Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 On what grounds is he an absolute idiot? Putting scientific reason and grounded logic behind beliefs that relgious people often won't dare to question because they'll find them to be......well, just that? Beliefs? And no more.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 On what grounds is he an absolute idiot? Putting scientific reason and grounded logic behind beliefs that relgious people often won't dare to question because they'll find them to be......well, just that? Beliefs? And no more.. Won't dare to question? What are you talking about? It's not that he's an atheist or questions religion that I dislike about him. Thousands of people do that, and thats fine. But I've listened to him talk, I've read some of his articles and I've read some of his debates...he strikes me as a moron. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 That seems like a cop out response. He's an extremely intelligent and articulate man and his arguments are incredibly valid and difficult to falsify. You can't make a claim that one of the world's most renown scientists is a blithering idiot without justifying it, in all seriousness anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Gainsbarre, get out of here- you're too smart. aww Shucks, thanks Although I do wonder why I post things like that on the zep board, they might be better discussed on a Pink Floyd forum... And I'm sure there's a few people around here who wouldn't mind if I got out of here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Areyou trying to say that Pink Floyd enthusiasts intelligence outweighs that of the general populance of Zep fans? How very dare ....actually, no. You're probably right. In general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Areyou trying to say that Pink Floyd enthusiasts intelligence outweighs that of the general populance of Zep fans? How very dare ....actually, no. You're probably right. In general. Come on, you must know some Floyd fans?? They're all deeply intelligent, but extremely socially fucked up... It comes from years of being fans of both Syd Barrett AND Roger Waters... I mean that's gonna screw you up for starters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 That seems like a cop out response. He's an extremely intelligent and articulate man and his arguments are incredibly valid and difficult to falsify. You can't make a claim that one of the world's most renown scientists is a blithering idiot without justifying it, in all seriousness anyway.A cop out? I just repeated everything I said originally. You simply misread it apparently. And I can call him an idiot all I want. I'll "justify" it later, when I'm not at school. But from what I've read on him and from him, I simply don't consider him to be the all-knowledgeable man people make him out to be. For God's sake (no pun intended) he essentially backed down from his argument in one debate I read. I mean, he sounded more agnostic than atheist, saying basically thats it's possible that their is a god...not really Dawkins-esque is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 No, that's entirely Dawkins-esque. It has so far proven scientifically impossible to prove, in all certainty, that God does or does not exist. Dawkins is a champion of science, and as much as he may detest religion, he cannot actually completely deny the existence of a 'higher being' because it's not provable either way. The burden of proof still lies with theists, however, because in all honestly evidence doesn't really point to the existence of a benevolent, omnicient and omnipotent God existing, o ever having existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Come on, you must know some Floyd fans?? They're all deeply intelligent, but extremely socially fucked up... It comes from years of being fans of both Syd Barrett AND Roger Waters... I mean that's gonna screw you up for starters... Those in the Waters camp, yeah. I'm firmly in the Gilmour camp, and I'm just fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Come on, you must know some Floyd fans?? They're all deeply intelligent, but extremely socially fucked up... It comes from years of being fans of both Syd Barrett AND Roger Waters... I mean that's gonna screw you up for starters... No you're completely right. I live with a huge Floyd fan in uni.... Utterly socially inept, and damn intelligent. He's intelligent to the point of borderline autistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 No, that's entirely Dawkins-esque. It has so far proven scientifically impossible to prove, in all certainty, that God does or does not exist. Dawkins is a champion of science, and as much as he may detest religion, he cannot actually completely deny the existence of a 'higher being' because it's not provable either way. The burden of proof still lies with theists, however, because in all honestly evidence doesn't really point to the existence of a benevolent, omnicient and omnipotent God existing, o ever having existed. If the randomness of the Universe is capable of creating us, then it is perfectly logical and capable for it to have created a 'God'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 And this God would have moral characteristics would it? I don't buy it. I can accept that something existed, or exists, that initiated the Big Bang or whatever, however I cannot accept any theistic definition of this being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Utterly socially inept, and damn intelligent. He's intelligent to the point of borderline autistic. Exactly, that was my ex, huge floyd fan, dangerously intelligent and socially screwed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 And this God would have moral characteristics would it? I