Wilco and atheism

[TheMaker]

If I were a believer, I'd probably resort to saying something like "I don't like your tone, mister!" or "Stop being so mean!" right about now.

 

Instead, I'll simply point out that ignoring my evidence - and it's only "mine" in that I happen to be the guy bringing it to the discussion - won't make it go away. And not giving a shit sure doesn't hurt my core argument any...

 

In addition to never having existed, Jesus Christ as he is described in the bible was not without sin. He was not above bigotry or class warfare. He was not immune to committing acts of ghastly violence, up to and including murder, stemming largely from his own occasionally foul temper and general pettiness.

 

You've done a very respectable job of defending philosophical dithering over the last few pages, Winston. Maybe now we can move on past the astounding, logic-defying leap of faith that is necessary to believe in any god, and begin to address why it is patently stupid to believe in specific gods who are still kicking around due to superstition, desperation, ruthless inculcation and so on.

[kwall]

In what way is "randomness" a "god?"

i should've said "creator". is it your belief that life came about as a result of random activity? to me, that's a logic-defying leap of faith.

[M. (hristine]

Insofar as that radio is concerned, yes.

 

The brain is the hardware, our minds, the software

[oceanman]

I fall some where in between without and where the hell did it go.

 

Good to see things haven't changed much!

[Good Old Neon]

Then, it's telling that either people are ignoring you, or don't give a shit about your thesis?

 

I

[Good Old Neon]

i should've said "creator". is it your belief that life came about as a result of random activity? to me, that's a logic-defying leap of faith.

 

Are we hinting at the second law of thermodynamics

[TheMaker]

i should've said "creator". is it your belief that life came about as a result of random activity?

 

I'm not convinced I have any "belief" insofar as this is concerned. None of us knows the origin of man, so all any of us really has is a collection of testable hypotheses. Some are ridiculous on their face (flimsy religious non-explanations, for instance), whereas others seem to point to further questions (evolution, for instance, or the Big Bang theory, each of which sufficiently answers at least one important question but in so doing introduces a few of its own).

 

Since religious attempts to address man's origin are completely unsatisfactory (we can boil them down to a single one-word answer that would not even prove sufficient to a curious child: "Because"), I am forced to continue asking questions and looking for answers elsewhere. Once again, Ockham's razor cuts clean and true: follow the crumbs, eventually you'll find the cookie. Year after year after year, science continually yields astonishing new discoveries to explore, whereas religion ran out of ideas hundreds of years ago. It's time to roll up our sleeves and attempt to answer our own questions. If we're smart enough to ask them, it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them. It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself.

 

If that doesn't float your boat, there's always religion, which offers snappy answers to life's trickiest questions, as well as a plethora of easy pseudo-explanations for the pious, the judgmental and the terminally stupid.

 

P.S., "Creator" is still a loaded term. Again, my apologies.

[Spawn's dad]

I

[TheMaker]

Yeah. You're done, Spawn's dad.

 

Everybody get a load of this guy's mentality?

 

He has absolutely nothing left to say.

[kwall]

So then, you dispute evolution?

i dispute evolution as a means of explaining how and why life itself came into existence. as a means of explaining how species come into and out of existence, i think it's plausible.

[Spawn's dad]

actually I'm driving and on an iPhone do have hardly read a bit of this. Still you pointing out anyones mentality is too ironic for words. Besides neither of you is interested in discussing anything I've had to say in any of these threads yet.

[Good Old Neon]

Do you hold it for him when he pees?

 

It

[Spawn's dad]

myself? That's pretty weak, and unless you point out where I've done so if say you're pretty off base. I font play for any team ever.

[TheMaker]

Okay, could you, like... contribute something of substance? Soon? Please?

 

Before I just add you to my ignore list? Because the meter is running at this point. (In more explicit terms, this means that your next post really needs to include something besides an ad hominem attack.)

 

And just for the record, I'll entertain a lot of things, but I WILL NOT dispute the reality of evolution. Even if my opponent were willing to meet me halfway by discussing the relative instability of the theory of gravity, I still couldn't be bothered.

[kwall]

Well, then, you

[M. (hristine]

I'm not convinced I have any "belief" insofar as this is concerned. None of us knows the origin of man, so all any of us really has is a collection of testable hypotheses. Some are ridiculous on their face (flimsy religious non-explanations, for instance), whereas others seem to point to further questions (evolution, for instance, or the Big Bang theory, each of which sufficiently answers at least one important question but in so doing introduces a few of its own).

