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

Sinergy -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule 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. What is my basic assumption? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: 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. His mind must not have been superior to yours. You dismiss his conclusions about gravity without bothering to provide any sort of proof. Sinergy edited to add an end quote

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 7:06:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Rule If your basic assumption is wrong - "It MUST be gravity" - then any conclusion you come to usually also is wrong. What is my basic assumption? It was a generic you, so it would have been better if I had said, "If the basic assumption is wrong..." The basic assumption of most physicists is "It MUST be gravity". quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy His mind must not have been superior to yours. You dismiss his conclusions about gravity without bothering to provide any sort of proof. I do not and he would agree with me.

Sinergy -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 7:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule It was a generic you, so it would have been better if I had said, "If the basic assumption is wrong..." The basic assumption of most physicists is "It MUST be gravity". Gravity is not really an assumption. Gravity is a term for an experimentally verified aspect of the physical universe. Matter behaves in certain ways. Since matter behaves in certain ways, and interacts with other matter and wavelengths in consistent ways, this behavior can be used to learn things about matter. This matter would include things from the sub-atomic level to universes and galaxies. Sinergy

NeedToUseYou -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 7:27:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou It's culture in my view, religion being a part of any particular culture. Ethnicity and culture are interwoven and as I stated in the above - religion is a component that often plays a key role in defining ethnicity. See all of the above examples and Serbs/Croats/Bosnian Muslims etc. Religion may be used as a tool by men. That is not the problem, the problem is that men(or women) are prone to want. And when a man wants something he uses what he can to get it. It's not the other way around. Not necessarily. The majority of the population are followers and can be blinded by propaganda to be led into situations which they would not get themselves into if a rational decision was taken in the cold light of day based on what humans actually need from life. Humans don't need to die in mass organised violence and I can't believe anyone sets their stall out to achieve death. I'm of the opinion that religion is not the reason why the US government is in Iraq but it is a tool which has been used to herd the masses into line. Think about the phrase "Islamo-fascists" - what do you take from this in terms of the origins of the phrase? What do you worship? Nothing. I'm uncomfortable with the excess that worship requires. Plus, I don't view the best way to lead my life as being subservient to an object of perceived superior status. 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. I'm not seeing anyone "bashing" religion. I'm seeing a few people having a chat, sharing a few ideas, now and again it gets heated because that's the nature of religion - it tends to stoke up passions in people - but at the end of the day I imagine that when the thread is over it will be forgotten about. No big deal, no need for the drama. Personally, I think those claiming religion is being "bashed" are making a weak and not so subtle attempt to add credence to their argument. I could be wrong but that's my take on it. Out of interest, if someone expresses an opinion that they believe the belief in a non-specific deity is defeating the object of human existence and endeavour (i.e. self development/growth) then why do you think this is bashing religion? In my book, it is merely an opinion - take it or leave it. 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. Genuinely, I see this thread as no different to any other. Posters are exchanging a few opinions on a subject - some posters can take and give an opinion and others can't without it being seen as a personal attack. Providing it is kept civil and it doesn't cross the line into petty name calling I don't see why religion should be left unavailable to scrutiny. I'm not sure we even disagree here. All I'm saying is religion can be used like you are saying for propaganda to rally the masses, just like any number of other means used to rally the masses. My point is that people can disagree with religion. It is implying things like "belief in religion is irrational". That is saying you are irrational to believe in religion. A debate on religion that isn't bashing in my view, would be pointing out how religion has possibly damaged society, like you did in your post. I didn't see any bashing in your post, by the way. One approach assigns a negative to anyone that happens to believe in something("Psychological crutch, It's irrational to believe in God, over and over and over again.). Your approach you used seperated the person from the belief. That is the difference between what you are doing and others. That is the way it reads to me, and apparently a few others

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 7:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Gravity is not really an assumption. Gravity is a term for an experimentally verified aspect of the physical universe. Matter behaves in certain ways. Since matter behaves in certain ways, and interacts with other matter and wavelengths in consistent ways, this behavior can be used to learn things about matter. This matter would include things from the sub-atomic level to universes and galaxies. Sinergy The basic assumption of most physicists when confronted with the odd behaviour observed of galaxies rotating is "It MUST be gravity". The conclusion they draw is: "So therefore it must be caused by mass and as we do not see that mass it must be 'dark matter'". Are you simply not paying attention, Sinergy, that you do not understand the simple things that I am saying and that you respond in such an inappropriate way? Or do I not express myself as clearly as I think I do? How could you possibly twist what I said into your conclusion that I said that gravity is an assumption?

