Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 563 - 66 Comments
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 15, 2008 2:49 PM
No Bert these days so I figured I'd better post this!
From: The Bone Entered on: September 15, 2008 3:05 PM
Good post. I vote Bert back on to the island.
From: Bunky Entered on: September 15, 2008 6:58 PM
I vote for Bert back too! They are too many topics screaming for a Ross Rant (TM)! It is just weird to have this topic posted with no response from Ross. It is very Un-Jackassarian!
From: RobotSpider Entered on: September 16, 2008 7:11 AM
You know what Charles Darwin would say if he were alive today?   "Help, someone let me out of this box!"
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 16, 2008 9:31 PM
Vatican to host meeting on evolutionary theory VATICAN CITY (AFP) - The Vatican announced Monday it will host a conference on evolutionary theory next year coinciding with its 150th anniversary -- and as creationism gains ground among fundamentalist Christians. "There is absolutely no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and the Bible's message," Gianfranco Ravasi, in charge of cultural affairs at the Vatican, told reporters, noting the theory had interested Pope Benedict XVI and his recent predecessors. Coming on the anniversary of Charles Darwin's groundbreaking 1859 publication "On the Origin of Species," the Vatican's March 3-7 meeting -- which will gather a variety of scientists, philosophers and Catholic and Protestant theologians -- sharply contrasts with the stance of creationists. The latter argue for a literal interpretation of the Bible's account of the origin of life. "It isn't the theory of evolution as a scientific theory that is incompatible with faith and in God the creator," but rather that it is not the only way to explain reality, said Marc Leclerc, a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, which is co-organising the meeting with US-based University of Notre Dame. Leclerc distanced himself from "intelligent design," a movement championed by fundamentalist Christians particularly in the United States, as an alternative teaching to Darwinism in schools. Divine and evolutionary explanations of life amount to "two distinct levels," he said. Pope Benedict, who has discussed evolutionary theory during at least two private sessions, argues Darwinism is insufficient to explain the origins of life. ---------------------------------------------- Bert!  Where are you!?  These are exciting times!
From: Ross Entered on: September 19, 2008 6:45 PM
Bert here. This isn't as surprising as it sounds (to me, at least):  the Anglican church, while viewed by some as Catholicism lite, is far more reasonable.  The fact that they are up front at this point about disparaging someone who is on their fucking money (the 10 pound note, I believe) is fine, but quite frankly, there is still a problem here that I don't think anyone is standing up and being frank about:  Apologizing to those who cannot receive our apology is ludicrous.  Darwin has been dead for more than a century.  It just shows how little they understand, knowing what an incredible blow Darwin's theory was to supernatural thinking, that the very agents of "legitimate" supernaturalism would issue an apology, as if he could somehow benefit from it.  As for the Evil Catholic Church, Pope John Paul said in the past that evolution was cool, though the new pope was much more of a hardliner and as far as I know has never agreed.  Incidentally, that quote above about him is an old creationist canard, and has two conceits: 1) no one except creationsists talk about Darwinism.  Darwin developed an amazing theory, to be sure, but knew nothing of genetics.  Today we know far more and no one calls themselves Darwinists any more than physicists call themselves Einsteinians, Planckians, or Newtonians.  2) Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.  It simply talks about the changes in existing genetic populations over time.  It leaves the origins as a separate issue.  Unfortunately, journalists almost never get this right. Anyway, although it may win some tactical battles to get people to believe that evolution and belief in a supernatural creator are compatible ideas, I believe that ultimately it's a bad idea to try to do so.  The real enemy is supernaturalism, that people believe that a sky god is going to solve our problems here on earth.  Not only is evolution incompatible with this idea, it makes a mockery of any god I've ever heard of. Really? You're going to try to argue that god is directing evolution, an incredibly cruel, wasteful, and decidedly unintelligent process? I realize that I'll never get anyone to stop believing by reasoning with them (as reason is firmly on the side of science, pretty much by definition) but I also can't abide lying, and claiming that science doesn't conflict with religion.  It does.  Any time you make a claim about the physical world, you're making a scientific claim. As an agent of religion, any time you make a claim that purports to be from on high, you'd damn well better make sure it jibes with experiment and observation, because at the end of the day, a stack of Bibles can't turn the sky from blue to red. In conclusion, the Catholic Church can absolutely suck every last hair around my asshole clean.  They are the scum of the earth, as far as I'm concerned, and I couldn't care less what they say on a topic that has an immeasurably higher amount of validity and benefit to humankind than all of the intellectual work that has ever been expended in the name of religion.  Good to be back.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 19, 2008 10:44 PM
I knew that would do it!  Welcome back, Bert!  You wouldn't believe all that's happened in your absence!  To summarize: The Bone is concerned over consumerism and missing honey bees Fatty's "Thin & Herny" tour visits the states in October! Bunky diddling herself to "Photo 302" is now part of her daily routine. A good part of my diet now consists of berries and nuts... just like a spider monkey! Bells is probably, at this very moment, watching a random episode of Smallville that he's already viewed countless times before.
