The Alleged Troubles With Atheism

[Augustus]

It was the irrational ideological decisions of a god-like figurehead that lead to most of the deaths, not a general lack of belief in gods.

The leaders acted in accordance with the ideology.

In Marxist-Leninist ideology the belief there was no god played a similar role to the belief there was a god does in theistic religion. On their own, neither belief does anything, although it can have significant philosophical implications for some people

For Marxists, the fact there was no god meant man was the "supreme being" and could do whatever he willed. As Nietzsche also noted from a differing political perspective, rejecting god logically means rejecting religious systems of morality that constrain human will.

Marxist-Leninist ideology explicitly argued that this legitimated any number of deaths were a price worth paying for the success of the revolution as human life had no intrinsic value, so it was utilitarian to sacrifice anyone for the good of the revolution. Their deterministic view of history also meant the Revolution was bound to achieve its aims.

Atheism did play a fundamental role in this ideology (obviously that doesn't mean atheism is 'to blame' any more than generic theism is to blame for Salafi-Jihadism).

Stalinism, Maoism, Naziism were all essentially political religions.

Yes, in a sense they were, but as there is no real way of differentiating a religion from a non-religious belief system anyway it doesn't say a great deal.

Trying to differentiate religious from non-religious belief systems obfuscates more than it enlightens.

Better to think that all belief systems are "essentially religious" and take it from there.

 

[Jagella]

Yes, that's what I just described. A system of ideas and ideals that form the basis for the way we see the world and how it should be organised (i.e. Our moral, political and aesthetic worldview)

No. Your description of ideology differs markedly from the Google definition.

Ethics form a part of your ideology. While ethics cannot be separated from ideology, ideology is not simply ethics.

I'm not sure how you arrive at these conclusions. Ethics need not be a part of ideology, and even if ethics are part of an ideology, that doesn't make ethics an ideology any more than a car part is a car. You're committing the fallacy of composition, in other words.

If it helps your understanding, this is slightly more explicit:

Ideology: consists of ideas, beliefs, understandings and attitudes, etc. [and] contains statements of a normative character expressing morals, values, etc... advocating a particular pattern of social relationships and arrangements, and/or aimed at justifying a particular pattern of conduct, which its proponents seek to promote, realise, pursue or maintain

Malcolm Hamilton - The Elements of the Concept of Ideology

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1987.tb00186.x

or you could just read the wiki:

Ideology - Wikipedia

Your definition here doesn't help your case because according to it ethics are merely a part of ideology. So again, take care not to assume that a part of something is the same as that something.

That's just a conceit based on a misunderstanding of ideology I'm afraid.

I understand ideology and you don't. So there!

But seriously, you make a lot of condescending assertions. Moreover, I simply have no ideology. That's a fact.

You certainly have ethical values, preferences about how people should act and how societies should be organised, etc.

I have ideas about what I will eat for supper too. Do my preferences for one food over another constitute an ideology? Of course not.

3 statements of ideas and/or ideals that express normative values or preferences. There are dozens more in this thread alone.

But what I said is that I don't categorize people as good or bad. How is that an ideology? It's actually a lack of ideology. My effort to make people as well off as I can is more of a practice than an ideology, and it's not based in any religion or political or economic system. So it's more of an ethic than it is ideology.

Not that it's really relevant, but if I had to sum it up in 1 sentence: I was a secular humanist who stopped believing in human rationality and the Idea of Progress and so adopted the pre-Christian tragic view of humanity and the idea that the primary goal is to structure society in a manner the minimised the fact we are a stupid, irrational species who don't learn from our mistakes and who need to live peacefully with those we don't really like.

Why do I have that? Same as everyone else in the world, a combination of: where I grew up (culture), my family and friends and socialisation, my experiences, my education, ideas that I read or heard about and evaluated with rational thought rational thought, irrational biases and prejudices, rationalisation of that which I can't change, etc.

If your experiences and education led you to adopt your ideology, then those are the true factors in your thinking and behavior, not your ideology. Your ideology is just a way to explain your way of living.

So getting back to Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany, people in both places lived under circumstances that caused them to violently lash out at their perceived enemies. Note that very similar behavior was rationalized by very different and even adversarial ideologies. In other parts of the world many people knew well Bolshevik and Nazi ideology yet did not commit mass murder. Logically, then, it looks to me that what caused the bloody violence was the conditions people lived under rather than the ideology.

 

[Nakosis]

Its nice to make facade assumptions about people with out any research. Nice endeavour really.

Out of curiosity, which religion are you aiming at when you speak of them "creating" a "perfect" loving father, i.e. God?

My experience is with Christianity obviously from my own experience is where my comments come from.
Christianity constantly refers to God as the father.

Simply google "God as the perfect father" and you'll find many Christian sites openly stating this.

However, I understand in Islam, Allah is not seen as a father figure.

 

[firedragon]

My experience is with Christianity obviously from my own experience is where my comments come from.
Christianity constantly refers to God as the father.

Simply google "God as the perfect father" and you'll find many Christian sites openly stating this.

However, I understand in Islam, Allah is not seen as a father figure.

You are right. Thats Christianity. But Judaism came before Christianity. So if your thesis is that God the father was a creation of human minds who wanted to replace their earthly father with a divine father, then you must be thinking Christianity is the oldest religion to make that invention. But its a very narrow kind of thinking.

