Douglas Adams reads a section from one of his Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books.
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 25275 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Did you know your robot can hum like Pink Floyd?
J/P=?
#19
“* ignore the fact that statistical and legal proofs are not science, which is held to a far higher standard?”
If we follow you forays into the global warming discussions around here, that higher standard most generally boils down to: the theory with the most agreement by others is the correct one; even though throughout human history, consensus has hardly guaranteed truth.
“* ignore the fact that creationism completely and utterly fails to explain anything because in order to explain complexity it first postulates the pre-existence of even greater complexity?”
Of the many arguments against biblical creationism, this hardly seems to be one of much consequence as we, ourselves, are examples of greater complexity being able to create things of lesser complexity. As for me, I’m actually hoping this little universe of ours is just the class project of some extra-dimensional high-school kids.
Nice to hear Adams reading of his own work — from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe IIRC. The animal in question was portrayed by Peter Davidson (AKA The Doctor #5) in the BBC TV series. The more recent movie was a total travesty.
#10 (and oodles of others): The “not a shred of evidence” line that is Dawkins’ mantra wears me out. I think a clearer statement would be to say that there is no scientific evidence of a standard the individual finds acceptable. Despite many efforts on both sides to argue Christianity scientifically, the reality of that faith lies in whether one accepts the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus firsthand. The fact that one was not present to witness something does not preclude the possibility that something happened. Neither does the fact that something cannot be reproduced prove that it did not happen. At the same time, someone else stating that something happened does not make it so. Dawkins has made his examination of the world around him and religious histories and finds the evidence unconvincing. That does not mean there’s no evidence to consider as he so often protests.
#13
We could argue until the season turned into years and probably never see eye to eye on the existence of sentience that is greater than ourselves. There are many things people don’t agree on, even scientists from Oxford don’t agree on anything. The point with Dawkin’s isn’t so much about his evidence as the fact that not only does he refuse to respect the beliefs of others, but he mocks them. And that is wrong. Sometimes you have to accept that people hold different views from you, and even if you their views are crap, you respect their right to believe them. If you don’t, you become a fanatic. Like Dawkin.
#23 – the reality of that faith lies in whether one accepts the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus firsthand
No one has witnessed this Jesus first hand. No one. No you haven’t.
Not a “shred of evidence” is correct. Your so called witnesses are what smarter observers call delusional.
At any rate, your primitive silly little beliefs would not bother me were it not for the fact that your judgemental and neo-facsist little bretheren envision a theocracy complete with morality police… At least the right wing side of your clan. Therefore, Xians are not just the harmless little churchgoers who clog the Ihop on Sundays… They are a dangerous militant group hellbent on setting back humanity’s progress to at least the Dark Age level.
#25 – No one has witnessed this Jesus first hand.
So it is your position that Jesus did not exist at all and that thousands of people, followers and nonfollowers alike, who did see him personally were all delusional? It’s your call whether you accept the testimony of those who were there at the time, but to deny that anyone at all had firsthand experience with a historical figure like comes off as just as delusional as you suggest others of being. Maybe you’re one of those that thinks the holocaust and the moon landings didn’t happen either.
26 – The first book of the New Testament was written about 100 years after the alleged death of Christ. Where are these eyewitness accounts?
But I’m talking about today. No one ALIVE is a witness to anything. Plenty of the Glaze-eyed call themselves Witnesses and that is what I was refering to. There is nothing to have witnessed. Grandpa was sick, they prayed, Granpa got better. They didn’t witness Jesus. They witnessed an old sick guy get better (and he’s still doing great and going fishing this weekend). A drunk driver crashed into Jill’s Honda, ripping it in half, but Jill walked away with only a few cuts. Jesus? No, physics. Obviously, the car was struck in a way that prevented serious injury to the driver despite massive body damage.
Moreso, our observational understanding of the natural universe alone tells us the the miraculous tales of healing the sick and magically creating foodstuffs is absurd.
And don’t drag the holocaust or the moon landing into this. Those are events with actual documentation, evidence, records, living witnesses, filmed footage, etc… Your Jesus is likely to have never existed, but if he did, he was the son of Joseph (or whoever got it on with Mary), and a mortal.
Anyone interested in a more detailed debate should google “historical proof Jesus”. you’ll find links to both sides of the argument, including a Wikipedia article. And we all know that if its in Wikipedia it must be true.
I recommend reading the first 4 links and the 8th (Wikipedia) personally.
27 – The NT books of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses within their less-than-100-year lifetimes.
You are correct — no one ALIVE is a witness to much of anything that happened more than 100 years ago. Miraculous things were witnessed and the story recorded by eyewitnesses. It’s only absurd if it didn’t happen and we have no way to prove whether it did or not.