From: John Entered on: September 20, 2008 12:45 AM
Jackzilla said:   Bells is probably, at this very moment, watching a random episode of Smallville that he's already viewed countless times before. Good Lord, that's exactly what I was doing!
From: John Entered on: September 20, 2008 12:53 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." This is a quote from Carl Sagan and pretty much sums up how I feel about religion.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 20, 2008 9:06 AM
Bert - good to have you back. I must say I truly enjoy reading a trademarked Ross Rant.
From: Bunky Entered on: September 20, 2008 11:15 AM
Welcome back Ross! Way to make an entrance with a sweet Ross Rant (TM).
From: Swerb Entered on: September 21, 2008 11:12 PM
Ross said: In conclusion, the Catholic Church can absolutely suck every last hair around my asshole clean.  They are the scum of the earth, as far as I'm concerned, and I couldn't care less what they say on a topic that has an immeasurably higher amount of validity and benefit to humankind than all of the intellectual work that has ever been expended in the name of religion.  This is the funniest thing I've read in months.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 9, 2008 2:20 PM
A quote I found in a Buddhist website discussing the concept of faith. "Or, as crusading atheist Richard Dawkins defines it in his book The God Delusion, 'Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.'"
From: NickNick Entered on: October 9, 2008 2:38 PM
I know I'm opening up a can of Whup Ass in the form of a Ross Rant (tm) but I can't seem to help myself.  In an argument that religion CAN hold a place in a logical, scientific society is supported by this quote... "Doubt in the religious sense acknowledges what is not understood. While it actively seeks understanding, it also accepts that understanding will never be perfect (my emphasis). Some Christian theologians use the word "humility" to mean about the same thing. The other kind of doubt, which causes us to fold our arms and declare that all religion is bunk, is closed." That close minded doubt has the same inherent problem that Blind faith presents to us. Here's the link of the whole article, in case my quotes don't make any sense.
From: Ross Entered on: October 9, 2008 3:19 PM
Nick, you keep trying to knock down strawmen that I never built.  My rant was about the Catholic Church and their crazy claims and behaviors, not about religion in general, which I am also not a fan of, but my feelings are much less vehement.  In any case, I will humor you once again, though I suspect you will continue to cling to some kind of sentimental value for supernatual beliefs regardless of what I say...   I found some of that article to be rather full of platitudes and quotes that were of dubious veracity (such as "if we have no faith, we have no doubt"), but on one item I think I roughly agree: you need to be careful about your definitions of "faith" and "doubt" when having a broad talk about religion and belief. As someone who continually strives to be a scientific skeptic, I would say that that kind of skeptic never completely "closes his arms and declares anything is bunk", let alone just religion.  The true skeptic is very open minded and always remains open to the possibility that something might be true.  However: as Richard Feynman put it: The problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not, the problem is not what is possible. . . . The problem is what is probable, what is happening. It does no good to demonstrate again and again that you can't disprove that this could be a flying saucer. We have to guess ahead of time whether we have to worry about the Martian invasion. We have to make a judgment about whether it is a flying saucer, whether it's reasonable, whether it's likely. And we do that on the basis of a lot more experience than whether it's just possible. So when talking about what you currently do believe, you have to go with the current state of the evidence.  And when it comes to religion, the evidence is remarkably poor when you hold it to the standard of everything else in life.  So rather than saying "all religion is bunk, case closed," I say "I don't have a reason to believe it."  Some people automatically react emotionally and assume two are equivalent, but they're not.  By default, no sane person among us believes any particular proposition of consequence (eg, "Gaia gave birth to the universe" is consequential, "I had a ham sandwich for lunch" is not).  So why should religion be any different? You made a statement that "In an argument that religion CAN hold a place in a logical, scientific society" - I would like to know what this means.  What society do you speak of?  Ours?  That's a good one.  Okay, I'll grant a hypothetical, idealized logical, scientific society.  Then I have to disagree, and I don't see how that article supports your case. I also have to add that religion, faith, and the supernatural (my real objection) are three different things.  