Then you have to go into Judaism and Zoroastrianism and other more ancient religions around the world and analyse them.

I hope you understand.

 

[Nakosis]

You are right. Thats Christianity. But Judaism came before Christianity. So if your thesis is that God the father was a creation of human minds who wanted to replace their earthly father with a divine father, then you must be thinking Christianity is the oldest religion to make that invention. But its a very narrow kind of thinking.

Then you have to go into Judaism and Zoroastrianism and other more ancient religions around the world and analyse them.

I hope you understand.

Actually more interested in what Islam see God as.
King/Ruler/Creator/Divine entity?

In this case I suspect that we humans do not like having answers to question like how we came to exist and what is our purpose. I suspect God in this case fulfills this role.

Other gods exist to explain how nature works. Sometimes they exist as a spiritual beings to motivate us.
No doubt there is a variety of reasons for the existence of various gods.

Christian theology sees man as imperfect, not hard to see one's own parents as imperfect.

 

[firedragon]

Christian theology sees man as imperfect, not hard to see one's own parents as imperfect.

Where did you get that from? Was not man created in the image of God? So did man become imperfect as you claim christianity teaches later or at creation? Where does the Bible teach that "Christianity sees man as imperfect"?

Actually more interested in what Islam see God as.
King/Ruler/Creator/Divine entity?

Of course. Even Judaism does. Christianity also has the same characteristics, but they add the father character, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and their existence gave the all loving nature to the Godhead.

If you are making a psychological analysis of the creation of God, as I said, you have to take some of the most ancient theologies and analyse them, not take a recent one and superimpose them into the history of it all. That can loosely be called protectionism, though predominantly it is used for super imposing morality.

I am saying that its a fallacious argument.

Think about it. How about Atanatu? Can you apply your psychoanalysis to him and whoever created him?

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure how you arrive at these conclusions. Ethics need not be a part of ideology, and even if ethics are part of an ideology, that doesn't make ethics an ideology any more than a car part is a car. You're committing the fallacy of composition, in other words.

I arrive at these conclusions based on perfectly standard usages of the terms ethics and ideology, and I specifically said ethics is a part of ideology. You are committing the fallacy of not reading posts before replying to them

Ethics is about ideals: your principles about way people should behave; moral correctness

Ideals are part of ideology

But what I said is that I don't categorize people as good or bad. How is that an ideology? It's actually a lack of ideology. My effort to make people as well off as I can is more of a practice than an ideology, and it's not based in any religion or political or economic system. So it's more of an ethic than it is ideology.

These are ideological principles, they are not "an ideology".

And if you think we should make people as well off as we can is neither political nor economic in nature then you might want to look up those terms too...

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.

Economy: In general, it is defined 'as a social domain that emphasize the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of scarce resources'.

But seriously, you make a lot of condescending assertions. Moreover, I simply have no ideology. That's a fact.

Not my fault you can't understand what ideology is, and thus operate under the conceit that you are a unique cognitive giant who transcends the cognitive needs of lesser mortals.

You can lead a horse to water...

If your experiences and education led you to adopt your ideology, then those are the true factors in your thinking and behavior, not your ideology. Your ideology is just a way to explain your way of living.

What I said: combination of: where I grew up (culture), my family and friends and socialisation, my experiences, my education, ideas that I read or heard about and evaluated with rational thought rational thought, irrational biases and prejudices, rationalisation of that which I can't change, etc.

It is a dynamic process

Humans don't see the world neutrally, we are biased by all kinds of cognitive factors. Many of these are based on the experiences, education, biases, education, etc. of other people we come into contact with.

Our ideology is a sum total of a diverse range of influences, that in turn influences how we interret new information and experiences.

It is partly consciously adopted and part beyond our control: we cannot fully transcend our cultural environment, etc.

So getting back to Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany, people in both places lived under circumstances that caused them to violently lash out at their perceived enemies. Note that very similar behavior was rationalized by very different and even adversarial ideologies. In other parts of the world many people knew well Bolshevik and Nazi ideology yet did not commit mass murder. Logically, then, it looks to me that what caused the bloody violence was the conditions people lived under rather than the ideology.

Again you confuse knowing an ideology from accepting an ideology.

As I've said, we can look at many examples from history that show the kind of conditions that violent, millenarian ideologies are most likely to arise from.

We can find far more examples of these conditions being present without mass, utopian violence breaking out.
Plenty of people have lived in far worse conditions than the Germans and not handed their country over to a genocidal, totalitarian regime. The USSR under Stalin was wealthier than under Lenin, but more violent. Plenty of upper-middle class Muslims from rich countries joined ISIS. The idea that it is just 'bad conditions' alone that drive such behaviour is obviously nonsense.

Hence:

Once we have millennia of abstraction, human instincts no longer have any necessary connection to reality. You may "instinctually" hate Jews, simply because of what you have read other people say about them, which they made up because of what other people made up, that they made up because of what other people made up, and what they made up because of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which was made up.

Trying to understand German anti-Semitism purely through the lens of "instinct" without recourse to ideology would not be meaningful. The key point is how ideology 'manipulates' human instincts that evolved to be focused on survival, not discerning objective truth via rational evaluation of evidence

Abstraction starts to separate experience from reality. So in a small group, it would be hard for me to judge Saul to be a bad person if they had always been kind to group members and diligent in group endeavours.

