The Watchmaker

[Tsukasa Buddha]

After reading all the comments it seams that most of the ones that replied are a bunch of altheas a** holes and you can tell them I said so. Just goes to show why the world is so f###ed up.Next they will be siding with that fag Elton John to ban all religion and the c@ck suckers out in California who banned the pledge of allegiance from their school . It makes me sick knowing that are guys are fighting to protect the rights of a** holes like them .There are no altheas in fox holes Gen. Jack Pershing

You have made a fine use of the others,
That I should waste my third counsel upon you!
To give counsel to a sleepy ignoramus
Is to sow seeds upon salt land.
Torn garments of folly and ignorance cannot be patched.
O counselors, waste not the seed of counsel on them!

"The Counsels of the Bird", Masnavi

 

[T'ai Chi]

I think they say that the laws of Physics break down, because the universe may have come from a singularity. At that stage you'd have to have things like infinite density and other bizarre concepts... physics would be broken.

It's a damned sight different than 'nothing.'

Where did the singularity come from?

 

[T'ai Chi]

...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.

I doubt it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Something was around. And it's entirely possible - perhaps even probable - that quantum physics was in effect. In fact, that may have been the only physics capable of being in effect then.
...
Woefully weak argument.

Strengthen it up then! Cite where quantum physics, the singularity, or whatever it is you want to vaguely appeal to, came from.

A hint: citing "something" and "entirely possible" and "probable" and "may" won't cut it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Where did the singularity come from?

It didn't come from anywhere. There was no "before" the Big Bang. Time begins there. People expect that there must have been something before the Big Bang because of the way we commonly think of time. But cosmologists don't think of time that way.

I wonder what would happen if T'ai were to debate someone face to face. Would he simply stare straight ahead and pretend the other person wasn't there until he/she went away in disgust? Would he break down in tears? Because of the fact that he seems to take personal offense at having his claims criticized the latter doesn't seem all that improbable to me.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Strengthen it up then! Cite where quantum physics, the singularity, or whatever it is you want to vaguely appeal to, came from.

A hint: citing "something" and "entirely possible" and "probable" and "may" won't cut it.

'Cause we all know that to admit there are things that are not yet known and things that may never be known is to provide a gap into which Justin can hammer God to fit and paint him to match.

 

[Dog Boots]

It makes me sick knowing that are guys are fighting to protect the rights of a** holes like them .There are no altheas in fox holes Gen. Jack Pershing

LOL - In Denmark we have some sweets called "Althea". Appearently, not so in fox holes. Is this a spelling mistake or is there some intended pun I'm not getting?

I did get the "are guys are fighting", that should've been "our guys".

So, it makes him sick that "our guys" (ours too, actually) are fighting to protect the rights of people with ideas he can't argue against? Seems fair.

 

[Dog Boots]

Ok, so now I saw the movie too. Quite beautifully made, idiotic content. One big strawman.

What's with the presupposition of the CELL being the fundamental building block, that had to form all by itself? That's the way it always is in this discussion, but in the beginning of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins talks of just a single, self-replicating molecule...why all this talk about cells?

 

[Glen.Nogami]

I myself have a particular fondness for cksuckers.

Where's the shoutout to the fags? Yay fags! Grayman, reading your brother's comment made my day. Funny stuff, even if it wasn't intentionally so.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I think it can simply be summed up with, "we've actually seen people make watches, and watches don't reproduce".

As to where that singularity came from, there's the "time started there" argument, which is sound. However the more fundamental question they are asking is "why does anything even exist at all?". You know, just the HARDEST QUESTION EVER. I'll tell you this very simple answer. I don't know. More importantly, neither do the religious. However, at least scientists attempt to figure it out rationally and with evidence instead of just guessing. Guessing at it and saying "it's as valid as saying it "just is"" is not an answer. Scientists don't really say it "just is". They just say "this is what we know to be the case, and the rest we don't know, and there's no point speculating". And there IS no point speculating. A random guess is not equivilant to "I admit ignorance on this".

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Yeah, whatever... my point was that the model in which organisms evolve into greater complexity is demonstrably wrong. Obviously, evolution doesn't have a literal sideshow or pinnacle. But we can look at the size distribution on existing species, and we'll see that it is drastically slanted to the left, with the median very close to the smaller sizes.

But then, if I was to notice that we are an infimous branch in the tree of life, some nitpick would probably remark that life is not a tree .

Evolution doesn't happen by chance. By definition, it happens by a process that could be described as, oh, I don't know. Natural selection, or something. Meaning that nature, not god, selects for desirable traits. Those traits favor increasing complexity.

No they don't. Remember that the modal organism on Earth is still (and always will be) the bacteria. We are a side-show of evolution, not it's pinnacle.

Right, sorry. Occasionally, though, selection does favor increasing complexity, and that's how...increasing complexity happens.

Thanks for catching the generalization .

 

[Meadmaker]

bolding mine.


Can you please elaborate on your offensive opinion?

Oh, why not. So here's what he said:

After reading all the comments it seams that most of the ones that replied are a bunch of altheas a** holes and you can tell them I said so. Just goes to show why the world is so f###ed up.Next they will be siding with that fag Elton John to ban all religion and the c@ck suckers out in California who banned the pledge of allegiance from their school . It makes me sick knowing that are guys are fighting to protect the rights of a** holes like them .There are no altheas in fox holes Gen. Jack Pershing

Grayman's brother is an interesting piece of work, obviously. Seems he needs a spelling and grammar lesson or two, and a bit of diplomacy. However, what did he say?