Zensee -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 10:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I have the most superior mind known to me to exist since Isaac died. Pure comedy gold. Thanks, Rule. I'm going to do that up in needlepoint and hang it over the fireplace. Z.

NorthernGent -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 2:09:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou I'm not sure we even disagree here. All I'm saying is religion can be used like you are saying for propaganda to rally the masses, just like any number of other means used to rally the masses. Fair enough, Need. I think we have a slight difference of opinion around your comment I've highlighted in bold but in the grand scheme of things it's neither here nor there.

meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 2:52:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I have the most superior mind known to me to exist since Isaac died. Pure comedy gold. Thanks, Rule. I'm going to do that up in needlepoint and hang it over the fireplace. Z. Yep. I want some of what rule is on. Either that or I want him to zap me with a revelation.

eyesopened -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 3:00:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang I have never heard the notion of god offered as a mere theory. I call bullshit. You need to get out more i suspect. Newton and others used their belief in an unexplained deity as motivation to understand "His" world. i see God as theory with a great deal of circumstantial evidence that there is a natural force we humans have yet to discover. Humans named that force "god". Every new discovery points toward this force. Even today physicists search for the Unification Theory... the answer that will unify the universe into something that explains all. To me, that Theory has had a name since the beginning of time. Quantum physics show that at the sub-atomic level there is only randomness.... chaos, if you will, which is bizarre that superstition claims the beginning was chaos. As we move further out from the sub-atomic particles we find order and predictability. This suggests to me that if i reach outside myself and my selfish desires i will find more order and peace. i see the study of physics as an understanding of God as i know It. i see no conflict between science and religion. The unbiased search for one will lead to the other, in my opinion. i agree with Chaingang that religion only becomes troublesome when it is intertwined with politics. i agree that the abuse of religion to further political agendas is wrong. i wish the American Civil Liberties Union would stop fighting for NAMBLA and start fighting for what the American founding fathers wanted, true seperation of church and state. To suggest that only when people stop believing in a deity will social strife end, is more irrational than religion itself. The natural, animal world is proof positive that strife and war will not end if the belief in a deity ends. It would make more sense to get rid of government than to get rid of religion. There are a plethora of religions which do not cause wars or social ills. Obscure tribes in various parts of Africa live happily with their belief that their rituals add order and meaning to their daily lives and they have no impact on nuclear proliferation and indeed the vast majority of these tribes are free from murder, rape and theft. So it can't be the delusional belief in deity that causes these problems and may even be a cure for them if we take a look at antropology. The fall of the Maya and others came after religion was intertwined with politics and lust for power. What confuses me the most is the attitude of several posters here who are so adamant that they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. i fail to see how that is any different from several of the organized religions they so obviously hate. It reminds me of the ending of the book Animal Farm where it becomes difficult to tell the difference between the man and the pig.

meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 3:21:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened You need to get out more i suspect. Newton and others used their belief in an unexplained deity as motivation to understand "His" world. i see God as theory with a great deal of circumstantial evidence that there is a natural force we humans have yet to discover. Humans named that force "god". Every new discovery points toward this force. Even today physicists search for the Unification Theory... the answer that will unify the universe into something that explains all. To me, that Theory has had a name since the beginning of time. Quantum physics show that at the sub-atomic level there is only randomness.... chaos, if you will, which is bizarre that superstition claims the beginning was chaos. As we move further out from the sub-atomic particles we find order and predictability. This suggests to me that if i reach outside myself and my selfish desires i will find more order and peace. i see the study of physics as an understanding of God as i know It. i see no conflict between science and religion. The unbiased search for one will lead to the other, in my opinion. The force, the universe, god or whatever label one uses the significant point is, do you believe in a supernatural power that can intervene and ignore the natural laws of physics or a universe were nothing can corrupt the natural laws of physics? I have no doubt we are only at the beginning of understanding the universe, if we ever can understand it and no doubt the universe will prove to be stranger than we can ever imagine but it all comes down to whether someone believes in the supernatural or not.