Fast forward to Germany in 1939.

Fritz, Hans and Herman know no Jewish people. They are all from the same town, went to the same school and are all upper-middle class.

It would be perfectly possible for them to hold these views:

Fritz thinks Jews were just as good as other Germans and finds it terrible they are being oppressed by fanatics.

Hans thinks Jews are infidels who killed Jesus and that unless they convert to Christianity, they cannot be true Germans. If they do convert though, they are as good as any other Christian German.

Herman thinks science has shown Jews to be genetically inferior and finds the idea they will pollute pure German blood to be sickening. He believes Jews can never be German and they must be removed from Germany once and for all before it's too late.

All of these ideas are purely abstract, have no connection to directly experienced reality and may even be objectively wrong.

The hold different ideological views because of genetics, intelligence, upbringing and socialisation (family and friends), exposure to events, vicarious exposure to events (friends, media, etc.), exposure to abstract ideas (friends, books, media, educations, etc.), rational thought and argumentation, etc.

It is also perfectly possible that any one of them moves from their current beliefs, to adopt any one of the others.

You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't matter which one of the ideologies they adopted, it wouldn't actually influence their behaviours in any way.

 

[Jagella]

I arrive at these conclusions based on perfectly standard usages of the terms ethics and ideology, and I specifically said ethics is a part of ideology. You are committing the fallacy of not reading posts before replying to them

That's wrong because ethics doesn't need to be a part of ideology. For example, an ideology might consist of seeing ethics as irrelevant to one's thinking and practice.

And if you think we should make people as well off as we can is neither political nor economic in nature then you might want to look up those terms too...

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.

Economy: In general, it is defined 'as a social domain that emphasize the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of scarce resources'.

The practice of assuring the welfare of the people can be part of any society regardless of that society's political or economic theories unless, of course, those theories specifically rule out assuring the people's welfare. So generally the general welfare is independent of political or economic ideology. As such, welfare is not an ideology. Note that societies with very different ideologies practice welfare. Examples include the USA, Islamic countries, and Soviet Russia.

Not my fault you can't understand what ideology is, and thus operate under the conceit that you are a unique cognitive giant who transcends the cognitive needs of lesser mortals.

If you boast that you can understand ideology and I can't, then why complain if I'm supposedly conceited?

Again you confuse knowing an ideology from accepting an ideology.

I understand that difference well enough. As I've pointed out, I am familiar with many ideologies, yet I accept none of them as templates for my thinking and surely not for my practices. That's one of the reasons I don't agree with your earlier assertions that Marx's ideologies led to ruthless Communist dictatorships. Since I'm smart enough not to kill or persecute just because somebody said it's a good idea, I grant other people the same credit.

 

[Augustus]

That's wrong because ethics doesn't need to be a part of ideology. For example, an ideology might consist of seeing ethics as irrelevant to one's thinking and practice.

Ethics is always dependent on ideals and normative preferences. You can't have ethical values without them.

Also, consciously adopting an amoral stance is an ethical position, not the absence of one.

The practice of assuring the welfare of the people can be part of any society regardless of that society's political or economic theories unless, of course, those theories specifically rule out assuring the people's welfare. So generally the general welfare is independent of political or economic ideology. As such, welfare is not an ideology. Note that societies with very different ideologies practice welfare. Examples include the USA, Islamic countries, and Soviet Russia.

Aiming to maximise the financial welfare of people is explicitly political and economic regardless of the manner you choose to go about it.

Again you seem very confused as to what an ideology is because you keep making the mistake of confusing a single principle with "an ideology".

Ideological principles may be common to an unlimited number of different ideologies.

If you boast that you can understand ideology and I can't, then why complain if I'm supposedly conceited?

You'd be better served by taking 15 mins to understand what ideology is. It's not rocket science, and is quicker than typing multiple posts based on not understanding what it is

As I've pointed out, I am familiar with many ideologies, yet I accept none of them as templates for my thinking and surely not for my practices.

An ideology is an individual's set of values, you seem to think it has to be some "name brand" ideology like Nazism or Marxism hence you mistake not being a Marxist, Nazi or Christian for not having an ideology or being affected by your ideology.

That's one of the reasons I don't agree with your earlier assertions that Marx's ideologies led to ruthless Communist dictatorships. Since I'm smart enough not to kill or persecute just because somebody said it's a good idea, I grant other people the same credit.

You aren't smart enough to be completely unaffected by the ideas and cultural values you have been exposed to though, none of us are.

Try justifying you claim that these ideas would have zero impact on a person. This might help you understand what you have been missing in this thread:

Once we have millennia of abstraction, human instincts no longer have any necessary connection to reality. You may "instinctually" hate Jews, simply because of what you have read other people say about them, which they made up because of what other people made up, that they made up because of what other people made up, and what they made up because of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which was made up.

Trying to understand German anti-Semitism purely through the lens of "instinct" without recourse to ideology would not be meaningful. The key point is how ideology 'manipulates' human instincts that evolved to be focused on survival, not discerning objective truth via rational evaluation of evidence

Abstraction starts to separate experience from reality. So in a small group, it would be hard for me to judge Saul to be a bad person if they had always been kind to group members and diligent in group endeavours.

Fast forward to Germany in 1939.

Fritz, Hans and Herman know no Jewish people. They are all from the same town, went to the same school and are all upper-middle class.

