(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y522/Rex_Bologna/tumblr_n9y5dlqhje1qglypyo1_500_zps6d5a25f1.jpg)
Well that fucking tears it. :argh!: I was already pretty annoyed with anyone who thinks that choosing a hard negative stance on an unverifiable hypothesis automatically bumped their IQ by 20 points, but anyone talking shit about @dril can go piss up a hundred ropes.
They obviously have no sense of humor.
Quote from: Sita on August 12, 2014, 01:22:57 PM
They obviously have no sense of humor.
Don't let them hear you say that.
You'll get a detailed manifesto of why they
DO have a sense of humour and not only that, it is better and superior to yours.
Wint is amazing
Quote from: Faust on August 12, 2014, 02:21:41 PM
Wint is amazing
Wint is the greatest spiritual leader of our time.
Dare I ask what a skeleton war is?
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
Dare I ask what a skeleton war is?
It is not A skeleton war, its THE skeleton war. :evilmad:
Quote from: The Johnny on August 13, 2014, 04:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
Dare I ask what a skeleton war is?
It is not A skeleton war, its THE skeleton war. :evilmad:
This statement clarifies nothing.
Quote from: President Television on August 13, 2014, 07:11:25 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 04:53:10 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on August 13, 2014, 04:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
Dare I ask what a skeleton war is?
It is not A skeleton war, its THE skeleton war. :evilmad:
This statement clarifies nothing.
It's fucking metal, is what it is.
Is it NWOBHM, or is it like Death MEtal?
Quote from: President Television on August 13, 2014, 07:11:25 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 04:53:10 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on August 13, 2014, 04:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
Dare I ask what a skeleton war is?
It is not A skeleton war, its THE skeleton war. :evilmad:
This statement clarifies nothing.
It's fucking metal, is what it is.
Deathinfinitively.
If you want a real laugh, put Atheism 411 into Google.
QuoteJust a bunch of atheists trying to make a difference while having a bit of fun.
Maybe he intended it to be funny... I guess it is, in a certain sense.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 08:14:54 AM
Quote from: President Television on August 13, 2014, 07:11:25 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 04:53:10 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on August 13, 2014, 04:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 13, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
Dare I ask what a skeleton war is?
It is not A skeleton war, its THE skeleton war. :evilmad:
This statement clarifies nothing.
It's fucking metal, is what it is.
Is it NWOBHM, or is it like Death MEtal?
That depends on which side you're on.
Seems an echo chamber in there...doubt I'll get a reply. But this:
(http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd504/Noledemiel/fb.jpg)
Excellent reply.
Urgh, Sam Harris. Proof, as if any more was needed, that being an atheist does not exclude one from being a reactionary, genocidal lunatic.
Mr. Harris, we regret to inform you that a value system based on curiosity is NOT what you are looking for. Really.
Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10609649_683925318351097_4059483165207378080_n.jpg)
QuoteSpeaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.
If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.
If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.
If, otoh, his motives are simply to exercise his contempt by provoking idiotic gravity doubters, while amusing the like-minded, thus inflating his e-peen to cosmic levels...then...well...he's a douche who should probably stop existing as soon as possible.
Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus, could rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.
The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 13, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10609649_683925318351097_4059483165207378080_n.jpg)
QuoteSpeaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.
If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.
If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.
Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus can rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.
The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.
:spittake:
A thing of beauty and a joy forever.
Dawkins :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: backfire?
Using science against a scientist is a stroke of genius.
Quote from: LuciferX on August 13, 2014, 08:41:59 PM
Dawkins :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: backfire?
Yep...funny thing about primates of very strong belief:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/)
QuoteIn 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first.
What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 13, 2014, 09:34:16 PM
Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 13, 2014, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 13, 2014, 09:34:16 PM
Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.
Hey, he's an asshole, but he's still a scientist.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 13, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10609649_683925318351097_4059483165207378080_n.jpg)
QuoteSpeaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.
If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.
If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.
If, otoh, his motives are simply to exercise his contempt by provoking idiotic gravity doubters, while amusing the like-minded, thus inflating his e-peen to cosmic levels...then...well...he's a douche who should probably stop existing as soon as possible.
Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus, could rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.
The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.
You, sir, are a genius. :lulz:
Wait a minute, Dawkins, he's the atheist ambassador admitting discernible doubt about God's actual non-existence, right? Jeez, he's not even agnostic. :lulz:
Quote from: Hoopla on August 13, 2014, 10:07:36 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 13, 2014, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 13, 2014, 09:34:16 PM
Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.
Hey, he's an asshole, but he's still a scientist.
He's both, but the context is key.
Japan once accidentally Drunken Ira Hayes as the Whiskey Drinking Indian instead of the Marine that went to war.
Now they all have to brave tentacle rape just to get to their jobs at the fish flavored toilet paper factory.
Don't wanna fuck up that context, now.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 14, 2014, 12:38:01 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 13, 2014, 10:07:36 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 13, 2014, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 13, 2014, 09:34:16 PM
Using science against a scientist giant douche is a stroke of genius privilege and a pleasure.
Hey, he's an asshole, but he's still a scientist.
He's both, but the context is key.
Japan once accidentally Drunken Ira Hayes as the Whiskey Drinking Indian instead of the Marine that went to war.
Now they all have to brave tentacle rape just to get to their jobs at the fish flavored toilet paper factory.
