Douglas Adams reads a section from one of his Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books.



  1. Mike says:

    #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.

  2. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #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.

  3. alberto waldo says:

    food for thought, cool video

  4. Misanthropic Scott says:

    #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.

  5. Aden says:

    we miss you Douglas… it’s a sad place without you here.

  6. Tsee says:

    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.

  7. Michael says:

    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

  8. graeme stuart says:

    “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.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13488 access attempts in the last 7 days.