Mrebo

I second ender's response.

Science doesn't need to prove or disprove anything at all. Doesn't need to prove whether romantic love is anything more than hormones and electrical impulses with the general purpose of motivating reproduction so that monkey men may continue for as long as they are able.  Similarly need it prove that love of children exists is a evolutionary development to motivate us to care for them until they too procreate. Whether one wants to accept that's all love is because that's all that science can tell you is another matter.

Whether one "believes" or "knows" love to be more than that (or not) is obviously up to each person, but I can't imagine holding such a stilted view of life. Maybe if I had no concept of love beyond what the scientific method can tell me I'd also put that particular concept on the plane of mermaids and unicorns. Not to say atheists take such a stilted view of love, but belief in God is similar in terms of "knowing" without scientific proof.

I can also speak for myself, but believing through faith doesn't work well for me. On a few occasions I have asked Warbler or ender about how they can believe a certain thing on faith alone. I ultimately don't fully agree but I respect that they have it.

Granted there is a kernel of faith - in the same way that I have faith that love is more than a manifestation of biological dictates (though they no doubt play a big role). And if the goal is to convince somebody of existence of something, I agree the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Plenty of philosophers have made arguments based on reason for God's existence but it's a practically futile effort if somebody requires scientific proof.

I respect the view that you can't disprove God and don't believe since you haven't seen evidence. It's those who claim that they know that there is no God. Leonardo takes his own route in getting to that point. And perhaps it's that variety that inspires your objection to generalization. However, atheists generalize about theists in this debate with the overarching objection that theists 'can't prove.' Well I'm saying atheists can't disprove and thus while they may not believe, they do not "know" that there is no God. Whatever unique reasoning underlies the claim doesn't change that.

Unless one has searched everywhere, looked to the source of the information, or shown evidence that something is excluded from existing (eg I'm the only person inhabiting the space I'm in), one cannot say something does not exist. Even with unicorns and mermaids, it can be ignorant to say one knows that they do not exist. That may sound silly, but if we are speaking about knowledge in any concrete and consistent way, we can't say that we know that don't exist simply because we don't have evidence.

I see nothing in science that makes the existence of a deity improbable.

Leo feels he knows God does not exist. Many religious people are at least as certain that God does exist.

Why should either of these concern us to the point of discussing it with nearly as many words as we already have?

I want to emphasize how much I agree with ender. I like you, Leo, Bingo, Frink, et al. since it can be hard to discuss such topics without coming across as strident. I find it an interesting discussion but it unfortunately comes down to somebody being less than a good guy. Like I told Warbs, I try not to discuss religion. At least one side sees no valid argument to even have and people only end up being disgruntled.

DC for the past 6 months.

*sigh*

Many good comments, I'd quote all of the last several pages if I could ;)

Leonardo said:

See, this is subjective. That's why we all have different point of views, because the value we attribute to words is not always the same. In my personal view of the world I exclude any metaphysics, therefore there is no God. Anybody else's view of the world, none of my business. It is their view, not mine.

The thing about a theist's view of the universe is that it puts metaphysics first, as a given, and then everything else should follow. That's why I understand it is hard to picture the point of view of a person like me. It's topsy turvy.

I don't want to get too much into epistemology. Or even a back-and-forth about which views belong to whom and their relative value. Mostly because I'm not that bright ;) If we can keep it more simplified, I think many of the comments circle the same drain.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

There is an inherent advantage for the believers when using the word 'know' in debate. The atheist holds that in order for something to be true, it must be demonstrable through observation and scientific experimentation. A falsifiable experiment is necessary to actually disprove something. From Wikipedia.

I think you are generalizing quite a lot here, and being very presumptuous. Not all atheists are materialistic atheists or ascribe strictly to scientific thought, or require demonstration or falsifiability to disbelieve in God or gods.