Be careful not to switch them up indiscriminantly. I did see this quote, talking about faith, which I found mildly interesting: Faith is about living in an open-hearted and courageous way and not a closed up, self-protecting way. Faith helps us overcome our fear of pain, grief and disappointment and stay open to new experience and understanding. The other kind of faith, which is a head filled up with certainty, is closed. This first implied meaning of faith is not defined or further characterized by the author, as far as I can tell.  I only know the latter one.  I personally think that living your life in an open-minded, yet skeptical way helps with his description of overcoming obstacles and living the good life.  In summary, I think the author is purposely misconstruing the word "doubt" to be harsher than most skeptics would use the term, and being overly liberal in the definition of "faith" in a way that few religious people would.  I could be somewhat off about that part (though the overwhelming acceptance of Sarah Palin implies I'm not), but I am definitely qualified to speak to how skeptical/scientific people think about the term "doubt", and this guy is definitely mischaracterizing the skeptical outlook. Good day.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 9, 2008 3:21 PM
Point well taken.  So I'll not split hairs. I do agree that the author did interpret words and shape them to prove her point.  That's what people do, whether intentionally or not.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 9, 2008 3:29 PM
In any case, I will humor you once again, though I suspect you will continue to cling to some kind of sentimental value for supernatual beliefs regardless of what I say... This is exactly the statement that I'm arguing against.  Just by keeping an open mind and trying to interpret my life experience does not mean that I CLING to any sentimental value for supernatural beliefs. It's by this very statement you illustrate the rigidity of your doubt.
From: Bunky Entered on: October 9, 2008 3:39 PM
Ross, I agree with you about the catholic church. I struggle with many of their beliefs, and in fact, if they were to read the bible they would find that several of their rituals are a direct contradiction to what is written in the bible.
From: Ross Entered on: October 9, 2008 4:02 PM
NickNick said: This is exactly the statement that I'm arguing against.  Just by keeping an open mind and trying to interpret my life experience does not mean that I CLING to any sentimental value for supernatural beliefs. It's by this very statement you illustrate the rigidity of your doubt. Please explain.  It's not my "doubt" that makes me suspect that you cling to something, merely what I observe.  My observation could be wrong, but it if is, merely claiming that I have "rigid doubt" doesn't help clarify anything.
From: The Bone Entered on: October 9, 2008 4:12 PM
NickNick said:   In any case, I will humor you once again, though I suspect you will continue to cling to some kind of sentimental value for supernatual beliefs regardless of what I say... This is exactly the statement that I'm arguing against.  Just by keeping an open mind and trying to interpret my life experience does not mean that I CLING to any sentimental value for supernatural beliefs. It's by this very statement you illustrate the rigidity of your doubt. Actually, if you have an open mind, you will see that there is no more evidence to support your beliefs than there is in Odin, Thor, and Loki. Something must compel you beleive in it in absence of any evidence. Bert is saying that it's some kind of sentimental value.  The Christian god you believe in is possible, as well as any of the thousands of other dieties worshipped throughout history. Keeping an open mind doesn't mean believing in all of them. It means examining the evidence and drawing a conclusion to determine what is probable. To do so and still cling to one supernatural belief out of the myriad requires a blatant disregard of the evidence and stems from an emotional connection.
From: John Entered on: October 9, 2008 7:52 PM
Dogmatic views are rarely swayed by arguments rooted in critical thinking. For some people emotion outweighs logic when pertaining to the supernatural. So what is probable doesn't seem to matter at all hence why I rarley take on this argument anymore. When it comes to anything supernatural skepticism is always prudedent.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 9, 2008 8:31 PM
All right.  Here's the next problem.  I don't believe in a "Christian god." I don't know what I believe in.  It's that simple. Somehow, I don't know how, but my words are getting twisted around to portray me as some sort of religious zealot, clinging to some comforting aspect in heaven. All I'm trying to say is that BLINDLY saying that there is no god because there's no scientific proof of him is idiotic.  There was no scientific proof of anything smaller than an atom, and now they're theorizing something as AWESOME as the Higgs Bosom, which by the way, there's no scientific proof of that either.  Complete denial, to me, is as stupidly dogmatic as believing that some wafer you ingest is the body of someone who died 2000 years ago. Do you not realize that your adverse emotions toward anything resembling religion lead to your own "dogmatic" beliefs? That's all I'm going to say.  I obviously can't outdebate anyone on here.
