you know, with Zizek the point is precisely not to just simply answer a question. The point is the process. The point is to start thinking yourself.

that's deep. we are on our own.

he is quoting G. K. Chesterton's view of the Bible's Book of Job

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the post-structuralist attack on epistemological 'giveness' can in turn be applied to the popular trend of empirical negation/refutations of God? These forms of critiquing theism are themselves susceptible to deconstruction? If you are, I agree strongly.

Who is he quoting at the beginning?

@Alberto2382 Your words are indicative of a lack of thought and understanding, I think. At least, this is the conclusion I am forced to come through. However, perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Please, enlighten me, how has Atheism undermined itself via post-structuralist thought?

I think he certainly does make a valid point about how we treat animals as if they're machines. It's absurd to assert that just because the animals don't seem to perceive reality with a similar amount of self-importance or self-justification as that of humans, that they are essentially making the same noise as when you throw a wrench in the gears. This is arrogant, and it's definitely not very ethical, even if God created the animals specifically for our own utilitarian purposes.

My thoughts exactly. For a while I was afraid he was not going to make a point at all, just babble semi-coherently.

Much Ado about nothing. All existence requires the presence of mater and energy. If there is a God, it has neither. That is the definition of spirit. The question then is, how can something that cost no matter or energy create anything?

He mentioned only that God died but forgot to mention the resurrection. This the key point in Christianity.

@McAwesomeDelux

Жыл бұрын

This is what I take from this: For true believers, the resurrection is key. The death of God is what is important for those who do not believe, but act as if they do.

i think “god” or “gods” or “spirits” or “daemons” or “om” are about as close as we’ve been able to get to what actually Is and part of the whole point is to not find out while you’re here and ruin all the fun

@ethanstump

Жыл бұрын

Philosophic idealism is suceptible to absurdist totalitarianism. A famous quote, "those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities." I'm all right with a bit of escapism, as long as we know what we are escaping from is a physical reality that we are completely able to interact with, and thus escape. You have it inverted.

@cartercartercartercar

Жыл бұрын

@@ethanstump LOTS of people believe in god. some of the smartest and dumbest people on earth believe in something beyond our material reality

@ethanstump

Жыл бұрын

​@@cartercartercartercar and that doesn't mean the quality of their evidence is high for such a belief. I'm a pretty intelligent person myself, but i relied heavily on the "faith" of those i trusted when i was young, thinking that this obviously silly ritual must have "some" purpose, and it did, just not the one i was told. just as it's possible to fool a smart person with something outside of their knowledge base, it's possible to say that entire communities are based on low quality evidence that is tantamount to wishful thinking, such as ghost hunters and lochness monster sightings. why a superhuman that should rule all of human society should be set aside from the rules of empirical evidence is something that astonishes me. that's not to say that no one can have fun hunting ghosts or ghouls or believing in gods and the like, but it should be acknowledged for what it is, playful fun that is purely unserious, and not a intelligent predatory relationship that should be able to tell you how to dress, eat, sleep and fuck for your entire life. maybe a week or two, but even that is stretching it.

😂😂😂😂

So uh ... is it possible for you to express yourself without all the jargon? I mean, it sounds interesting what you're saying but I've got little grounding in philosophy.

I actually disagree on a certain level, I think animals have their own language and others can dissolve in solidarity. Human design is different than animal design but I think animals evolve too and thus are ruled by the same beautiful maybe god like hand of evolutionary progress and they can socialize with humans. Consciousness is important and there are differing depths to it we don't understand yet connected to the rest of our bodies up to the brain

@Javier-il1xi

3 жыл бұрын

Progress in evolution follows the ergonomic logic: less resources, more output. In that sense, evolution is a blind, idiot force. The notion of Evolution being this teleological process guiding human and animal development is exactly what we should ditch. There is no meaning in Nature, since meaning is precisely this radical cut with and within the Subject.

@justinanderson617callme

3 жыл бұрын

@@Javier-il1xi good point

Just the old argument that we need the idea of God even though he is not. The thing is it works the other way. It can be argued convincingly that atheists need to think there is nothing to have them ultimately responsible , even beyond life, so they can have the false but psychologically real feeling they are in control of their world. So lack of belief is like a crutches which maintain atheist into the illusion that he is on top of the heap of life.

@Javier-il1xi

3 жыл бұрын

The idea and the whole project of Žižek is the reality of the fiction.