Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure what you are saying, could you please reexplain, thanks

That no human can live only as an atheist and the some atheists combine their atheism with other views in a broader world-views.

 

[Madsaac]

I accept that. The moment you claim something about more than you, then I ask for evience just as you apply evidence as a method on religion.

Fair enough but when you make hundreds of comments on a forum, I think the gist of what you're saying, is often good enough

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough but when you make hundreds of comments on a forum, I think the gist of what you're saying, is often good enough

Yeah, I have learn from the best atheists. Always ask for evidence, because that is how it is done.

 

[Nimos]

Most atheists think that atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. However, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues that atheism is actually an ideology that shapes how people see and interact with the world. He says atheism isn't just the opposite of theism: it's a worldview with its own set of beliefs and values. Many atheists do treat atheism as an ideology, with its own beliefs, values, and dogmas. They argue, debate, and defend their beliefs just as fiercely as believers defend theirs. For example, many atheists strongly believe in scientific rationalism as the only way to understand the world. They often dismiss or ridicule any belief in the supernatural as irrational or ignorant. They also often advocate strongly for separation of church and state and oppose religious influence in public life. In this way, their atheism becomes an ideology, a belief system not so different from a religious one. They feel they have the "truth," while believers are deluded or brainwashed. This sense of superiority can lead to aggression towards those they see as inferior or ignorant. Also, some atheists may feel threatened by religious beliefs. They see religion as holding back progress, limiting freedom of thought, and encouraging harmful practices. In their minds, aggressively challenging religious beliefs is a way to promote reason, equality, and social progress. I believe that Zizek might be on to something here and based on how some atheists behave you can't consider their form of atheism has just passive non-belief because they act like ideological foot soldiers - they are activists. What do you guys think?

As a general view of atheism, I think it is correct.

However, I strongly disagree with "In this way, their atheism becomes an ideology, a belief system not so different from a religious one."
Even though I think one could make the argument that atheists are just as "fanatic" as certain religious people, I think the main difference lies in the foundation.

By fanatic, I mean that you will not find an atheist allowing for the divine to be an acceptable answer, if they did it would be difficult for them to claim to be an atheist. However, that isn't the same as saying that one excludes the divine as a possibility.

But I do think that the whole debate about atheism is a bit misleading because atheism is merely a word for people who do not believe in gods, but when it is used in the way you write about it, it seems to group all atheists behind atheism as if it is an organisation or movement similar to that of a religious one, which it isn't.

The common foundation of atheists, in my opinion, is not very different from what religious people do in their everyday lives, except atheists have extended this to more aspects of their lives.

An example of that could be the speed limit on roads. I don't think religious people and atheists approach this in different ways. If having no speed limits causes more death then lowering them makes sense, there is rationality behind it. If for instance, nothing was showing that changing the speed limits would reduce death or it might even increase it, then there wouldn't be any logic behind reducing them.

This way of thinking, an atheist also applies to the questions about the divine, whereas a religious person might not. So to translate that into the speed limit.

The atheists simply ask "Why should we reduce the speed limit if nothing shows that it has the effect it is claimed to have?", this is not a belief system similar to that of a religious one. It is a foundation based upon being critical about things which have not been demonstrated to be true and wanting that before drawing conclusions about it.

So obviously atheists are passionate about it, no different than any person should be, who is told to accept something for which they do not think a sufficient demonstration has been made.

I don't think atheists feel threatened by religious beliefs, because they are religious, but because these beliefs are not demonstrated. It is true that atheists in general value science, but I think people who look at atheists as "religious" followers of science are hugely mistaken about us. This again, muddies the term atheist, because my guess is that most of us are equally opposed to scientific ideas which aren't demonstrated to be true but are told as if they were. This is why, I think most of us don't promote science, but rather the method by which it works. These are merely theories until demonstrated and the scientific method is the best way we currently have.

In many ways, I do think that many atheists will look at some religious convictions as being diluted because they do not seem to follow the same rationality that the very same people would apply to other aspects of their lives, for atheists this makes little sense, why some religious people do not apply or even seem to attempt to apply the same amount of rationality and critical thinking when it comes to the divine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a general view of atheism, I think it is correct.

However, I strongly disagree with "In this way, their atheism becomes an ideology, a belief system not so different from a religious one."
Even though I think one could make the argument that atheists are just as "fanatic" as certain religious people, I think the main difference lies in the foundation.

