilities.

e) Again, this is scientific explanation, not atheistic.


So even though you pretend really hard otherwise, as I've said in the past, you're just a typical Creationist desperately seeking ways to undermine evolutionary theory because it doesn't leave room for your precious belief system.

Aside from the first point, these are all standard scientific positions on evolution, and where applicable can be expanded to other scientific explanations - geologists don't think the volcano's an angry spirit having a tantrum; astronomers don't believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe; meteorologists have no truck with claims that assert that weather phenomena are caused by excess homosexuality... but none of these are anything intrinsically to do with atheism: they're scientific perspectives based on evidence, and the fact that they may disprove your nonsensical beliefs indicates a problem inherent with your beliefs, not that they all represent some kind of ideology seeking to counter your uncritical faith in bullshit.

I'm so glad you wrote this post JJ - you will never again be able to pretend you're anything other than a run-of-the-mill ignorant Creationist loon seeking to overturn scientific knowledge in preference for antiquated, vapid dogma, and due to lacking the ability to engage scientists to any degree of substance, you instead vent your arrogant ideologically motivated hostility at atheists just because they don't genuflect to your god belief and are willing to accept empirical evidence.

[Spearthrower]

1) There are no gods
2) See 1

well, there is no proof, or even real evidence, of the existence of divine being(s).... nor is the existence of such necessary to explain the world.

No. If there is any intrinsic component to atheism in order for it to be an ideology, then the only one is 'there are no gods'. It doesn't matter whether the atheist talks about evidence or explanatory power, they remain an atheist so long as they don't believe there are gods.

Everything else is fluff.

[Spearthrower]

Now how about doing some work and attempting to define this alleged atheist ideology and how it can be factually associated with some documented failing in evolutionary notions wrt homo sapiens.

I won't be holding my breath.

Be hard to beat your posts for laziness

Be hard to beat your posts for battiness.

[Spearthrower]

Remember post #5008 to refer back to later, chaps and chapsesses.

[Hermit]

Just speaking for myself: This is my 73rd post in this thread. Not a single one of my previous 72 attempts to deny that there can be such a thing as atheist ideology. I just keep asking you to define it, which is something you steadfastly refuse to do. As felltoearth wrote (using other words): You can't discuss - let alone deny - the existence of something that lacks a definition.

Atheist ideology is a set of notions about the world

List them.

List of ideological notions held by atheists:

(a)We not in relation with anything more creative than us.

(b)There is nothing special about human beings

(c) There is no purpose in evolution

(d) We are apes with smarts.

(e) Evolution is a bushing out of life into a variety of forms.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

A summary of the specific set of hooks you hang your coat of "atheist ideology" on at last. The biggest problem with them is that most of it is not "ideology" in the strict sense of the word unless you insist on using its original - now archaic - one. The word was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in a 1795 monograph that culminated with the publication of his five-volume Eléments d'idéologie 20 years later. He conceived of ideology as the "science of ideas".

It did not take long before the meaning of "ideology" changed. Napoleon Bonaparte dismissively referred to his opponents as ideologues and Karl Marx condemned all hitherto existing ideologies (as far as he was concerned there were basically only two, which he labelled as the feudal and the capitalist ideologies) as concepts aimed at hiding or justifying the exploitation of the masses. He went one step further by denying that communism is an ideology for two reasons: Firstly, it was alone in not being aimed at exploiting anyone. Secondly, and more importantly, communism was grounded in nothing but the real, material relations of production. It was therefore in no need to resort to figments of the imagination.

The twin characterisations of ideology as something odious and "all conceptions of reality entertained by anyone that differ from mine" remain with us today. I prefer more neutral definitions, such as the one provided by the Cambridge Dictionary: a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based and the Wikipedia's a set of normative beliefs and values that a person or other entity has for non-epistemic reasons.

Now, if you agree with those definitions, we can start discussing your list of notions that in your mind define "atheist ideology" in detail. If you disagree, we're stuck with discussing the meaning of "ideology" for a bit longer.