What details of the 20th century that are facts to us today will be dismissed as legend and delusions in another 2000 years because it will seem absurd to the people of the future?
For the Jesus as Myth debate, here’s a really good web page. It’s not proof, of course, neither legal nor scientific. But, it does give reason to doubt whether the man ever existed at all.
http://tinyurl.com/34amgh
For me, sections 3, 4, and especially 8 cast huge doubt.
#19 – Mike,
Your first point demonstrates a lack of understanding of science. Your second has it backwards. I’m not saying that complex beings, like ourselves can’t create simpler beings. I’m saying that complexity and apparent design come from long periods of cumulative selection. The god hypothesis presupposes the existence of complexity without offering a mechanism for its creation.
Cause and effect are violated completely by quantum mechanics. Things pop into existence from the quantum soup, so to speak. But, they are not complex highly intelligent creatures that can create whole universes at the rate of one a week.
The god hypothesis flies up its own asshole in endless recursion. There must be a god creator and a god creator creator and a god creator creator creator, etc.
#30, no, Scott, my first point was just a cheap critique of your standard rebuttal for people with opinions contrary to yours that humans are the cause of global warming is to say “well, all real scientists are in consensus, so that makes it fact. And if some don’t agree, either they aren’t relevant or are in the pocket of an oil company”
As to the second… you’re apparently so blind in your desires to argue against people’s belief in a God, that you didn’t even stop to notice that my comment was simply challenging your logic in saying to the effect “God can’t exist because that requires complexity being created by greater complexity.” I certainly didn’t claim any belief that universes can be created in a week… or even two… so why you continue to bring it up is beyond me. And complexity is relative anyway, I would say a new system that allows for evolution is already more complex than one that mirrors ours in every way except is static and can not.
And yes, any notion of a God does lead to recursion. “Who created he who created me?” But our universe itself has its own similar questions. Where does our universe originate and reside? Is it sitting in a bell jar on a desk in some greater universe outside of ours? And how about that universe? It never ends. But it does provide the potential for good fiction I suppose.
#29 – It’s only absurd if it didn’t happen and we have no way to prove whether it did or not.
What’s absurd is that you think Mary was a virgin… Or Jesus rose from the dead… Or he could heal lepers with just a touch of his hand… Or that any of the BS, that never happened before and never happened since, happened then.
It’s also absurd that all these myths and legends are stolen from other myths and legends and you guys never seem to notice that.
It’s also absurd that these threads always seem to attract people who only comment on their pet issues. How about you guys lend an opinion to non-Jesus thread? And try not to invoke Jesus when commenting on fuel cells or Windows Vista bugs or whatever.
You know… it’s all just absurd.
food for thought, cool video
#31 – Mike,
Actually, the universe doesn’t really have exactly the same issue. The stuff of the earliest universe could have popped into being from the quantum soup in some way without violation of any current physical theories. There are many questions about this, including the bit about not being able to understand the very first 10^-43 second. Why is there mostly matter rather than antimatter? What is the dark matter? What is the dark energy? Are there more spatial dimensions? Science may or may not be able to answer such questions.
Religion teaches us not to ask.
God/FSM/whatever, as a complex being, would require a much more detailed explanation than quantum soup because he/she/it is not simple and fundamental, but is of the type of complexity that takes a very long time to create through processes like natural selection that can indeed lead to complexity.
we miss you Douglas… it’s a sad place without you here.
Bravo, Douglas, we all so miss your wit. Bravo, Richard, for daring to speak against illogical ideas and for being intelligent enough to be coherent.
So, you object to Dawkins ridicule of irrational beliefs. Suppose I were to have a devout belief in the Man on the Moon who mines cheese and sends it to us in convenient, individually wrapped packages? You’d ridicule my beliefs, and rightly so.
Every scientific fact and metaphysical philosophy in the world is subject to scrutiny except religion. People take great exception to having their beliefs questioned. Dawkins knows this and pokes at it to demonstrate how people assign a special protected status to religions that it just does not deserve.
Someone doesn’t agree with you, and is telling you in such a way that you have no doubt why. Poor you. Get over it and move on. If you insist on maintaining your faith in a belief system that has no verifiable data to back it up, that’s your own lookout. Just don’t expect someone else to respect it just because you believe it.
“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.” -Mark Twain
“Someone doesn’t agree with you, and is telling you in such a way that you have no doubt why. Poor you. Get over it and move on. If you insist on maintaining your faith in a belief system that has no verifiable data to back it up, that’s your own lookout. Just don’t expect someone else to respect it just because you believe it.”
Michael, I have not read where anyone has said that ‘others’ should expect someone else to respect (their views)… The point made is at the heart of any humanitarian argument: one doesn’t have to understand or respect the views of others; however, mockery is a negative contribution to growth in our evolving society and always will be.