Don't wanna fuck up that context, now.
Well, when you put it like
that...
He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?
He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement. Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching. Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.
Quote from: Cain on August 14, 2014, 07:21:01 AM
He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?
He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement. Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching. Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.
Well he did conduct that Sociological Experiment on all those unwitting feminist atheists...
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ (http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/)
QuoteDear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard
Christ, what an asshole.
Even though Dawkins did end up being sorta right about Skepchick*, it doesn't negate the fact he responded like a complete arsehole in the first place.
*Watson's record of arseholery is almost as impressive as his...the difference is, Watson has more white knights than Dawkins has, somewhat more palatable politics and a less than impressive intellectual background.
He's like the fucker at a party who corrects the way you pronounce "forte".
Quote from: Hoopla on August 14, 2014, 03:14:40 PM
He's like the fucker at a party who corrects the way you pronounce "forte".
:lulz: Analogy win!
True that.
And to extend the analogy, Watson is like the sort of person who insists it is pronounced "fort" right up until the point you prove her wrong, in which case she denies either believing that was the case and threatens to sue you if you continue to say otherwise.
If you doubt this, just go to Atheism+ and ask Watson about Galileo. You will be banned before you even get a chance to come back and check on replies to the thread.
Basically, the point I'm getting at here is Atheists are really bad at a) humour and b) admitting the limits of their knowledge and c) interacting like decent human beings.
Group X exhibiting the same flaws they criticise Group Y over.
More at 11.
QuoteBasically, the point I'm getting at here is Atheists are really bad at a) humour and b) admitting the limits of their knowledge and c) interacting like decent human beings.
Semi-serious, isn't this just people, pretty much everywhere? If the majority of folk were capable of 1/3 consistently the world would be a different place, surely.
I've met quite a few people over the years. My personal experience is that most folk have no sense of humour, can't admit when they don't know something and are generally incapable of considering those beyond their immediate group.
If this
isn't your experience, let me know where you live. I'll visit.
The trick is, I don't socialise.
Oh, to have that option.
Well the proof of the pudding is in the two types of athiests.
One are people who have arrived at a set of conclusions based on the information at hand and their own analytical judgements.
The other is a band of people who:
- are elitists, craving a feeling of intellectual superiority, generally they were free thinkers up to a comfortable point where they don't wish to think about it any more.
- are Dogmatists, insecure in their atheism that they must defend it and MUST tell you about it
- Bitter closet thiests
Personally my belief There is no god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone.
But it could just as easily have been "There is a god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone".
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 14, 2014, 03:42:38 PM
I've met quite a few people over the years. My personal experience is that most folk have no sense of humour, can't admit when they don't know something and are generally incapable of considering those beyond their immediate group.
You're right, but agnosticism is SCARY.
I have to hand it to Nigel for fixing me good, because I was very much in the Dawkins camp for quite a while.
Quote from: Cain on August 14, 2014, 07:21:01 AM
He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?
He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement. Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching. Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.
I saw a video where he and NDT had a conversation so that a biologist could ask a physicist and a physicist could ask a biologist, and I was like, oh, right, he's meant to be a biologist. Forgot about that, because of his primary interest in the non-existence of something.
I liked it, and God only came up during the questions from the audience. Presumably because, again, of his primary interest in the non-existence of something. But it was watchable. He wasn't a douche, he and Neil were just talking about the universe from their specific scientific fields and asking the other to make sense out of something for them.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 14, 2014, 04:03:01 PM
I have to hand it to Nigel for fixing me good, because I was very much in the Dawkins camp for quite a while.
I was very much confused by his name for quite a while. I would read articles mentioning something he said, or some debate or whatever, and all I could think was, "Wow...that must have been a really awkward episode of Family Feud."
On the other end of the spectrum, Are militant atheists using chemtrails to poison angels in heaven?
http://harddawn.com/are-militant-atheists-using-chemtrails-to-poison-the-angels-in-heaven/
QuotePresident George W. Bush famously fought against the scientists entrenched in his administration. At many points they promoted evolution "theory" and "global warming" over good old-fashioned common sense. They tried to uproot Christianity in our schools through activist judges. And while President Bush fought the good fight, he ultimately did not win the battle. The long line of anti-theists ruling the inner halls of power since Lyndon Johnson remained in control.
So what is at the heart of this secret society of globalist atheism? One of their most significant concerns is the power of Faith. They despise the Glory of Jesus and the hope that He brings to countless Americans. The atheists are so insanely dedicated to their obscene cult they will try just about anything to destroy every remnant of Christian Love on this earth. As this sickening obsession was wed to advances in aerial spraying technology in the last century, one can surmise the evil compound that resulted. In this formula, it seems quite logical that the atheist's next step would be to attempt the widespread murder of Jesus's very Heavenly Agents of Love.
Angels. They are much more than a Christian bedtime story. They are much more than the sweet flutterings in the ears of believers. Angels are quite literally the factory workers of faith. They are tireless and everywhere. They accomplish innumerable feats, from minor pangs of guilt to the throbbing passions of love. The angels are there to guide us, to inspire us and, ultimately, to remind us of our obligation to Jesus. The fly through the air at His beckoning. They are gentle and ever willing. We would be far less human and humane were it not for the angels. And that is exactly why atheists fear the power of angels.
Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes. Why do we have war? It's the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
(Yes, Satire site is satire, but some of the comments lead me to believe otherwise.)
Besides, everyone knows atheists use radios to prevent angels from messaging people
Quote from: Faust on August 14, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
Well the proof of the pudding is in the two types of athiests.
One are people who have arrived at a set of conclusions based on the information at hand and their own analytical judgements.
The other is a band of people who:
- are elitists, craving a feeling of intellectual superiority, generally they were free thinkers up to a comfortable point where they don't wish to think about it any more.
- are Dogmatists, insecure in their atheism that they must defend it and MUST tell you about it
- Bitter closet thiests
Personally my belief There is no god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone.
But it could just as easily have been "There is a god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone".
I can't decide between "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so there can't be a god that takes an active interest." and "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so it doesn't matter if there is a god or not." At the moment when it comes to religion I am leaning towards Laplace's position: "I have no need for that hypothesis".
EDIT
Wait, why did I respond to this thread by stating my position on atheism?
Damn canned responses in my brain need to shut the hell up.
Apologies, continue as if i said something relevant but unmemorable.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 14, 2014, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 14, 2014, 04:03:01 PM
I have to hand it to Nigel for fixing me good, because I was very much in the Dawkins camp for quite a while.
I was very much confused by his name for quite a while. I would read articles mentioning something he said, or some debate or whatever, and all I could think was, "Wow...that must have been a really awkward episode of Family Feud."
Was beginning to think I was the only one to have thought that.
Quote from: Regret on August 14, 2014, 08:02:46 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 14, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
Well the proof of the pudding is in the two types of athiests.
One are people who have arrived at a set of conclusions based on the information at hand and their own analytical judgements.
The other is a band of people who:
- are elitists, craving a feeling of intellectual superiority, generally they were free thinkers up to a comfortable point where they don't wish to think about it any more.
- are Dogmatists, insecure in their atheism that they must defend it and MUST tell you about it
- Bitter closet thiests
Personally my belief There is no god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone.
But it could just as easily have been "There is a god and it doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone".
I can't decide between "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so there can't be a god that takes an active interest." and "God doesn't make the slightest difference to anything so it doesn't matter if there is a god or not." At the moment when it comes to religion I am leaning towards Laplace's position: "I have no need for that hypothesis".
EDIT
Wait, why did I respond to this thread by stating my position on atheism?
Damn canned responses in my brain need to shut the hell up.
Apologies, continue as if i said something relevant but unmemorable.
:lulz:
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 13, 2014, 04:07:05 PM
Seems an echo chamber in there...doubt I'll get a reply. But this:
(http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd504/Noledemiel/fb.jpg)
OH SNAP buddy! Excellent reply! Did it get followed up by screeching about how you're WRONG WRONG WRONG?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 13, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Mostly I'm trolling politely with compassion and earnestness. But then DAWKINS happened, and the bats started swinging.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10609649_683925318351097_4059483165207378080_n.jpg)
QuoteSpeaking of the awesomeness of scientific evidence, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that statements of the form "A is true" are more likely to increase belief in A (and overcome belief in !A), than statements of the form "!A is false". In fact, a surprising observation that has emerged from these studies, is that "!A is false," tends to only slightly, at best, diminish belief in !A, and, in cases where the initial belief is particularly strong, can actually INCREASE it.
If we apply this cognitive backfire hypothesis to Dawkins' statement, and roughly sum all the probabilities that emerge, it seems like what we're looking at here is a statement that most likely overcomes resistance to science in the - to 0 range.
If Richard Dawkins' motives are overcoming resistance to/promoting science, this scientific evidence suggests that he's probably not doing a very good job of it.
If, otoh, his motives are simply to exercise his contempt by provoking idiotic gravity doubters, while amusing the like-minded, thus inflating his e-peen to cosmic levels...then...well...he's a douche who should probably stop existing as soon as possible.
Of course, it's entirely possible that cognitive backfire is a blip, not real at all. The same could be said of gravity, albeit with considerably less plausibility. If Richard Dawkins has doubts about cognitive backfire (and thus, could rationally continue making these sorts of statements without casting doubt on the sincerity of his motives) I would invite him to try to persuade a group of people beating him with bats to stop doing so, by smugly declaring that only inferior, wrong-headed, jerk-offs beat people with bats.
The results would certainly be of considerable scientific interest.
Holy shit, did you write that? I love you.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 14, 2014, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 14, 2014, 07:21:01 AM
He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?
He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement. Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching. Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.
I saw a video where he and NDT had a conversation so that a biologist could ask a physicist and a physicist could ask a biologist, and I was like, oh, right, he's meant to be a biologist. Forgot about that, because of his primary interest in the non-existence of something.
I liked it, and God only came up during the questions from the audience. Presumably because, again, of his primary interest in the non-existence of something. But it was watchable. He wasn't a douche, he and Neil were just talking about the universe from their specific scientific fields and asking the other to make sense out of something for them.
You wanna know why he wasn't a douche, and didn't try to call Tyson out on his agnosticism? And I'd put cash money on this?
Because Tyson outclasses him intellectually and charismatically. Tyson is a fast thinker and an eloquent speaker with the academic background and verbal skill to make just about anyone feel like an idiot. And politically, he has nothing to gain by alienating the most popular science speaker in the world.
