What is Digg?260 Comments
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+57I believe the answer to both is 42.
- damentz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+44Love is merely an emotion triggered by hormones, it just isn't that real to scientists that never boned anyone.
- ophello, on 10/12/2007, -32/+67If you call yourself an true atheist, your ultimate question cannot be "Why are we here?" because Why presumes there is a "Who" that can answer the question. Only an intelligence can answer a "why."
But wait, you say: you could ask "Why the sky is blue?"
But really, the question is "HOW is the sky blue?" and science would answer: light from the sun scatters through the air and absorbs other wavelengths.
"Why are we here?" cannot truly be addressed by science any more than "Why did my girlfriend leave me?"
A true materialist (or atheist) would have no real reason to live, except for the reasons explained by science and psychology. Every choice you 'think' you're making is predetermined, and is purely the result of molecular interaction and physics. You live a meaningless existence. In fact, "you" don't exist at all. "You" is not real. Why would you believe in a "You"? You're delusional! Sure, I can't prove that "you" doesn't exist, but does that mean that it surely must exist? It's just as believable as the tooth fairy! - addrake, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37I love broad statements like "Best ____ ever !" or "Most beautiful video on YouTube" They have liek 1.5 million goddam videos on there. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
- gmprunner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30Bigger Question: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
Or...
How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
Well? I'm waiting... - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Actually, a couple years ago, I did a bunch of experiments on this. It truly depends on the quality of the lick. I did 8 attempts, each with a different style of licking.
The highest it took was 823 with short licks outside of the mouth, and the lowest it took was 396 with full circle licks inside the mouth.
When I averaged all eight attempts, I got ~513 licks to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop. - Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27People with ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.
I actually think he goes pretty easy on the baffled fear-filled dronelike morons who insist there's such a thing as a god just because they kind of feel like there should be one.
If you seriously think people's opinions should be respected when they subscribe to a 2000 year old fairytale designed to control the ignorant masses, then your opinion is worth less than *****. - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19There are some atheists like Dawkins who take at heart what abuse so many people go through because of religion and fight it for that reason and that reason alone. Watch Jesus Camp and you'll understand what's at stake.
- Rayor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Forty-two.
- beguiledfoil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@appetitte
As an agnostic I feel weird defending atheism, but anyway:
Atheists look at the facts and realities around them and make a decision based on those. They decide that the existence of God is highly unlikely (even Dawkins will admit that it is possible, most every atheist realizes that the 'theory' of God cannot be disproven) and decide to act on that conclusion by saying that they believe there is no God.
It's certainly not any stupider than the converse, believing in God...
Oh, and Dawkins is a bit harsh... but I understand his frustration with the institutions which claim to represent God. - Santad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20The first 13 minutes explains natural selection and "how we got here".
Fast forward to 13:00 to get to "The big question: why are we here". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Stop using that utterly lame ass "if you can't prove he doesn't exist then he MUST exist' ***** here!
- Kujila, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23"anyone who disagrees with me is a disgrace"
Oh lordy, looks like we have a live one here. Welcome to Internet. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29Spengy - Its NOT an excellent post. "Why are we here?" DOES NOT imply the existence of a creator at all.
Ad for that 'why did my girlfriend leave me' example he states, it absolutely CAN be answered by science and observation if enough information is available. - BalsamLane, on 10/12/2007, -34/+47Dawkins is spot on again.
- Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10And appetite, you're argument is dismantled by a simple logical twist. Santa Claus has the possibility of existing, so why not live our lives accordingly? Of course you would scoff at this, but ultimately this is the absolute basis of your claim. Only difference is that you put a lot more importance on the thought of God than on the thought of Santa. Just because a historical group think suggests one fantasy over another does not mean that we should live our lives accordingly.
- Adamande, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9He isn't trying to be a philosopher. He's being a scientist. Plain and simple. He says questions like "why are we here" or "what is the meaning of it all" comes from the human evolutionary advantage, our ability to set goals. He says there is no sense of "purpose" outside the human consciousness.
- Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The multitudes of lives that have been forcibly coerced by religion is astounding, to suggest that creating a book called the, "God Delusion" is THAT insensitive, there should be some sort of analysis on religion itself. Just because people are not murdered in droves as they use to be for religion (unless you consider the middle eastern states and Ireland) does not mean it has an extremely authoritarian hold on a large portion of the world. All this coupled by the myriad of religions who claim to be the truth, ultimately canceling one another out in simultaneous and surprisingly similar rhetoric, gives plenty of reason to criticize religion.