It would be perfectly possible for them to hold these views:

Fritz thinks Jews were just as good as other Germans and finds it terrible they are being oppressed by fanatics.

Hans thinks Jews are infidels who killed Jesus and that unless they convert to Christianity, they cannot be true Germans. If they do convert though, they are as good as any other Christian German.

Herman thinks science has shown Jews to be genetically inferior and finds the idea they will pollute pure German blood to be sickening. He believes Jews can never be German and they must be removed from Germany once and for all before it's too late.

All of these ideas are purely abstract, have no connection to directly experienced reality and may even be objectively wrong.

The hold different ideological views because of genetics, intelligence, upbringing and socialisation (family and friends), exposure to events, vicarious exposure to events (friends, media, etc.), exposure to abstract ideas (friends, books, media, educations, etc.), rational thought and argumentation, etc.

It is also perfectly possible that any one of them moves from their current beliefs, to adopt any one of the others.

You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't matter which one of the ideologies they adopted, it wouldn't actually influence their behaviours in any way.

Why do you think these ideas would have no impact on their thoughts or behaviours?

 

[Jagella]

Ethics is always dependent on ideals and normative preferences. You can't have ethical values without them.

Actually, ethics can be based on instinct or impulse. We see a sort of ethics in nonhuman species which probably lack the cognitive ability to have ideals. One example might be bees stinging a honey badger that is attacking the hive. The bees are defending what is theirs and serving each other in doing so. They are acting out that ethic with nary a thought of any ideals or normative preferences! I've also seen instinctive moral actions in people like men who leap onto a train track to save a person from an oncoming train.

Also, consciously adopting an amoral stance is an ethical position, not the absence of one.

You said that ethics must be part of an ideology not a stance on ethics. Watch the equivocation.

Aiming to maximise the financial welfare of people is explicitly political and economic regardless of the manner you choose to go about it.

I don't think that most people who work to achieve better living conditions for those who need it have politics or economics in mind. Such activity will probably affect the economy and politics, but that doesn't make it political or economic in itself.

You'd be better served by taking 15 mins to understand what ideology is. It's not rocket science, and is quicker than typing multiple posts based on not understanding what it is

But I did take time to understand what ideology is, and I posted the Google definition that I've been working with since then. You evidently didn't like that definition and have been fighting it ever since.

An ideology is an individual's set of values, you seem to think it has to be some "name brand" ideology like Nazism or Marxism hence you mistake not being a Marxist, Nazi or Christian for not having an ideology or being affected by your ideology.

I don't have a set of values. Hence, I have no ideology according to your definition. My values are based on my feelings. For example, I love and value the aroma of a fresh fried egg, but I do not value the stench of a rotten egg. I never chose to value the one and not the other.

You aren't smart enough to be completely unaffected by the ideas and cultural values you have been exposed to though, none of us are.

I'm not sure what you mean by being affected by ideas, but I just haven't adopted any political, economic, or religious ideals merely because I've heard of them. I do agree with some ideas if I know from experience that they reflect facts that I'm aware of. I never meant to argue that the actions of other people who have ideology have not impacted me.

 

[Augustus]

Actually, ethics can be based on instinct or impulse. We see a sort of ethics in nonhuman species which probably lack the cognitive ability to have ideals. One example might be bees stinging a honey badger that is attacking the hive. The bees are defending what is theirs and serving each other in doing so. They are acting out that ethic with nary a thought of any ideals or normative preferences! I've also seen instinctive moral actions in people like men who leap onto a train track to save a person from an oncoming train.

This is why it would help you to answer the part you have avoided 3 times

Comparing the instinct of a bee with the instincts of a species with complex communication that impacts our ability to perceive reality is meaningless.

Of course humans have instinctive moral actions, but they also have reasoned moral actions and their instinctive reactions are shaped very much by their culture/ideology (which is shaped by the ideologies of many people).

My instincts tell me to protect my family by keeping them safe from physical harm, the "instincts" of some societies tell them to kill family members who damage their social reputation/honour.

This is why ideology matters. You claim that ideology doesn't affect people's behaviour, yet honour killings only happen among people from certain ideological backgrounds and may even do so when these people are financially successful in liberal, Western countries (so you can't blame poverty, etc).

You said that ethics must be part of an ideology not a stance on ethics. Watch the equivocation.

Again you are repeating the same error you've made in basically every post. Your ideology comprises many parts.

Adopting an amoral stance is part of your ideology and is ethics.

I just haven't adopted any political, economic, or religious ideals merely because I've heard of them. I do agree with some ideas if I know from experience that they reflect facts that I'm aware of. I never meant to argue that the actions of other people who have ideology have not impacted me.

You have adopted many ideas and ideals simply because of your socialisation and cultural background. Much of what we know or believe is acquired through the language of others, not direct experience. A large proportion of our world is a verbal construct, and we adopt some beliefs simply via exposure.

This in turn influences what you take to be "facts" or find persuasive. Humans didn't evolve to be highly rational arbiters of objective truth.

Lots of liberal, scientifically minded rationalists used to think it was "fact" that other races were inferior to whites. This in turn made them support imperialism as altruistic due to "the white man's burden". For many, this was a reasoned position, not an instinct. Your argument is there is no link between ideology and support for imperialism.

