Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[McBell]

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.

You really need to work on your back peddling skills.

 

[Viker]

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

You said if they were truly non-believers they would be apatheists and wouldn't bother to post.

This is the fallacy.

People are simply defending their position. If people wouldn't make false claims about them maybe they would be a little more passive.

 

[rocala]

I think Marx was right on some things but very wrong on others

I do agree. His methodology has much going for it but I have grave doubts about his conclusions.
It is around 40 years since I did any serious reading on the subject, so please forgive me if my comment is a little out of date.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Who here is taking a stand about their athism?
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?

I am just pointing out that it isn't a passive non-belief. What are you arguing? You seem like someone who stumbled into a poker tournament, mistook it for a pinochle game, and now you're arguing about the rules just for the fun of it, without any idea what's really going on. You're throwing out arguments like a living non-sequitur having a bad day, hoping something will stick. I understand that Atheists do not believe in any gods, and they do not worship any gods. They do not go to church, and they do not pray (some might). But some do take a stand against theism, and some are very active in their defense of atheism. What are you arguing again? Please clarify.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

You said if they were truly non-believers they would be apatheists and wouldn't bother to post.

This is the fallacy.

People are simply defending their position. If people wouldn't make false claims about them maybe they would be a little more passive.

That is not what I said.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

You really need to work on your back peddling skills.

You keep making accusations without providing evidence. Show me. I keep asking you to show me and all you do is throw out more accusations.

 

[Viker]

That is not what I said.

From post #30, this was not you?

"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]

You keep making accusations without providing evidence. Show me. I keep asking you to show me and all you do is throw out more accusations.

Post #35.
Where you STILL have not shown how you did not completely misrepresent @ChristineM 's post TWICE on the first page...

I presented the evidence of your blatant misrepresentation.
The ball is STILL in your court.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Post #35.
Where you STILL have not shown how you did not completely misrepresent @ChristineM 's post TWICE on the first page...

I presented the evidence of your blatant misrepresentation.
The ball is STILL in your court.

You are the one claiming I did. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[McBell]

You are the one claiming I did. The burden of proof is on you.

*yawn*

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.

False. Not all atheists are ardent enthusiasts of science and reason. Some are more interested in exploring other superstitious belief systems, such as Buddhism, astrology or homeopathy.

The claim that "all atheists" was never made.
You misrepresented her claim with your made up claim of "all".

No. You are still wrong. Atheism doesn't automatically make a person reasonable and rational. Like you suggested.

No where did she, or anyone else in this thread, make any such claim.
Nor was it even implied.

Your know this, thus the reason why you are running scared from addressing it.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

*yawn*


The claim that "all atheists" was never made.
You misrepresented her claim with your made up claim of "all".


No where did she, or anyone else in this thread, make any such claim.
Nor was it even implied.

Your know this, thus the reason why you are running scared from addressing it.

They still made an unsubstantiated sweeping generalization implying that somehow atheism makes a person a rationalist who "believes" in science. It doesn't. They are wrong and you are nitpicking because you have nothing. Simple as. Any further nitpicking and I will report you.

 

[Balthazzar]

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 call these type's anti-theists - I have a lot of friends who are atheists and while they will refute time after time, claims made of a religious nature, most of them are not above a practical understanding of religious texts. Some types dismiss all religious texts, which makes them anti-theist and not atheists. I've honestly favored atheists in times past for their adherence to objective truth and facts, and likewise for their critical thinking skills that ultimately show a desire to get things correct. Anti-theists are not in the same league as these types of atheists. Anti-theists are against religion and religiously themed standards from which some people base their lives. I'm a theist. The only difference between me and atheists is space. Thes cosmos for one, and all it contains is God. Atheists hold a similar view, only they fall short of giving the universe a title like "God". My values are personal to me, and they are subjective. Atheist's values are subjective also, and personal to each individual. I call this my personal relationship with. They call this ?????

 

[HonestJoe]

Many atheists do treat atheism as an ideology, with its own beliefs, values, and dogmas.

This is the core of the all too common misunderstanding (or misrepresentation). Those beliefs, values and dogmas are in addition to atheism, not a fundamental part of it. In that way it is exactly like theism, with that being simply a belief in a god or gods but most theists adding their own beliefs, values and dogmas.

Significantly, in both cases, not only are those additions distinct from theism/atheism (indeed, often entirely independent), but they can be, and often are, vastly different from each other, to the point that it is perfectly plausible for an atheist to have a worldview much closer to that of a theists as they do to a different atheist (and vice versa).