From: The Bone Entered on: October 9, 2008 9:07 PM
Ross will be able to explain this better than I but: I don't think anyone one is trying to shit on you per se but but what you say is inaccurate. None of us here BLINDLY say there is no God. I can only speak for myself but the I grew up believing in God because it was indoctrinated at a such an early age I was unable to question it. As I grew up, I began to learn more about science and the natural universe. It was then that I began to see gross factual errors in the established dogma. Eventually, I had to discard my belief because it didn't fit with the insurmountable evidence offered by science. Your analogy about the atom and Higgs Boson doesn't fit well either. Our knowledge of the atom started out as a way to describe the building blocks of matter. With the passing of time, we were able to fit it into mathematical models and eventually verfify their existance. Higgs Boson is similar. It is predicted based on certain mathematical models. We have yet to verify it's existance. Either we'll be able to prove it or another alternative will arise which science will pursue. Now if I said that a fat man in a red suit drove a sleigh at the speed of light and gave every kid either a present or in my case a lump of coal over the coarse of one night, you would dismiss this notion out of hand. Would you say that you don't have an open mind? Many kids believe in Santa while they are young but they start to figure out that the physics don't work out and they observe mommy and daddy seem to be overly involved in the process.
From: RobotSpider Entered on: October 10, 2008 6:00 AM
Ok, I think Bone pretty much covered it, but why should that stop me from muddying the waters. You're right, NN, there's no proof of the HB particle.  There is however scientific evidence.  To say I believe in God is arguably like saying "I believe in the existance of the Cyclops".  What's that?  The bible said so?  Well, I've got an ancient text that discusses the Cyclops at length (Homer, no, not Simpson).  And it's more likely that the Odyssey is true because no one has a vested interest in selectively translating versions of it to fit their purposes. Like many, I don't know what I believe. I was brought up Catholic and, while that didn't work out for me, I did get the benefit of psychological scarring from omnipotent guilt during my formative years.  So, I got that going for me.  I think it's likely that what we all think of as god was likely aliens.  That explains the concept of heavan being 'up'.  I don't know how much I believe that, but it's as likely as anything else.
From: Ross Entered on: October 10, 2008 9:18 AM
My turn!  Bone and Spider both make very good points.  But of course I can't leave well enough alone... I realized early on that you aren't a Christian and it definitely got twisted and I knew it - I'm sorry I didn't set the record straight earlier on.  That said, you've done some twisting of your own - and this isn't the first time.  As Bone said, no one here is BLINDLY claiming anything.  Any claims I make (and when it comes to religion, none of my claims are in absolute terms) are made with very open eyes, weighing the available evidence.  Can you say the same about religious folk?  Some, but very few, I'd wager. Next, as Spider eluded, your analogy with science falls very flat.  First off, there is no such thing - let me repeat this - no such thing - as scientific proof.  All there is is evidence.  Everything in science is calimed with varying degrees of certainty, based on the weight of evdience.  With respect to the Higgs particle, the evidence currently is better than a mere hypothesis, but doesn't have any experimental validation.  But even if they turn on the LHC and infer its existence in their first experiment, will they have proven that it exists?  No.  Even after a thousand experiments, they can't do that. By contrast, many - probably most - people who call themselves religious do claim absolute certainty in their belief in their particular god. Finally, a note on the nature of belief. When you and Robot say you don't know what you believe, that's not an extraordinary statement, and it's probably true of any honest person, Bone and I included (don't want to speak for you Bone).  My point is that a good skeptic always reserves the right to be wrong in the face of new evidence.  But the claim of a supernatural creator god, for instance, is such an extraordinary one that it requires a shitload of evidence support, and it's just not there right now.  So, as a result, I don't blindly deny the existence of such a being, but instead say "it's unlikely, and I currently have no reason to believe this."  You seem to be willfully ignoring this distinction and continually mischaracterizing my position as much more extreme, despite my attempts to set the record straight.  And Nick, let me be clear: this isn't (to me) about being a good debater or winning the argument.  I honestly don't want people running around thinking that I'm a closed minded skeptic who dismisses out of hand anything religious people hold dear by default.  I have very good reasons for my lack of acceptance of religious claims, but that is different than denying those claims, or future possible claims.  If you understand this, then my aim has been met.  If not, say so, and I will try to do a better job.