Yes Dawkins is a bit harsh, but for what religion is holistically, it should be one of the major discussions in public policy. And I never remember when Dawkins suggested that atheists are more evolved than anyone else. That's contradicting years upon years of his own study. When discussing religion it is pointless to consider the possibility for the existence of God. Religion is a diverse institution that almost exclusively emulates forms of government, history making, and public control. Just by stating that there's a slim possibility along the lines of my toe being the ruler of the universe, does not add it any validity.
And when the heck do atheists, "believe in nothing". Most of our lives is filled with secular pursuits in which without them, we would be void of most of our human intellectual, physical and emotional growth. All absent of God mind you. Whats wrong with people reveling in this humanity of theirs? - Drealoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Atheism is living under the assumption that there is no God. An atheist, given enough evidence of God, would change their point of view. I don't believe in dragons. If someone showed me a dragon, and I could somehow determine that it wasn't a hoax, I would change my point of view.
- steve693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The answer is in the question itself. The fact that we're able to question the purpose of our own existence gives meaning to that existence.
- oxiegen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7the reason Dawkins has such a strong conviction is because people on the other side of the argument also have a strong conviction.
@appetite - I deny the existence of a god. Don't call me stupid for my belief. I would never call you call stupid for disagreeing with me. Will you show me the same courtesy? - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"the cell principle (accepted by most scientists as true) states that a cell can only come from a preexisting cell. this by itself raises some questions towards the truth of evolution. if evolution is fact, where did the first cell come from? did it appear out of the air?"
How does the origin of the first cell -- even if, as you claim without justification, that it is impossible for a cell to emerge from a non-cell -- affect the process of evolution? Please be specific. - Adamande, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8From a scientific point of view, the idea of a God IS pretty delusional. Dawkins' argument is this: since we have discovered, tested and verified evolution as a biological fact, and this process is a slow, gradual development of complexity and intelligence, it would be extremely improbable that a highly complex, intelligent designer existed before the beginning of the universe.
Either way, his problems (and mine) are mostly with organized religion and their relentless attempts to either discredit science, pervert it into religion, or just dismiss it altogether.
Dunno where you're from (guessing the US), but it's not so easy just being a "good little atheist" in a country (Norway) with a cross in the flag, Christianity as state-religion and until recently a priest as a prime minister.
The irrational rantings of organized religion has been forced down our throats for thousands of years, and it still is. On a massive scale around the world. Dawkins is just trying to knock some sense into people. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@ophelo:
Your post presumes we need a reason. - Adamande, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@appetite
The Khmer didn't kill people in Cambodia to spread atheism. They followed the teachings of Communist leader Pol Pot and his party who had developed a form of Therawada Buddhism as their preferred faith. - digger_twit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7More about Richard Dawkins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8vud, that's why he says 'IF a woodchuck could chuck wood"
It's a hypothetical - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Just because he isn't a great philosopher does not mean that he can bring weight to the topic of modern atheism. He's pretty intelligent, he's a historic figure in natural sciences, and he can debate pretty good. I shutter at some of his words, knowing he could have found a better choice of phrases, but that's just being human. If anything, his flaws are exemplifying the humanism of atheism.
- oxiegen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@appetite. I understand what you are saying. But lets say I believe that an invisible teapot is orbiting Mars. You can't see it because it's invisible, but it is there. Now in your own words (altered to make my point):
There are good reasons to believe in the invisible teapot and there are good reasons to say, "Hey, I don't know and probably never will so I'll behave accordingly". But why have a conviction that the teapot doesn't exist when you know it could?
Do you now see why god sounds a little weird to me? Replace god with my invisible teapot and that is how I see it. That's the best way I can put it. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7actually skip to about 20:00 for the real kicker. when humans, or any other animals for that matter, create or invent, we typically do so for a purpose. however, there is no law in the universe whatsoever that says creation must have purpose.
- LRoy12, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The most beautiful video on YouTube: pretty yoga girls in bikinis http://youtube.com/watch?v=oE8-F9Pl-gw
- scooter17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For those who don't see the "inside joke," if you type "the answer to life the universe and everything" into Google, Google calculator will say it equals 42. Sorry to ruin it for everyone. :)
- Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The teapot analogy is succinct because it holds the exact same reality as the thought of God. gods have been interpreted in ridiculous forms. Sheesh the only reason why ANYBODY is referring "God" as "God" is because of the spread of monotheism, if monotheism didn't catch on we would all be arguing the relevance of a hundred Gods. A purely secular circumstance. So to think that the teapot analogy is bad just because it puts your lofty God in a place less, "honorable", does not mean it isn't on par with us debating the relevance of Thor, or Shiva.
