• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Absolutely Frank said:
The difference between non-belief and a stance can be described like this:
Non-belief is a state of not having a belief or opinion about a particular subject. It's the absence of a belief, whether positive or negative. It implies a lack of commitment or involvement. On the other hand, a stance is a clear and conscious position or viewpoint on a subject. It involves taking a stand or expressing a strong opinion or belief one way or another. It indicates a clear and often active commitment to a particular position. Atheism is a stance not mere passive non-belief but an active position people take.
Click to expand...
Interesting how you think you can speak for all atheists....
 
Absolutely Frank

Absolutely Frank

Member
Revoltingest said:
The post starts out with "most", & continues with "many".
All that to make the absolutist statement....
He says atheism isn't just the opposite of theism: it's a worldview with its own set of beliefs and values.

Atheism will tend to some things.....
- Opposition to theocracy, & hence separation of church & state.
(BTW, this is something many believers agree with.)
- Preferring science to stories handed down by ancient ignorant goatherds.

Other than that, atheists don't have much in common.
So those tendencies aren't enuf to constitute a philosophy,
worldview, dogma, or ideology. It's more of an absence
of those things....or an ultra-minimalist version of them.

His claims strongly suggest that philosophy is a dead field,
ie, not offering new discoveries.
en.wikipedia.org

Slavoj Žižek - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
An ideology is a set of beliefs that guides a person's behavior or actions. It can also be a single belief or idea that colors everything. This is often called a "foundational" or "fundamentalist" belief or stance. It's as if you're seeing the world through a specific colored lens, and everything is influenced and colored by this belief or stance. For example, if you believe that the only way to achieve salvation is through faith in a particular religion, then you will view everything in the world through that lens.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Absolutely Frank said:
An ideology is a set of beliefs that guides a person's behavior or actions. It can also be a single belief or idea that colors everything. This is often called a "foundational" or "fundamentalist" belief or stance. It's as if you're seeing the world through a specific colored lens, and everything is influenced and colored by this belief or stance.
Click to expand...
I'm an atheist.
Please predict what my ideology is.
Cover justice, economics, governance, morality, ethics, etc....the whole works.
 
Absolutely Frank

Absolutely Frank

Member
I Am Hugh said:
What I think is that there are two types of atheists. The majority, by far, are apathetic. They don't care about theism, wouldn't waste a moment arguing, debating, parading, or protesting. Don't care about prayer or creationism in the classroom, or the ten commandments or nativity scene at the courthouse, don't necessarily believe in evolution, gay marriage, abortion, think it silly to go to online forums and argue about it. They are a silent majority.

On the other hand, there is what I call the fundamentalist, militant atheists minority who are the polar opposite of the apathetic atheists. They are the ones that make the most noise. The former, I don't think are ideologues, but the latter is pretty much as you've described them. I think that if you scratch the surface the latter doesn't really care about theology, theism, Gods, or the Bible. They are expressing a sociopolitical frustration with a pseudo theocratic society. It is a sort of class struggle, a world view, an ideology.

I can relate to both; I think they both have reasonable reactions to theism. When I stand back and look at the atheist vs theist debate, it looks to me like a married couple or friends with a long history arguing about something that isn't really what they are angry about.
Click to expand...
The posters in this thread who describe themselves as "passive non-believers" seem to be anything but passive. If they were truly non-believers, they would be apatheists and wouldn't bother to post. But these posters are very much engaged in the discussion, and they seem to be quite passionate about their non-belief. In fact, they seem to be quite invested in their non-belief. I am just wondering why.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Absolutely Frank said:
The posters in this thread who describe themselves as "passive non-believers" seem to be anything but passive. If they were truly non-believers, they would be apatheists and wouldn't bother to post. But these posters are very much engaged in the discussion, and they seem to be quite passionate about their non-belief. In fact, they seem to be quite invested in their non-belief. I am just wondering why.
Click to expand...
Perhaps maybe it is about people like yourself who misrepresent atheists and they are merely trying to set the record straight?
 
Absolutely Frank

Absolutely Frank

Member
McBell said:
Yes you did.
In the very post that reply was in reply to.
Click to expand...
You can make all the unfounded accusations you want but I was merely defining the differences between non-belief and taking a stance on a subject. Non-belief is a lack of belief or conviction regarding a particular subject. It means not having a definite opinion or conviction about something. Taking a stance on a subject, on the other hand, signifies that you have formulated an opinion or conviction about it. You have a defined position, whether it's for or against something, and you actively stand by it. It implies that you have thought it through and are ready to defend or advocate for your viewpoint. A stance is not passive, it is active.
 
Absolutely Frank

Absolutely Frank

Member
McBell said:
Perhaps maybe it is about people like yourself who misrepresent atheists and they are merely trying to set the record straight?
Click to expand...
Don't just accuse someone of misrepresenting an issue without providing evidence. Instead, show how they are misrepresenting the issue. Which is something you repeatedly fail to do.
 
Viker

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Absolutely Frank said:
The posters in this thread who describe themselves as "passive non-believers" seem to be anything but passive. If they were truly non-believers, they would be apatheists and wouldn't bother to post. But these posters are very much engaged in the discussion, and they seem to be quite passionate about their non-belief. In fact, they seem to be quite invested in their non-belief. I am just wondering why.
Click to expand...
Oh no. Not the true Scotsman stuff.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Absolutely Frank said:
The posters in this thread who describe themselves as "passive non-believers" seem to be anything but passive. If they were truly non-believers, they would be apatheists and wouldn't bother to post. But these posters are very much engaged in the discussion, and they seem to be quite passionate about their non-belief. In fact, they seem to be quite invested in their non-belief. I am just wondering why.
Click to expand...

You see, a lot of people like to defend themselves against bull poop being thrown at them.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
ChristineM said:
You see, a lot of people like to defend themselves against bull poop being thrown at them.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, it is not the stance of not believing in a deity that the atheists in this thread are taking a stand about.
It is the misrepresentation of atheists that is the stand being taken against.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Absolutely Frank said:
Is anyone of them being passive? Looks like they are being very active. And if you are being active in your non-belief that means you aren't being passive because one precludes the other. Simple as. No cap
Click to expand...
Who here is taking a stand about their atheism?
All I see are people taking a stand against your misrepresentation.

So all you have done is shoot yourself in the foot.
Is your next face saving attempt going to be that you are claiming that atheists are not to take a stand about anything at all?
 
Absolutely Frank

Absolutely Frank

Member
McBell said:
Post #27
You have completely failed to present how you did not completely misrepresent @ChristineM 's post, not just once, but twice on the first page...
Click to expand...
False. You implied that I misrepresented ALL atheists. I didn't misrepresent that person at all; they made a sweeping generalization and you know it.

ChristineM said:
What Zizek doesn't seem to comprehend is that most atheist are not weighed down with religious dogma and therefore have no problem accepting science. It's science that shapes their outlook, not disbelief in gods.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top