Have I got that right?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Back around the 11th of July, I saw a few comments by a guy named Myles Power, a science youtuber, who was quite irate that Rebecca Watson criticized evolutionary psychology five years ago. There were the usual vaguely horrified reactions implying how annoying it was that some mere communications…
I think we've reached the saturation point, so comments are closed on this article. However, I do think I need to link to Rebecca Watson's summary of her recent absurdist travails. Or if you'd rather, try reading Schrödinger's Rapist and be enlightened.
This time, though, really, go over there if…
Rebecca Watson is stirring up trouble again. She points out the dire situation for women in this country.
In the first quarter of this year, 49 state legislatures introduced 916 bills that restricted reproductive rights. Here are a few that have passed, like in Texas, where women must have an…
The latest Watson news is that Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has "suspended [his] administrative responsibilities...pending further deliberation by the board." Watson, meanwhile, has begun the "Did I say that? No! I didn't mean it!" apologia that usually follows when some noted figure catches…
I talk into a camera and people give me money. You can't explain that!
www.geekosystem.com/bill-oreilly-cant-explain-that-meme/
History clearly shows that in time, we WILL learn the explanations. Just as we have learned that, without any doubt, the Earth is millions of years old and revolves around the sun, and that the distance from the Earth to "the stars" varies by almost unimaginable magnitudes.
Wait ... maybe such people have one point ... "god IS ignorance"
Just a minor quibble, Bob O'Bob. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Is that one god to account for all things we can't explain or one god for each thing we can't explain?
I think the answer is important.
That's the gist of the argument - recently much augmented by the newly emergent "O'Reilly exception", according to which the non-existence of an explanation is no longer required. It is now considered sufficient proof of god's existence that you aren't aware of an explanation, didn't listen when somebody tried to give you the explanation or are just not capable of understanding it.
SH*THEADS
atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=9870
@6:
Seek help now, before it's too late.
cairne.morane:
One God to rule them all
and in the darkness bind them.
What always strikes me funny is that the goddidit answer is not different than saying "It's magic!"... Yet to them, they can't see it. I just don't understand how they can be so willfully blind to it.
Yet
God of the Gaps is such a sad creature. I wish Templeton would turn off the life support.
The O'Reilly gambit isn't "you can't explain that, therefore God:" it's "Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand that, therefore God."
#11 This leads to some awkward questions:
1) Does that mean that god did not exist until Bill O'Rilly didn't understand something?
2) If god did exist before 1), who (or whom) was the person that didn't understand something that gave rise to god before Bill? Can the position be shared, or is it transmitted from one person to another, like the divine right of kings?
Actually, I think it's "You can't explain that, therefore *Christian* God.". Because obviously, if you can't provide a simple answer an idiot could understand to a complex question, the whole bible is therefore literally true. The same attitude defintely doesn't support any of those other "weird" religions.
I don't get this video. Too me it seems just as misguided as the religious argument it's arguing against. Nobody knows how we got here, nobody knows that there's no God and nobody knows that there is a God. Fundamental atheists are just as deluded as fundamentalist Christians.
So it's ok to use multiverse as a scientific argument even though there's no evidence for such a thing at all. Holy crap Batman, we just don't know.
Pretending that a multiverse is more testable "in the future" is pretty lame. By that standard, God might also be testable "in the future," how can anybody know it won't be?
Seriously people, we just don't know.
Deluded deluded deluded atheists. But at least the religious people know it's a belief, not a scientific fact. They're one ahead of you on that.
PS, I don't mean you're deluded in being atheist, that I understand, only in that you don't understand that it's a belief system, not evidence based.
PS, I don't mean you're deluded in being atheist, that I understand, only in that you don't understand that it's a belief system, not evidence based.
I thought it was 4.5453267945 billion years old.
Mike: Since you asked: http://tinyurl.com/4hzq25s
Money quote:
"Many theists believe life came about by a miracle from gOD. But if that's the case, then the universe was not fine-tuned for life. After all, why would it then require a miracle?"
Riiiiggghhht. There's no people trying to get religion taught in science class, nope, uh huh. Scopes never happened. Dover never happened. Thanks for clearing things up.
Stella -
As an atheist, I don't have any beliefs regarding what you might refer to as the supernatural. I do not believe there is a god, spirits or any other sort of "magic." I also do not believe there is not any of those things. Given actual evidence that anything on that list actually exists, I would revise my lack of belief.
Atheism is not a belief system, it is merely a worldview that refuses to accept extraordinary claims as truth, without extraordinary evidence.