From: Ross Entered on: October 10, 2008 9:25 AM
NickNick said: Do you not realize that your adverse emotions toward anything resembling religion lead to your own "dogmatic" beliefs?   One other point: my emotional reaction above, about the Catholic church, is different than my reaction to "anything resembling religion".  I do definitely hate the Catholic church (which is different from hating Catholics, to any Catholic people reading this), and I do for the same kinds of reasons that some people hate the Bush administration: because of what they've done, what their policies are.  But religion in general isn't an institution, it's an idea.  It's a bad idea, and one I definitely think is generally harmful, but I defy you to find an instance of me being "dogmatic" about my position on religions.  As far as I know, dogma refers to beliefs that cannot be disputed.  Haven't I been saying all along that my whole problem with religion is that it cannot be disputed, and that nothing in my view is so sacred as to be exempt from dispute, including my position on the supernatural?  If there was evidence for it, I would change my mind.  I can't be any plainer than that.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 10, 2008 4:00 PM
Consider this a white flag. Sorry Bunky, I know it's a Fugly picture.  Fuckin' deal with it.
From: Ross Entered on: October 10, 2008 4:15 PM
I do not accept your surrender.  I'm not trying to bludgeon you into submission.  I want you to understand what I'm saying so you don't repeat the same mischaracterizations in six months.  Because I already tried to make my position clear a while back, and it didn't take.  You're making it clear that I still haven't succeeded.  What do I have to do?
From: Bunky Entered on: October 10, 2008 5:43 PM
Robot, can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give Nick Knock a link for pics other than Fugly? Does Google not work in the basement?
From: The Bone Entered on: October 10, 2008 6:09 PM
Nick Nick, don't give up just yet. As Ross said, it isn't about out debating you into submission. This is a fairly important topic and he's not trying to get you to disregard any particular religion. He's trying to get you to examine the evidence and draw your conclusion based on said evidence. There are a myriad of angles to look at. You said you aren't sure what you believe in. In it's simplest form, religion is about explaining where we came from and what our purpose is. Many of the thousands of religions have addressed this based on stories handed down. None of them have derived their myths from anything that stands up to scientific rigor. You'll have to read books on natural science - physics, biology, astronomy, etc. There are books for the layman that address the creation of the universe and formation of life. As Ross said, they don't prove anything but if you have the intellectual capacity to grasp the concepts you get a degree of certainty that none of the religions have been able to approach. Now perhaps you say that there may be a Prime Mover (without the anthropomorphic attributes we normally assign our gods) which constructed and set in motion the natural universe as currently observed. He set off the Big Bang, established laws of physics, guided the formation of life, devised as system of evolution, etc. When compared to the Christian version of God, this notion is a little more credible because it's more in line with Occum's Razor - it's a simpler explanation. Because of this I say it's more possible, however I don't operate as if it's probable because a Prime Mover is unnecessary. Why would the universe need a prime mover when the prime mover did not have a cause for it's own existence? Could I be wrong? Absolutely but with the current body of evidence it's unlikely. With each generation, mankind expands it's knowledge of the natural universe which contradicts the explanations of any of the World's religions. When examined outside of faith, confidence in the creation theories of any of the religions drops to almost zero, which is why Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are so successful because they require you to put your trust in faith vice intellect. It's actually a brilliant strategy.
From: Ross Entered on: October 10, 2008 7:25 PM
As Dawkins says, the creator doesn't explain anything because now you have to explain the creator!
From: NickNick Entered on: October 10, 2008 10:18 PM
The Bone said:  Why would the universe need a prime mover when the prime mover did not have a cause for it's own existence? Could I be wrong? Absolutely but with the current body of evidence it's unlikely. This, truly, is all I'm saying.  That the POSSIBILITY exists.  Not probability.  Not certainty.  There's no way of proving or disproving it which is why it's impossible to discuss scientifically and fits so much better in a philosophical discussion. Who is to say that we are not a small speck in someone's story?  And who's to say that by the act of my writing a story, I am not myself creating a universe of existence.  And so on and so forth up and down the line. In an infinite universe, with the possibility of multiple bubble dimensions winking in and out of existance between "waves", to rule out anything seems out of the question.  Again, scientifically of course, nothing can be proven, and therefore is beyond debate, but to close your mind to it and declare it IMPOSSIBLE is just something I can't do.
