RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette

RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 12:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Example it is irrational for Meat and ChainGang to bash religion even though they don't believe in it. Why? because you don't convince people by bashing them. You create hostility and anger. That is all. So in the end their efforts are for division, not unity like professed. That has struck me too. I find it disheartening, cause I'm honestly not sure what I believe and have wondered if I am indeed an atheist. Yet the atheism I've seen on these threads seems downright bleak: combative, dismissive, incapable of seeing shades of gray, more evangelical than my church communities have ever been, obssessed with others' beliefs instead of secure in one's own, unable to leave religion behind and get on with enjoying life. Not an inviting image. quote: I'm still trying to figure out what they are trying to accomplish. It certainly isn't to help the other posters. As everything said was already known to I'd gander everybody already. The point of these repeated threads hasn't been clear to me either. Perhaps the need to proselytize is simply irresistible. It is not irrational to bash religion because I don't believe in it. There is a head case in the Whitehouse who believes god speaks to him and one in London who is a little more circumspect but also believes god talks to him. If that isn't enough reason to point out that religion is delusional, I don't know what is.

luckydog1 -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 12:43:20 PM)
There is a trait in Humanity that has shown itself to be true over and over through history, and human thought, whether pychological or thoelogical. We seem to become what we fight against. "Athiests" have taken on the force/ charactaristics of a religion. The nonsense arguments while repeating over and over, "I am rational, you are not". On the new Global warming thread Meat refers to a paper as fact and proof( its not, its a new theory...you want to believe it is fact because it was given at a confrence). But the paper itself states that it uses completely impossible assumptions( an infinitely flat plane). There may be some merit to the ideas, and it may be a subject for further study, but it is not conclusive nor proof of anyting. Nor is it rational to say it is. He is stating they are fact because he likes the agenda. This is misusing science and is not rational in anyway. Yet the crux of Meats argument is that HE is a rational thinker, while any who disagree with him are not. This is waht we get from those who claim "rationality", they push thier agendas. Likewise Penn Tellers argument's copmpletely fall flat(Isn't that what this thread was about). "Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557 So if we agree to his reality, we can all agree on reality....How tolerant. This piece must really be part of his comedy act. If we all believed in any thing (including a specific religion) the same would occur. Penn tells us he has taken a leap of faith, and then tells us no one he associates with would say they have faith. And he defines faith as being intolerant. Penn also says he believes in "love truth and beauty", yet none of them can stand up to the same scruitny as is applied to God/the Divine. This is realy what you all pretend is rationalism? Remember Penn is a brash Comic magician. His essay takes the form of a magic trick. He starts off with grand statement to get the anti God people going,"yeah!! I agree...right on brother..ect." The first step of a trick is misdirection. Then he insults his audience, as so many comics do. He says he is beyond what Zen and Meat assert, he says thier view is "easy", and "there is no work to do". Then he un-rationally rambles through what basically boils down to if you all agreed with me... and says he has faith. He lists a bunch of good things he gets because of his faith, which it is implied that the positions of Meat et al don't. Because he has faith he gets them, not the specific belief. And he concludes with a bit stating that he can prove love and truth, which are as delusional as God, when viewed rationally. It's a super smart comedy piece. Yet it is not proof of anything on a metaphysical level. Most of the evidence cited by the rationalists is NOT. It's as if they think that volumes of bad evidence produces a rational argument, which fails high schiool critical thinking. "To believe in a deity is to believe in something for which there is not one shred of objective evidence. " Yet nothing you think you know is based on objective evidence...as was stated in the other thread, you can only experience subjective evidence.

Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 12:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros i.e., it is not strictly a belief in god that is at issue, but to what extent and degree one is prone to politicize that belief. There is also the possibility that some of us act as if certain beliefs are in place, but actually do not maintain any such belief. I think it has been sneeked into this thread that Zensee and possibly myself are some kind of neo-pagans. =) Speaking only for myself, I don't actually believe in anything I can't verify with some physical evidence. I practice certain customs because I choose them and find them aesthetically pleasing. These practices have utility if not truth value. To me these ideas are beautiful and I like them. I don't give a flying fuck if anyone else finds them useful or beautiful at all. It just doesn't matter to me. The extent to which I politicize my own beliefs is the degree to which I seek to separate religion from politics altogether. I don't believe that religions have any useful purpose in a free society. Privately, people should do as they please. Religions should be taxed and regulated like any other businesses or political parties - mind you, this doesn't touch the issue of personal belief. I have tried to stress the political aspect of this discussion because I think that is where the most is at stake. I would say that religions cause strife; others would prefer to say that religions are used as a tool to manipulate public opinion and that strife exists because humans are prone to conflict. This disagreement is much like the question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? Does it matter? These things are closely linked. Right now, British and American sentiments toward the Middle East conflicts are entirely colored by religious ideas - apocalyptic ideas I find very worrying. I would feel no differently about such views being politicized if they were instead notions about Ragnarok - such ideas have no place in political decision making. True separation of church and state would make even mentioning such politicized religious ideas a matter of extremely bad taste and very probably illegal.

dcnovice -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 12:46:58 PM)
quote: It is not irrational to bash religion because I don't believe in it. A lot would depend, it seems to me, on the goal of the bashing. If it's just to seek emotional release, well, that's fine, but the path toward emotional release doesn't always go via the pinnacle of rationality. If you're actually attempting to get folks to rethink their views, though, bashing may not be the most effective stategy. Returning again and again to an ineffective strategy doesn't strike me as impressively rational. Indeed, AA folks say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

Amaros -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 12:56:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros i.e., it is not strictly a belief in god that is at issue, but to what extent and degree one is prone to politicize that belief. There is also the possibility that some of us act as if certain beliefs are in place, but actually do not maintain any such belief. I think it has been sneeked into this thread that Zensee and possibly myself are some kind of neo-pagans. =) Speaking only for myself, I don't actually believe in anything I can't verify with some physical evidence. I practice certain customs because I choose them and find them aesthetically pleasing. These practices have utility if not truth value. To me these ideas are beautiful and I like them. I don't give a flying fuck if anyone else finds them useful or beautiful at all. It just doesn't matter to me. The extent to which I politicize my own beliefs is the degree to which I seek to separate religion from politics altogether. I don't believe that religions have any useful purpose in a free society. Privately, people should do as they please. Religions should be taxed and regulated like any other businesses or political parties - mind you, this doesn't touch the issue of personal belief. I have tried to stress the political aspect of this discussion because I think that is where the most is at stake. I would say that religions cause strife; others would prefer to say that religions are used as a tool to manipulate public opinion and that strife exists because humans are prone to conflict. This disagreement is much like the question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? Does it matter? These things are closely linked. Right now, British and American sentiments toward the Middle East conflicts are entirely colored by religious ideas - apocalyptic ideas I find very worrying. I would feel no differently about such views being politicized if they were instead notions about Ragnarok - such ideas have no place in political decision making. True separation of church and state would make even mentioning such politicized religious ideas a matter of extremely bad taste and very probably illegal. I would tend to agree with that assessment, the power of self fulfilling prophecy is well defined and documented - Stephen King fictionalized it in The Dead Zone, Kennedy demonstrated it in the groupthink that led to the Bay of Pigs fiasco - not religiously motivated, strictly speaking, although anti-communism has always had Charismatic/Evangelical overtones - still, it demonstrated, just as the Iraq war currently demonstrates - that you can only ignore objective reality for a short time before it bites you in the ass.

LadyEllen -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 1:01:26 PM)
Just watching a fascinating documentary on Discovery Science channel; "What We Still Dont Know". It seems that near on 85% of the universe, (which means everywhere, including right here), is made of "dark matter". Now, this dark matter cannot be sensed, measured, weighed, detected or described, except inasfar as it must be there in the proportion mentioned, for everything else of scientific cosmology to make sense - especially gravity as it is understood. The dark matter, apparently passes through everything without interacting with any other particle; its passing through me, right now. The evidence for its existence, comes down to "it has to be there" otherwise........ and because...... Scientific method here is of absolutely no consequence, since dark matter is unreactive and undetectable, and thus not possible to investigate so as to prove any hypothesis about it, and yet, its vital to the whole of scientific cosmology. A matter of belief perhaps. Even better, a belief which happens to be necessary to support everything we "know". And before the old chestnuts come winging this way again; no, dark matter (nor the dark energy associated with it) is not God. God can be sensed, God is active and reactive, God is effective. "Dark matter" cannot and is not, except of course where its convenient. Though dark matter and God do have one thing in common it seems; neither are describable in human terms. E