Middle class missionaries left comfortable lives to try to convert people in countries where they faced a 30%+ chance of death and no material reward for success. They considered it a fact they were altruistically saving people's souls would be rewarded in heaven. Your argument is that their ideology had no impact on this action despite the fact they were overwhelmingly evangelicals.

When the Nazis invaded the USSR, they could have allied with the Ukrainians against the Russians, but didn't do this as they were Slavs and thus untermenschen. This was a "fact" for many Nazis. Your argument is that such an irrational and counterproductive attitude had nothing to do with Nazi ideology, even though it only makes any sense if you believed in the Nazi ideology.


Complex communication, mediated via ideology, can create "facts" out of thin air (for example your belief it is a "fact" you have no ideology despite this being cognitively impossible)

 

[Jagella]

This is why it would help you to answer the part you have avoided 3 times

I skip over much of what you post because it is too lengthy and too difficult to respond to all of it. I'd suggest that you make your posts more concise and to the point. Also, try to avoid raising issues that I've already addressed.

Comparing the instinct of a bee with the instincts of a species with complex communication that impacts our ability to perceive reality is meaningless.

Tell a biologist that we cannot study other species including insects to understand human behavior. He'll explain that it is common for biologists and behavioral scientists to study other species for that purpose.

Of course humans have instinctive moral actions, but they also have reasoned moral actions and their instinctive reactions are shaped very much by their culture/ideology (which is shaped by the ideologies of many people).

As you know my position is that our behavior and how we respond to our environment determines our culture. That's why, for instance, people in cold parts of the world often think of hell as being cold, and religious people in hot places believe that hell is hot. Your very odd position is that culture and ideology come out of nowhere, and people adjust their behavior and thinking to that ideology. So again, I think you have the cause-effect relationship between ideology and behavior backward.

My instincts tell me to protect my family by keeping them safe from physical harm, the "instincts" of some societies tell them to kill family members who damage their social reputation/honour.

Depending on your circumstances, you might well kill family members for damaging your reputation regardless of the society you live in. It happens in all societies. No ideology ever put an end to violence, persecution, or injustice. Like I've explained umpteen times, ideology follows behavior rather than leads behavior. Ideology, in other words, is merely an after-the-fact rationalization for behavior.

Adopting an amoral stance is part of your ideology and is ethics.

I never adopted an amoral stance. Earlier I posited a hypothetical ideology free of a stance on morality to demonstrate that contrary to what claim, ideology need not be based on any moral tenets.

...we adopt some beliefs simply via exposure.

I'm not sure who "we" are, but as far as I know I never adopted any belief by simply being exposed to that belief. The closest thing I can think of that would resemble your position on ideology's effects on people is my own Catholic indoctrination as a child. Yes, I was exposed to that dogma, and I believed it, but the real reason I accepted that ideology is that the same authorities who taught me math and geography taught me religion. In other words I saw my religion teachers as imparting the same knowledge to me as my spelling teachers did. I think ideology often is imparted to people that way. The masses trust their rulers as authorities who teach them the facts of life. Those "facts" have no power in themselves but are imparted power by those who espouse them. If some lowly guy in the gutter tried to indoctrinate people with the same ideology, then he'd likely fail because he is not seen as having the power of an authority.

So your position at least at first glance might appear to be correct. If we watch a video of a Nuremburg rally, it does appear that the crowd is swallowing without question what Hitler tells them. But of course if we go deeper and examine the underlying reasons why the German people followed Hitler, we discover the reasons they adopted his ideology.

By the way, I was thinking that if your belief about the effects of ideology is correct, then we should safeguard society from those ideologies that we judge to be dangerous. Are you in favor of banning Das Kapital and Mein Kampf?

 

[Augustus]

Your very odd position is that culture and ideology come out of nowhere, and people adjust their behavior and thinking to that ideology.

Not again...

They hold different ideological views because of genetics, intelligence, upbringing and socialisation (family and friends), exposure to events, vicarious exposure to events (friends, media, etc.), exposure to abstract ideas (friends, books, media, educations, etc.), rational thought and argumentation, etc.

It is a dynamic process

I'd suggest that you make your posts more concise and to the point.

Complex communication, mediated via ideology, can create "facts" out of thin air (for example your belief it is a "fact" you have no ideology despite this being cognitively impossible)

Of course humans have instinctive moral actions, but they also have reasoned moral actions and their instinctive reactions are shaped very much by their culture/ideology (which is shaped by the ideologies of many people).

Lots of liberal, scientifically minded rationalists used to think it was "fact" that other races were inferior to whites. This in turn made them support imperialism as altruistic due to "the white man's burden". For many, this was a reasoned position, not an instinct. Your argument is there is no link between ideology and support for imperialism.

My instincts tell me to protect my family by keeping them safe from physical harm, the "instincts" of some societies tell them to kill family members who damage their social reputation/honour.

This is why ideology matters. You claim that ideology doesn't affect people's behaviour, yet honour killings only happen among people from certain ideological backgrounds, and may even do so when these people are financially successful in liberal, Western countries (so you can't blame poverty, etc).

Yes, I was exposed to that dogma, and I believed it, but the real reason I accepted that ideology is that the same authorities who taught me math and geography taught me religion. In other words I saw my religion teachers as imparting the same knowledge to me as my spelling teachers did. I think ideology often is imparted to people that way.