From: Ross Entered on: October 10, 2008 11:23 PM
Sure Nick, all of those things are possible.  But what is the evidence for them?  Zilch.  You still are willfully ignoring the difference between the possibility of something and the likelihood of something.  Please see the quote from Richard Feynman above on this very concept.  And while you're at it, you seem to be implying that the rest of us are denying that possibility. Where did any of us use the term IMPOSSIBLE like you did above?  Hell, early on in this discussion, I said that a skeptic never fully closes his mind and declares that anything is bunk.  Did you read that or not? In reality, what we are (or at least I am) saying is that those infinite possibilities are essentially irrelevant given the state of the evidence.  Without evidence, the rational person just doesn't believe in them, the same way you don't believe in Leprechauns.  Could they exist?  Sure.  The laws of physics don't preclude it.  But what is the evidence for them?  Basically, some folk tales - not nearly enough for us to buy into it - otherwise, I'd have to believe every folk tale with a similar amount of evidence, even ones that contradict the Leprechaun story.  So it's the same with just about any unprovable claim - of which there are literally an infinite number!  So why are you getting so worked up about being careful to acknowledge the possibility of these infinite possible things, of which almost all are certainly false?  I'm sorry if this sounds condescending, but I would like you to at least skim the Wikipedia article for Straw Man.  You have created numerous straw men in this thread: We are closing our minds and declaring X impossible We are BLINDLY saying that there is no god because there's no scientific proof of him We have adverse emotions toward anything resembling religion and that they lead to  "dogmatic" beliefs I've asked you numerous times now to acknowledge that I am not saying what you keep implying that I am saying, yet you keep ignoring me and reiterating your misconceptions in a slightly different way.  I would really appreciate it if you would try to understand what I am saying, here, because I certainly have done that for you.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: October 13, 2008 9:41 AM
NickNick?
From: NickNick Entered on: October 13, 2008 10:11 AM
Success!! Internet Explorer once again allows me into the topic, only after I posted something elsewhere.  I'm cornfuzzled. Back to the topic.  First off, I'm clearly outclassed in the debate here because I don't have anything firm that I'm trying to defend.  Just some hazy philosophical abstract that belongs in the back, dusty corner of my mind rather than out in the open to be picked clean like a dead carcass. The difference between possible and probable, or impossible an improbable is astromical when trying to analyze something from a scientific standpoint. "Without evidence, the rational person just doesn't believe in them, the same way you don't believe in Leprechauns." While I don't quite equate what we are discussing as being remotely close to leprechauns or Santa Claus, since I'm trying to discuss an abstract and these are clearly not, I understand your point, and concede it.   While I am clearly the agitator here, let me please wave the white flag so we can move on to more important things like the proper location of vampire fangs.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 13, 2008 10:13 AM
Seriously, I'm very stubborn and find myself getting unreasonably agitated over this topic.  Please, I allow for the fact that scientifically, the existance of some supreme being, regardless of how we look at it, is highly improbable. Let's leave it at that and move on.
From: Ross Entered on: October 13, 2008 10:30 AM
All I can do is point revert to the ways of the playground and proclaim "You started it!" And whether you believe what we're talking about is similar to leprechauns or santa claus, I maintain that it's not only similar, but identical.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.  There are some people who take leprechauns very seriously, indeed.  As my last point, since you have bowed out without acknowledging that you have been setting up straw men and knocking them down, the next time you do it (because I have a feeling you will do it again), be prepared to have this whole thread crammed down your throat in the harshest possible fashion.  You're not the only one who can get agitated around here.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 13, 2008 10:40 AM
You're right Ross.  You're the alpha male.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 13, 2008 10:45 AM
Let me roll over and bare my belly to your superior intellect.
From: Ross Entered on: October 13, 2008 11:07 AM
Hey, I don't give a shit if you feel like you're getting beat up on - you started this bullshit and you apparently think it's okay to continually annoy others by making misleading claims about their positions, and then cry foul when we call you out?  Uh-uh... doesn't work that way.  Man the fuck up.
From: John Entered on: October 13, 2008 10:57 AM
NickNick said: Let me roll over and bare my belly to your superior intellect. That would probably be for the best, NickNick.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: October 13, 2008 11:37 AM
I can't help but imagine how fun it will be to observe this discussion continuing at the Halloween party on the 25th with Bert & NickNick decked out in costumes (perhaps a giant Picachu and a Pirate?).
