Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[mikkel_the_dane]

That I understand.

That is as clear as mud.

 

[PureX]

Bible thumpers desperately need to believe this.

And then you all went right ahead and proved it. As always.

 

[Revoltingest]

And then you all went right ahead and proved it. As always.

Actually, I proved nothing
I merely observed your posts.
You did all the proving.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

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.

Positive not in the sense of being a good but positive in the sense of having qualities rather than not having qualities. If atheism were mere passive n0n-belief then it would lack all qualities but it doesn't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Yeah, he does. He writes, he lectures, he engages other philosophers, he is considered a philosopher. And it's not ridiculous or cryptic (although he is difficult to understand due to his very thick accent) or crap. Such as this:

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.

A quote would have been nice but the claim is true. Like how with atheism we frequently find criticisms of "religion" but it's really just against Christianity and more broadly Abrahamic faiths and definitely not religion as a whole. It's so bad that even authors who are rightfully considered atheophobes and theist wind up on lists of atheists authors and books.
We can also look at "nu atheism" where we do indeed find some of the same dogma. Much in how Christians define others, such as the "no real Christian" thing or condemning other denominations, Richard Dawkins insists that deism--a theistic belief with a deity who created the universe and set it in motion--is "sexed up atheism." ( The God Delusion)
Also when we considered those who were born into atheism and those who got there after being religious, studies show these are two different groups. Those born in to it often don't have the same heightened skills in logic and rational thinking that those who later got there (this group almost uniformly are better thinkers).
And of course when we consider the world of cultures then atheism and theism get very difficult to define. As was mentioned earlier there is at least one known group of people who are animist (and believe in spirits) but do not believe in god. In Japan, we would say their traditional Shinto beliefs make them theist, but they tend to understand the terms differently, describing themselves as atheist and using theist to describe Western monotheism (and indeed their concept of a god does not match the more typical Western view).
And, of course, an area where Zizek (born in SR Slovenia) would have more first hand experience than either of us, is the atheism of places like the USSR which indeed was heavily steeped in dogma, so much so that it even hijacked science.
In short, we rarely find cases where atheism is just atheism.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Yeah, he does. He writes, he lectures, he engages other philosophers, he is considered a philosopher. And it's not ridiculous or cryptic (although he is difficult to understand due to his very thick accent) or crap. Such as this:

A quote would have been nice but the claim is true. Like how with atheism we frequently find criticisms of "religion" but it's really just against Christianity and more broadly Abrahamic faiths and definitely not religion as a whole. It's so bad that even authors who are rightfully considered atheophobes and theist wind up on lists of atheists authors and books.
We can also look at "nu atheism" where we do indeed find some of the same dogma. Much in how Christians define others, such as the "no real Christian" thing or condemning other denominations, Richard Dawkins insists that deism--a theistic belief with a deity who created the universe and set it in motion--is "sexed up atheism." ( The God Delusion)
Also when we considered those who were born into atheism and those who got there after being religious, studies show these are two different groups. Those born in to it often don't have the same heightened skills in logic and rational thinking that those who later got there (this group almost uniformly are better thinkers).
And of course when we consider the world of cultures then atheism and theism get very difficult to define. As was mentioned earlier there is at least one known group of people who are animist (and believe in spirits) but do not believe in god. In Japan, we would say their traditional Shinto beliefs make them theist, but they tend to understand the terms differently, describing themselves as atheist and using theist to describe Western monotheism (and indeed their concept of a god does not match the more typical Western view).
And, of course, an area where Zizek (born in SR Slovenia) would have more first hand experience than either of us, is the atheism of places like the USSR which indeed was heavily steeped in dogma, so much so that it even hijacked science.
In short, we rarely find cases where atheism is just atheism.

I should have provided quotes as a courtesy but I wanted to present the argument myself instead of relying on direct quotation because you know Zizek (it could have turned into an argument about Star Wars). Let's not remind them of one of their former biggies, Sam Harris. He turned out to be a complete embarrassment and is he even an atheist?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I should have provided quotes as a courtesy but I wanted to present the argument myself instead of relying on direct quotation because you know Zizek (it could have turned into an argument about Star Wars). Let's not remind them of one of their former biggies, Sam Harris. He turned out to be a complete embarrassment and is he even an atheist?

You are by rules, norms and legalities supposed to cite where you got it from. It's so others can go back and read it and also to avoid charges of plagiarism (you even have to cite your own stuff to avoid that one).

Sam Harris. He turned out to be a complete embarrassment and is he even an atheist?

That's why I mentioned atheism isn't really a clear-cut and dry definition to make. Spirituality, even without a god, doesn't really seem atheist to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

If atheism were mere passive n0n-belief then it would lack all qualities but it doesn't.

Your using the subjunctive case (ie, "were" to indicate an
assumption contrary to fact) implies that atheism isn't
passive. That is an erroneous over-generalization.

I was born an atheist, ie, not believing in sky fairies.
The only change over time was to discover the
various sky fairy myths that I didn't believe in.
That's as passive as one can possibly get, which
disproves your continual assertions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your using the subjunctive case (ie, "were" to indicate an
assumption contrary to fact) implies that atheism isn't
passive. That is an erroneous over-generalization.