And your thought and behaviour changed when you stopped believing in it I guess, hence ideology matters.

 

[Jagella]

Not again...

But if differing ideologies result from factors like upbringing, socialization, thought and especially "events,", then I've been right all along: Ideology is caused by our backgrounds rather than ideology creating our backgrounds. That's my position on this issue.

Complex communication, mediated via ideology, can create "facts" out of thin air (for example your belief it is a "fact" you have no ideology despite this being cognitively impossible)

"Cognitively impossible"? Aside from understanding quantum mechanics, there's not much that's cognitively impossible. But what supposedly makes my lacking ideology cognitively impossible is the way you define ideology: Just about anything a person might think is ideology according to how you define ideology. Your definition is way too broad and loose. "Something that is defined as anything is not being defined as anything." That's why I prefer the Google definition for ideology I posted. It includes some specifics like politics and economics.

Of course humans have instinctive moral actions, but they also have reasoned moral actions and their instinctive reactions are shaped very much by their culture/ideology (which is shaped by the ideologies of many people).

If culture shapes people's behavior, then how does it do so? Why isn't it more logical to conclude that behavior shapes culture? Culture isn't some entity that's separate from us that comes along and makes us trim our hair in certain styles and wear kinds of clothes. It is we who create our cultures and not the other way around!

Anyway, it's your comments like these that keep me saying that you seem to think that ideology "comes out of nowhere." Logically, if ideology affects us, then it's coming from beyond us. You seem to have created some ghost you see as ideology that haunts us and makes us do things.

This is why ideology matters. You claim that ideology doesn't affect people's behaviour, yet honour killings only happen among people from certain ideological backgrounds, and may even do so when these people are financially successful in liberal, Western countries (so you can't blame poverty, etc).

So should we protect people from those ideologies if they are that dangerous? We can't have people running around killing others for honor, now can we? And ideologies like that of Marx and Hitler are so dangerous. We should ban their works lest good, peace-loving people read them and turn into killers.

And your thought and behaviour changed when you stopped believing in it I guess, hence ideology matters.

In what way does ideology matter? Does it matter in that it can turn sober people into drunkards? Will the religious become atheists if they read atheist ideology, and will atheists fall to their knees praying for salvation if they ever read John 3:16?

Any sensible person knows that there is no need to ban ideology. Ideology is basically harmless because it is impotent in changing good behavior into evil. Presumably evil ideology is the way people who do evil express their reasons to do that evil.

So if we take your position on ideology to its logical end, then it results in absurdity. That's because your position is wrong. As I've said, I think blaming ideology for evil is just a way of shifting blame for the evil that we do onto something else.

 

[Augustus]

But if differing ideologies result from factors like upbringing, socialization, thought and especially "events,", then I've been right all along: Ideology is caused by our backgrounds rather than ideology creating our backgrounds. That's my position on this issue

Identical twins who grew up in the same house may end up with very different ideological beliefs as adults.

And you have missed the fact that there is a feedback loop. Ideology, in turn, influences society.

It is a dynamic process... Humans don't see the world neutrally, we are biased by all kinds of cognitive factors... Our ideology is a sum total of a diverse range of influences, that in turn influences how we interpret new information and experiences.... It is partly consciously adopted and part beyond our control: we cannot fully transcend our cultural environment, etc.

The Nazis, Soviets and many others were very big on propaganda. Do you really believe this had no effect whatsoever on people?

Today marketing, advertising, sales, PR are multi-billions dollar businesses. We have decades of scientific research on communication and attitude/behavioural change. Governments and scientists have researched how people (some of whom are wealth and, highly educated and not 'victims') become radicalised into extremist ideologies.

These are all evidence based processes, with proven results. They are all dependent on the idea we can change people's thoughts and actions via communication.

If we can change people's thoughts and actions via communication that means ideology can influence behaviour. And if we can do this on a mass scale via mass or digital media, ideologies can very much change entire societies.

Once we further realise that "facts" created by language need have no basis in reality, we can get people to do things that make no sense outside of a very specific ideological framework.

When the Nazis invaded the USSR, they could have allied with the Ukrainians against the Russians, but didn't do this as they were Slavs and thus untermenschen. This was a "fact" for many Nazis. Your argument is that such an irrational and counterproductive attitude had nothing to do with Nazi ideology, even though it only makes any sense if you believed in the very specific form if racialism espoused in Nazi ideology that had no basis in reality.

In what way does ideology matter? Does it matter in that it can turn sober people into drunkards?Will the religious become atheists if they read atheist ideology, and will atheists fall to their knees praying for salvation if they ever read John 3:16?

Lot's of boys and men have drunk more than they wanted to because it is "manly" to drink and not doing so would make them less of a man.

Re religion, of course some of them change their mind.

Richard Dawkins talks about letter he receives from people he persuaded out of religion. Missionaries and evangelist also have a proven record of persuading millions of people to adopt religions.

Obviously you can change people's thoughts and actions via words.

So should we protect people from those ideologies if they are that dangerous?

Governments, NGOs, etc. already do conduct anti-radicalisation initiatives, including in your country.

 

[rational experiences]

A human.
A natural human.
A theist.

Stands on the planet mass god.

No machine.

Do you know what not having the planetary masses supports means to a biological conscious life?

No.

As a no God mass presence you only theoried removing it in your mind first when in nature god still existed. In mass.

