McBell
Unbound
I didn'tThen don't do it
I merely called someone else out on it.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I didn'tThen don't do it
Being Slovakian does color his thinking. It's a given that our culture and national identity does color our beliefs. Christians did once champion the separation, not so much now. I agree with you that atheism is different for each individual and the only thing we can say with some certainty is that atheists lack a belief in deity.quotations are from the opening post
He might be thinking about the U.S.S.R. which did claim atheism as part of its program. USSR atheism was part of an ideology, however that did not make atheism an ideology.
Its is mostly Christians who argue for separation of church and state, or it has been historically. Its about religious freedom from one church taking over and making us everyone pay taxes to that state church, and its about churches penalizing people for disagreeing or for having a variant belief. Without separation, a religion will start to manipulate government. It may not be a church, but it will be something.
It is due to human personalities and quirks. Therefore it cannot be contingent upon a person's atheism. I have seen atheism used as an excuse for ignorance, and I've seen it used as a reason to study.
It is a sore spot that some people not knowing much about religions will group all together with Islam which is a very politically oriented religion. Most are not required to be political in scope. Religion can hold back progress or can speed it along; and I think a lot of atheists do know this. By 'Progress' I refer to utilitarian improvement: the lowest and worst situation (that typical poor members of society experience) improves. That is progress.
I'm not sure if he is thinking purely of atheism or is viewing some ideology which purports to sponsor atheism like the USSR did or like marxism does. Some groups do latch onto atheism and claim it is the future salvation of the human race, but they are clubs just like a chess club is. A chess club thinks its an important club because it plays chess, though chess itself is only a game. Atheism, too, is like a game. It is a tool for thinking, and believers in God may employ it from time to time not only strict atheists.
I didn't
I merely called someone else out on it.
Okay, Boomer. I know I am full of bluster and I am rather proud of it. I earned that bluster. I did my time and earned my stripes. Have you?Newbies.
Full of bluster.
Think they know it all.
Look down upon us here.
Flash in the pan.
Me. I don't believe in Zeus but I am going to debate anyone on the existence of Zeus.What’s a religious Zeus atheist?
I am a NothingarianThis 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"
I am a Nothingarian
nothingarian (n.)"one who has no particular belief," especially in religious matters, 1789, from nothing + ending from unitarian, etc.
You sure fight hard for nothing.I am a Nothingarian
nothingarian (n.)"one who has no particular belief," especially in religious matters, 1789, from nothing + ending from unitarian, etc.
Zizek is a legit philosopher.You're new.
Bad form to criticize the poster.
Address the posts' arguments & evidence.
This is how it's done.....
I sense Dunning Kruger effect in your posts.
And in the quoted "philosopher".
I agree, which is why that opinion is not standalone. You're applying it differently to atheism because you want to present a specific negative impression of atheists compared to theists.I believe atheism, like all other foundational beliefs to be algorithmic. One point leads to other points and so on. Thoughts and beliefs do not stand in isolation and it's absurd to think so. Atheism is not a standalone idea. This is my opinion.
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.
Let me provide a little perspective on this, which is wrong in so many ways:
I hope that helps you to understand what is really quite simple.
- We do not "strongly believe in scientific rationalism." We rely on it because it consistently provides correct explanations for the way the world behaves. Believing is what you do when you dismiss the explanations that falsify your belief, and cling instead to the belief.
- We do not "dismiss or ridicule any belief in the supernatural as irrational or ignorant," we dismiss those beliefs as unevidenced, or contrary to observation.
So, concepts are created ex nihilo? Is that what you are saying? Sorry, but no idea or thought or concept is standalone. It's impossible. Concepts don't emerge from nothing. They are products of prior ideas, experiences, cultural influences, and a myriad of other factors. Context. Did you somehow forget the concept of context in your eagerness to prove me wrong? There is always context. No matter what you believe. Context demonstrates that no idea is created or can exist in isolation. Every thought, belief, or concept is deeply interconnected with its surrounding environment, history, culture, and personal experiences.And we can still legitimately define and identify that atheism as a standalone concept
You are on a religious forum. Did you think they were going to throw science at you?
Anything but bs
The difference between non-belief and a stance can be described like this:
Or so they say then they become activists about it.Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief/disbelief in gods. That is all.
Or so they say then they become activists about it.
Zizek is correct, but the atheists will continue to lie about this, because they cannot recognize that their opinions are not fact. And because they know they cannot proof their opinions as they constantly insist theists must do. I have not read a single post on this thread but this one, and I can still predict with much surety what their responses will be.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?