>> ^MINK:
even as these guys are preaching their interpretation of "rationality"... real scientists are discovering alternate dimensions and completely different concepts of reality.


I had an interesting conversation on Thursday with a post-grad student studying Theoretical Physics, and he pointed out to me that no physicist has "discovered" an alternate dimension yet. Even String Theory (or the blanket M Theory) is a misnomer. They aren't really "theories", they are hypotheses. The Large Hadron Collider will hopefully prove the hypothesis of alternate dimensions, but at this point they are only on paper.

And while they might be discovering "different concepts of reality" our reality remains the same, have you noticed? Reality is reality, and discovering that there might be a dimensional Brane right next to me, right this moment, with an alternate version of me, possibly typing this in German instead of English does not change our reality. We merely understand another level of its complex nature. The physics in every day life won't get turned on its head, we'll just be a little more enlightened to the nature of the cosmos.


>> ^MINK:
Real scientists don't know shit, they research in wonder. Only the egomaniac publicity whores preach their "final answer" with such glee. These guys were so obviously bullied in school.


I take a slight cringing response to this broad and sweeping generalization of scientists. Referring to the first sentence, of course. "Real" scientists know an untold amount of things. Be it confirmed theories or merely suspected hypothesis. You are correct, however, by stating they research in wonder, that much is obvious. Without that child-like sense of wonder, amazement, and questioning of our reality, scientists wouldn't discover anything.

Just don't assume in an absolute that every scientist's ideas are resting on the edge of a blade. We're pretty confident in a good majority of our discoveries about our Universe, and our reality. Evolution, Gravity, DNA, the "Big Bang" come to mind.

The nice part about real scientists, though, is that when shown evidence that truly falsifies one of their theories, they will abandon it and take on the new facts, evidence, and theory.

Only the egomaniac publicity whores preach their "final answer" with such glee.

Of course there are deep, interesting mysteries in science, but thats not an argument for anything.. Thats the whole point in the much used imaginary stuff (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapot etc) arguing in favor of their existence is a non-starter, unless it is based on EVIDENCE. It is no bloody good arguing that the world is so complex/strange/mysterious so we can never know or say anything either way.

The truth is that theists have a very, very bad case, and Pascals Wager happens to be one of the very worst arguments ever, and blowing it apart isnt being a "know-it-all" anymore than your confident dis-belief in Santa Claus makes you a know-it-all.

Calling Bullshit isnt preaching. And thats what these atheists do Dawkins, PZ, these guys, etc, all they are saying is "Bullshit, I call your bluff, lets see them fuckin' cards" And whenever we do get a peek at the cards of the pious, its always the same: Arguments from design and first cause, or variations on Pascals wager.

Yet they are still betting and fishing money from the poor and gullible around the table, pretending they are sitting on a royal flush, and, because of this neat, unwritten (except in scripture) rule they've established, no one is even supposed to call them out, its taboo, and when we do it anyway, of course our hands are better, We've been shuffling and dealing new hands for 2000 years since they got the hand they're stuck with. Its like we're cheating. And when we do turn over our cards, who wouldnt look smug?

>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Live and let live, people. Sheesh.

But that's the problem: the religious (who vastly outnumber us) are not willing to live and let live. They want to tell us who we can and can't marry depending on our gender. They want our kids to believe that evolution is "just a theory" by trying to force their religious beliefs to be taught in public education. They want to stifle medical and scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives. They want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
I don't think these guys are "pushing values" on this show. They're giving religious folk an opportunity to state their side of the case--something pretty much every caller has failed to do convincingly or even coherently (Loch Ness Monster, wtf?).


All true. And, at the same time, I can't help but feeling like two wrongs don't make a right. Being preachy is being preachy, and these guys have a particularly smug nature that just rubs me the wrong way.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Live and let live, people. Sheesh.


But that's the problem: the religious (who vastly outnumber us) are not willing to live and let live. They want to tell us who we can and can't marry depending on our gender. They want our kids to believe that evolution is "just a theory" by trying to force their religious beliefs to be taught in public education. They want to stifle medical and scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives. They want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I don't think these guys are "pushing values" on this show. They're giving religious folk an opportunity to state their side of the case--something pretty much every caller has failed to do convincingly or even coherently (Loch Ness Monster, wtf?).

I would have invoked Pascal's Wager, which basically says there is no downside to believing and a potentially great upside:

Pascals wager has got to be the worst argument of them all, and yea, we touched on it
1. You (or atleast I) cannot "choose" to believe in God anymore than you can choose to believe in santa, If believing in Santa was the only way to get presents, could you believe? No. You either think there is something to this old jewish mythology, or you dont.
2.There is still an infinite number of hells, purgatories, nowherelands and other places you could be sent to suffer for being such a heretic, lets hope you happened to be born in the right place and time, eh?

belief and faith in God grants me a certain extra measure of strength and peace of mind, and that is a good thing no matter what. So even if there is no God, not only do I "lose nothing" as Pascal put it, but I gain something in that instance too.

Whatever gets you through the night, I guess, I only ever care about whats true, and as Gotthold Lessing put it;

If God held all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand the persistent striving for the truth and should say, 'Choose!' I should humbly bow before his left hand and say, 'Father, give me striving

Yes Ryjkyj, thats another fallacy of Pascals Wager (That its safer to believe in the Christian god, "just in case") You cant choose to believe, you either do or you dont. If God is omniscient, and as obsessed with thought-crime as the bible describes, then he will certainly not be impressed with a person who pretends to believe in something he or she doesnt really believe in.. So thats another thing Dawkins could have answered to this rather ignorant question, and he does address it satisfyingly in "The God Delusion"

excellent observation on the pascals wager , and i'm still an atheist . but since growing up in a small town in northern michigan which used to have a festival on the lake ice , every year , and cant any more , it has to be held on the beaches because the ice is NEVER thick enough , this all seems moot . but i am for anything that lets more people see .

For those without critical thinking skills here are 13 more refutations to Pascals Wager

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/Pascals-Wager.doc