From: NickNick Entered on: October 13, 2008 12:25 PM
I'll let you in a little secret.  You can't change my mind because my minds not made up.  You don't need to convince me of anything differently because I'm not convinced of my standpoint in the first place.  I'm cursed with this need to question things over and over again.  Even when it's thrust directly into my face.  because sometimes, sometimes the person doing the thrusting turns out being wrong. As far as the straw man.  I was not intentionally constructing the straw man, nor was I trying to call you out on anything.  I merely found an interesting article that opened up this train of thought in my head, which I thought was a good idea to bring to the table again.  Obviously, I thought wrong. I do not feel like I'm getting beat down, I just recognize an impossible situation. I don't need to Man Up because I think that's a completely overused phrase and should have no place in our society.  If everyone "Manned Up" everytime there ideas were brought into question, we'd be an extinct species. Again, I apologize, I was not trying to ruffle feathers but only to get people to look at the issue from a different perspective.  I would have posed the same question to an individual who staunchly believed that god TRULY existed. I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure you're a wonderful friend and father.  I can tell that just by everyone's responses and the amount of pictures you post up of your son.  So again, I apologize if you felt that this was brought up to convince you of anything.  I just believe that nothing should be forfeit of consideration.  Just my crazy misguided beliefs, that's all.
From: John Entered on: October 13, 2008 1:00 PM
Can anyone say obtuse? Obviously NickNick, you don't understand the words that are coming out of Bert's mouth.
From: Ross Entered on: October 13, 2008 1:02 PM
Do you actually believe any of that nonsense you just spouted?  You think I got angry with you because you called my beliefs into question?  Ask anyone here who knows me - I am the last person who would get upset by such a thing.  No, you have aggravated me by doing something far more pedestrian - you have initiated a discussion, disobeyed the rules of rational discourse, and then played victim when your feet were held to the fire over it. Furthermore, your response above is so unintelligible that it's becoming clear to me that you are doing this simply to delight in the obfuscation, in some kind of passive agressive game.  So consider this my way of saying that I'm not going to play your game anymore.
From: BigFatty Entered on: October 13, 2008 1:20 PM
I agree NN.  There is tons of passive agressive behavior on your part here.  You keep coming back here, apologising, ending things, then return to start stuff up again.  This topic has been debated ad nauseum for years now.  You are free to go back and re-read things for clarification.  While it is nice to hear Bert re-illustrate old points in new ways, there is a point where 'Next topic please!' is certainly welcome. If you are lost in life, please pick up Dawkin's 'The God Delusion'.  It might help explain things. Next topic please!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: October 13, 2008 1:31 PM
So!  How was everybody's weekend?
From: The Bone Entered on: October 13, 2008 2:11 PM
NickNick said: I don't need to Man Up because I think that's a completely overused phrase and should have no place in our society.  If everyone "Manned Up" everytime there ideas were brought into question, we'd be an extinct species.   Please clarify. I don't know what the fuck you are saying here.
From: The Bone Entered on: October 13, 2008 2:26 PM
NickNick said: Again, I apologize, I was not trying to ruffle feathers but only to get people to look at the issue from a different perspective.  I would have posed the same question to an individual who staunchly believed that god TRULY existed. Nick, here is where I'm all confused. The way I interpret your original post was that you feel skeptics are close minded and don't leave room for the possibility of a divine being and that it the same as religious bodies not being open to scientific conclusions. Have I understood that this is the different perspective you refer to in the above comment? If so, Bert has reiterated several times that is not the case whatsoever. He has examined the evidence with an open mind and drawn the conclusion that the supernatural explanations of natural world have no merit and are unlikely. All with an open mind.
From: John Entered on: October 13, 2008 2:34 PM
The Bone said: NickNick said: I don't need to Man Up because I think that's a completely overused phrase and should have no place in our society. If everyone "Manned Up" everytime there ideas were brought into question, we'd be an extinct species. Please clarify. I don't know what the fuck you are saying here. I too need some clarification, this statement is fully incoherent. In the myriad of disjointed remarks from NN this one stands out and brings the vapidness to a whole new level. In an attempt to negate some of the vitriol, I meant that last sentence in the nicest possible way.