 

Since religious attempts to address man's origin are completely unsatisfactory (we can boil them down to a single one-word answer that would not even prove sufficient to a curious child: "Because"), I am forced to continue asking questions and looking for answers elsewhere. Once again, Ockham's razor cuts clean and true: follow the crumbs, eventually you'll find the cookie. Year after year after year, science continually yields astonishing new discoveries to explore, whereas religion ran out of ideas hundreds of years ago. It's time to roll up our sleeves and attempt to answer our own questions. If we're smart enough to ask them, it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them. It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself.

 

If that doesn't float your boat, there's always religion, which offers snappy answers to life's trickiest questions, as well as a plethora of easy pseudo-explanations for the pious, the judgmental and the terminally stupid.

 

P.S., "Creator" is still a loaded term. Again, my apologies.

The empirical limits of science arise from problems with observation. There are sensory limits in human ability to inquire and answer questions about phenomena.

[kwall]

If we're smart enough to ask them, it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them. It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself.

this is a leap of faith. there's no proof that this is true. i would say that this is your religion.

[TheMaker]

Evolution is as much a fact of life as gravity and Newtonian mechanics. It can and has been observed, and it supplies a "how" and a "why" answer to the ways in which life develops on Earth. Please, for the sake of my fucking sanity, DON'T START THIS.

[TheMaker]

this is a leap of faith. there's no proof that this is true. i would say that this is your religion.

 

It's not a leap of faith at all, actually. And neither did I assert that it was true. Furthermore, I clarified that it was a suspicion, or hypothesis, and not a belief. That's three strikes, bud. Yer outta here.

 

At one time it was beyond our means to explain the relationship of celestial bodies to one another in our solar system. Now we can.

 

Once we thought the earth was flat. Now we've seen enough to know better.

 

Once we were unable to replicate the conditions under which the Big Bang may well have occurred. Now we're on the cusp of doing exactly that.

 

I have a hypothesis, and it is based on the fact that the sum of all human knowledge multiplies as we go forward into the future. It's based on observation. It's rooted in logic.

 

It's not a leap of faith as belief in god represents a leap of faith.

[myboyblue]

Okay, could you, like... contribute something of substance? Soon? Please?

 

Before I just add you to my ignore list? Because the meter is running at this point. (In more explicit terms, this means that your next post really needs to include something besides an ad hominem attack.)

 

And just for the record, I'll entertain a lot of things, but I WILL NOT dispute the reality of evolution. Even if my opponent were willing to meet me halfway by discussing the relative instability of the theory of gravity, I still couldn't be bothered.

Never has the term "calm down" ever been more suffice. "my opponent"... ha

[Good Old Neon]

if you believe that evolution explains how and why life came into existence, that's a leap of faith. there's no proof of that.

 

And we're done.

[TheMaker]

The empirical limits of science arise from problems with observation. There are sensory limits in human ability to inquire and answer questions about phenomena.

 

I certainly can't disagree with this. Five senses aren't nearly enough to even identify the vast majority of matter in the universe, let alone parse it in a way that makes absolute sense to us. This does not invite wild speculation, but rather focused researched and diligent experimentation.

 

Again, I believe I've stated quite definitively that I have no strong "belief" concerning mankind's latent ability to explore anything. The best I, or any of us, can do is speculate. One of my theories is that as our knowledge increases, so too does our ability to make sense of our environment. Unlike, say, the Christian flock, I have no pressing desire to know absolutely fucking everything about the universe. I certainly don't feel the need to pretend to have access to knowledge which no man in truth possesses. I am rather content to explore that which can be explored.

[caliber66]

And we're done.

Thank Christ.

[TheMaker]

"my opponent"... ha

 

Have you seen some of the shit these people have been writing? Apparently Neon holds my dick for me when I piss. Or maybe he shakes it, I don't quite remember. Either way, I think "opponent" fits pretty nicely given the gradual decline of this discussion.

[kwall]

Evolution is as much a fact of life as gravity and Newtonian mechanics. It can and has been observed . . .

i agree.

 

. . . and it supplies a "how" and a "why" answer to the ways in which life develops on Earth.

that i'm not so sure about. what does evolution say about "why"?

 

Please, for the sake of my fucking sanity, DON'T START THIS.

i'd very much like to destroy your fucking sanity.