By fanatic, I mean that you will not find an atheist allowing for the divine to be an acceptable answer, if they did it would be difficult for them to claim to be an atheist. However, that isn't the same as saying that one excludes the divine as a possibility.

But I do think that the whole debate about atheism is a bit misleading because atheism is merely a word for people who do not believe in gods, but when it is used in the way you write about it, it seems to group all atheists behind atheism as if it is an organisation or movement similar to that of a religious one, which it isn't.

The common foundation of atheists, in my opinion, is not very different from what religious people do in their everyday lives, except atheists have extended this to more aspects of their lives.

An example of that could be the speed limit on roads. I don't think religious people and atheists approach this in different ways. If having no speed limits causes more death then lowering them makes sense, there is rationality behind it. If for instance, nothing was showing that changing the speed limits would reduce death or it might even increase it, then there wouldn't be any logic behind reducing them.

This way of thinking, an atheist also applies to the questions about the divine, whereas a religious person might not. So to translate that into the speed limit.

The atheists simply ask "Why should we reduce the speed limit if nothing shows that it has the effect it is claimed to have?", this is not a belief system similar to that of a religious one. It is a foundation based upon being critical about things which have not been demonstrated to be true and wanting that before drawing conclusions about it.

So obviously atheists are passionate about it, no different than any person should be, who is told to accept something for which they do not think a sufficient demonstration has been made.

I don't think atheists feel threatened by religious beliefs, because they are religious, but because these beliefs are not demonstrated. It is true that atheists in general value science, but I think people who look at atheists as "religious" followers of science are hugely mistaken about us. This again, muddies the term atheist, because my guess is that most of us are equally opposed to scientific ideas which aren't demonstrated to be true but are told as if they were. This is why, I think most of us don't promote science, but rather the method by which it works. These are merely theories until demonstrated and the scientific method is the best way we currently have.

In many ways, I do think that many atheists will look at some religious convictions as being diluted because they do not seem to follow the same rationality that the very same people would apply to other aspects of their lives, for atheists this makes little sense, why some religious people do not apply or even seem to attempt to apply the same amount of rationality and critical thinking when it comes to the divine.

You are in effect conflating objective evidence and good/bad.

 

[Nimos]

You are in effect conflating objective evidence and good/bad.

I don't think I have even commented on good and bad, so not sure how that is possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think I have even commented on good and bad, so not sure how that is possible.

Traffic accidents are in part about good/bad. Yet you also use science as true. Hence good/bad and objective evidence.

 

[Nimos]

Traffic accidents are in part about good/bad. Yet you also use science as true. Hence good/bad and objective evidence.

Assuming we aim towards reducing the number of deaths? Traffic accidents serve as a good example.

I did not say that science was true by default. I specifically stated: "because my guess is that most of us are equally opposed to scientific ideas which aren't demonstrated to be true but are told as if they were."

If the data from valid science demonstrate a certain thing, then I would consider it true. That doesn't mean that it is absolutely true, but it is currently the best explanation. And to me, that is more valuable than mere guesses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Assuming we aim towards reducing the number of deaths? Traffic accidents serve as a good example.

I did not say that science was true by default. I specifically stated: "because my guess is that most of us are equally opposed to scientific ideas which aren't demonstrated to be true but are told as if they were."

If the data from valid science demonstrate a certain thing, then I would consider it true. That doesn't mean that it is absolutely true, but it is currently the best explanation. And to me, that is more valuable than mere guesses.

Yeah, but an assumption is not true, where as science is about truth.
And reasoning about these 2 are not the same. That is the point.

 

[Nimos]

Yeah, but an assumption is not true, where as science is about truth.
And reasoning about these 2 are not the same. That is the point.

Science is a process that involves a lot of steps, obviously, as you say with the aim of figuring out what is most likely to be true or maybe more importantly to figure out what is definitely not true.

I don't think I have claimed any assumption to be true? which one are you referring to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is a process that involves a lot of steps, obviously, as you say with the aim of figuring out what is most likely to be true or maybe more importantly to figure out what is definitely not true.

I don't think I have claimed any assumption to be true? which one are you referring to?

No, that is the point. There are moral/ethical/social assumptions, which are not true. And then there is true. 2 different concepts.

 

[Nimos]

No, that is the point. There are moral/ethical/social assumptions, which are not true. And then there is true. 2 different concepts.