Because I have no such shame -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
At 0:38, atheism buckles :lulz:
So here's something that I'm wondering about. It applies to the athiests v's theists debate but it can arise in other situations. It's about this burden of proof thing.
The atheist's position is invalid because they can't prove there's no god, right? I can't help thinking that this clause is subject to abuse.
Staying away from the larger metaphysical question of whether there's some kind of creator or emergent consciousness, within or beyond the universe and sticking to the narrow, orthodox christian theory that planet earth was created a couple of thousand years ago by Cartman from Southpark, why is there a burden of proof necessary? Surely when a theory is so blatantly ridiculous, one is intellectually allowed to dismiss it as so, without having to provide evidence?
Is it something to do with the number of people who do believe the theory?
Here's a theory - earths gravity is a function of the existence of human pinkie fingers. If we were to remove all the pinkie fingers from every man, woman and child on the planet, we'd collectively be able to fly. It's highly unlikely that anyone could ever provide hard evidence this theory is false, but, lets face it, it's pretty fucking ridiculous. Say maybe only half a dozen people believe it. We'd dismiss it out of hand, surely? Or would we be required, to maintain intellectual honesty, to accept it as a possible hypothesis?
What if one and a half billion people believed it? Does this change how ridiculous it is? And, if so, why? The bible is a series of stories about talking snakes and people with magical powers and shit. Sure I can't actually prove it never happened but I'd be prepared to bet anything and everything I could raise as a stake.
I'm thinking the ability to dismiss the ridiculous is inversely proportional to the number of people who believe it?
I think that this frustrates the hell out of atheists and I could kind of sympathise if it wasn't so fucking funny.
The burden of proof isn't on the atheists, what makes you think it is?
Burden of proof is an inapplicable term here anyway, because, as I've said many times, matters of spirit and faith are outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
Which is one thing many atheists seems to have missed the memo on, persisting, infuriatingly, in conflating science and atheism as if atheism is a "scientific" viewpoint. It's not. Indifference is. "I am certain god does not exist" is not a scientifically rational statement, any more than "I am certain that god does exist" is. The reality is that in the case of an untestable question, science does not apply.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on August 18, 2014, 05:40:38 PM
Which is one thing many atheists seems to have missed the memo on, persisting, infuriatingly, in conflating science and atheism as if atheism is a "scientific" viewpoint. It's not. Indifference is. "I am certain god does not exist" is not a scientifically rational statement, any more than "I am certain that god does exist" is. The reality is that in the case of an untestable question, science does not apply.
QFT
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on August 17, 2014, 02:27:53 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 14, 2014, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 14, 2014, 07:21:01 AM
He's both...but let's be honest, when was the last time you heard of Dawkins doing anything vaguely scientific?
He's been spending the past decade writing books about how his e-peen is both tremendous and thoughtful, while attempting to herd cats tender to the online Atheist movement. Notably not in a lab, or engaged in research, or teaching. Oh, he is part of that New Humanist College in London, with ridiculous fees, but he's mostly a name on their board of directors, to get public interest.
I saw a video where he and NDT had a conversation so that a biologist could ask a physicist and a physicist could ask a biologist, and I was like, oh, right, he's meant to be a biologist. Forgot about that, because of his primary interest in the non-existence of something.
I liked it, and God only came up during the questions from the audience. Presumably because, again, of his primary interest in the non-existence of something. But it was watchable. He wasn't a douche, he and Neil were just talking about the universe from their specific scientific fields and asking the other to make sense out of something for them.
You wanna know why he wasn't a douche, and didn't try to call Tyson out on his agnosticism? And I'd put cash money on this?
Because Tyson outclasses him intellectually and charismatically. Tyson is a fast thinker and an eloquent speaker with the academic background and verbal skill to make just about anyone feel like an idiot. And politically, he has nothing to gain by alienating the most popular science speaker in the world.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 18, 2014, 03:42:57 PM
The burden of proof isn't on the atheists, what makes you think it is?
The way I always saw the atheist debate was like, say there's an established law that women should get slapped around or whatever and it's a theocratic thing - "it says in the book of kenny, ch1 v2 - for he that raiseth his hand to his bitch must surely be a servant of the lord" and the atheists are all like, "That's fucking retarded. Stop believing in fairy tales you complete dicks!"
And the believers turn around and say "You can't prove it's a fairy tale. Ruling stands."
While it may be true that a load of atheists hate the fact that humans are allowed to believe retarded shit, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that much of that retarded stuff affects them, personally by way of stupid laws that govern what they can and can't do. I think this is becoming less of a problem on aggregate as rational secularism generally prevails but you don't have to look far to the fringes to see that there's still some seriously fucked up shit happening because god.
Atheists are basically boring Satanists; lacking the booze, bikes, drugs and humour.
-johnyx, going to watch movies with the TVTrope Hollywood Atheist just out of spite.
All true...but most Satanists are also boring Atheists, who call themselves Satanists because they are 2edgy4u and have raised patronising disdain for all other people and self-centered narcissism to an art form. They also tend to think their sophomoric readings of Nietzsche make them the Overman.
Satanists are boring libertarians with candles
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 18, 2014, 03:42:57 PM
The burden of proof isn't on the atheists, what makes you think it is?