Amaros -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 1:10:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Hence my bringing up the distinction between Deism and Theism - it get's to the heart of what Jillette is trying to say I think - i.e., the difference between belief in a force larger than yourself as an aid to understanding your fellow man or it constituting an obstacle to understanding. Many theists for example are typically militantly anti-secular humanist, whereas many great secular humanists have in fact been deists - Darwin was a deist. i.e., it is not strictly a belief in god that is at issue, but to what extent and degree one is prone to politicize that belief. Science is a human institution, and prone to the same mistakes as religion: Natural selection is not incompatable with deism, but it didn't take long for scientific theists to come up with the neo-theistic Social Darwinism, attempting to turn it into a political rationale instead of a scientific theory through misapplication of the scientific method. Fortunately, science itself is not defined by it's social institutions, but by the scientific method itself, and Social Darwinism is no longer considered to possess any scientific validity. The same cannot be said for religion, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian clerics decreed that since women have smaller brains, it was OK to send them into combat when they started running out of men. Similar arguemnts have been employed to deprive women and non-Christians basic civil rights for most of the history of Christianity. The arbitrary is often a convenient disguise for the politically expedient.

Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 1:28:49 PM)
LadyEllen: I find it interesting that you use the hinterlands of scientific thought (i.e. theoretical physics) to make these points. Scientific theory is just that - theory. Theory is what is understood and useful now, but also subject to change as methods of better assessing a situation become available. This has been asked and answered ad nauseam. "Dark matter is a term used in astrophysics to refer to a theoretical component of matter in the universe whose existence at this time is only inferred." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Note the use of the term"inferred." I don't see anyone being bashed over the head with this idea, nor do I see wars being fought over the "dark matter" controversy. Right now I'd say dark matter doesn't matter...

LadyEllen -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 1:49:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang LadyEllen: I find it interesting that you use the hinterlands of scientific thought (i.e. theoretical physics) to make these points. Scientific theory is just that - theory. Theory is what is understood and useful now, but also subject to change as methods of better assessing a situation become available. This has been asked and answered ad nauseam. "Dark matter is a term used in astrophysics to refer to a theoretical component of matter in the universe whose existence at this time is only inferred." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Note the use of the term"inferred." I don't see anyone being bashed over the head with this idea, nor do I see wars being fought over the "dark matter" controversy. Right now I'd say dark matter doesn't matter... And I find it interesting that others take some bizarre, outdated, clearly ridiculous and self contradictory religion called Christianity, to make points about God and Religion. But there we are. And as for the "religions cause wars" thing; maybe - but tell me, who is it that comes up with bigger and better ways to exterminate their fellow men? Were it all down to religion (Christianity as its narrowly understood here), we'd still be using bows and arrows, I fancy. Most interesting though, is that science has an answer for everything, just as religion does. And science has to make stuff up to explain itself, just as religion (as understood here) does. And they are different how, again? Because one is the one side or the other? This whole debate is crazy to me. There isnt one side or the other. Though only the "religious nuts" seem to see that - likely a function of their psychotic dissembly. E

Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 2:11:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen And I find it interesting that others take some bizarre, outdated, clearly ridiculous and self contradictory religion called Christianity, to make points about God and Religion. But there we are. 55% of the world is Christian, Jewish or Islamic. Pardon me, but I think that such numbers makes the issue relevant. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen And as for the "religions cause wars" thing; maybe - but tell me, who is it that comes up with bigger and better ways to exterminate their fellow men? Were it all down to religion (Christianity as its narrowly understood here), we'd still be using bows and arrows, I fancy. Well, your fancies do not equal truth. But I suspect that in the main our views about scientific ethics would not be miles apart if at all. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Most interesting though, is that science has an answer for everything, just as religion does. And science has to make stuff up to explain itself, just as religion (as understood here) does. Again, this is a failure to understand how theories work. In science it is much more like brainstorming until something like the truth of an issue is arrived at. Further, no one pulls theories literally out of their ass, the ideas proffered have to correspond with things that are already settled issues in the main - the ideas have to fit what is known about the phenomenon in question. The explanation may be speculative, but it is not made up. The main assertion in science is: "I don't know." In religion, what passes for truth is made up and and descends from on high - higher up in the religious organization. There are real differences, you choose not to see them even when they can be explained.