He never knew.

Satanic lesson life sacrificed advised the lesson about God.

Science. A human man thinks tells lots of stories without ownership of what he theories against.

Gods mass earth. Natural presence first.

Builds a machine first position natural earth mass change by his man's science thoughts. Directed for machine only.

Then does a reaction of mass which is virtual machines death and destruction. By history where human science practices begin. He used life's biological water to cool reactions. Machines life saved.

Sciences history themes science direct to his machine only. Nowhere else

Machine today as man's science removes earths mass. Then he uses life's water keeps earth from a no sink hole old machine gained.

Minds science possession I removed planet mass by machine control I saved it by using humans life biology spirit water. Has a non sink hole manifest.

In sciences AI man's memory he said he had healed earth from old science machines causes as new power plant theme model.

Is possessed in his scientists brain.

He infers fake new machine science of man only theories about old man's previous science practices as machines and machine reactions.

As he does not own nor control what any natural body is or isn't producing naturally.

The warning about satanic science versus presence god earth mass.

 

[rational experiences]

In basic human advice take all of your machines except medical and destroy them. Then all your fake machine used status AI gone in an instant

Then go about living the life you own and were given. Honouring that nature and earth body supports life. And that you growing food isn't status owner.

Then take a look at what a cult group of agreed brothers human man behaviour caused. Who life threatened spiritual family if they didn't slave for them.

Where origin life takeover began by bullies versus the meek human. Who didn't believe in murder torture and life sacrifice. In your claim the gullible human. In fact it wasn't in our nature.

Why star fall personal brain defects is real. Personal only ground attack of consciousness life body.

Who became rich men and evil lifestylers complaining their strategies of control no longer works.

Who now deconstructs cities blowing them up that his families slavery built.

Rich man satanist scientist first. Natural man spiritual self first.

What group lying history meant.

Claiming I need some human behaviour balances.

See yourself for who you are brothers before you destroy all life on earth by your egotism.

As your cult group behaviour was always wrong.

 

[Jagella]

Identical twins who grew up in the same house may end up with very different ideological beliefs as adults.

OK. What's your point? I never said that people can't have different ideologies as adults even if they are twins who grew up in the same house.

And you have missed the fact that there is a feedback loop. Ideology, in turn, influences society.

I'd say that it makes much better sense to conclude that societies create ideologies, and ideologies can't do anything. It is people with ideologies who influence society. Where am I going wrong here?

The Nazis, Soviets and many others were very big on propaganda. Do you really believe this had no effect whatsoever on people?

It depends on what you mean by "effect." Ideology has the effect of listing ideas that some people may be aware of. That's about all the impact ideology has on people. It wasn't Nazi ideology, for example, that killed millions of people; it was the Nazis who killed millions of people!

But I could be wrong. If you had lived in Nazi Germany, would you have gassed Jews for no other reason than that you were aware that Nazi ideology mandated that the world would be better off without them?

These are all evidence based processes, with proven results. They are all dependent on the idea we can change people's thoughts and actions via communication.

Sure, we can alter people's ideas and behavior, but ideology cannot.

If we can change people's thoughts and actions via communication that means ideology can influence behaviour. And if we can do this on a mass scale via mass or digital media, ideologies can very much change entire societies.

Actually, people can influence the behavior of others. Ideology cannot change the behavior of people anymore than a hammer can drive a nail.

Lot's of boys and men have drunk more than they wanted to because it is "manly" to drink and not doing so would make them less of a man.

Can you please post an example of how you engaged in risky or foolish behavior to appear manly?

Richard Dawkins talks about letter he receives from people he persuaded out of religion. Missionaries and evangelist also have a proven record of persuading millions of people to adopt religions.

Did you ever change your mind about religion for no other reason than that somebody had an idea about it?

Obviously you can change people's thoughts and actions via words.

What words can change your thoughts and actions?

But sure, words can obviously change a person's thoughts and actions. However, we are not discussing mere words resulting in any kind of change in thought or action but ideology causing change in a person's behavior often to the point of violence. You keep slipping in words like "culture" as substitutes for ideology. That's the fallacy of equivocation.

Governments, NGOs, etc. already do conduct anti-radicalisation initiatives, including in your country.

I don't know much about "anti-radicalisation initiatives," and what I really want to know is if you think we need to censor or even ban ideology we deem to be dangerous. Doing so would be a direct logical consequence of your claiming that ideology causes antisocial behavior in those who become aware of it. Don't you believe it is a moral imperative to safeguard all people from danger including dangerous ideology?

 

[Augustus]

It is people with ideologies who influence society. Where am I going wrong here

That people with ideologies influence other people to adopt those ideologies which in turn influences their thoughts and actions.

So if Nazis have power, they can try influence others to become Nazis and this harms society.

The Nazis certainly thought they could influence people's beliefs, both in terms of mass propaganda, and also more direct institutional "eduction".