From: John Entered on: October 13, 2008 3:01 PM
The Bone said: NickNick said: Again, I apologize, I was not trying to ruffle feathers but only to get people to look at the issue from a different perspective. I would have posed the same question to an individual who staunchly believed that god TRULY existed. Nick, here is where I'm all confused. The way I interpret your original post was that you feel skeptics are close minded and don't leave room for the possibility of a divine being and that it the same as religious bodies not being open to scientific conclusions. Have I understood that this is the different perspective you refer to in the above comment? If so, Bert has reiterated several times that is not the case whatsoever. He has examined the evidence with an open mind and drawn the conclusion that the supernatural explanations of natural world have no merit and are unlikely. All with an open mind. Exactly, thanks for clearing that up, Bone. This is why Bert's feathers were ruffled in the first place. I can only hope this was concise enough that NN will finally concede to the actual point Bert was trying to make.
From: John Entered on: October 13, 2008 5:32 PM
Okay, I might have been overly mordant with my above statements, NickNick. I truly hope Bone's recapitulation of Bert's position was helpful. My asinine tendencies kicked in and I just couldn't help myself. This wasn't even my fight so it was unfair for me to kick you while you were down, NN.
From: Swerb Entered on: October 13, 2008 6:07 PM
I... stand here with a 10-foot pole, not touching anything. So... how about that weather we've been having, eh?
From: Swerb Entered on: October 13, 2008 6:08 PM
By the way, did everybody see this?
From: The Bone Entered on: October 13, 2008 6:39 PM
Swerb said: I... stand here with a 10-foot pole, not touching anything. Good thing, otherwise Bunky might think you are a dick too. It's already too late for me.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 13, 2008 7:51 PM
The Bone said: NickNick said: Again, I apologize, I was not trying to ruffle feathers but only to get people to look at the issue from a different perspective.  I would have posed the same question to an individual who staunchly believed that god TRULY existed. Nick, here is where I'm all confused. The way I interpret your original post was that you feel skeptics are close minded and don't leave room for the possibility of a divine being and that it the same as religious bodies not being open to scientific conclusions. Have I understood that this is the different perspective you refer to in the above comment? If so, Bert has reiterated several times that is not the case whatsoever. He has examined the evidence with an open mind and drawn the conclusion that the supernatural explanations of natural world have no merit and are unlikely. All with an open mind.  I will readily admit that I was wrong in ignoring the original statements by Ross.  I tend to read into what people are saying instead of realizing that sometimes, people actually mean what they say.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 13, 2008 7:53 PM
Now seriously, before I have a nervous breakdown... which I am fairly close to having right now, due to other outside influences, let's please please move onto something a little lighter.
From: Bunky Entered on: October 13, 2008 8:42 PM
The Bone said: Swerb said: I... stand here with a 10-foot pole, not touching anything. Good thing, otherwise Bunky might think you are a dick too. It's already too late for me. HA HA! Anyone getting all hernie over Fatty coming to the States?
From: The Bone Entered on: October 14, 2008 7:21 PM
No but maybe I should be since you posted this twice!
From: Bunky Entered on: October 14, 2008 9:39 PM
Fixed! I am not sure why it posted it twice. My iPhone usually will show an error if you double click on it when it has already been posted. Perhaps it occurred because I was confused over Nick Nick's Man Up comment... I am now going to stand by Swerb and his 10-foot pole...
From: Swerb Entered on: October 15, 2008 10:48 PM
The size of my 10-foot pole is greatly exaggerated. Also, I'm only a 5'8" half-Pole. Note the capitalization.
From: Bunky Entered on: October 16, 2008 9:30 AM
HA HA!
From: NickNick Entered on: October 17, 2008 9:01 AM
I watched the Atheism Tapes last night.  Had it on my Netflix que long before this fun little debate started.  Very interesting documentary.  It reiterated what you've been trying to say this whole time, Ross.  So, again, sorry for being a horse's ass.
From: Ross Entered on: October 17, 2008 9:05 AM
Apology accepted, Nick.  Those are a good set of documentaries, I have them sitting around on one of my hard drives as well.  I particularly liked the set with that one British philosopher guy, can't recall his name.
From: NickNick Entered on: October 17, 2008 9:41 AM
It was either Steven Weinberg or Colin McGillis.  He was the guy with the raccoon eyes if I recall correctly.  The only thing that bothered me about the documentary was that stupid they kept doing, going back and forth between the interviews themselves and the guy watching the interviews on his laptop.  What the hell was the point of that?  And then they show him clicking on the play button.  We're we watching Dora the Exporer or a documentary?
From: Ross Entered on: October 17, 2008 11:09 AM
It was McGillis.  Weinberg is an American physicist, who is also awesome.