Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, as a skeptic I consider my atheism to be a belief/opinion without evidence, truth, proof and all that.
But then I also consider rationality and science as useful, but limited human behaviours

 

[Madsaac]

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?

Yeah, this seems to be generally correct. So what? It's a great way to interact with the world.

Theist have been ridiculing people for millennia.

Now that we know god and religion is not necessary for explanation, it's the way of the future.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, this seems to be generally correct. So what? It's a great way to interact with the world.

Theist have been ridiculing people for millennia.

Now that we know god and religion is not necessary for explanation, it's the way of the future.

You are not a we and your belief system is not the only belief in knowledge.

 

[Madsaac]

You are not a we and your belief system is not the only belief in knowledge.

Sorry, Now that I know god and religion is not necessary for explanation, it's the way of the future.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

it's the way of the future.

And you know this how? Time travel?

 

[Madsaac]

And you know this how? Time travel?

No, its just a hunch

 

[Absolutely Frank]

You are not a we and your belief system is not the only belief in knowledge.

I am guessing that you and I have a mutual love for epistemology. Am I correct in making this assumption?

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

I agree, but that doesn't mean we can't conceptually identify and distinguish individual concepts within the whole. Water is a single substance, but we can individually identify the hydrogen and oxygen that makes it up, even though it can't even exist without the presence of both.

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.

I agree, which is why I am saying that atheism never exists in isolation in reality because everyone has multiple additional thoughts, beliefs and ideas. You're the one trying to paint atheism as a singular belief system, encompassing everything an individual says and does, that therefore does exist in isolation.

You've also not supported the assertion that atheism is somehow fundamentally different to theism in this context. Why can believing in one or more god or gods be an isolated concept but not believing in any god or gods can't?

I think the key thing to remember here is that we're talking about what atheism is, not what atheists do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, Now that I know god and religion is not necessary for explanation, it's the way of the future.

How do you know that you know and what is knowledge to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am guessing that you and I have a mutual love for epistemology. Am I correct in making this assumption?

Yes, but remember I am an atheist and non-religious in the standard sense. In practice I am some sort of cognitive relativist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, Boomer. I know I am full of bluster and I am rather proud of it.

Pride goeth before a fall.

 

[Revoltingest]

Zizek is correct, but the atheists will continue to lie about this....

Bible thumpers desperately need to believe this.
When they can't defend their sky fairy myths,
they're left with naught but trying to find fault
with atheists.
Christian charity....it so easily evaporates into
a cloud of hostility, ignorance, & intolerance.

 

[Revoltingest]

Zizek is a legit philosopher.

He belongs to the Philosopher's Union?
I wonder if he knows Majikshise & Vroomfondel?
When a "philosopher" spouts ridiculous cryptic crap,
they don't deserve the label.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bible thumpers desperately need to believe this.
When they can't defend their sky fairy myths,
they're left with naught but trying to find fault
with atheists.
Christian charity....it so easily evaporates into
a cloud of hostility, ignorance, & intolerance.

Well, those atheists who connect their atheism to the concept of evidence has in effect a postive ideology.
Atheism says nothing about evidence, Only some atheists do that. That is the point of the OP.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then don't do it

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, those atheists who connect their atheism to the concept of evidence has in effect a postive ideology.

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.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Positive = Good

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

...

Yeah, that is a norm without evidence and a positive stance that informs your atheism. Mine is in effect not the same as yours, but still a positive stance but about ethics and morality in the end.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that is a norm without evidence and a positive stance that informs your atheism. Mine is in effect not the same as yours, but still a positive stance but about ethics and morality in the end.

That was as clear as mud.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That was as clear as mud.

Whatever.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever.

That I understand.