In June 1940, Himmler instituted "daily" indoctrination sessions (Tagesschulung) to be based on the examination of current events from the perspective of National Socialist ideology. The sessions were held at least three times during the week and lasted between fifteen and twenty minutes.27 In addition to the indoctrination sessions, the publication of the biweekly Political Information Service (renamed the Newsletter for the Ideological Training of the Uniformed Police in May 1941) supplemented the classroom efforts. The purpose of this publication was to "instruct all members in especially important questions of [an] ideological, political, economic, and cultural nature."28 The success of these initiatives is difficult to ascertain; however, they clearly indicate the value placed by Himmler and the uniformed police leadership on the ideological education of the police.
Edward B. Westermann (1998). "Ordinary Men" or "Ideological Soldiers"? Police Battalion 310 in Russia, 1942. German Studies Review, 21(1), 41–68. doi:10.2307/1432392

Why do you think the Nazis created the Hitler Youth and Mao the Red Guards? Children are easier to "educate" into your ideology, and this "education" influences their thoughts and actions (See the Cultural Revolution for evidence of this)

Actually, people can influence the behavior of others. Ideology cannot change the behavior of people anymore than a hammer can drive a nail.

Of course ideology doesn't exist independently of people, it is a mental and verbal construct, not a physical object.

Ideology is a set of ideas and ideals that people hold. Some people try to persuade others to adopt their ideology (i.e. their values, morals, ideals, etc).

People can, on occasions, influence others to adopt the same beliefs as they hold. You agree with this. You agree people's beliefs may influence their thoughts and actions.

This means you agree ideology can influence behaviour.

(Remember not to go back to the silly strawman about people simply being exposed to an ideology then automatically doing whatever it suggested, the point is about influence)

Did you ever change your mind about religion for no other reason than that somebody had an idea about it?

Did you ever change your mind on a subject because someone persuaded you to think differently about it?

Did this ever affect your thoughts and actions?

But sure, words can obviously change a person's thoughts and actions. However, we are not discussing mere words resulting in any kind of change in thought or action but ideology causing change in a person's behavior often to the point of violence.

If you agree words can be used to persuade people to change their thoughts and actions, you agree with me. I've already explained the role of complex communication in constructing ideologies. Of course you use words to convey ideologies to other people.

I don't know much about "anti-radicalisation initiatives," and what I really want to know is if you think we need to censor or even ban ideology we deem to be dangerous. Doing so would be a direct logical consequence of your claiming that ideology causes antisocial behavior in those who become aware of it. Don't you believe it is a moral imperative to safeguard all people from danger including dangerous ideology?

It is illegal to incite people to violence in most countries.

 

[Jagella]

That people with ideologies influence other people to adopt those ideologies which in turn influences their thoughts and actions.

This sentence is incomplete. Please post complete sentences.

So if Nazis have power, they can try influence others to become Nazis and this harms society.

The Nazis certainly thought they could influence people's beliefs, both in terms of mass propaganda, and also more direct institutional "eduction".

You're swapping the word "Nazi" in here replacing "ideology." It appears that you are changing your arguments to justify them! The original claims and arguments just don't hold up, now do they? We've gone from Marxist ideology can cause millions of people to murder millions of people to Nazis can order people to murder other people. We're even starting to see: "Words can affect people." I'd call that "polemical devolution."

Why do you think the Nazis created the Hitler Youth and Mao the Red Guards? Children are easier to "educate" into your ideology, and this "education" influences their thoughts and actions (See the Cultural Revolution for evidence of this)

Oh sure, you can tell kids what your ideas are, but as most parents know, they may not adopt those ideas. If I go by my own experiences as a child, I tended to rebel against my religious indoctrination. So it seems to me that indoctrinating kids with ideology only works if they are prone to act in accord with that ideology before they ever hear it.

Of course ideology doesn't exist independently of people, it is a mental and verbal construct, not a physical object.

Ideology is a set of ideas and ideals that people hold. Some people try to persuade others to adopt their ideology (i.e. their values, morals, ideals, etc).

People can, on occasions, influence others to adopt the same beliefs as they hold. You agree with this. You agree people's beliefs may influence their thoughts and actions.

Yes. People influence other people. Ideology is just a description of what those who influence others want from those they influence.

This means you agree ideology can influence behaviour.

Not really. Again, people influence other people.

(Remember not to go back to the silly strawman about people simply being exposed to an ideology then automatically doing whatever it suggested, the point is about influence)

In that case ideology fails to influence people. What really influences people is people.

Did you ever change your mind on a subject because someone persuaded you to think differently about it?

Did this ever affect your thoughts and actions?

You didn't answer my question, so I won't answer these questions. The answer to my question is no, you never changed your mind about religion merely being aware of some idea about it. Your own thinking demonstrates the truth of my position.

If you agree words can be used to persuade people to change their thoughts and actions, you agree with me. I've already explained the role of complex communication in constructing ideologies. Of course you use words to convey ideologies to other people.

Again, we've gone from:
Marx's ideology caused people to murder...
to...
Words can be used to persuade people to change their thoughts and actions.

I've seen people moving the goalposts, but you appear to be raising the goalposts. If I kick a field goal through the old goalposts, then just raise the goalposts hoping I can't kick the ball that high!

It is illegal to incite people to violence in most countries.

It appears here that since you can't kick the ball through the banning-ideology goalpost, you've lowered the goalpost making it the illegal-inciting-riots goalpost.

I don't blame you one bit, though. If I espoused your position on ideology, then I would also avoid like the plague the issue of banning ideology. Most nations today realize that ideology does little harm and that it is people we need to watch out for. That's why, at least here in America, you can find copies of The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf in any public library. The violent Bolsheviks and the Nazis aren't around to cause trouble so we need not worry about their ideology.