How We Compensate When Disconnected from God

[Dexter Sinister]

Get in touch with Slavoj Zizek to debunk Dawkins and Hitchins.

To debunk is to expose as false; that's not what he does. He's critical of them, certainly, but he doesn't really appear to me to argue that they're wrong in any fundamental sense--at least insofar as his little YouTube lectures are comprehensible-- they're just incomplete. His own understanding of science seems a bit lacking to me, I've several times heard him criticize it for claims it doesn't make, and grotesquely misapply Godel's incompleteness theorems.

 

[big]

To debunk is to expose as false; that's not what he does. He's critical of them, certainly, but he doesn't really appear to me to argue that they're wrong in any fundamental sense--at least insofar as his little YouTube lectures are comprehensible-- they're just incomplete.

YouTube!? How about the MIT? Zizek does it here:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11721

 

[taxslave]

The devil is your father alive (the one monopolizing your mother) and God is your father once killed by you (thus giving birth to culture including all the stupidities you may write).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_and_Taboo

Do tell: How can you kill a fictional character? Do you just write her out of the script?

 

[taxslave]

How can you compensate when disconnected from God?

easy---connect to me.

To be disconnected would you not have to have been connected in the first place? And how does one connect with a fictional character unless you have some serious phycological disorder and watch too many daytime soaps?

 

[L Gilbert]

I have wondered about that, Spade. What if ancient Greek Gods or ancient Roman Gods are the true Gods? These Gods are dead, nobody worships them any more. But if they indeed are true Gods, then the entire population of the earth will end up in Hell.

What is a "true" god? IMO, they are all "true". All are bits of imagination born out of superstition. What makes one more real or "true" than another?

 

[L Gilbert]

To debunk is to expose as false; that's not what he does. He's critical of them, certainly, but he doesn't really appear to me to argue that they're wrong in any fundamental sense--at least insofar as his little YouTube lectures are comprehensible-- they're just incomplete. His own understanding of science seems a bit lacking to me, I've several times heard him criticize it for claims it doesn't make, and grotesquely misapply Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Quite right, Dex.

 

[big]

Do tell: How can you kill a fictional character? Do you just write her out of the script?

I'm not at your service so tell me first: what do you know about what is real and what is not?

 

[big]

Quite right, Dex.

Quite wrong, rather.

 

[L Gilbert]

YouTube!? How about the MIT? Zizek does it here:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11721

Zizek does what there? That looks like a review of his "Parallax View" to me.
Seems to me that he takes a specific argument and then puts his own interpretation to it. Also, that he takes a look at an argument through his version of the eyes of someone else.
I think he's a good thinker but he sure seems to try to lose readers in extremely fine detail and intricate little nuances.

Dawkins seems to think we are programmed entirely genetically, even our thoughts. Given his atheistic view, then religion should have died out like a defective part of programming. But it rather seems to have some endurance. If we are not free thinkers then we would not be able to disbelieve but would be programmed to keep religion around.
(Not sure if I explained what I meant here well enough. I'll work on it if not).

I think Hitchens has a good point in that if this god was indeed all-powerful and all-seeing, then it is all-responsible for absolutely everything including an infinitely vast amount of transgressions of its own view of morality and hence turned itself into an immoral being.

 

[L Gilbert]

Quite wrong, rather.

Ok I admit that I haven't read much of Zizek, but I haven't seen anything he wrote that proves Dawkins or Hitchens is wrong. Can you post where Zizek says this?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

YouTube!? How about the MIT?

Yes, YouTube. Something wrong with that? It's the only way I'm likely to ever hear him speak about his ideas. Apart from that, he's often described as a "militant Marxist atheist," not the kind of person you'd expect to be debunking people like Dawkins and Hitchens. He'd agree with them in principle on many things, except where his use of what I think is the bankrupt philosophy of Marxism intrudes on his analysis. There's a little too much of the post-modern deconstructionist about him for my taste.

 

[cortex]

To be disconnected would you not have to have been connected in the first place? And how does one connect with a fictional character unless you have some serious phycological disorder and watch too many daytime soaps?

good points.
However--it is God that is real and you and I that are the fictional characters. One can,as a fictional character connect to God--but if you are you become disconnected and are having trouble re-connecting to him you can connect to him by becoming connected to a character who is already connected to him--a sort of secondary connection. I am connected to him so you can connect to God by connecting to me. As far as day time soaps are concerned they are as much a part of god's plan as anything else.

I hope this was helpful.

 

[L Gilbert]

Connection intermediaries? That is what religions are - intermediaries. Priests, imams, etc. claim to be connected to whichever deity they follow, and their constituents connect through them.
As Maher said, "Religions are the bureaucracies between humans and gods" (or something like that).

 

[big]

Ok I admit that I haven't read much of Zizek, but I haven't seen anything he wrote that proves Dawkins or Hitchens is wrong. Can you post where Zizek says this?

Zizek is debunking all evolutionists in the section entitled: from physics to design (from Chap 4 the loop of freedom) .

The parallax view - Google Livres

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Do tell: How can you kill a fictional character? Do you just write her out of the script?

No matter, taxslave. He gave me the credit for killing God, I was pleased about that.

 

[L Gilbert]

Seems to me the premise of evolutionists is that life simply develops to better survivability. Debunking that would mean proving that life doesn't. There is simply too much evidence pointing to the premise that it does.

 

[AnnaG]

No matter, taxslave. He gave me the credit for killing God, I was pleased about that.

Want to buy a bridge? According to believers, their god is alive and well, so he was giving you empty credit. lol

 

[jjaycee98]

But the religious bunch turn around and say that is the "devil's work". And "God" so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" but lets millions starve, die of terrible illnesses and die at the hands of Dictators and common street thugs in frightening and sickening ways. Just take the credit when something good happens and absolved completely when bad.

 

[big]

Seems to me the premise of evolutionists is that life simply develops to better survivability. Debunking that would mean proving that life doesn't. There is simply too much evidence pointing to the premise that it does.

The only thing that is evident is that there would be no "evidence" (no facts, no objectivity) if humans were not absolutely disconnected from nature.

 

[AnnaG]

lmao That's just hilarious.