The way I always saw the atheist debate was like, say there's an established law that women should get slapped around or whatever and it's a theocratic thing - "it says in the book of kenny, ch1 v2 - for he that raiseth his hand to his bitch must surely be a servant of the lord" and the atheists are all like, "That's fucking retarded. Stop believing in fairy tales you complete dicks!"
And the believers turn around and say "You can't prove it's a fairy tale. Ruling stands."
While it may be true that a load of atheists hate the fact that humans are allowed to believe retarded shit, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that much of that retarded stuff affects them, personally by way of stupid laws that govern what they can and can't do. I think this is becoming less of a problem on aggregate as rational secularism generally prevails but you don't have to look far to the fringes to see that there's still some seriously fucked up shit happening because god.
You could be right, but this thread isn't for arguing whether atheism has merit... we have loads of those threads already. This is about the staggering lack of a sense of humor a lot of atheists display on the net.
Jesus stole their sense of humour
OR
finding out Santa is not real caused their hearts to harden
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 18, 2014, 03:42:57 PM
The burden of proof isn't on the atheists, what makes you think it is?
The way I always saw the atheist debate was like, say there's an established law that women should get slapped around or whatever and it's a theocratic thing - "it says in the book of kenny, ch1 v2 - for he that raiseth his hand to his bitch must surely be a servant of the lord" and the atheists are all like, "That's fucking retarded. Stop believing in fairy tales you complete dicks!"
And the believers turn around and say "You can't prove it's a fairy tale. Ruling stands."
While it may be true that a load of atheists hate the fact that humans are allowed to believe retarded shit, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that much of that retarded stuff affects them, personally by way of stupid laws that govern what they can and can't do. I think this is becoming less of a problem on aggregate as rational secularism generally prevails but you don't have to look far to the fringes to see that there's still some seriously fucked up shit happening because god.
In that context god is just an excuse, people are horrible regardless.
Also, your distinction between believer and atheist can only exist with definitions of those terms that are different from the way the have been used so far in this thread.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 19, 2014, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 18, 2014, 03:42:57 PM
The burden of proof isn't on the atheists, what makes you think it is?
The way I always saw the atheist debate was like, say there's an established law that women should get slapped around or whatever and it's a theocratic thing - "it says in the book of kenny, ch1 v2 - for he that raiseth his hand to his bitch must surely be a servant of the lord" and the atheists are all like, "That's fucking retarded. Stop believing in fairy tales you complete dicks!"
And the believers turn around and say "You can't prove it's a fairy tale. Ruling stands."
While it may be true that a load of atheists hate the fact that humans are allowed to believe retarded shit, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that much of that retarded stuff affects them, personally by way of stupid laws that govern what they can and can't do. I think this is becoming less of a problem on aggregate as rational secularism generally prevails but you don't have to look far to the fringes to see that there's still some seriously fucked up shit happening because god.
You could be right, but this thread isn't for arguing whether atheism has merit... we have loads of those threads already. This is about the staggering lack of a sense of humor a lot of atheists display on the net.
The 411-ers seem to be on a par with the TDS FB group, as far as their sense of humor. Only instead of saying nigger or faggot and then having a circle jerk around how they're the only ones in the know, the say "Fucking God's not a thing, duuuude," and commence the whacking.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
...
.
While it may be true that a load of atheists hate the fact that humans are allowed to believe retarded shit, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that much of that retarded stuff affects them, personally by way of stupid laws that govern what they can and can't do. I think this is becoming less of a problem on aggregate as rational secularism generally prevails but you don't have to look far to the fringes to see that there's still some seriously fucked up shit happening because god.
I think the above is true. Many atheists are just trying to save others from the percieved consequences of their beliefs. We behave stupidly either way, and then develop our reasons to taste with the cause that is convenient.
Quote from: LuciferX on August 19, 2014, 07:24:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 19, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
...
.
While it may be true that a load of atheists hate the fact that humans are allowed to believe retarded shit, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that much of that retarded stuff affects them, personally by way of stupid laws that govern what they can and can't do. I think this is becoming less of a problem on aggregate as rational secularism generally prevails but you don't have to look far to the fringes to see that there's still some seriously fucked up shit happening because god.
I think the above is true. Many atheists are just trying to save others from the percieved consequences of their beliefs. We behave stupidly either way, and then develop our reasons to taste with the cause that is convenient.
The same could be said for a good portion of christianity, and possibly other religions, I'm not sure. But I do know that a fair percentage of christians genuinely want to see you go to heaven.
And a fair number of atheists who do nothing but publically masturbate on social networking sites. Or, as they call it, "engage in outreach".
As you can see, by acting like smug, arrogant pricks, they are doing an excellent job of selling atheism to the masses. Especially when they mix it in with politics (whether of the progressive liberal, flaming neocon or smug libertarian kind).
The smug arrogance seems, to me, to be a by-product of having come to the decision that one has "figured it all out".
Quote from: Hoopla on August 19, 2014, 08:19:05 PM
The smug arrogance seems, to me, to be a by-product of having come to the decision that one has "figured it all out".
Either way, it's a poor sales pitch. Really it just makes religious folk more religious. The devil's unwitting agents they are, trying to lead souls astray. Or, at the very least, "those guys are assholes. I don't want any part in that." If someone calls you an idiot, you're immediately going to shut off anything they're going to say from that point on.
You got that right.