Over to you.

[Jayjay4547]

Atheist ideology is a set of notions about the world

List them.

List of ideological notions held by atheists:

(a)We not in relation with anything more creative than us.

(b)There is nothing special about human beings

(c) There is no purpose in evolution

(d) We are apes with smarts.

(e) Evolution is a bushing out of life into a variety of forms.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

a) would you have us assume we ARE in relation with anything more creative than us?

Ideological notions are affirmed wore strongly than the word “assume” implies; they seem to be foundational or axiomatic.

If you could demonstrate that we are, instead of publishing lazy wank about it, you wouldn't be able to list this one.

The trail of evidence above shows that I replied to Fallible’s peremptory demand for a list, by providing one. Its brevity doesn’t make my reply a lazy wank.

We are in relation with Nature and her current state, compared with her state a billion years ago, does show that Nature has been more creative than we (humanity or the individual person) have been. A billion years ago there were algal mats. Today there are still algal mats, and also people who can talk and make telescopes that reveal space events that happened long before there were algal mats. That was highly creative.

The issue is whether Nature is a thing. When we look towards Nature we see living things with whom we are in relation and who are in relation with each other, I’m thinking of the underground fungi that carry information between trees in whose roots they live. General names for this web of relationships can be “biome”, “Africa” or the biosphere or Gaia; a concept that according to Wikipedia, doesn’t sit very well with many biologists. This use of the name of a Greek god doesn’t sit very well with many Christians either; for us there is a high God and no other smaller gods below Him. So we get into the realm of controversy and ideology.

How denial of this more creative “thing” has messed up the human origin narrative, includes ignoring those relations. For example, Roberts (“The Incredible Unlikeness of Being”) tells this story with hardly a mention of the most intimate and intense relationships our ancestors had with other living things, which was with their predators. She is a member of the English intelligentsia but in the murkier waters of this forum there is more extreme denial of distinctive creative pattern in the interspecies relationships of our ancestors.

I’m sorry, I don’t have time to deal now with the other responses you made to my list. They are likely to come up again in one form or another.

If you were competent to do so or "atheist ideology" was something besides your pipe dream, you could have done so at one go. What do you suppose I conclude from that, JJ? Here's a hint for you: atheist ideology is your pipe dream, and your a) through e) are not a demonstration of your competence in any field.

Did you think you could fob us off with lazy wank?

The fact that you tried to do it is a demonstration of your laziness and/or incompetence and/or confusion. You could fix everything simply by accepting that you disagree with the conclusions of science and that you promote the lazy wank of creationism. Frankly, I don't take this as devoutly-held belief on your part as much as I take it as presenting symptoms of mental illness that you have not had diagnosed previously. You could simply admit that you experience and enjoy expressing bigotry toward those whom you believe to be "denying their Creator" in order to dispel that inference. In that case, it would not be signs of mental illness, but only of devoutly-held religious belief. You'd then have the problem of figuring out why devoutly-held religious belief inspires so much bigotry.

Each of these notions has played a part in messing up the human origin story as told in terms of evolution.

There's really only one notion, JJ. You're a creationist, and you reject the discoveries of science. Not just in biology, but in astrophysics, to name another field, as well. You are stealthily suggesting the rejection of all basic science, are you not? I don't know how you believe the surveying equipment you used to play with actually was developed, but basic science was involved. I don't know how you believe the internet you're using to spread your filthy lies was developed, but basic science was involved. If you appreciate that the food you eat does not regularly make you ill from microbe-borne toxins, you have science to thank. You really owe your life of lazy wank to science, rather than to some devoutly-believed-in Creator. And you lie about not recognizing this.

In this grotesque attack you accuse me of mental illness, bigotry, rejecting astrophysics, then rejecting all basic science and telling filthy lies. All because I argue that a prevailing ideology has messed up the human origin story told in the name of science. Well, YOU sound to me like a man who is defending a scientific and social orthodoxy, using a method that reflects no credit on science and that scientists should abhor.