seeksfemslave -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 2:13:44 PM)
You see LadyE how the scientific "believers" react when caught with their trousers down using EXACTLY the same reasoning that they criticize so much in those of a different outlook lol As I understand it Dark Matter has been "created" because the maths and observation of matter dont add up. Heaven forbid that the maths could be wrong ! Particle physics seems to be tying itself in knots for the same reason !

Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 2:15:58 PM)
I have never heard the notion of god offered as a mere theory. I call bullshit.

meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 2:33:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: It is not irrational to bash religion because I don't believe in it. A lot would depend, it seems to me, on the goal of the bashing. If it's just to seek emotional release, well, that's fine, but the path toward emotional release doesn't always go via the pinnacle of rationality. If you're actually attempting to get folks to rethink their views, though, bashing may not be the most effective stategy. Returning again and again to an ineffective strategy doesn't strike me as impressively rational. Indeed, AA folks say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. If one person sees how irrational belief in the supernatural is and how dangerous it is to have leaders that believe the supernatural communicates with them, then bashing religion is worth the while. It is worth the while even if it only makes people realise they believe in irrational superstition rather than have them keep thinking they believe in some sort of truth. And yes, I have had a one person message me to say I have made them think deeply for the first time about what they actually believe, so no, I'm not mad.

dcnovice -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 3:18:46 PM)
quote: And yes, I have had a one person message me to say I have made them think deeply for the first time about what they actually believe Well, that's a start. [:)]

Sinergy -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 4:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Words fail me. String theory? Quantum theory? What a load of crap! Ergo, all science is rubbish. More, the scientific method is rubbish. laughs What is interesting about the string theory is that when it didn't work it became the closed-string theory (sounds more like a circle) and when that didn't work it because closed-string upon closed-strings to form a tube... but science forbid the string theory be abandoned in favor of the tube theory for fear the originator look silly... just continue to modify the facts to fit the hypothesis and all will be right with the world. String theory has not been proven to work or not to work. It is a mathematical construct at this time, and string theorists are attempting to figure out experiments which may/may not prove it's existence. The mathematics being developed to articulate the theory are ground breaking. Sinergy

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 4:45:10 PM)
Dark matter does not exist. It is simply physics nonsense.

Sinergy -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 4:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Dark matter does not exist. It is simply physics nonsense. Was reading the other day in Discover that gravitational lensing experiments with one of the large scale telescopes have provided proof that galaxies have more mass in them than can be calculated by the visible objects in the galaxy. Accordingly, the most reasonable solution would be "dark matter." Not saying there is, but you might want to rethink your certainty that there is no dark matter. Or find a few good recipes for crow. Sinergy

