• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Evidence that the world is material.
That's a strange phrase.
What do you mean?
And BTW I don't believe in the supernatural, so stop that.
Stop talking about it?
Nah.
You must accept that I will.
And please explain with evidence what real is as per observation? How does it look? What is its form and shape and so on?
It seems that you want to pin down some absolutes.
Regarding the material world, I can't do that.
I favor methods that best describe & deal with the real world.
The results are always subject to new evidence & improved understandings.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That's a strange phrase.
What do you mean?

Stop talking about it?
Nah.
You must accept that I will.

It seems that you want to pin down some absolutes.
Regarding the material world, I can't do that.
I favor methods that best describe & deal with the real world.
The results are always subject to new evidence & improved understandings.

Evidence that the world is real!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Evidence that the world is real!
I'll wager that your use of the term "real"
should be clearly defined, lest we get into
another argument caused by definitions.
But at the moment, I'm dealing with the
material world. The "real world" is a term
best used in economics.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'd call thousands "many".
This includes believers trying to justify belief.
I'm not sure if there are thousands of recognized philosophers. And it definitely doesn't include just any believer 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.
Complex? Arcane language? The philosopher Robert Nozick used Spock (erroneously) as the model in the thought experiment exploring why emotions make life worth living. Friedrich Nietzsche didn't use arcane language, but he used very powerful metaphors (like the lamb and bird of prey) and was long winded in his form as good German authors are. Michel Foucault wrote about sexuality, prisons, hospitals and mental illness in relation to otherness and how society treats the other (the movie Fight Club is heavily saturated in Foucault's philosophy). Peter Singer is clear enough in his wording that he has pissed off a lot of people with his idea that it would better to abort fetuses with severe deformities and illnesses (he's a deep ecologist).
To wade into a world of arcane jargon that
over-complicates simple ideas is unappealing.
Sounds more like you're making excuses based on faulty assumptions of what philosophy is.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not sure if there are thousands of recognized philosophers. And it definitely doesn't include just any believer trying to justify belief.
Don't forget that many philosophers are religious.

Sounds more like you're making excuses based on faulty assumptions of what philosophy is.
I'm dissing their over-complicating the simple.
And getting thing outright wrong, eg, the one
mentioned by the OP.
 
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.
False. Aesthetics and the creative will always trump practical methods, evidence and reason. Aesthetics isn't just some adjunct to knowledge. Aesthetics is the most integral part of knowledge and it requires - no, it demands your attention and personal involvement. Like Nietzsche taught us in order to get things done you are absolutely contingent upon the creative will. There would be no science or technology without creativity or aesthetics. Argue otherwise.

quote-art-is-the-proper-task-of-life-friedrich-nietzsche-21-45-39.jpg
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Goodness gracious....you don't just disagree.
You make pronouncements about true & false.
Aesthetics and the creative will always trump practical methods, evidence and reason. Aesthetics isn't just some adjunct to knowledge. Aesthetics is the most integral part of knowledge and it requires - no, it demands your attention and personal involvement. Like Nietzsche taught us in order to get things done you are absolutely contingent upon the creative will. There would be no science or technology without creativity or aesthetics. Argue otherwise.
You seem to be mistakenly presuming that dealing
with the material world means eschewing creativity,
aesthetics, emotions, etc.
All those things are part of the material world.
As a design engineer, those were all in my toolkit.
Emotion to inspire, creativity to invent something
new, & aesthetics to guide the design.
Some guy expressing an opinion.
Same as I'm doing.
Ain't none of us gots da THE TRUTH.
 
Top