>> ^shuac:
I really hate these movies. I'm not sure I can articulate why.


If you didn't read the books, that would be a good reason.

The first book translated fairly well, being both short and relatively simple, but by the 4th, they were trying to fit a near-1000 page book into ~3 hours with mixed success.

I commented elsewhere that watching this video was akin to watching a pair of blind people trying to duel with pistols at twenty paces.

I really do like Hitchens. He's opposed to almost everything I stand for, but there's something about his brash eloquence that makes it a real pleasure to listen to him talk. I wanted to see him do well, but he didn't.

Even so, he still won the debate, and I think even Turek recognizes this. Turek acknowledges Hitchens' victory in a very subtle way--he starts out the debate saying that the evidence leans toward the existence of God as the most probable case, but abandons this toward the end. Rather, he closes by saying that even though there are a number of reasons that seem to indicate God's improbability, he could exist anyway.

Even so, every argument Turek makes has a relatively simple response.

For instance, in response to Turek's claim that "one cannot derive an ought from an is," Hitchens should have put the smack down on Turek. He should have said, "Okay, in that case, the existence of God cannot be the source of morality. The question of whether God exists is an "is." The existence of morality is an "ought." If you cannot derive an ought from an is, you cannot derive morality from the existence of God."

>> ^shuac:
Finer points on the existence of god is more Dawkins' strong suit, not Hitchens'. Hitchens is more the anti-religion guy. This should have been a debate with Dawkins.


You'd want Daniel Dennett. The apologist is the natural prey of the philosopher. It would be child's play for a philosopher of Dennett's caliber to unmask Turek's arguments for the sophistical illusions they are.

Nah. Dawkins really isn't all that good at that kind of thing, even though he makes it out to be a specialty of his.

His main argument against the existence of God, as found in the God Delusion, boils down to the claim that God cannot be the explanation for complexity in the world because then his complexity, too, would require an explanation beyond him.

This fails for two reasons.

First, there is no reason to think that God is complex. A number of theologians, in fact, have provided arguments for the claim that God is absolutely simple and without parts. This does not contradict the claim that God is the designer or creator. Examples abound of complex things coming out of simple things. To be a proponent of evolution is to assert that, indeed, complexity can arise from simplicity. Dawkins' argument simply does not follow logically.

Second, even if the argument did work, its consequence could be evaded by positing a maximally (perhaps infinitely) complex God. A maximally complex God cannot have been designed even under Dawkins' rules. To say that a maximally complex God had to have been designed by something more complex is to say that there is something more complex than something there can't be anything more complex than. Which is a flat out impossibility.

Timetravel backwards in time is impossible, but forward in time is relatively simple (theoretically, that is). Go near the speed of light and time will "stretch" so that your time goes faster than non-moving objects (i.e. earth) then you'll be able to fast forward into the future.

Do you know of anyone on here who is good at or knows adobe illustrator of inkscape very well? I need to draw something relatively simple, but I can't get it to work.

This starts out relatively simple, but very well played. He's got a sweet sound on his guitar.

Thanks for posting. I totally agree.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
In order to achieve a successful a conspiracy, it should be relatively simple to pull off, involve as few people as possible and should have some obvious point. This rules out most of the current (controlled demolition, missiles into the Pentagon) theories on 911.

If there is a conspiracy in this whole thing, it's that the people at the top learned about the attack in advance (Condi and her PDB) and allowed it to happen, hoping to capitalize on the public outrage and use it to wage war on Iraq (as noted in the PNAC manifesto). If this was indeed the plan, it worked like a charm.

In order to achieve a successful a conspiracy, it should be relatively simple to pull off, involve as few people as possible and should have some obvious point. This rules out most of the current (controlled demolition, missiles into the Pentagon) theories on 911.

If there is a conspiracy in this whole thing, it's that the people at the top learned about the attack in advance (Condi and her PDB) and allowed it to happen, hoping to capitalize on the public outrage and use it to wage war on Iraq (as noted in the PNAC manifesto). If this was indeed the plan, it worked like a charm.

Why don't consumer vehicles have mounted guards above their passenger compartments? That would have the same effect and you could have that installed yourself.

Wah?

Ok... so let's think about it for a second... we can either: do the relatively simple thing of installing a side barrier along the length of that gap on the truck AS DONE IN MANY COUNTRIES.
OR
By your suggestion... retrofit ALL cars with super strong front rollcage things for some ungodly amount of money.

You have many things going against your ridiculous suggestion:
a) The number of cars vs the number of trucks
b) The ease of installing a barrier on the side of a truck vs somehow incorporating it into the myriad of different car bodies which have no easy place to do so safely, cheaply or in an aesthetic manner.

I mean, what's with the anti European attack? Um... yeah, they are doing it better... live with it, the US doesn't do everything in the best way you know. Not by a hell of a long way.

elephants have terrible vision and even then only at fairly short range. not sure how their color perception is, but doesn't seem likely an elephant is going to advance much beyond relatively simple shapes.

Snipe, and all, it is relatively simple. The ice is melting, temps are increasing, and the sea levels will rise. It is NOT, because of our burning of fossil fuels, it is a natural, cyclical, process....albeit, catastrophic for mankind, in this modern, interdependent, and large population/concentration paradigm.

What would happen, ask yourself, if they told the world the truth?
Chaos. From idiots running scared, in their mortality, and symbol-addicted state; as well as the power-holder's, policy-maker's, and resource-monger's, little empires, crumbling at break-neck speed.

I know the whole trebuchet concept/mechanism is relatively simple and reliable---especially when well conceived and built---but that still looks like a remarkably bad idea.

"if he wants to publish his findings he has to go through a rigirous process of having his work verified for publication. He went public first to get some attention while voting machines are on peoples minds for the election"

/rant_mode 1

Oh, pull yer frickin' head out! These "voting machines" are just motherboards, cpus, memory, and software (or firmware).... same as your daddy's computer that your pecking on now. Any nub with an internet connection can hack it in a couple minutes by d'ling said "virus" and putting it on a bootable SD card (or whatever kind of card the machine accepts). This isn't String Theory, and certainly doesn't need the sort of peer review you are espousing. It's a relatively simple thing to do, and any second-year CS major would understand the method and the programming code used to boot the machine (or "load the virus"). He should be APPLAUDED for "going public", so take your pathetic, nut-job, conspiracy lunacy and call it in to "Fox and Friends" tomorrow morning where there will be an entire audience of lemmings and dittoheads you can impress.


/rant_mode 0

geo --
the next two are in google video. i figured, in videosift i'd let the first one represent the series. it's a relatively simple matter to find parts 2 and 3. and btw, they're all good.