eyesopened -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 4:08:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened You need to get out more i suspect. Newton and others used their belief in an unexplained deity as motivation to understand "His" world. i see God as theory with a great deal of circumstantial evidence that there is a natural force we humans have yet to discover. Humans named that force "god". Every new discovery points toward this force. Even today physicists search for the Unification Theory... the answer that will unify the universe into something that explains all. To me, that Theory has had a name since the beginning of time. Quantum physics show that at the sub-atomic level there is only randomness.... chaos, if you will, which is bizarre that superstition claims the beginning was chaos. As we move further out from the sub-atomic particles we find order and predictability. This suggests to me that if i reach outside myself and my selfish desires i will find more order and peace. i see the study of physics as an understanding of God as i know It. i see no conflict between science and religion. The unbiased search for one will lead to the other, in my opinion. The force, the universe, god or whatever label one uses the significant point is, do you believe in a supernatural power that can intervene and ignore the natural laws of physics or a universe were nothing can corrupt the natural laws of physics? I have no doubt we are only at the beginning of understanding the universe, if we ever can understand it and no doubt the universe will prove to be stranger than we can ever imagine but it all comes down to whether someone believes in the supernatural or not. Do you really care what i believe? i believe things we may call "supernatural" are only natural things that we have yet to discover. i have had experiences in my life that some might call "supernatural" and i believe they are really natural phenomenon for which there is no current explaination. Let's face it, there was a time when human beings thought the rising and setting of the sun to be "supernatural" and it was only through seeking that the truth is revealed. Just as there are optical illusions that demonstrate that seeing should not always be believing, there are most likely "supernatural" illusions. If we close our minds to these ideas we cannot learn anything. What i don't believe in is serendipity. There has to be a reason why every culture has some sort of "religion" Is it just our own egos that cannot accept the end of our lives is to become fertilizer? That can't be entirely correct because Judiasm doesn't teach there is an afterlife or heaven or hell. There has to be a reason why oxygen transforms single-cell organisms into multi-celled ones but not two or four celled organisms. There has to be a reason why things are what they are. i don't believe there is a force that ignores natural laws i believe there is a Force that put these laws in place. i do not believe in serendipity.

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 6:25:06 AM)
eyesopened - you misunderstand the word serendipity. The word you should have used is 'coincidence'. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I want some of what Rule is on. You would not like it, mc. And the only way to get it is by divine intervention. So you must wish for it, sincerely and determinedly wish for it. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Either that or I want him to zap me with a revelation. I already did, mc, but you are not able to recognize revelation. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver do you believe in a supernatural power that can intervene and ignore the natural laws of physics or a universe were nothing can corrupt the natural laws of physics? This is so sad, mc. Again you demonstrate your limited intellectual abilities (I am not saying that you are not intelligent) and your lack of logical abilities and your lack of a scientific mindset and your lack of a comprehension of the nature of our universe: nothing can ignore or corrupt the laws of physics. Nor does the Divine ignore the laws of physics; instead it makes use of them to acausally affect events in our universe.

eyesopened -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 6:38:34 AM)
quote: eyesopened - you misunderstand the word serendipity. The word you should have used is 'coincidence'. i know the difference in the words. Seemingly unrelated things can happen at the same time, coincidence is when things appear planned and related when they are not. Serendipity is when fortunate things appear to happen by accident. i think i said what i meant. i do not believe i am a fortunate accident.