He said that the posters were a bunch of atheists. He also applied a descriptive term that is somewhat derogatory. Well, the posters are a bunch of atheists, for the most part. He's right. As for the derogatory terms, that's subjective.

He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.

He then says that many who contributed their thoughts would side with Elton John when Sir Elton said that he would ban religion. As it turns out, there is a thread on that very subject, and no one seems to be rushing to condemn Sir Elton, although one or two have suggested that perhaps he shouldn't have gone quite so far. Oh, he also used a derogatory term in his description of Elton John, but again, that's rather subjective. Some are disgusted by the use of such terms, calling them "hate speech". I agree. However, in this particular case, it's hard for me to have sympathy for someone as a victim of hate speech, after he called for banning religion. For him to be the target of hate speech seems in this case more like "Karma" than anything else.

There's also a thread on JREF about the people in California who banned the pledge of allegiance. The general concensus was in support of those people, so Grayman's brother was correct. Once again, one might object to his angry denunciation.

He obviously doesn't like the way things are going, and he's quite bitter about it. However, he's right. The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct?


Now, here's my point. I wrote my comments after someone began a post to me with, "Damn you are ignorant." As I noted, he was wrong on several levels, but that's only part of the point. Grayman's brother is being mocked, somewhat deservedly, for spewing a bunch of personal attacks laced with profanity. Ossai did the same thing, but he is not being mocked or attacked. I note two major differences between Ossai and Grayman's brother.

First, Ossai is more articulate, including being a better speller. Second, Grayman's brother was right on those things which can be measured objectively, whereas Ossai was wrong.

 

[RandFan]

The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct?

This is a blanket statement. Who are these "people"? Do you think all of the posts are hostile?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Damn, Janeane's really let herself go.

 

[DeviousB]

And says that since there are so many Bibles, it is more TRUE than all those other "religious" books.

I've not heard that before, that's quite interesting.

I suppose many of the bibles will vary in some small way. A slight change in nuance or some such.

Some of those bibles might be more popular than others. Slightly more readable perhaps, or a better fit to the moral environment they find them selves in.

I might guess that these bibles would sell better, hence more are likely to be reprinted.

As the bible is hardly in copyright, other publishers would be free to copy the more successful formats. Probably with minor changes to the cover design, etc.

So some of these bibles would vary in some small way. A slight change in nuance or...

Hmm, you know there's something very familiar about all this.

 

[Meadmaker]

Damn, Janeane's really let herself go.

(I was trying to decipher the hidden meaning of that one for several seconds. I think I figured it out, and it was really funny.)

 

[Meadmaker]

This is a blanket statement. Who are these "people"? Do you think all of the posts are hostile?

Certainly not, but surely you would agree that there is a general hostility toward religion present among the JREF community, isn't there?

 

[KingMerv00]

Certainly not, but surely you would agree that there is a general hostility toward religion present among the JREF community, isn't there?

Were you at the last Amazing Meeting? Shermer asked the crowd how many people there believed in some form of God. About 40% raised their hands.

The remaining 60% then proceeded to burn them at the stake because JREF is full of bigots.

 

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi

Originally Posted by jmercer
...metallurgy, forging, mathematics, fine tools, theory, etc. are all needed to create a watch... and all of that employed by a being far more complex than a simple single cell.

I doubt it.

?!? Please explain.


Meadmaker

He offers an opinion on the condition of the world. Again, that's subjective, but surely you must agree that the trend toward atheism has been growing, and it has shaped the world, so the core of the statement, that atheists have contributed greatly to the current state of the world, is correct.

Based on what?
The vast political power atheists hold.
The fact that a politician can not be elected in the US without declaring their atheism.
The atheist only business directories.
The large number of businesses that promote based on a person’s lack of faith.
The atheists outposts (churches) that dot the American landscape.
The door to door atheist campaigns.
The exclusive atheists clubs.
The atheist after school programs, that may or may not be publicly funded.
The Boy Scouts of America forcibly removing anyone that proclaims a religious belief.

He obviously doesn't like the way things are going, and he's quite bitter about it. However, he's right. The core of his statement is that the people on JREF are intensely anti-religion, and their hostility toward religion colors their perception. Can anyone dispute that he is correct?

How to define core. Is it based on number of posts over a given time span? If so then the religiously motivated seem to outnumber a large number of regular posters.

Now, here's my point. I wrote my comments after someone began a post to me with, "Damn you are ignorant." As I noted, he was wrong on several levels,

Actually you said I was wrong, yet you didn’t bother to actually specify.

Second, Grayman's brother was right on those things which can be measured objectively, whereas Ossai was wrong.

Got any evidence for that? I’m thinking not.

"Damn you are ignorant." As I noted, he was wrong on several levels, but that's only part of the point.

Damn was an exclamation and ignorant isn’t generally derogatory. It can be used as such, but I was using the uneducated meaning.

Ossai

 

[Apathia]

Certainly not, but surely you would agree that there is a general hostility toward religion present among the JREF community, isn't there?

Privately speaking, I doubt it. But when it comes to posting there are more strident, vocal, anti-religionists than thereare outspoken proponents for the different religious world views members have. In general it's a venue where it is easier to declare what you don't believe than what you do.

Personally I hesitate to post when axes are being brandished, Atheistic axes, Theistic axes, any kind of axes. I treasure intelligent feedback, but as soon as hostiles with poor reading comprehension and stunted critical thinking skills start swinging their axes, I shy away and just read. But I want to make it clear that such bozoids are in the minority in spite of being very vocal in certain sections of the forum.