Zensee -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 5:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee God / Divine. The two words are virtually identical. Just because you capitalise the D doesn’t mean you have created a new, improved definition. In fact you are just clouding the issue by moving god to the universe next door, as if that accomplishes anything of substance. It doesn’t even change things in the abstract. It’s bumbling sophistry. Words work because, for a generation or two at a time, they retain certain, fairly specific meanings, called definitions. If you are in doubt about the current meaning of a word, consult a modern dictionary. When you reinvent the meanings of words for convenience or for use as semantic bludgeons, you end up talking to yourself or to people who have a similar disregard for accuracy and thus probably understand you even less than those of us who require concision. Possibly you mistake childhood fancies for adult realities. The Tooth Fairy makes losing your teeth a little less traumatic but it is the grown up that puts the money under your pillow. Santa is an adult re-invention for controlling the behaviour of children – do you believe that he literally exists too? My childhood connects me to truths about myself not the origin of the universe. Possibly you believe that rational people are incapable of joy, wonder or just plain appreciation of life and living it. This has been advanced many, many times in these two threads. It is merely an attempt to dehumanise rational people with name calling and labeling - like your repeated insinuation that MC is irrational (unless you have re-coined the word to mean the opposite of it’s present definition?) or that he is a drunkard (even though, if we put your posts and his before a panel and asked which were written under the influence of mind-altering substances, I believe you would win hands down). When I look up at the stars I still go WOW, just like when I was a kid and had no notion of their mechanics. In fact my WOW is even bigger and deeper now BECAUSE of my understanding of their nature and their part in nature. I love ceremony and ritual. I love stories and myths. I am as comfortable describing the winter solstice as a battle between the Holly King and the Oak King as I am understanding that it is the time when the north pole is at its furthest from the celestial equator. Believe it or not, I am a fully capable of imagination, art, creative and emotional experiences, of feeling connected to a great mystery, even of love. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Stop looking for objective evidence and instead go sit on the lap of Santa Claus. It is subjective evidence that convinces a believer. This is a joke, right? Because it couldn’t possibly be your thesis. You so do not get my point and misunderstand me, as shown by all of the above, that I recommend that you start worshipping me. That's your response? I "misunderstand" you. In what specific way does "all of the above" demonstrate that I misunderstood you? Seems to prove the opposite - that I have your number.Your semantic trickery is exposed, your specious arguments refuted and all you can muster in defense is - ur dum. You tell me that all I have to do is sit in Santa's lap and return to a time of childish naivety and all will be revealed to me - and then you call me thick because I don't buy it? Z.

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:23:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Was reading the other day in Discover that gravitational lensing experiments with one of the large scale telescopes have provided proof that galaxies have more mass in them than can be calculated by the visible objects in the galaxy. That is no proof, but an erroneous conclusion made by gravity obsessed inferior minds. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Accordingly, the most reasonable solution would be "dark matter." Inferior minds are not reasonable. If your basic assumption is wrong - "It MUST be gravity" - then any conclusion you come to usually also is wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Not saying there is, but you might want to rethink your certainty that there is no dark matter. Or find a few good recipes for crow. I most certainly will not. I have the most superior mind known to me to exist since Isaac died. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee That's your response? I "misunderstand" you. In what specific way does "all of the above" demonstrate that I misunderstood you? Seems to prove the opposite - that I have your number.Your semantic trickery is exposed, your specious arguments refuted and all you can muster in defense is - ur dum. You tell me that all I have to do is sit in Santa's lap and return to a time of childish naivety and all will be revealed to me - and then you call me thick because I don't buy it? I sympathize with you. Truly. No, you do not have my number. There is no semantic trickery. Science is all about semantics. If you cannot formulate what the problem is, if you lack the words to describe it accurately, you will never arrive at an accurate conceptual solution, at a credible hypothesis to be tested. I can tell you that you are atrophied in your spiritual development. Perhaps you were not born with the potential, perhaps you did and it atrophied for lack of use and stimulation. Perhaps it will occur yet. I was an atheist for 42 years, much like mc and Chaingang, making fun of religious nuts. But being extremely logical, scientific minded, and open minded, I stumbled across evidence that I could not ignore, some subjective, some as a consequence of my theories in cosmology. You cannot go where I went scientifically outside the universe, so until I publish the only way open to you is either subjective evidence - spirituality must be experienced - or you must investigate mythology and historical records about the gods that were active at the beginning. Frankly, I doubt that you have the intellectual abilities to do the latter (that is not to denigrate you specifically, as I would say that about six billion other people as well). LE could do the latter in some measure and came to pertinent conclusions in her own mind. I admire that in her, because it is a rare person that can do that. So nearly all people have to rely on either subjective evidence of the spiritual, or they have to take the word of it from those who do have had such an experience. Then there is the problem of who to believe, for some testimonies are lies, false, or most often mistaken interpretations of something that did in fact occur. Nearly all people have difficulty distinguishing between such things too. So your best first step is the lap of Santa Claus, if only in your imagination.

Zensee -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:40:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I have the most superior mind known to me to exist since Isaac died. Who knew that the human navel had such immense, intellectual capacity? Or did you forget to add the smiley at the end?

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.788086E-02