Topic: The God Delusion (Read 11597 times)

ivan · « **Reply #25 on:** March 04, 2009, 01:57:31 PM »

Quote from: xolik on March 04, 2009, 01:50:44 PM

The Banana is proof of the existence of God.

Kirk Cameron told me so.

GodlessBastard has his own take on the banana.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #26 on:** March 04, 2009, 05:13:49 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on March 04, 2009, 10:45:17 AM

Demo will probably come along shortly to tear this up, but don't be swayed by his beautiful words. He is a silver-tongued devil and will lead you astray

I'll take that as a compliment.

Probie · « **Reply #27 on:** March 04, 2009, 06:04:08 PM »

Quote from: ivan on March 04, 2009, 01:39:43 PM

I suppose I should state my definition: An atheist doesn't believe any of the stories about gods and God that people have invented, including the story that gods or God exist.

That is what I know to be true. Therefore I am an atheist.

ivan · « **Reply #28 on:** March 04, 2009, 06:15:55 PM »

Welcome. You're in splendid company.

HeavyJay · « **Reply #29 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:49:54 PM »

I'm not going to get into how I feel about the book itself or the theist/atheist debate because it makes me want to throw things. I will, however, say that Dawkins (as well as most popular science authors/television presenters) is incredibly pompous. I'd like to staple pork chops to Dawkins, Michio Kaku and Bill Nye, then lock them in a room full of rabid bears.

12AX7 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:51:14 PM »

Bears get rabies? I didn't know that.

12AX7 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:52:56 PM »

"Any mammal may become infected with the rabies virus and develop symptoms, including humans. " - Wikipedia

HeavyJay · « **Reply #32 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:53:14 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on March 05, 2009, 03:51:14 PM

Bears get rabies? I didn't know that.

I guess so.

12AX7 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:56:50 PM »

Funny you rarely hear of larger animals having rabies. Maybe the percentage of contact with people; more people are aware of more cases involving smaller animals than, for example, bears in the wild.

Wunderkind · « **Reply #34 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:02:59 PM »

That's because people who are ttacked by rabid bears rarely live long enough to actually have to be concerned about the bear having rabies. However, more people survive squirrel attacks than you might think.

On a serious note, if there is a rise of rabies cases in your area, it probably came from smaller non-predators. Rabies is one of those diseases that works it way up the food chain and if you stop early, it doesn't get a chance to infect larger animals.

Also, I love how a topic called "The God Delusion" ends in a discussion of rabies. I'm not sure why, that just hit me funny.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #35 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:39:48 PM »

I'm in Sixpack's camp with this one as hashed and rehashed in many other threads on this and the whorehouse.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #36 on:** March 05, 2009, 06:10:23 PM »

Quote from: Wunderkind on March 05, 2009, 04:02:59 PM

However, more people survive squirrel attacks than you might think.

Heh. Win.

ivan · « **Reply #37 on:** March 05, 2009, 06:11:46 PM »

Something as big as God and the meaning of everything tends to get rehashed.

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on March 04, 2009, 12:48:44 PM

I prefer the sasquatch analogy. People who believe in sasquatch are generally cranks, but it is possible that it exists, and I am open to believing in sasquatch if evidence is presented. This is not the same as saying that sasquatch does or does not exist.

I ran across this today on Wikipedia... Carl Sagan had a similar take on cranks, in this case Von Daniken, but with a subtle yet crucial difference:

Quote

Although Sagan did not rule out the possibility of visitation, he insisted that such extraordinary assertions as von Däniken's demand extraordinary proof, in the absence of which it is inappropriate to believe the claims.

Allowing for the possibility of something un-disprovable swings over to the agnostic/theistic end of the spectrum.

Disbelieving wild claims in the absence of truth swings towards the atheistic end.

The ideas taught by world religions are nothing if not the wildest of wild claims. The onus is not on atheists to supply proof.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #38 on:** March 05, 2009, 06:17:17 PM »

Quote from: ivan on March 05, 2009, 06:11:46 PM

The ideas taught by world religions are nothing if not the wildest of wild claims. The onus is not on atheists to supply proof.

That's what I've always felt as well. It is the religious who are making the fantastic claims here. Why is it that when an atheist simply dismisses them as absurd the atheist is somehow then accused of having a "belief system"?

That's always puzzled me.

xolik · « **Reply #39 on:** March 05, 2009, 06:37:10 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on March 05, 2009, 06:17:17 PM

That's what I've always felt as well. It is the religious who are making the fantastic claims here. Why is it that when an atheist simply dismisses them as absurd the atheist is somehow then accused of having a "belief system"?

That's always puzzled me.

I didn't quite understand that one either. If I'm telling you that God exists, well, it would just make my statements a lot more convincing if every now and then a little "It's true, I'm right here" came out of the ether...eh, I don't doubt it, but I sure as heck can't prove it either.

As you can probably tell, I'm not really one to take to evangelizing.

Vespertine · « **Reply #40 on:** March 05, 2009, 08:37:09 PM »

Quote from: HeavyJay on March 05, 2009, 03:49:54 PM

I'm not going to get into how I feel about the book itself or the theist/atheist debate because it makes me want to throw things. I will, however, say that Dawkins (as well as most popular science authors/television presenters) is incredibly pompous. I'd like to staple pork chops to Dawkins, Michio Kaku and Bill Nye, then lock them in a room full of rabid bears.

Out of curiosity, what's your problem with Michio Kaku?

HeavyJay · « **Reply #41 on:** March 06, 2009, 02:29:06 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine on March 05, 2009, 08:37:09 PM

Out of curiosity, what's your problem with Michio Kaku?

He strikes me as being incredibly smug and very much full of himself.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #42 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:46:12 AM »

There is a certain level of pretense involved in any public display of one's skill/talent/knowledge.
Personally I kind of like the guy, although nothing he says is particularly mind-blowing.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #43 on:** March 06, 2009, 11:17:15 AM »

I have one of his books (Hyperspace), and found it a really good read, but whenever he shows up on that show on the History Channel ("The Universe") I tend to tune him out. He's not one of their more interesting physicists they get to do commentary on that show.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #44 on:** March 06, 2009, 12:56:48 PM »

"The Universe" was a real disappointment to me. It's not really geared towards someone who already has a general understanding of what a black hole is, which you would think would be the kind of person who would be interested in the show.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2009, 01:21:55 PM »

I know... the lack of actual hard science content in most episodes is really frustrating. I've seen a handful of decent episodes, but most of them are "Gee whiz, this science stuff sure is complicated! OOOH, LOOK NIFTY GRAPHICS!"

Vespertine · « **Reply #46 on:** March 06, 2009, 02:03:22 PM »

I've got all of Kaku's books. I really enjoy his writing style. Also, he doesn't bug me when he's on the TV either.

I think my favourite episode of The Universe has been the one on parallel universes. I find that subject fascinating and sometimes mind boggling.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #47 on:** March 06, 2009, 02:16:12 PM »

That one was good. Another one I really liked was the episode on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. As concepts those are both pretty bizarre -- even to people well-versed in physics and cosmology -- and I don't think I'd ever seen both concepts explained so eloquently anywhere else.

ivan · « **Reply #48 on:** March 06, 2009, 02:18:27 PM »

Parallel universes and Dark Matter are MAGIC!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #49 on:** March 06, 2009, 02:23:52 PM »

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. -- Gehm's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The God Delusion (Read 11597 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7