Secondly, conceding to authority does not get us anywhere. Just because a PH.D can argue does not lend credence to God or the possibility of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
A large logical fallacy. So other than that, you have yet to provide anything that brings evidence to God except proposing latent insults by assuming that atheism is a religion when it is ultimately the absence of religion. Stop changing the connotation of religion to fit your argument, it isn't helping anybody. If you want to use the term religion in considering the congregating of a atheistic conscious, use a term with less connotation, since religion is ultimately "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" which most people refer to when we're discussing religion. - ophello, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17I never stated that the question implies there is a creator. I stated that it cannot be addressed by science.
There are a billion and one scientific "How's" as per the "Why did my girlfriend leave me?".
The Why results in an answer OUTSIDE of science: she was tired of my bad attitude.
You can break that down in to small pieces of science, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
That answer was generated by me, an intelligence. I didn't perform any tests, I made no hypothesis, and I doubt you could reproduce the exact "experiment". - PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6appetite, seriously...you sound delusional. Dawkins' book title is well justified. You have a completely irrational belief, and whenever something contradicts it, you can easily just invent something new to cover your tracks.
As Dawkins says, anything capable of creating the universe, a god, must himself be far more complex than that which he has created. So who created god?
If you have "faith" that god was "just there", then there's nothing to debate. Your argument about the beginning of the universe also applies to your god argument, does it not?
Irrational faith IS delusion. Of course, delusional people do not know they're delusional.
EDIT: And I find it funny you making statements such as, "god can be a "teapot if he wants". How do you know that? You DON'T. You're MAKING IT UP. See how it works? - cjsedwards, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If you've read his book you'll know that he makes a point to say that Atheists are discriminated against in society. They can't run for office without hiding their beliefs. You can't be proud to be an atheist in our society. I can't tell my parents I'm an atheist. It would be like telling them I'm gay (which I'm not... for the record).
- oxiegen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The teapot analogy is dumb. You made God take on a ridiculously hilarious form and said that makes the acknowledgment of God's possibility ridiculous." That was exactly what I was going for. Hopefully you can now you can see why I think the possibility of god is ridiculous TO ME.
"Secondly, your argument is well thought out, but it's not intellectually superior to what a religious scholar PhD could spit back at you." Agreed. Equally, I would never try to match wits with them in the first place. I would lose. I admit that. How could I possibly compete with someone who has studied the subject all their life to get a PhD when I am only 22 with a computing degree. But I'm not interested in his reply. What would your answer be?
"...used to arguing church girls outside CCD..." I don't know what that means.
"I do enjoy how i've gotten atheists to defend their 'religion'." I am not defending myself. I was simply trying to explain why I think the way I do about god. I thought we were having a rather interesting discussion on the matter. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Just because we can categorize and analyze to the detail these feelings of love, meaning, and hope does not mean that it doesn't exist. How can you say love doesn't exist even in the hypothetical? Animals exhibit forms of "love", or affection to the point of mating. Is it possible that our very definition of love is flawed for us to think that it has the same possibility of existing as God.
And as much as many people love Richard I doubt anybody has quoted him as giving the absolute answer. We know that close affection and the desire to better our situation (hope) is as much to humans as a physical body part. How is God, or the thought of God anywhere close to that?
And ultimately, it isn't all too much of a stretch to suggest that the "ultimate" question is pointless. Over thousands of years of human existence we haven't found out the answer or even came close. We can't even seem to understand the question. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Whats wrong with there being no meaning of life and that our existences are due to nature and the physical reality?
- sruffelman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How is it terrible for Dawkins to say what he does when Christians who scorn him say that he will burn in hell when he dies? People will say what they will. If you let every Bible-thumper or neo-atheist upset you, the internet may not be the best place to relieve stress.
- poopsmith, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I thought the video of the two girls making out was the most beautiful video on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=&v=BWP2WPuo70Y - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So until these 2 questions are answered you'll keep on believing that a giant beard in the sky who loves everyone on earth is responsible for everything, even though there is no testable, reproducible or scientific way to prove it outside the confines of your closed-minded head.
I guess you also believe that the earth is 6000 years old, that humans walked with the dinosaurs, and that the value of ip is exactly 3 because thats what the bible clearly says it is!