I think it's adorable. We contrive such fragile systems of thinking and then huff and puff about it. :lulz:
Quote from: LuciferX on August 19, 2014, 08:47:09 PM
I think it's adorable. We contrive such fragile systems of thinking and then huff and puff about it. :lulz:
They're not really constructed, so much as they evolve over time. I'm fairly certain there have never been any Jewish carpenters who were able to stop storms, walk on water, and rise from the dead. But I'm also fairly certain at least one Jewish carpenter just kinda said, "Fuck this hammering. I'm gonna preach!" one day. Where that other stuff came in, I don't know. Maybe they did some good drugs. But Christianity didn't come out of thin air, and it certainly wasn't contrived like Scientology or Discordia.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2014, 02:44:23 PM
I'm thinking the ability to dismiss the ridiculous is inversely proportional to the number of people who believe it?
Beautiful. I'm stealing this.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 19, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on August 19, 2014, 08:47:09 PM
I think it's adorable. We contrive such fragile systems of thinking and then huff and puff about it. :lulz:
They're not really constructed, so much as they evolve over time. I'm fairly certain there have never been any Jewish carpenters who were able to stop storms, walk on water, and rise from the dead. But I'm also fairly certain at least one Jewish carpenter just kinda said, "Fuck this hammering. I'm gonna preach!" one day. Where that other stuff came in, I don't know. Maybe they did some good drugs. But Christianity didn't come out of thin air, and it certainly wasn't contrived like Scientology or Discordia.
Fine, bring that up why don't you. Like what happened last time I tried to argue with him about his "word". :argh!:
Someone posted a fucking awesome t-shirt to the "I Love 80's Goth" group on Facebook.
http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/ (http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/)
For the lazy, it's a tshirt with the "Unknown Pleasures" waveform on it, above that it says "DEPECHE MODE", beneath it says "BOYS DON'T CRY"
They went FUCKING NUTS, like ragetears.
And yet they claim to have complex senses of humour under the eyeliner and shit...
edit: Not that this is relevant to the topic at hand at all, it's just good trolling & the wint tweet reminded me of it.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 19, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on August 19, 2014, 08:47:09 PM
I think it's adorable. We contrive such fragile systems of thinking and then huff and puff about it. :lulz:
They're not really constructed, so much as they evolve over time. I'm fairly certain there have never been any Jewish carpenters who were able to stop storms, walk on water, and rise from the dead. But I'm also fairly certain at least one Jewish carpenter just kinda said, "Fuck this hammering. I'm gonna preach!" one day. Where that other stuff came in, I don't know. Maybe they did some good drugs. But Christianity didn't come out of thin air, and it certainly wasn't contrived like Scientology or Discordia.
:hashishim:
Hey I kinda think I might be able to use your support here. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SGitR&defid=7877671
I feel oddly vulnerable, and I honestly don't know why.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 19, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on August 19, 2014, 08:47:09 PM
I think it's adorable. We contrive such fragile systems of thinking and then huff and puff about it. :lulz:
They're not really constructed, so much as they evolve over time. I'm fairly certain there have never been any Jewish carpenters who were able to stop storms, walk on water, and rise from the dead. But I'm also fairly certain at least one Jewish carpenter just kinda said, "Fuck this hammering. I'm gonna preach!" one day. Where that other stuff came in, I don't know. Maybe they did some good drugs. But Christianity didn't come out of thin air, and it certainly wasn't contrived like Scientology or Discordia.
Council of Nicea comes damn close, though.
Quote from: Slyph on August 20, 2014, 02:30:32 AM
Someone posted a fucking awesome t-shirt to the "I Love 80's Goth" group on Facebook.
http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/ (http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/)
For the lazy, it's a tshirt with the "Unknown Pleasures" waveform on it, above that it says "DEPECHE MODE", beneath it says "BOYS DON'T CRY"
They went FUCKING NUTS, like ragetears.
And yet they claim to have complex senses of humour under the eyeliner and shit...
edit: Not that this is relevant to the topic at hand at all, it's just good trolling & the wint tweet reminded me of it.
I would wear the ever living
fuck out of that shirt.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on August 20, 2014, 09:00:22 AM
Hey I kinda think I might be able to use your support here. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SGitR&defid=7877671
I feel oddly vulnerable, and I honestly don't know why.
Upvoted.
Quote from: Slyph on August 20, 2014, 02:30:32 AM
Someone posted a fucking awesome t-shirt to the "I Love 80's Goth" group on Facebook.
http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/ (http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/)
For the lazy, it's a tshirt with the "Unknown Pleasures" waveform on it, above that it says "DEPECHE MODE", beneath it says "BOYS DON'T CRY"
They went FUCKING NUTS, like ragetears.
And yet they claim to have complex senses of humour under the eyeliner and shit...
edit: Not that this is relevant to the topic at hand at all, it's just good trolling & the wint tweet reminded me of it.
It's cool, I'd rather this thread be about the lack of senses of humor than the merits of atheism.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 20, 2014, 12:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 19, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on August 19, 2014, 08:47:09 PM
I think it's adorable. We contrive such fragile systems of thinking and then huff and puff about it. :lulz:
They're not really constructed, so much as they evolve over time. I'm fairly certain there have never been any Jewish carpenters who were able to stop storms, walk on water, and rise from the dead. But I'm also fairly certain at least one Jewish carpenter just kinda said, "Fuck this hammering. I'm gonna preach!" one day. Where that other stuff came in, I don't know. Maybe they did some good drugs. But Christianity didn't come out of thin air, and it certainly wasn't contrived like Scientology or Discordia.