And even for those of us who do, you're trying to spin the scientific process in a way that makes it sound extraordinarily limiting, in a way that it isn't to most of us. Ultimately, a scientist knows that we don't know even a small fraction of everything there is to know, and that the knowledge we do have is just a starting point to greater discovery and free thought. Where you make it sound like a brick wall that stops us in our tracks, it is really a wide open gateway and a series of bridges and roads to all sorts of exciting places that are still in the process of being built and paved.

ender expresses much of my sentiment on this topic. And it goes to Leonardo's response about his view of the world versus others. But I think it's a cop-out to complain about generalization.

The word arrogant has been bandied about. I think the real problem is ignorance (the pure definition of the word: lacking in knowledge), whether that ignorance of God is based on allegedly rational scientific thought or just accepted for some other reason.

The scientific process is not a brick wall; it's an open-ended expanse. I think that is ender's point. When those claiming to adhere to the scientific process declare God non-existent, they are the ones using it as a brick wall. The great faith in the scientific method is another issue. I see the scientific method as nothing more than a very limited set of tools. In order to scientifically demonstrate that God doesn't exist, one must define God in some narrow way and not just come up empty-handed, but as Leonardo suggests, show that God cannot possibly inhabit the same space as other demonstrable elements. I don't see how science can possibly do so.

NeverarGreat said:

I think that many who are atheist are atheist with regards to a specific god of a specific religion. For example, Douglass Adams began his journey to atheism when he heard a street preacher and realized that the preacher was not making logical sense. This specific atheism is then often generalized to ALL religion, or else the distinction is rarely made clear.

I think that when many people claim to be atheist, they are simply saying that they have examined the evidence for a god of the religion of their parents/country and found this deity to have contradictory attributes. For example, how can the Christian God claim to be completely loving and also jealous, knowing that the Bible states that love is not jealous? In breaking strongly from such a deity, they claim atheism, as it is simply more applicable in most situations to their true feelings on the subject.

NeverarGreat expresses so well that many atheists seem to reject narrow-definitions of God (often based on misunderstanding, I'd add).

CP3S said:

Darth_Ender, Warb, Mrebo, and any other theist here, I could be way off on this and just wildly assuming, but I am willing to bet you are all atheist. If you only believe in one god, it means there are hundreds of gods you don't believe in, or that you hold an atheist stance toward. In the end, I simply disbelieve in one less god than the countless number of gods you don't believe in. The same way you find no reason you should believe in Ra, I find no reason I should believe in your god.

In answer to those who asked if it is not more arrogant (or ignorant) to believe God exists than not, I say no. Knowing/believing in something means a person (presumably) has a basis for the knowledge/belief. Since I think the scientific tools we have are inadequate to test the existence of God (how convenient) I think it is more ignorant to say God doesn't exist. Just as it would be for someone to say alternate dimensions do not exist or that dark matter does not exist. Saying "I don't buy that" doesn't mean one actually has knowledge of non-existence.

So...to get more directly to your point CP3S, there is a difference in not believing in a particular formulation and 'knowing' that no deity exists. At best, us monotheists are partial weak atheists ;) I am of the view that (a mere belief without a claim of knowledge) many/most views of god(s) are the imperfect human perceptions of the true God. Looking at it from a more pseudo-scientific perspective, a belief in one particular formulation may preclude the existence of some other god(s).

Yes there can be a difference between "believing" and "knowing" - but in your sentence, it is a distinction without a difference. You can't possibly know that God doesn't exist so to say he doesn't must be a belief.

I do believe the Earth goes around the sun. I also know it - insofar as I can know it. Belief and knowledge aren't as separate as you claim.

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

It is human arrogance to assume humans are especially special.

 

really?  I don't know of any other kind living thing that is capable of having this sort of discussion over an internet that kind of living thing invented.     

I heard this in a movie once "man is only species that knows, and knows that it knows".  

See, this is why I don't come into this thread, because then I start agreeing with Warbler and that is against the rules.