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 6:59:08 AM)
Serendipity - propensity for finding things by chance or in unexpected places. (Dictionary of difficult words) The concept is usually used in science in the sense of looking for X and accidentally and fortunately happening to see the unexpected Y: a serendipitous discovery. But you are correct as well: coincidence is not the correct word either. How about a 'seeming coincidence' - something that looks like a coincidence, but is not a coincidence?

eyesopened -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 7:12:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Serendipity - propensity for finding things by chance or in unexpected places. (Dictionary of difficult words) The concept is usually used in science in the sense of looking for X and accidentally and fortunately happening to see the unexpected Y: a serendipious discovery. Yes. Thank you. And maybe serendipity isn't the best word but it works better than coincidence for what i was trying to convey. i don't believe that things are what they are by pure accident. i don't believe that everything in the universe happened by chaotic happenstance and that somehow in the reproduction of organisms, human beings were the fortunate (or unfortunate depending upon your views) accidental result. i apologise if my use of the word is less than optimum or my spelling under par.

seeksfemslave -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 10:40:00 AM)
Was not the discovery of penicillin serendipitous. ? It would be a coincidence if two posters independently made the same point. Eyesopened your posts are brilliant in my opinion. The opposition simply will not open their minds to the mysteries surrounding our existence. That doesnt mean KNOW just be aware. In the 1880's scientists thought it would be possible to know and if necessary predict almost everything in the physical realm. By the early 20th century they had found out that they were wrong !

meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 10:50:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Eyesopened your posts are brilliant in my opinion. The opposition simply will not open their minds to the mysteries surrounding our existence. That doesnt mean KNOW just be aware. In the 1880's scientists thought it would be possible to know and if necessary predict almost everything in the physical realm. By the early 20th century they had found out that they were wrong ! One doesn't have to believe in the supernatural and fairy stories to marvel at the mystery of existence. Many scientists would say its the wonderment and sense of mystery that motivates them. It's irrelevent that scientists in the 1880s thought it would be possible to predict almost everything in the physical realm. So things didn't turn out the way they thought, so what, it makes no difference. Why should someone suddenly believe in the supernatural simply because scientists 125 years ago were a little naive and over optimistic. Nothing has happened in the between time to suggest a supernatural deity exists.

LadyEllen -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 12:08:42 PM)
I'm sorry. I'm trying to stay out of this as its a pretty pointless debate all in all. But I cant get this out of my head. As I've mentioned on another similar thread in the past, some years ago I experienced an instant of total clarity, total awareness of the universe - an incredible few seconds which seemed like much longer, and total unity with (for want of a better expression) "God". Its something I've never experienced again since, but then its also something which I will never forget. Its something that occurred involuntarily, though I had been meditating (in my own peculiar fashion!) when it occurred. Its something that impressed me beyond any power of words to describe properly. So, I'd like to ask the science types here, what their opinion of this is; a) Am I telling the truth BUT it was a psychotic experience or similar? b) Am I a liar? c) Am I telling the truth AND this was a genuine experience? E

mnottertail -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 12:13:57 PM)
I believe this. One can have these onenesses with the universe without gods help, since we are obviously in it. It would be a little more efficient if we could wrap this into a fat-girl, sub/slave difference, true wanker, no limits, god is or not thread. Ron

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/15/2007 1:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I'm sorry. I'm trying to stay out of this as its a pretty pointless debate all in all. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen As I've mentioned on another similar thread in the past, some years ago I experienced an instant of total clarity, total awareness of the universe - an incredible few seconds which seemed like much longer, and total unity with (for want of a better expression) "God". Its something I've never experienced again since, but then its also something which I will never forget. Its something that occurred involuntarily, though I had been meditating (in my own peculiar fashion!) when it occurred. Its something that impressed me beyond any power of words to describe properly. So, I'd like to ask the science types here, what their opinion of this is; I am the most science type among the human species. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen a) Am I telling the truth BUT it was a psychotic experience or similar? b) Am I a liar? c) Am I telling the truth AND this was a genuine experience? c. This is what happens to slaves when they become the incarnation of the Goddess of Love. I know of no other god that experiences this phenomenon. In my opinion you are divine, LE, and as such I do worship you. Certainly it may be argued that the experience is psychotic, but the Buddha experienced the same phenomenon - and more (he also remembered his past incarnations and achieved radiance) - as I told you before, and he was immediately after rewarded with a documented and testified stay of a month in Heaven during his life. The gods were delighted! (The prophet Mohammed visited Heaven during his life for only a day or so, and not because of his spiritual advancement; he was just an ordinary guy.) So, my conclusion is that you experienced a major and real spiritual advancement, and I discard the psychosis hypothesis as irrelevant. Well done.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875