Videos Being Viewed Right Now
comment listing type:
Top New British Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
Videos Being Viewed Right Now comment listing type: Top New British Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Bad Astronomy - Mercury MESSENGER from the Gods
Ricky Gervais - The New Hero of Comedy
Bill Maher Explains the Debate: Evolution vs Creationism
The Atheist Experience: Pascals Wager
The illogical stuff is the best and most interesting... love, music, the human brain...
I find those things fascinating, mysterious perhaps, but not illogical, Love and music are things that may sometimes make us irrational, or atleast do irrational things, but that doesnt mean they cant have a natural origin, and I dont have a problem thinking of a few possible explanations, and indeed, with research into the function of the brain, we've make lots of progress on understanding how these things work.
You perhaps want these things to remain mysterious, abstract concepts, with no basis in the natural world, maybe because you dont want to unweave the rainbow, as Keats put it. "God" -in any form- is however no good explanation for the origin of these things, no more than he is an explanation for the origin of our opposing thumbs.
I'm fascinated by love, music, art and culture and its effect on humans, and lots of things can be said about them, what is clear is that you can obviously have all those things, and appreciate them, without any kind of supernatural hankerings whatsoever.
Point in case, as you mentioned Spock, Star Trek for example was created by an atheist
The Atheist Experience: Pascals Wager
I understand that you do, of course, that's why I am asking: How can you separate them? How about comparing the Flying Pink unicorns and the 72 virgins? is there any way in which the 72 virgins are more probable than the unicorns? Why? is there any way the resurrection of Jesus is more probable than the 72 virgins? How about the resurrection vs God himself? How do you decide?
You seem to think that the word atheist is because we all "feel" god and we atheists choose to deny it. Well, that's not true, the point is that I live in a world where billions of people believe in a thing, and I dont, so its a way of pointing that out. Like Sam Harris says, we are no more atheists than we are non-astrologers, but we dont define our beliefs as denial-of-astrology, and so yes, ideally, I would prefer not to need the term "atheist" at all, because I think its a rather obvious stance, given that we cant know, and there is no evidence to support the opposing view.
There is also the fact that the world, and more specifically the living world, superficially LOOKS designed, and we humans are creatures who, because WE make and design things, think in terms of painting=painter. "Who made this?" This gives us an intuitive reason to think of God(s) because it feels natural to us. The evidence, however, when we actually look more carefully at the natural world, clearly shows that it wasn't designed at all.
The Atheist Experience: Pascals Wager
This feels more and more like discussing with Stephen Colbert:
Did you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than in your brain? Look it up. Now I know some of you are gonna say "I did look it up, and its not true" Well, thats cause you looked it up in a book, try looking it up in your gut.
My point about evidence is that i think its a good idea to ask yourself this question:If I make something up, right now, (such as flying pink unicorns) would I, with any confidence be able to say that the shit I just made up is less plausible than what I actually believe in?
Or, take another example, the hijackers of 9/11. Are they up there screwing virgins as we speak? no? Why not? Well, we cant say for sure, they may have been rewarded with eternal bliss for all we know. Lets say you were given the chance to talk them out of it, what could you say? Their god wasnt evidence, they had faith, they KNEW they were going to paradise. If evidence isnt needed to believe, how can we say that those people are wrong?, arent they just as likely to be right as Rick Warren, or Oprah Winfrey, or Tom Cruise or Richard Dawkins? Are they all on level grounds?
How do you separate ridiculous nonsense from plausible ideas?
The Atheist Experience: Pascals Wager
Of course there are deep, interesting mysteries in science, but thats not an argument for anything.. Thats the whole point in the much used imaginary stuff (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapot etc) arguing in favor of their existence is a non-starter, unless it is based on EVIDENCE. It is no bloody good arguing that the world is so complex/strange/mysterious so we can never know or say anything either way.
The truth is that theists have a very, very bad case, and Pascals Wager happens to be one of the very worst arguments ever, and blowing it apart isnt being a "know-it-all" anymore than your confident dis-belief in Santa Claus makes you a know-it-all.
The Atheist Experience: Pascals Wager
Yet they are still betting and fishing money from the poor and gullible around the table, pretending they are sitting on a royal flush, and, because of this neat, unwritten (except in scripture) rule they've established, no one is even supposed to call them out, its taboo, and when we do it anyway, of course our hands are better, We've been shuffling and dealing new hands for 2000 years since they got the hand they're stuck with. Its like we're cheating. And when we do turn over our cards, who wouldnt look smug?
Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible
Exactly, it helps to provide the explanation, or the context, if you have to.
Take for example something that frequently IS taken out of context (by creationists) Darwin, this bit being one of their favourites:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
This quote IS taken out of its context, but it would be insufficient of someone defending Darwin or Darwinism to simply yell "OUT OF CONTEXT!!!" unless we explain how. The above quote is the start of a chapter where Darwin actually EXPLAINS how the eye could have evolved. In context, the quote is merely a set-up, written to draw the reader in, only to explain how the un-intuitive is actually the case.
By contrast, take Sam Harris mention of slavery, there isnt a single chapter or verse in the entire bible that condemns slavery. In a book that is looked as a superb moral guide by billions of people, how is that "taking things COMPLETELY out of context"? Is there a way to hold the bible, perhaps at a certain angle, so that when you read it it clearly condemns the practice of slavery?
Why Homosexuality Should Be Banned
Then allow me to say a d--k up one's a-s is nothing to celebrate.
Tolerance.
Thats the wierdest post I've seen in a long time. Anyway, because of support from people like you, You've been fucked up the ass for 8 years straight now, and that may be a teeny bit too long, even for a treehugging communist gay person.
TF2 Companion Cube Soccer
Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible
How exactly? I was responding to sniper007's claim that :
[Sam Harris] fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."
My point was that according to this absurd logic, no one prior to God's handing out the ten commandments (At Mount Sinai, to the Jews) could know that it was wrong to kill and steal, because God hadn't actually told anyone yet. In the second sentence I ask how other animals, who cant read stone tablets or bibles, can still avoid being murderers and thieves, and even express kindness and fellowship towards others.
Fred_Chopin
http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-QA-at-UC-Berkeley-March-08
In reply to this comment by Fred_Chopin:
Wasn't there a questions session?
Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible
He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."
You just fail.
Your above statement displays an ignorance, arrogance and outright stupidity that quite frankly sickens me, and I'm not quite sure if I should laugh or cry, or bang my head against sharp objects.
How did the jews get to Mount Sinai in the first place? Where they, along with every other hominid and animal, for 3.5 billion years under the impression that murder and thieving was all OK? How come animals ever express kindness and fellowship to their kin, and even other kin?
You've got alot left to explain, and, more importantly, a lot left to read. Try picking up some books on morality, evolution, consciousness and human society. Not to mention a bit of history and general knowledge.
Richard Dawkins lecture at UC Berkeley (March 08)
Wasn't there a questions session?
Yes, there was, but its not online just yet. I'll post it once it becomes available