don't buy it. I can accept that something existed, or exists, that initiated the Big Bang or whatever, however I cannot accept any theistic definition of this being. Well you see, it all depends on what you believe God actually is or isn't... Read the post that I posted on the first page of this thread to see what my argument was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Well you see, it all depends on what you believe God actually is or isn't... Read the post that I posted on the first page of this thread to see what my argument was. Interesting post. Especially 'does man take his place' v 'can man master'. I don't believe man 'has' a place in the universe, at least not one wit ha meaning or purpose. We're just another living inhabitant of the universe, no more important in the grand scheme of things than a plant. We'll evolve and become extinct and the universe and world will change and adapt and we'll no longer be important, not that we ever were. Having a consciousness is an unfortunate side-effect of our evolution - it gave us notions of grandeur and self-importance way above our station, and a fear of death so strong we had to concoct damaging and highly influential stories to comfort ourselves. Mastering the universe? Will never happen. The universe is something that man will never be able to have ful knowledge of, or even come near. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Mastering the universe? Will never happen. The universe is something that man will never be able to have ful knowledge of, or even come near. If man can never master the Universe, then it sort of renders his eternal quest for knowledge rather pointless then, doesn't it? One can try to continue to learn about something that he will never have a grasp of, the only affect the knowledge can have, is still only related to our small position, such as prolonging our life... And as long as you keep prolonging life, you have to die as some point still, unless you find a way to avoid death, and then live forever, but then you would have to live forever...and ever...and ever... So if man can never master the universe, then maybe ignorance is bliss? Man accepts his position and lives as the blip on the screen that he his? Or does he keep chasing the end of the rainbow? I think that's the fork in the road that we're at now: the religious types who head in the direction of preparing to accept their place and their role in a pre-ordained grand scheme...or the scientists who are after the end of the rainbow... But my own personal belief is that to say life is merely a brief flurry of consciousness followed by an eternity of non-existence is a rather simplistic answer, and in some ways goes against the grain of everythiong the Universe shows us. I have to confess, something Buddha once said really sticks in my mind: There are only two constants in the Universe, and these are one. There is change and things that change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Gainsbarre, you've basically argued that everyone should be Agnostic towards God, and I agree. There is no way to tell either way, the only *logical* belief is to hold no beliefs about God. Pure Atheism doesn't make sense, unless you can completely disprove every argument for the existence of God, and belief in God doesn't make sense either because the only "evidence" is philosophical arguments like, "Where did morality come from?" or "If God doesn't exist then why is the universe so finely tuned?". Neither are proof in my opinion because they don't actually prove anything, they only try and convince you to believe in God. If we could observe and actually see directly whether God exists or not, then I would start believing, and even then only after many many tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Gainsbarre, you've basically argued that everyone should be Agnostic towards God, and I agree. There is no way to tell either way, the only *logical* belief is to hold no beliefs about God. Pure Atheism doesn't make sense, unless you can completely disprove every argument for the existence of God, and belief in God doesn't make sense either because the only "evidence" is philosophical arguments like, "Where did morality come from?" or "If God doesn't exist then why is the universe so finely tuned?". Neither are proof in my opinion because they don't actually prove anything, they only try and convince you to believe in God. If we could observe and actually see directly whether God exists or not, then I would start believing, and even then only after many many tests. Hi! The trouble is, we're only humans, and we can only understand things from a poor little human point of view... There could actually be any number of massive signs out there, glaringly obvious, but we cannot see them/understand them To put it into an analogy: We think objects have a colour, yet they actually don't, they are merely reflecting a light wave back to our eyes that gets interpreted in our brain as a particular colour... And surrounding us are all sorts of radio wave lengths, light waves, gamma rays, x-rays, the whole damn shebang, but untill you have tools which can show you these things, and knowledge to help you understand it, you are completely and blissfully unaware that it exists. I guess the point I'm making is man's understanding of the Universe and existence itself is so primitive, that it cannot possible give any answer on life, death, God, existence, anything in those realms at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Miss Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 I think the quest for knowledge is fruitless, yes. And yes I do think we should accept our place as meaningless, livign things who live and die inconsequentially. If we accept this then that's the ultimate freedom