Of course, this point is almost always brought up with the motive of attacking atheists, associating a whole mess of negative beliefs and behaviour (perceived or actual) with the term to directly or indirectly anyone who is labelled with it.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

I call these type's anti-theists - I have a lot of friends who are atheists and while they will refute time after time, claims made of a religious nature, most of them are not above a practical understanding of religious texts. Some types dismiss all religious texts, which makes them anti-theist and not atheists. I've honestly favored atheists in times past for their adherence to objective truth and facts, and likewise for their critical thinking skills that ultimately show a desire to get things correct. Anti-theists are not in the same league as these types of atheists. Anti-theists are against religion and religiously themed standards from which some people base their lives. I'm a theist. The only difference between me and atheists is space. Thes cosmos for one, and all it contains is God. Atheists hold a similar view, only they fall short of giving the universe a title like "God". My values are personal to me, and they are subjective. Atheist's values are subjective also, and personal to each individual. I call this my personal relationship with. They call this ?????

Yes. Some of them are anti-religion and anti-clerical. It used to be that activist atheists in the past were something that one encountered in a first-year philosophy class but things have changed with the rise and fall of the New Atheists movement. Like on atheist YouTube channels. Faux outrage and performative reactions for the likes, clicks and views. This leads to a more sensationalized and less nuanced public discussion, where strong emotional reactions are emphasized for the sake of engagement, rather than fostering thoughtful and productive conversation. And that spectacle causes division not understanding.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

This is the core of the all too common misunderstanding (or misrepresentation). Those beliefs, values and dogmas are in addition to atheism, not a fundamental part of it. In that way it is exactly like theism, with that being simply a belief in a god or gods but most theists adding their own beliefs, values and dogmas.

Significantly, in both cases, not only are those additions distinct from theism/atheism (indeed, often entirely independent), but they can be, and often are, vastly different from each other, to the point that it is perfectly plausible for an atheist to have a worldview much closer to that of a theists as they do to a different atheist (and vice versa).

Of course, this point is almost always brought up with the motive of attacking atheists, associating a whole mess of negative beliefs and behaviour (perceived or actual) with the term to directly or indirectly anyone who is labelled with it.

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.

 

[McBell]

They still made an unsubstantiated sweeping generalization implying that somehow atheism makes a person a rationalist who "believes" in science. It doesn't. They are wrong and you are nitpicking because you have nothing. Simple as. Any further nitpicking and I will report you.

No, they did not.

you flat out blatantly misrepresented @ChristineM .

Like I said, you really need to work on your back peddling.

Oh, and feel free to report whatever you like.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

No, they did not.

you flat out blatantly misrepresented @ChristineM .

Like I said, you really need to work on your back peddling.

Oh, and feel free to report whatever you like.

Debating you is like playing chess with a magician. The rules are lost, and the magician is just happy to perform tricks. But I'm not fooled. I can see what you're up to. You have nothing left. Take the L.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Let me provide a little perspective on this, which is wrong in so many ways:

• 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.

I hope that helps you to understand what is really quite simple.

 

[McBell]

Debating you is like playing chess with a magician.

What debate?
I pointed out you misrepresented @ChristineM and you simply ignore it.

The rules are lost, and the magician is just happy to perform tricks.

Presenting where you flat out misrepresented her is "performing tricks"?
Rules?
What rules?
Seeing as it was never a "debate" there are no 'rules' to be followed.

You misrepresented another member and got called out on it.
Not only by me, but the member you misrepresented.

You then demanded evidence of the misrepresentation and ran tail tucked when I presented it to you.

But I'm not fooled.

I agree.
You are not fooled.
You know you flat out blatantly misrepresented her and are now revealing how bad you are at back peddling.

I can see what you're up to.

Your posts show that you are not willing to address the fact that you blatantly misrepresented another member.
What is it you "think" I am up to?

Cause I merely called you out on your Bovine Feces induced misrepresentation.

You have nothing left. Take the L.

"Take the L."?
What is it you think you have won?

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Let me provide a little perspective on this, which is wrong in so many ways:

• 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.

I hope that helps you to understand what is really quite simple.

So never ever in the history of humankind has an atheist ever ever dismissed or ridiculed any belief in the supernatural as ignorant or stupid? Is that what you are trying to say to me? Please clarify. Surely you understand that scientific rationalism is an ideological framework predicated on unproven axioms and assumptions concerning the nature of reality. These axioms and assumptions are not necessarily true. They are simply unproven postulates that scientists accept as the foundation of their discipline. Or don't you?

I hope that helps you to understand what is really quite simple.