Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

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?

And if you claim the universe is natural, you better have some evidence.

 

[Tomef]

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?

I suppose you could say there are ideologies rooted in atheism, but taking atheism in itself, it’s hard to see that as an ideology as such. I mean, there are different ways of thinking about different aspects of the world that arise from atheism, but not one, overarching atheistic ideology as such.

Can you provide a link to this particular discussion of the topic from Zizek?

 

[Nimos]

And if you claim the universe is natural, you better have some evidence.

Yes completely agree.

This is also why science works with theories. If you can find any scientist that claims to know how the Universe was created then I would be extremely surprised. Rather I think you will have a very easy time finding theories based on whatever data they have that might explain it. But there is a huge difference here.

One is admitting that it is merely theories and the other is claiming that they know the absolute truth.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

And yet religion can and does offer answers to these and may other questions which science cannot address; answers which we are free to accept or reject as we see fit. If the answers had no substance, and their application no effect, there'd be no believers and no religious practitioners. But there are, and the reason that there are, is that religion works.

 

[Nimos]

And yet religion can and does offer answers to these questions and may others which science cannot address; answers which we are free accept or reject as we see fit. If the answers had no substance, and their application no effect, there'd be no believers and no religious practitioners. But there are, and the reason that there are, is that religion works.

The question is why you would accept these answers?

If a person is Christian would they accept the Islamic/Hindu answers to these questions and vice versa? And if they don't why is that, if what you are saying is true, then clearly religion offers the answers. So the Islamic one ought to be just as correct as the Hindu or the Christian one, correct? So why are there different religious views then?

Whether you are free or not to reject them is irrelevant, this is merely your conviction of what you believe, which is perfectly fine. But it is not a sound argument for claiming that religion has the answer, because it is not demonstrated.

Why is it so difficult for religious people to accept that some things are simply unknown or that we just don't have enough information to draw conclusions?

The answers do have substance, but that isn't the same as the answers being correct. Humans are experts in believing in wrong things, our history is filled with examples of people being convinced of wrong things which to them had substance. This is what happens when we are not critical about our beliefs, we draw conclusions based on what we think is true rather than what is.

Don't get me wrong, again there are lots of things we can't get an answer for, but that doesn't mean that it is beneficial to just draw conclusions as if we knew.

That religion works when it comes to giving answers, I don't agree with it, it gives people a lot of answers so they don't have to think critically about them themselves.

 

[blü 2]

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?

Does he address the problem I have? Namely that "God" never appears, says or does, and has no definition or description appropriate to a real being, but is only described in imaginary terms like omnipotent, eternal &c &c. Thus to speak of a real God is not to know what you're talking about.

Consistently, the only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, very usually as the result of acculturation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The question is why you would accept these answers?

If a person is Christian would they accept the Islamic/Hindu answers to these questions and vice versa? And if they don't why is that, if what you are saying is true, then clearly religion offers the answers. So the Islamic one ought to be just as correct as the Hindu or the Christian one, correct? So why are there different religious views then?

Whether you are free or not to reject them is irrelevant, this is merely your conviction of what you believe, which is perfectly fine. But it is not a sound argument for claiming that religion has the answer, because it is not demonstrated.

Why is it so difficult for religious people to accept that some things are simply unknown or that we just don't have enough information to draw conclusions?

The answers do have substance, but that isn't the same as the answers being correct. Humans are experts in believing in wrong things, our history is filled with examples of people being convinced of wrong things which to them had substance. This is what happens when we are not critical about our beliefs, we draw conclusions based on what we think is true rather than what is.

Don't get me wrong, again there are lots of things we can't get an answer for, but that doesn't mean that it is beneficial to just draw conclusions as if we knew.

That religion works when it comes to giving answers, I don't agree with it, it gives people a lot of answers so they don't have to think critically about them themselves.

Why is it so difficult for atheists to accept that there are some things of great value to themselves, which believers gain from their faith? Things, perhaps, which have nothing to do with conclusions drawn from information, and everything to do with experience aquired through practice.

If leaning on a God of their understanding sustains people in their hour of need, and if their faith gives them the courage to overcome challenges you perhaps have no notion of, who are you to say they are misguided?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is it so difficult for atheists to accept that there are some things of great value to themselves, which believers gain from their faith? Things, perhaps, which have nothing to do with conclusions drawn from information, and everything to do with experience aquired through practice.

Well, the atheists in question in effect assume that their way of making subjective sense of being a human and the world is the rational and objective way. Off course there is no evdience for that, but you are not allowed to question their worldview.

 

[Viker]

This is not the religious going to an atheist forum to argue with atheists that a god does exist(defend their stance)

This is atheists coming to a religious forum to argue with the religious that a god doesn't exist(defend their stance)

I won't argue if a god does or doesn't exist because I don't know if a god does or doesn't exist, therefore I have no belief either way and have no stance to defend.