But im not even remotely talking about morality or ethics. Rather I'm sharing my views about how atheism is being used in the OP and many other debates and by which method I believe most atheists approach things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But im not even remotely talking about morality or ethics. Rather I'm sharing my views about how atheism is being used in the OP and many other debates and by which method I believe most atheists approach things.

There is no single method for all of the world and the humans in it. That is the point - by which different methods - and we would agree.

 

[Nimos]

There is no single method for all of the world and the humans in it. That is the point - by which different methods - and we would agree.

Which different methods are you referring to, when talking about what is most likely to be true is, if it isn't based on the principle of the scientific method?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which different methods are you referring to, when talking about what is most likely to be true is, if it isn't based on the principle of the scientific method?

Well, here are the things science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

In other words science can't do subjective and inter-subjective and truth doesn't apply to that. So you have 2 methods yourself:
Assumptions and truth. You admitted to use 2 different methods.

P1: There is no objective evidence for God.
C: Therefore the belief in God is wrong.

What is your understanding of that deduction and conclusion and how does that relate and not relate to science?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which different methods are you referring to, when talking about what is most likely to be true is, if it isn't based on the principle of the scientific method?

Can science prove that faith is greater than fear, love greater than hate, generosity greater than greed? Or are there some truths which must be apprehended with the heart, rather than the intellect?

 

[Nimos]

Well, here are the things science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

In other words science can't do subjective and inter-subjective and truth doesn't apply to that. So you have 2 methods yourself:
Assumptions and truth. You admitted to use 2 different methods.

P1: There is no objective evidence for God.
C: Therefore the belief in God is wrong.

What is your understanding of that deduction and conclusion and how does that relate and not relate to science?

There are many questions science can't answer, I fully agree.

Neither assumptions nor truth are methods, strictly speaking. A method is a structured approach which allows one to reach some sort of logical conclusion.

Drawing assumptions is not a structured approach, that is merely someone's guessing about what they believe to be most likely. Truth is nothing at all, it is just a term.

"There is no objective evidence for God" I think this is a bit of a misleading way to put it, because you present it as if this is a conclusion which is demonstrated, which is not what I wrote. I said, that most atheists do not think there has been a sufficient demonstration to draw the conclusion that God exists.

As I wrote: "However, that isn't the same as saying that one excludes the divine as a possibility."

"Therefore the belief in God is wrong" I don't believe I even remotely talked about whether a belief in God was right or wrong, again, my post is about the method of how I believe atheists look at things. I simply said that it is my view that atheists do not really understand why religious people would not question their religion when they do it with other things.

As I wrote: I do think that many atheists will look at some religious convictions as being diluted because they do not seem to follow the same rationality that the very same people would apply to other aspects of their lives, for atheists this makes little sense

That is not me concluding that a belief in God is wrong, that is about the method or my opinion that they do not seem to apply a method before drawing the conclusion.

 

[Nimos]

Can science prove that faith is greater than fear, love greater than hate, generosity greater than greed? Or are there some truths which must be apprehended with the heart, rather than the intellect?

No.

Again, science is not about making up answers to every single human question if such an answer can't or doesn't exist, it is based on facts and things we can test etc.

But assuming that religion can answer these types of questions without even having a method is wishful thinking and to be diluted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

Again, science is not about making up answers to every single human question if such an answer can't or doesn't exist, it is based on facts and things we can test etc.

But assuming that religion can answer these types of questions without even having a method is wishful thinking and to be diluted.

Can I give a correct answer to sometihng, which is not based on science or is science the only way to get correct answers? And are there things in the world that matter, that are not facts and can't be answered by science?

 

[Nimos]

Can I give a correct answer to sometihng, which is not based on science or is science the only way to get correct answers? And are there things in the world that matter, that are not facts and can't be answered by science?

Yes, certainly

Im an atheist is a correct answer. I prefer blue over red is also a correct answer.

The question is not really whether you can give a correct answer, but why others should believe you?

And this correlates to the claim being made, maybe you don't believe I'm an atheist, yet it doesn't make my answer any less correct. But then again, very little is at stake here and whether I'm lying or not, is probably not going to change the world Said in another way, a lot of things which we can correctly answer without any demonstration are meaningless to most people.

A person loving their wife is very important to them but is of absolutely no importance to me.

But if you go out and claim to know that God created the universe, you better present some sort of evidence, again doesn't mean that you ain't correct, but you need to give others a reason to believe you and if you can't why should anyone take your claim seriously?