Council of Nicea comes damn close, though.
Point, but that was more of a limiting event than creation of belief, in order to get some sort of consistency. It's a different kind of contriving than what I meant.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 20, 2014, 01:02:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 20, 2014, 12:13:20 PM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 19, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on August 19, 2014, 08:47:09 PM
I think it's adorable. We contrive such fragile systems of thinking and then huff and puff about it. :lulz:
They're not really constructed, so much as they evolve over time. I'm fairly certain there have never been any Jewish carpenters who were able to stop storms, walk on water, and rise from the dead. But I'm also fairly certain at least one Jewish carpenter just kinda said, "Fuck this hammering. I'm gonna preach!" one day. Where that other stuff came in, I don't know. Maybe they did some good drugs. But Christianity didn't come out of thin air, and it certainly wasn't contrived like Scientology or Discordia.
Council of Nicea comes damn close, though.
Point, but that was more of a limiting event than creation of belief, in order to get some sort of consistency. It's a different kind of contriving than what I meant.
The Council of Nicaea's purpose was the codification of the faith to avoid disputes between what were viewed as heretical sects. It was ordered by Constantine because he was sick of the unrest between the different active churches: Apostolic, Arianism (NOT ARYANISM), Monophysitism, Copt, etc. Let's just say that it made the "argument" between Sunni and Shi'a Islam look tame. It was bad. In the end, Apostolic Christianity won out, thus creating the Orthodox church, and the others were labeled as heretical in nature because of the viewpoints on the Trinity and Transubstantiation, as well as the divinity of Christ.
...I know way too much about this shit.
Quote from: Slyph on August 20, 2014, 02:30:32 AM
Someone posted a fucking awesome t-shirt to the "I Love 80's Goth" group on Facebook.
http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/ (http://www.kraftfuttermischwerk.de/blogg/shirt-depeche-mode-boys-dont-cry/)
For the lazy, it's a tshirt with the "Unknown Pleasures" waveform on it, above that it says "DEPECHE MODE", beneath it says "BOYS DON'T CRY"
They went FUCKING NUTS, like ragetears.
And yet they claim to have complex senses of humour under the eyeliner and shit...
edit: Not that this is relevant to the topic at hand at all, it's just good trolling & the wint tweet reminded me of it.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I want that T-shirt.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on August 20, 2014, 09:00:22 AM
Hey I kinda think I might be able to use your support here. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SGitR&defid=7877671
I feel oddly vulnerable, and I honestly don't know why.
A'ait 'en. Done one.
Twid: Point also taken, then it reminds me of being part of His bark's everlasting continuity.
[and now I feel quite naked :lulz:]
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on August 20, 2014, 07:10:33 PM
I want that T-shirt.
That's brilliant!
Here's another:
(http://images.cdn.bigcartel.com/bigcartel/product_images/137769343/max_h-1000+max_w-1000/bobmarleyfrontweb.jpg)
African Apparel (http://store.africanapparelstore.com/product/john-marley-t-shirt)
ONE LOVE!
Also. Why people hate atheists, part 734: Richard Dawkins.
(http://media.tumblr.com/82241f3e4b3f1afdaff122931f0f0ba5/tumblr_inline_nam82xBOEz1r4y041.png)
Quote from: Allfader Waffles on August 21, 2014, 08:21:03 AM
Also. Why people hate atheists, part 734: Richard Dawkins.
(http://media.tumblr.com/82241f3e4b3f1afdaff122931f0f0ba5/tumblr_inline_nam82xBOEz1r4y041.png)
Wiki provides some thought provoking info on people's reactions to Down's diagnoses.
QuoteAbout 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated. In the United States, termination rates are around 67%, but this varies significantly depending upon the population evaluated. When nonpregnant people are asked if they would have a termination if their fetus tested positive, 23–33% said yes, when high-risk pregnant women were asked, 46–86% said yes, and when women who screened positive are asked, 89–97% say yes.
Dawkins' view doesn't seem that far off the norm, so why slag him in particular?
Aside from the fact that he is another man once again telling a woman that a certain choice for what she does with her baby is immoral?
[Dawkins hate derail]
Lets be clear here, Dawkins doesn't get slagged off for being an athiest, (although the weird celebrity thing is unpleasant ).
Dawkins gets derided for his horrible worldviews, horrible political beliefs, and horrible narcissism.
The reason I dislike him is that is that his role as once being a scientist also seems to get him a free pass for the horrible shit he says. I worked in research for a few years before moving into engineering and still have close ties to a lot of the people in there.
Lots of them are vocal intelligent atheists that I respect deeply. I don't like the fact that when he says something idiotic people bring up his past research, it doesn't justify it and its insulting to other scientists. Furthermore I find it unpleasant that he is the go to pop atheist when there are scholars with far more interesting things to say on the subject than him.
[/Dawkins hate derail]
I think it's because he's a thick-skulled, shit-talking swill who has taken it as his life-long mission to deride the church and any creationists into oblivion, which is in tune with the everyday super-outspoken atheist who will do anything, so long as they can make a name for themselves as a renowned atheist, no matter how many friends they lose or people they leave dead and bloodied along the way, just so long so they can make a name for themselves as a renowned atheist, no matter how many friends they lose or people they leave dead and bloodied and dying along the way.
