I must confess to a cruel game with this post. I saw this poster and thought, "What? But most of these people weren't atheists!" Surely someone could do a far better job with this idea than that, and everyone would see the problem here (at least John Wilkins did, as did many of the commenters). You were supposed to be inspired to make a better version. At least one person was, but they took it in a completely different direction than I expected.
Anyone care to try and do something better, with a positive message?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Did you hear about the scio10 civility meltdown? More about that in a minute. As you may have heard, it got a bit. . . uncivil. I wasn't there, so you, like me, will have to get your impression from this highly realistic renactment, created by an attendee who witnessed the confrontation between…
Over the six months tÃ¥hat I've been writing this blog, I've gotten a bunch of email from people asking about what it's like working as a researcher in industry vs working in academia. It's a good question, one which I've spent a lot of time thinking about. So I thought it was worth turning into…
Last week, I was told that I have a "god-shaped hole in my heart." My first thought was to reply that no, I have a perfectly intact heart thick with good strong sheets of muscle, but of course, that would have proven his point, that I've willingly replaced the Holy Ghost with actin and myosin, and…
Purdue is now on summer time, which means it is a time for day-long retreats, meetings, and types of work. I've experienced two flavors of day-long meetings, and have one or two insights to share with you about each.
My first meeting was one scheduled months in advance, with various academic heads…
What I am observing is that when some atheist say "I dont believe the possibility of inteligences superior to humans"
You're clueless; atheists don't say that.
they are forgueting the possibility of collective inteligence in societes, artificial inteligence, etc.
What makes you think anyone is forgetting that? Collective intelligences, artificial intelligences, etc. aren't gods.
Being a statistical physicist doesn't give you any advantage in re the subjects you're discussing, and frankly what you have written here is quite stupid and ignorant.
chance exists is just the way our spacetime works
Chance is a function of ignorance; see "Bayesian" (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability).
Einstein was a panentheist
Good grief but that is stupid. Einstein was an anti-panentheist: "Gott würfelt nicht".
truth machine @502, I guess I both accepted and used sloppy language (and maybe sloppy categorisation). I was referring more to randomness than to probability, not that it matters.
BTW you got a couple of extraneous characters in the URL ref. Not that that matters, of course.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." - Albert Einstein
This is part of the reason there lacks any serious subject on the matter because of people's misinformed opinions of the subject. I'm agnostic but lets understand where eveyrone stands 1st..
I do not know if this has been said, but Lincoln, Einstein and Jefferson were not Atheists. the others I am not certain. For Lincoln, just read his second inaugural address. Jefferson was a Deist, not a Atheist.
How about Theists given the same Historic photo op, instead a slam. Washington, Newton, JRR Tolkien, Thomas Nelson, Patrick Henry, Mother Teresa, Decartes, Guttenburg, etc.