Next on the reading list… » « Hitchens’ address to American Atheists I’m working on that ‘dignified elder statesman of atheism’ thing And as a first step, that involved being fitted for a squid balloon hat at the American Atheist convention dinner last night. You’re all jealous now, I know. Share this:PrintEmailShare on TumblrTweet Next on the reading list… » « Hitchens’ address to American Atheists
David MarjanoviÄ says
Replies to Kenneth from the other thread, which is now closed:
If indeed you believe you need to have a purpose. John Morales and I disagree with this premise, too.
And my publications. :-]
Significance? What significance? We’re significant to ourselves and each other, not to some imagined grand scheme of things.
So what? Can’t you have fun regardless? :-)
Then let’s go to the next level. What value is there to God himself? Isn’t his existence pointless? He wasn’t created, he doesn’t have a purpose… he just is, says theism. And so are you, says atheism.
From this thread:
No, why? That’s just one of a long list of options.
1) God exists, the Bible is his word, and it’s all true; the contradictions in the Bible are there to give you a headache or something.
2) God exists, and the Bible is his word, it’s just all wrong, because God is a liar.
3) God exists, and he never lies; the Bible is not his word at all, it was written by lying humans.
4) God exists, and he never lies; the Bible is not his word at all, it was written by people who were honestly mistaken about God.
5) For parts of the Bible 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 are true.
6) God does not exist, and the Bible was written by lying humans with a political agenda.
7) God does not exist, and the Bible was written by people who were honestly mistaken about it all. (And had, in some cases, a political agenda.)
I’m sure you can come up with even more possibilities.
(…In case you’re not familiar with this, Kenneth, it means “quoted for truth”. Or “quite fucking true” if you prefer.)
In the fact that evolution is by far not the only fact that the Bible contradicts. Archeology and history contradict all of the Old Testament up to and including the First Book of Kings.
Indeed, the NT is famously full of parables that are explicitly marked as such*, and the OT contains such things as a love song (called the Song of Solomon because people felt they had to attribute it to someone).
* That’s how the word parable has even entered the English language, and why it’s the ancestor of the words for “speak” in the Romance languages â Italian parlare, French parler, Portuguese falar, Spanish hablar…
In case mikkoL or Amelia or indeed consciousness razor have come over:
Well… Ä is between “ts” and English “ch” (Spanish “ch” can come close), j is English “y” in “yes”, “you”, “year” etc., and the stress goes on the third-to-last syllable.
In short, [maÊËjanÉvÉªtÊ²Í¡É], where [Ê] is German accent for what ought to be a Spanish-style [r], and [Éª] (as in English “ship”) is actually an exaggeration â it’s somewhere between there and [i] as found in French.
Perfect reply. Day saved.
(But, frankly, yes. Your behavior isn’t erratic.)
Like all totalitarian ideologies, Soviet communism was chock full of superstitions that might as well be called religious. Basically, the only difference is the lack of an afterlife; afterlife in any kind of communism is restricted to Kim Il-sung, who is still the president of North Korea.
1) Then what about the hypocrisy? Why remove this particular evil murdering bastard and not all the other evil murdering bastards? And why in 2003 and not in 1988 or even in 1991? Is hypocrisy not immoral?
2) “Huge legal debate” my ass. It’s plain as day, and only a few Republicans have ever tried to pretend otherwise. The USA isn’t the whole world.
3) We’re still beside the biggest moral point: is removing one evil murdering bastard worth several hundred thousand corpses?
4) Let’s look at this again:
In that case, I’m not sure about Texas, but where I come from that’s the same thing. Was it immediate self-defense or immediate emergency defense of someone else? If yes, fine. If no, well, excess of self-defense is a crime where I come from. It is evil and illegal to kill a burglar who isn’t credibly threatening to kill you or someone else.
Three trillion dollars till 2006 alone.
Indeed, during the invasion itself, the only building in Baghdad that US forces guarded was the oil ministry. The museums were looted… and so, I bet, was the evidence of the crimes of Saddam’s secret service.
Very easily: by believing the issue they’re being careless about isn’t important enough.
Have you never been lazy? :-)
Science is a tool. You can use it to do good, evil, anything.
Science was never intended as a value system about anything but intellectual honesty.
And there it says…
Î¤Î ÎÎ£Î¤ÎÎ ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ
Well, what is truth. Is there even a point in caring?