Dawking might not be able to prove that god doesn't exist, but he can sure show us all a LOT of examples of how your precious scriptures that you blindly rely on are totally false! - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5appetite,
You're assuming that the majority of atheists have faith in the notion that the possibility of God is nonexistent. Most atheists don't base their livelihood on the absolute absence of God, rather they feel that it is illogical to pursue a course in life that has proven to be extremely empty. Atheists don't have faith that there is no God, they just live without the thought of God.
Plus, religion almost has nothing to do with the outside universe (Which we have yet to verify that there anything even there that affects us). It is a human institution imprinting itself into political, social, cultural, economic, and almost every other absolutely secular field there is. Just a quality of religion that isn't in other institutions is that the main motivator of it's power comes from faith, which in many respects is a purely human emotion (The multitudes of faiths can give credence to that) that can be swayed by secular social forces.
So assuming that religion is a purely human interaction (Which it has yet to prove to be otherwise) it is good to judge religion on a human level no? So to say that religion, and religious thought that highly advocates the strict support of something without evidence is in itself illogical. To pursue political conquests in it's name, to forcibly coerce lives in this irrational belief, brings it along the levels of a social ill. Most atheism, at least in the form of something intellectual, it is the realization of this human aspect of religion and judging it as so. Deducing it's relevance and evaluating it's destructive powers. I dunno about you, but this analytical course is inherently superior in the intelligence area.
Not to say there aren't stupid atheists, the atheists you've described in your post above who helped kill millions of people is a good example as to how atheists is pretty much just the acceptance of reality, the reality that humans are pretty stupid, but also that we can better ourselves.
And don't think that since we don't know everything gives the thought of God validity. It just proves that we don't know everything which I doubt anybody is contesting. - PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It is not 50/50 as to whether god created the earth, or the big bang did.
There is nothing to suggest that god created anything, or that god exists. Whereas, science can postulate how the earth, or universe might have begun based on scientific truth.
While the scientific theory cannot be proven, how the theory came about is the result of scientific truth.
The creation "theory" is not a theory at all. It's a guess. It has been completely made up, and it will never change, will never adapt to any new scientific truth.
So, you should use probability. It's far, far more probable that the scientific theory is correct, and even more probable that it's close to being correct (and it will only get closer with time).
Whereas the probability of god, is just as probable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else you can think up.
Praise Jesus. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The fact is you can't prove anything about the big bang, evolution, or the non existence of God."
False equivocation fallacy. That no one of a set of assertions cannot be 'proven' does not mean that all assertions in the set are equally likely or justified.
Moreover, you are incorrectly assuming that only one "God" has been asserted. You are demonstrating a bias in doing so. - oxiegen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"How much time was there before time started?"
Time never started in the first place. So the "answer" would be: infinite time. Time is infinite in the past and is infinite in the future. Weirdly, time is also infinite in the present (there is no such thing as the smallest time period. The present time is infinitely small.).
"It requires faith to believe God will have an explanation after you die. It requires faith to believe science will have an explanation after you die. At least in one case, you might get to find out for yourself."
Why would god have to explain himself to you? When I die my brain stops processing information and I cease to exist. Nothing more, nothing less. Just, nothing. - adrianrf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@trickster
read "The God Delusion".
carefully.
you'll see the debunking of that lazy thinking that you've been fobbed off with. - Adamande, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"How much time was there before time started?"
Obviously, there was no time. It hadn't started yet. - bob_the_alien, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6that's the answer, but what's the question?
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Atheism requires that you believe it on faith. So don' t feel superior because you are atheist... You are not smarter than everyone else."
Atheism doesn't require that you believe anything on faith. To the contrary, it demands evidence as a prerequisite to belief. They may not be smarter than everyone else, but they are clearly more rational.
However, there is one trap that atheists and theists alike fall into, and that's the trap of not allowing new evidence to alter their thinking. I used to be a Christian, but I eventually (it wasn't easy) realized that there simply was no good evidence to support that religion. In fact, there was quite a bit of evidence against it if one looks at history rationally. I got to the point where I did hold some beliefs, but I didn't hold them so closely that they couldn't be altered in light of new evidence.
We should all be willing to alter our worldview when evidence leads to do so. The problem is that both atheists and theists assume that their position is infallible and, therefore, any evidence to the contrary *must* be flawed. That's not a rational position to take. Atheists love to point this out to Creationists, but the atheists are just as guilty. -
Show 51 - 100 of 260 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is