IDEOLOGY:
the body of doctrine, myth, symbol, etc., with reference to some political or cultural plan, as that of communism, along with the procedures for putting it into operation.

ATHEISM:

Atheist

There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.

There is nothing in the definition of atheism that fits the definition of ideology.

Squeers and Poirot

Are you religious, atheist, agnostic or hold to another ideology which I'd appreciate you explain?

Thank you.

Ammonite,

“I have already expressed disenchantment with David and Paul1405.”

Without meaning offence I assume you are disenchanted because expressing an opinion upsets your attitude of ‘Why cant’ we all just get along’.

Many people do have a social conscience, which can take them out of their comfort zone even though they are not personally affected too much by bad laws and mores.

Significant progressive change in society has always required this.

And by the way, atheists who are at the forefront of affecting positive change are somewhat miffed that other atheists see no need to do anything. Miffed but we understand.

David

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

With all due respect that is crap! Your bogeymen are not religious groups. Narrow-minded thinking is a pain in the arse but it has no impact on the real forces that shape this world.

<Whilst the fence sitters spend endless hours, knocking those engaged with human struggles, gazing at their navels, others make positive moves to better humanity>

That's scary. It's all really simple for you too eh?
Apart from spreading the word about atheism, what positive moves are you making to better humanity?
Supposing you get everyone to stop believing in God, what are you going to give them instead--a neoliberal paradise, consumer heaven?
Religious bigots are a pain, but there more "for" your utopia than against it; they just like to do penance after indulgence--which is better than being an indifferent part of the system.

Squeers,

Last attempt with you.

“Supposing you get everyone to stop believing in God,’

This is utter bollocks and a gross simplification of what atheism is about today.

It is about choice without coercion.

It is about supplying information that should be available to everyone.

It is saying that there is a viable alternative to believing in unproven concepts.

It is saying that these unproven concepts have garnered special privilege over the millennia and that they are undeserved.

It is saying, these special privileges have negative consequences on people, groups and societies.

It is saying that this needs to change.

It is words and not swords.

David

David I found your post:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4683&page=0#123398

Patronising, had you read any of my posts you would be quite aware I did not need the Atheism 101 lecture.

Nor do I expect to get along with everyone (another false assumption) - I have certainly not tried to win the friendship of the likes of Squeers, Philo or even Poirot (although I do respect her). I am not here to make friends, which would obvious to Blind Freddy, but not you. Just read what is posted a little more thoughtfully - even Squeers is entitled to be thoughtfully considered - he may not like what I have made of his posts, but I have considered them.

Think I'll cancel the red carnation if meeting you means further condescension.

Ammonite,

I would hardly call that a ‘lecture’. Calling it condescension is way over the top. And of course you would know those words were not just for you. I thought you would know?

This forum is a minute part of my daily schedule and I don’t always get it right. Maybe you will understand when you are at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention trying to work out how it was accomplished. Let me tell you now, with great difficulty.

Red carnation is still on for me, it’s up to you.

David