I can tell you what reality is. It is the physical world, that which does not go away when you stop believing in it, that in which the argumentum ad lapidem is not a logical fallacy.
Truth is that in which the argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy. Truth could be that reality is a (remarkably consistent) illusion. Perhaps reality is like the concept of maya in some kinds of Hinduism. Or perhaps I’m the solipsist. Or perhaps God is the solipsist, and we and the rest of reality only exist in His Mind.
Or perhaps reality is truth, there is nothing “behind” reality, there is no truth other than reality, and the argumentum ad lapidem was valid all along.
How are we ever going to decide between these options?
Is there even a point in deciding between these options? Why should we care?
I frankly don’t care. But there is one argument that favors the last of these options over all others. It is Ockham’s Razor: the things that [are assumed to] exist should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
ENTA NON SUNT MULTIPLICANDA SUPER NECESSITATEM
A maker, with or without majestic glory, is not required to explain what we know of the universe, including what you interpret as “singing”.
A maker is an ens multiplicatum super necessitatem.
Other than that old anthology of fiction and fanfiction, I mean.
Evidence, or it’s not happening.
Was that supposed to be an argument???
Evidently not. Neither have many other people (like myself) â and indeed, there’s no evidence that anybody has experienced it as opposed to having experienced confirmation bias, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and similar failures of reason.
He started to think.
Besides, I don’t think it’s at all beautiful to give kids names in an attempt to determine their future. I think it’s evil.
Wrong. The 19th century is over, even in science theory.
Utter bullshit. The theory of evolution is science, not philosophy.
Of course we don’t apply the same term to these two extremely different things.
Evolution is about the frequencies of alleles in populations. Individuals cannot and do not evolve.
Evolution is not predetermined. Mutation is random, and natural selection depends on the vagaries of the environment.
BTW, why do you think biodiversity reached its peak in the Mesozoic? How do you measure biodiversity, and how do you extrapolate from the fossil record to the organisms that were not preserved and those whose fossils haven’t been found yet?
1) The Origin of Species is not the same book as The Descent of Man.
2) Block? What block? The chimps have simply never needed bigger brains for what they’re doing â and trying to duplicate what we’re doing would be pointless; we happened to come first.
Modern evolutionary theory does not assume any spirit, emancipating or otherwise, as a property of matter or otherwise, at all.
Why does life evolve? Because at least two miracles would be required to prevent it from evolving: an end to mutations, and an eternally stable environment throughout the entire globe.
The history of science is, however, completely irrelevant to science itself.
If I were crazy enough to believe that I had invented the scientific method and done all science that was published before last Thursday, it wouldn’t impact my ability to do science at all. (It would only destroy my ability to cite correctly. That’s publication, not science.)
BTW, the International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature strongly recommends to put Archaeopteryx in italics.
you seem to have truly cosmic interest in anal probings – Sigmund Freud (Jewish) might have some useful ideas about this for your consideration before such interest develops into an obsession. If I remember right it has something to do with children growing up as sexual human beings.
1) It didn’t â see comment 1016.
2) Have you never heard of “alien abduction”? That’s what KG is, sarcastically, alluding to.
1) Unknown, yes, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good hypotheses on this topic. Sexual selection, the one Darwin suspected in his book The Descent of Man (1871), is still among the strongest contenders.
2) It is not growing anymore. The average brain size of Homo sapiens sapiens, 1400 cmÂ³, hasn’t changed in 200,000 years. H. s. neanderthalensis had 1500 cmÂ³…
Why do you switch the topic from science theory to “the meaning of human history” (whatever that’s supposed to mean)?
Powerful perhaps, but they’re pseudoscience. Freud made sweeping generalizations from small, highly biased samples (we are not all upperclass ladies from turn-of-the-century Vienna â for instance, most of us aren’t repressing our sexuality that badly) and didn’t test whether his interpretations were the most parsimonious ones even given only his small, biased samples.
No. You do so because you understand just about nothing about evolution.
Did you really believe scientists undergo the full kolinahr as part of their training?
Scientists have trained long and hard to call a spade a spade. Don’t be surprised when they call an ignorant moron an ignorant moron.
The Bible contradicts itself on this.
By all evidence, Abraham is just as fictional as dragon teeth.
Indeed, his idealistic writings were already called “guano” in his lifetime.
And rightly so.
Physicalism. Matter is just one form of energy: E = mcÂ².
We evolutionary biologists have a definition of evolution. I have already quoted it: descent with heritable modification.