So I generally stay out of those threads but on occasions will go in and read a bit of what others say. Both sides seem to passionately defend their stance often.

I'm not a atheist or a theist, I'm a "don't knoweist"

That's generally called an agnostic. But you can call it whatever you like.

 

[Viker]

Positive = Good

Evidence concept.....
When evidence for something is lacking, it's
reasonable to not believe in that something.

Example....
There's no good evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
So I don't believe that Bigfoot exists....except in memes.

Sasquatch knows all about you. Sasquatch is watching you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, the atheists in question in effect assume that their way of making subjective sense of being a human and the world is the rational and objective way. Off course there is no evdience for that, but you are not allowed to question their worldview.

Yeah, people of many persuasions readily convince themselves that anything they don't understand, must make no sense to anyone.

 

[Madsaac]

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?

I think the thread is more about the following. Not what science can and can’t do.

Atheist only have one belief, a lack of belief in gods. And yes, to what degrees would be influenced by culture, upbringing and environment.

However, when talking about topics relating to god and religion they aren't as 'shackled' in there approach because they aren't bound by any set of values, codes, principles, doctrine or rituals.

Therefore allowing for more 'freethinking

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Therefore allowing for more 'freethinking

Well, skepticism is not just your or my version and even critical thinking has limits.

 

[Nimos]

Why is it so difficult for atheists to accept that there are some things of great value to themselves, which believers gain from their faith? Things, perhaps, which have nothing to do with conclusions drawn from information, and everything to do with experience aquired through practice.

If leaning on a God of their understanding sustains people in their hour of need, and if their faith gives them the courage to overcome challenges you perhaps have no notion of, who are you to say they are misguided?

I think atheists do understand that. But you are making an emotional argument, which can't be argued against because that is how you feel. As I wrote to @mikkel_the_dane in one of the posts, where he asked if "you could give a correct answer to something that is not based on science?" and you can do that. But an answer that is based on personal opinion, feeling or someone's assumption is not a strong argument, even if it is correct.

It is important to keep things separated to avoid confusion. One thing is what gives you meaning, that is a very personal matter. But is completely different from claiming that religion gives you/us (correct) answers, which is the claim I'm protesting against.

Im not saying the need to believe in something is misguided, people believe in all kinds of things not only religious which gives them meaning.

When trying to figure out whether something is true or most likely to be true, an argument based on emotions is not a valid one.

You asked me: 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?

I gave you a clear answer that science can't do it. Yet, you have not demonstrated that religion could do this either?
However you seem to think that is an issue with science, despite it never having claimed to know the answer, yet you do not seem to have an issue with religion not being able to do it either, why is that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think atheists do understand that. But you are making an emotional argument, which can't be argued against because that is how you feel. As I wrote to @mikkel_the_dane in one of the posts, where he asked if "you could give a correct answer to something that is not based on science?" and you can do that. But an answer that is based on personal opinion, feeling or someone's assumption is not a strong argument, even if it is correct.

It is important to keep things separated to avoid confusion. One thing is what gives you meaning, that is a very personal matter. But is completely different from claiming that religion gives you/us (correct) answers, which is the claim I'm protesting against.

Im not saying the need to believe in something is misguided, people believe in all kinds of things not only religious which gives them meaning.

When trying to figure out whether something is true or most likely to be true, an argument based on emotions is not a valid one.

You asked me: 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?

I gave you a clear answer that science can't do it. Yet, you have not demonstrated that religion could do this either?
However you seem to think that is an issue with science, despite it never having claimed to know the answer, yet you do not seem to have an issue with religion not being able to do it either, why is that?

My bold: It is important to keep things separated to avoid confusion
Yeah, now since I am a skeptic, I know something. There is no evidence for that it is important to keep things separated to avoid confusion.
That is the joke about your world view. You demand evidence based on in effect a norm without evidence.

That is the trick of atheists like you. You all have the same norm, that is without evidence. Namley in effect that evidence matters, but that is without evidence.

 

[Nimos]

My bold: It is important to keep things separated to avoid confusion
Yeah, now since I am a skeptic, I know something. There is no evidence for that it is important to keep things separated to avoid confusion.
That is the joke about your world view. You demand evidence based on in effect a norm without evidence.

That is the trick of atheists like you. You all have the same norm, that is without evidence. Namley in effect that evidence matters, but that is without evidence.

No no no!!

If I say "blue is better than red because it makes me feel better." Then there is nothing you can say to counter that.

If I say "blue is better than red, because it results in more peace in the world." then you can argue against it and demand that I demonstrate it.