I was born an atheist, ie, not believing in sky fairies.
The only change over time was to discover the
various sky fairy myths that I didn't believe in.
That's as passive as one can possibly get, which
disproves your continual assertions.

Well, you do have an active belief in evidence and you do seem to combine that with your atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, he does. He writes, he lectures, he engages other philosophers, he is considered a philosopher. And it's not ridiculous or cryptic (although he is difficult to understand due to his very thick accent) or crap.

Many people lecture & engage other philosophers.
This doesn't make their beliefs cromulent....only
that they're accepted in his own circle, eg, claims
about God being this or that, claims that Christianity
is athesitic, claims that atheists have more faith than
believers. All crap that I've heard from their ilk.
Too many assume unprovable premises, & then
reason from those, proffering their conclusions
as reality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many people lecture & engage other philosophers.

Not that many.

This doesn't make their beliefs cromulent....only
that they're accepted in his own circle, eg, claims
about God being this or that, claims that Christians
are more atheistic than atheists, claims that atheists
have more faith than believers. All crap that I've
heard from their ilk.

You haven't really dabbled in philosophy, have you? And who's "ilk." What is this "ilk"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you do have an active belief in evidence...

Word games.
You equate observation of evidence with "belief".
They're not the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not that many.

I'd call thousands "many".
This includes believers trying to justify belief.

You haven't really dabbled in philosophy, have you? And who's "ilk." What is this "ilk"?

I recognize specious rationalization when I see it.
The main job of philosophers is to construct complex
arguments using arcane language to create an edifice
of sophistication. It all tumbles down when they reach
conclusions like "Christians are atheistic" or "God exists".
Ranging from wrong to not even wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Word games.
You equate observation of evidence with "belief".
They're not the same.

Well, so you understand how come science is based on methodological naturalism and not the philosophical one?

You are from STEM and that colors your bias in regards to what the universe is. I am from the social and humanistic side and that gives me another bias. That is it in the end.
You are not special and neither am I.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, so you understand how come science is based on methodological naturalism and not the philosophical one?

You are from STEM and that colors your bias in regards to what the universe is. I am from the social and humanistic side and that gives me another bias. That is it in the end.
You are not special and neither am I.

If you want to accomplish something in the real world,
practical methods, evidence, experimentation, reason,
& theorizing are superior to the alternatives.
Things that don't intrude upon the material world, eg,
supernatural beings, are simply irrelevant.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Your using the subjunctive case (ie, "were" to indicate an
assumption contrary to fact) implies that atheism isn't
passive. That is an erroneous over-generalization.

I was born an atheist, ie, not believing in sky fairies.
The only change over time was to discover the
various sky fairy myths that I didn't believe in.
That's as passive as one can possibly get, which
disproves your continual assertions.

Let me put it in a way you might understand. Atheism isn't just some car sitting neutral in the driveway, it's moving along the freeway with other cars (ideas) and it's trying to rule the road like the rest of them. Atheism, like any other worldview or belief system, is actively participating in the traffic of ideas. It's not just parked and passive, it's engaged, moving, and influencing the flow of thought and culture. It has its own direction, purpose, and sometimes even tries to lead or challenge the prevailing traffic rules.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd call thousands "many".
This includes believers trying to justify belief.


I recognize specious rationalization when I see it.
The main job of philosophers is to construct complex
arguments using arcane language to create an edifice
of sophistication. It all tumbles down when they reach
conclusions like "Christians are atheistic" or "God exists".
Ranging from wrong to not even wrong.

Well, you could start here:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

And then explain how it is wrong or not even wrong. But remember, explain and not just claim. You are rational and all that to you can explain it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me put it in a way you might understand.

Have you ever considered that others do
understand you, but the problem lies in
your loopy claims?

Atheism isn't just some car sitting neutral in the driveway, it's moving along the freeway with other cars (ideas) and it's trying to rule the road like the rest of them. Atheism, like any other worldview or belief system, is actively participating in the traffic of ideas. It's not just parked and passive, it's engaged, moving, and influencing the flow of thought and culture. It has its own direction, purpose, and sometimes even tries to lead or challenge the prevailing traffic rules.

You call not believing in sky fairies a "belief
system". That's a pretty ambitious label. It's
like my being labelled "not a stamp collector".
Yours is a very strange & strained way of
seeing reality.
Ya gotta let go of these over-reaching
generalities.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you want to accomplish something in the real world,
practical methods, evidence, experimentation, reason,
& theorizing are superior to the alternatives.
Things that don't intrude upon the material world, eg,
supernatural beings, are simply irrelevant.

Evidence that the world is material. And BTW I don't believe in the supernatural, so stop that.
And please explain with evidence what real is as per observation? How does it look? What is its form and shape and so on?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you could start here:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

And then explain how it is wrong or not even wrong. But remember, explain and not just claim. You are rational and all that to you can explain it.

To wade into a world of arcane jargon that
over-complicates simple ideas is unappealing.