for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 And yes I do think we should accept our place as meaningless, livign things who live and die inconsequentially. If we accept this then that's the ultimate freedom for us. While we're still alive But you can't say whether or not it is meaningless, and our life and death is inconsequential... It fascinates me how some scientists go to great argumentative lengths to prove that everything is inconsequential and sheer randomness When you look for the common demoninators in the Universe, you find that organisation is the key impetus. Everything in the Universe organises itself into constant chain of actions and reactions, attractions, everything in the Universe builds itself into relationships. Everything is intertwined in a working machinery, sometimes a delicately cyclical balance. Yet I'm supposed to swallow that that is pure randomness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evermore Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 While we're still alive But you can't say whether or not it is meaningless, and our life and death is inconsequential... It fascinates me how some scientists go to great argumentative lengths to prove that everything is inconsequential and sheer randomness When you look for the common demoninators in the Universe, you find that organisation is the key impetus. Everything in the Universe organises itself into constant chain of actions and reactions, attractions, everything in the Universe builds itself into relationships. Everything is intertwined in a working machinery, sometimes a delicately cyclical balance. Yet I'm supposed to swallow that that is pure randomness? It is not so much arbitrary randomness as much as probablity due to structure. The idea being that if you stack dice you will tend to get a boxy sculpture. One interesting point made by Dawkins is that we often use God to fill in the gaps in science. He points out (I am paraphrasing from memory here) that carbon molecules stack in just such a way as to create a surface that is conducive to the formation of the proteins that make up DNA. Imagine that!, the structure of the most common materials on our planet explain at least in part how life works. And it takes off from there. Proteins support DNA, DNA supports cells, cells support organisms, organisms support creatures, creatures interact and support communities of creatures.Communication and conciousness being an important development here. Even just a hundred years ago most people believed that God somehow directly manipulated materials to shape and guide life. Nowadays we have the Pope acknowledging the theory of evolution. The question then is, if there is a God, where exactly does God intervene. The more we discover through science, the more people lose faith in God, but so long as we have things that we cannot explain there will be people who have faith in God. As far as I know there are two important questions not answered by science. The first what drives the mechanics of the atoms that create the structure of our universe. Why do things exist. The second. We have conciousness, we are able to think. So what does that really mean? Though I did not really care for Dawkins (I think the man is an ass) I came away understaning that the only reason I am a Christian is because that is what my parents taught me to be, and I knowingly accepted it. Other than that I am on square one again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 No, that's entirely Dawkins-esque. It has so far proven scientifically impossible to prove, in all certainty, that God does or does not exist. Dawkins is a champion of science, and as much as he may detest religion, he cannot actually completely deny the existence of a 'higher being' because it's not provable either way. The burden of proof still lies with theists, however, because in all honestly evidence doesn't really point to the existence of a benevolent, omnicient and omnipotent God existing, o ever having existed. Dawkins-esque (if that term could even be used I guess...not sure why I used it) seems to champion atheism and the absence of God. He's more than just an out-spoken critic of religion in general. And when he backs down in one debate, to me it seems like he's just trying to save face and play goody-goody. Thats not exactly the Dawkins I've read... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 I dislike Dawkins' as well, he say that Agnosticism isn't a viable position...I strongly disagree, but he is good source of info on the subject...for any side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 I dislike Dawkins' as well, he say that Agnosticism isn't a viable position...I strongly disagree, but he is good source of info on the subject...for any side. Exactly. He says all (or hints at it) all the time, and yet, when given evidence of how possible a God could be, he'll say, "well...yeah...I guess." He backs down when confronted, and I hate that so much. Either stick to your beliefs or don't speak. Simple as that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suz Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 aww Shucks, thanks Although I do wonder why I post things like that on the zep board, they might be better discussed on a Pink Floyd forum... And I'm sure there's a few people around here who wouldn't mind if I got out of here... Well, I ain't one of em, baby. (and for you numbskulls reading this- that wasn't a come on). Scratch that. The numbskulls are nowhere to be found in this thread! What awesome reading. I am the dimwit compared to you guys. I've always just felt energy and believed that everything is connected. That's about it, I guess. I love to see all the different ways of thinking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.