(assuming that better when talking colors makes sense )

That is what I mean by keeping things separated, it is not a trick.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think the thread is more about the following. Not what science can and can’t do.

Atheist only have one belief, a lack of belief in gods. And yes, to what degrees would be influenced by culture, upbringing and environment.

However, when talking about topics relating to god and religion they aren't as 'shackled' in there approach because they aren't bound by any set of values, codes, principles, doctrine or rituals.

Therefore allowing for more 'freethinking

Where is the evidence for these atheist free-thinkers? I'm not saying none exist, but William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Werner Heisenberg and Georges Lemaitre are just some of the great scientific thinkers who were religious believers.

 

[Nakosis]

Most atheists think that atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods.

Yes, an absence of belief based on agnosticism, a lack of knowledge in this case about "God"

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.

Actually it is a world view for me at least which lacks a belief in the supernatural which may influence someone else's world view. So yes, my world view is different in that it lacks any theist set of beliefs. By itself, it does not add beliefs or values. It simply subtracts a few.

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.

I can only speak for myself as above. I basically have no supernatural beliefs to defend. Although I do ask believers in the supernatural how they go about defending theirs and occasionally point out flaws in their beliefs. Just as I point out flaws in beliefs which have no relationship to the supernatural. A service I don't charge for btw and accept reciprocation in kind.

For example, many atheists strongly believe in scientific rationalism as the only way to understand the world.

Obviously not the only way to understand the world but I have found it to be the most reliable way.

They often dismiss or ridicule any belief in the supernatural as irrational or ignorant.

Dismiss or ridicule, certainly not. As previously stated, I simply point out logical or rational fallacies where ever I find them without prejudice.

They also often advocate strongly for separation of church and state and oppose religious influence in public life.

I strongly advocate a separation from illogical/irrational fallacies from state and public life. Religious belief just happen to have a number of them. However if a religious belief happens to have a logical/rational foundation for its position, I've no problem with its inclusion in public life.

In this way, their atheism becomes an ideology, a belief system not so different from a religious one.

Yes I have a belief system/world views that is not defined by atheism. Atheism only is saying that it lacks a set of beliefs someone who does believe in the supernatural may have. It doesn't add any beliefs, only subtracts some.

They feel they have the "truth," while believers are deluded or brainwashed.

Nope, although I only speak for myself, I find many fellow atheist deny having possession of the truth. Most accept a lack of it and I suppose are likely to argue against you possessing it as well.

This sense of superiority can lead to aggression towards those they see as inferior or ignorant.

I suppose an atheist could see lack an irrational/illogical set of beliefs as a superior position but I see no necessary correlation of this leading to aggression. Likely any aggression is the result of some other factor.

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.

Well, I'll have to admit I think removing a irrational/illogical set of beliefs from one's thinking a good way to promote reason, equality and social progress. You got me there.

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?

If they are acting like ideological foot solders then there is probably something other then atheism as the basis for them. Perhaps some actual bad experiences from previous exposure to a particular religious system. IOW, having nothing to do with having a lack of a supernatural set of beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No no no!!

If I say "blue is better than red because it makes me feel better." Then there is nothing you can say to counter that.

If I say "blue is better than red, because it results in more peace in the world." then you can argue against it and demand that I demonstrate it.

(assuming that better when talking colors makes sense )

That is what I mean by keeping things separated, it is not a trick.

Well, here is one for you that you will get even in this forum in effect:
Science is the best way to understand the world!

The joke is there is not evidence for that one. So religion is not the only way to do what you don't like. Science can be claimed for that too.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think atheists do understand that. But you are making an emotional argument, which can't be argued against because that is how you feel. As I wrote to @mikkel_the_dane in one of the posts, where he asked if "you could give a correct answer to something that is not based on science?" and you can do that. But an answer that is based on personal opinion, feeling or someone's assumption is not a strong argument, even if it is correct.

It is important to keep things separated to avoid confusion. One thing is what gives you meaning, that is a very personal matter. But is completely different from claiming that religion gives you/us (correct) answers, which is the claim I'm protesting against.

Im not saying the need to believe in something is misguided, people believe in all kinds of things not only religious which gives them meaning.

When trying to figure out whether something is true or most likely to be true, an argument based on emotions is not a valid one.

You asked me: 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?

I gave you a clear answer that science can't do it. Yet, you have not demonstrated that religion could do this either?
However you seem to think that is an issue with science, despite it never having claimed to know the answer, yet you do not seem to have an issue with religion not being able to do it either, why is that?

Do you believe that faith can overcome fear, or love overcome hate? If you don't, I pity you. If you do, how did you reach that conclusion?

Belief in the transformative power of faith, love and compassion are religious or philosophical precepts, which have proved their value time and again, when put into practice.