Yeah, it's becoming more and more obvious that all factions have this vocal minority of assholes that everyone collectively just wishes they would shut the fuck up.
I hate Dawkins because it isn't about atheism, it's all about Dawkins, running his Palinesque marathon of trying to stay in the spotlight.
He is fucking the wrong end of the pig.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2014, 02:08:57 PM
He is fucking the wrong end of the pig.
I'm not sure I've ever heard that before...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2014, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2014, 02:08:57 PM
He is fucking the wrong end of the pig.
I'm not sure I've ever heard that before...
It's an old military thing, probably dreamed up by German NATO troops.
"I would call him a pigfucker, but he would probably get the wrong end of the pig."
When a German insults you, you stay insulted. :lol:
That is gold.
Oh yes. That's going on the list.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2014, 02:12:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2014, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2014, 02:08:57 PM
He is fucking the wrong end of the pig.
I'm not sure I've ever heard that before...
It's an old military thing, probably dreamed up by German NATO troops.
"I would call him a pigfucker, but he would probably get the wrong end of the pig."
:lulz: fucking amazing!
Quote from: Raz Tech on August 21, 2014, 01:16:15 PM
I think it's because he's a thick-skulled, shit-talking swill who has taken it as his life-long mission to deride the church and any creationists into oblivion, which is in tune with the everyday super-outspoken atheist who will do anything, so long as they can make a name for themselves as a renowned atheist, no matter how many friends they lose or people they leave dead and bloodied along the way, just so long so they can make a name for themselves as a renowned atheist, no matter how many friends they lose or people they leave dead and bloodied and dying along the way.
:lol:
Dawkins believes that his beliefs and morality are Truth, and that anyone who does not subscribe to them is wrong and needs to be converted or eliminated.
Dawkins, in short, subscribes to the kind of faith that leads to fascism, totalitarian control, and genocides.
Relevant. This lecturer says that offending religious folks is "scary." Especially when they're teenagers at an Oxford summer school, and you have people from, AROUND THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. She even referred to herself as a "vociferous Atheist" and then pretty much insults these kids by saying they have a closed mind and can't take jokes.
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture/
Quote from: The Suu on August 22, 2014, 01:53:04 PM
Relevant. This lecturer says that offending religious folks is "scary." Especially when they're teenagers at an Oxford summer school, and you have people from, AROUND THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. She even referred to herself as a "vociferous Atheist" and then pretty much insults these kids by saying they have a closed mind and can't take jokes.
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture/
For someone conducting a lecture on memes, she sure did spend an inordinate amount of time ridiculing religions.
QuoteBy the time I moved on to showing Internet memes and viral videos more than half the audience was gone.
that's because you failed at the point of your lecture, idiot.
This is what happens when you spend most of your time in an Echo Chamber.
I'm sure she fully believed her lecture would be well-received, and the audience would find her wise and clever. If she was lecturing a crowd of Dawkinites, they probably would have. But she clearly has no idea how to speak to anyone outside her peer group.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2014, 03:01:07 PM
This is what happens when you spend most of your time in an Echo Chamber.
I'm sure she fully believed her lecture would be well-received, and the audience would find her wise and clever. If she was lecturing a crowd of Dawkinites, they probably would have. But she clearly has no idea how to speak to anyone outside her peer group.
The comments section on that article largely agree with the bolded. I registered (under my own name, no less) just to disagree with the point of the article, but I'm probably better off shouting at clouds.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 22, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2014, 03:01:07 PM
This is what happens when you spend most of your time in an Echo Chamber.
I'm sure she fully believed her lecture would be well-received, and the audience would find her wise and clever. If she was lecturing a crowd of Dawkinites, they probably would have. But she clearly has no idea how to speak to anyone outside her peer group.
The comments section on that article largely agree with the bolded. I registered (under my own name, no less) just to disagree with the point of the article, but I'm probably better off shouting at clouds.
I peeked at the comments, and decided to not waste precious calories on typing.
Quote from: The Suu on August 22, 2014, 03:14:13 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 22, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2014, 03:01:07 PM
This is what happens when you spend most of your time in an Echo Chamber.
I'm sure she fully believed her lecture would be well-received, and the audience would find her wise and clever. If she was lecturing a crowd of Dawkinites, they probably would have. But she clearly has no idea how to speak to anyone outside her peer group.
The comments section on that article largely agree with the bolded. I registered (under my own name, no less) just to disagree with the point of the article, but I'm probably better off shouting at clouds.
I peeked at the comments, and decided to not waste precious calories on typing.
I can use the exercise.
Quote from: The Suu on August 22, 2014, 01:53:04 PM
Relevant. This lecturer says that offending religious folks is "scary." Especially when they're teenagers at an Oxford summer school, and you have people from, AROUND THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. She even referred to herself as a "vociferous Atheist" and then pretty much insults these kids by saying they have a closed mind and can't take jokes.
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture/
It's remarkable that the idea that she was simply not delivering a good lecture didn't even occur to her. It's also somewhat remarkable that she was misusing the word meme in the way that has become endemic on Facebook, but more or less already abandoned by young people.
'You are offending us. We will not listen,'
riiiiight. They totally said that. That sounds like a thing teenagers would say.
Oh wait.