Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[McBell]

Then don't do it

I didn't
I merely called someone else out on it.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

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.

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.

 

[We Never Know]

I didn't
I merely called someone else out on it.

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"

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Newbies.
Full of bluster.
Think they know it all.
Look down upon us here.
Flash in the pan.

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?

 

[Absolutely Frank]

What’s a religious Zeus atheist?

Me. I don't believe in Zeus but I am going to debate anyone on the existence of Zeus.

 

[McBell]

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"

I am a Nothingarian

nothingarian (n.)​

"one who has no particular belief," especially in religious matters, 1789, from nothing + ending from unitarian, etc.​

nothingarian | Etymology of nothingarian by etymonline​

​

 

[We Never Know]

I am a Nothingarian

nothingarian (n.)​

"one who has no particular belief," especially in religious matters, 1789, from nothing + ending from unitarian, etc.​

nothingarian | Etymology of nothingarian by etymonline​

​

Nothingarian

noun
1.
a person who has no or little political or theological affiliation; a person who does not believe in or stand for anything in particular

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/nothingarian

 

[Absolutely Frank]

I am a Nothingarian

nothingarian (n.)​

"one who has no particular belief," especially in religious matters, 1789, from nothing + ending from unitarian, etc.​

nothingarian | Etymology of nothingarian by etymonline​

​

You sure fight hard for nothing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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".

Zizek is a legit philosopher.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

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.

Obviously no individual thought or belief is standalone, but the combined sets of thoughts and beliefs we each hold are also individual and unique. The only commonality between everyone for whom atheism is an aspect of their beliefs is that atheism. And we can still legitimately define and identify that atheism as a standalone concept even though it won't be a standalone belief for anyone in practice. This applies equally to theism and pretty much any other idea or concept too.

What you can't legitimately do is identify one of these standalone concepts, and a subset of people who hold it, then attribute additional beliefs those people happen to share (or you believe they share) and call those additions definitive parts of that fundamental concept.

Ketchup is generally not eaten on it's own and is commonly added to burgers or hotdogs. That doesn't make ketchup a meal and doesn't mean it can't also form part of vegetarian meals too. Regardless of what it is added to or mixed with, the ketchup is still just ketchup.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, science can't be used to do what matters, is useful, moral and ethical, as all those are subjective and science as a methdology is objective.

So there is more than science shaping athiests other than being atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Science is not about the word as such. It is an objective methodlogy and thus has a limit when it comes to the world. Thus you have in effect subjective beliefs without evidence.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

And we can still legitimately define and identify that atheism as a standalone concept

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.

 

[ChristineM]

You are on a religious forum. Did you think they were going to throw science at you?

Anything but bs

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anything but bs

No, the problem is this. If you do anything beyound atheism, you can't rationally link it to atheism. Atheism is not about evidence, science, that universe as such, morality, what matters or even theism as such.
Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief/disbelief in gods. That is all.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The difference between non-belief and a stance can be described like this:

Like, of all things, a country song says, "You have to believe in something or you'll fall for anything." During the industrial revolution a form of education was developed in Germany which was adopted worldwide, especially in industrial countries like the US in which the objective was not to educate but to socialize and dumb down. The most important thing was to destroy whatever the student believed in. Whether it be God, country, or whatever. They didn't want doctors, lawyers or artists, they wanted obedient workers bright enough to do the work but too dumb to realize what was being done to them. Too dumb to believe it. Fast forward to the technological revolution and the more information we have the less significant it is. Fake news, break down the family and society. Remove the mythological suppositions that founded it, take out the roots. And it collapses, but it's not about facts or belief, it's about what you want and feel.

In the smoldering ruins you have small bands of squabbling mice-people. Animals. They will destroy everything. In the early 1990s when I first became a believer, I would read the book of Revelation and think the things described there were impossible. I couldn't imagine how the government could destroy religion and then commerce destroys the government. Now, not so many years later it is easy to see, and skeptics read the book and think God will bring about all of this chaos. No. The whole point of that from the very beginning was that mankind, human beings, not animals would destroy himself.

That's why democratic socialism always fails. They always turn on one another. In order to be conservative you have to respect the rights of the individual in order to expect the same.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief/disbelief in gods. That is all.

Or so they say then they become activists about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or so they say then they become activists about it.

Well, that includes me, as I am also an atheist. But then I am a strong global skeptic, so I don't believe in concept of evidence as some atheists do.

 

[PureX]

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?

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.

 

[PureX]

Yup. Post after post after post. Exactly as I predicted.