^joke

I'll leave it to the lions, insects and crustaceans to arrogantly assume they are special. It's not arrogant to recognize the uniqueness of human beings as identified by Warbler.

Leonardo said:

Mrebo said: 

And Leonardo, I'm glad you don't believe that God doesn't exist.

Yes, I don't believe that God doesn't exist. In my view of the world, there is no God, cause there is no place for a God.

And another reason I stay out of religious discussions - so as not to insult the atheists too much. It's a distinction without a difference.

TheBoost said:

Bingowings said:

Mrebo said:

Thusfar I'm agreeing with the heathens. As per Bingo's explication, I think the method isn't the important part.

Really?

It's something humans are very close to being able to do themselves.

The implications have ramifications.

Would they be playing God, emulating God or would they be God or at least God's remote control?

If God is implicit in the process surely actuating the process has very interesting religious considerations? 

Reminds me of when Kirk Cameron said the banana was proof there is a god. When it was pointed out to him that the banana is a highly modified, and selectively bred mutation that would not exist except for man's influence, he responded with "well, that proves God gave us those tools."

I think Kirk's answer is fine. The important part IS that God was the force that determined that we would be.

Thusfar I'm agreeing with the heathens. As per Bingo's explication, I think the method isn't the important part.

For a religious teaching to make sense to me, I need there to be a historical or natural basis. But like Duracell (except for the aliens and simulated reality part), I'm ready to be surprised. And Leonardo, I'm glad you don't believe that God doesn't exist. And to your point about simplification, that's something that gets to me about descriptions of dinosaurs as reptiles. There is speculation they might have been warm-blooded, that birds descended from them, etc. I think it's a hasty conclusion to call them "reptiles." Maybe it would be fair to call them "reptilian" based on what we know.

I purposefully stay out of this thread most of the time but I have a question impacted by religious belief and wonder where you all stand and why. Do you truly believe humans evolved from apelike creatures?

I was at the National Museum of Natural History for the first time the other day and they have an exhibit preaching the gospel of human evolution. I've always been fairly comfortable with the notion that my forebearers were monkey men (and secretly convinced my 'real parents' actually were monkeys), but on viewing the exhibit I realized I'm not truly convinced deep down - not because of lacking evidence in the exhibit but because I was confronted with such a blatantly uncontroversial display of it as fact. I realized that I'm fine with the theory but not truly convinced.

I know plenty of people have the same issue in their religious belief, though they don't get to the point of facing it.

So, for the non-believers, do you truly 100% accept/believe/swear as fact that your ancestors were ape creatures? Why or why not?

And for the believers? What do you believe and why? For the believers who believe in evolution, how do you square that with your faith?

SilverWook said:

Mrebo said:

Jack the Giant Slayer

It was great fun. A healthy number of scenes obviously made with 3-D in mind (I saw it in 2-D). All the characters were the flattest of archetypes but it didn't matter. The Princess Bride came to mind in terms of story-telling, superficially the framing, and obvious silly tone (though it didn't have the quality of characters and wit). There were definitely laugh-worthy moments. The CGI was decent, it worked for the movie. The end of the movie felt a touch too contrived but could set things up for a contrived sequel ;0 All in all I would highly recommend it. Just old-fashioned fun.

I also got around to seeing Seven Samurai. It was entertaining. Some of you have recommended it as a model for a Star Wars movie, but I'm afraid I'm lacking in imagination. However, Kikuchiyo reminded me of Anakin - with occasional flare-ups of Jar-Jar.

The Star Wars/Kurosawa connection is more obvious in some of his other samurai films like The Hidden Fortress. My favorite storyline in the old Marvel comic is unabashedly a Seven Samurai homage...

Did Ewan have any lines in JTGS that would be of use in fan edits?

If you think more bad jokes might be needed there are a couple ("barking up the wrong beanstalk"). I think there are a couple that could work for more serious intentions, but he didn't have too many lines.

Jack the Giant Slayer

It was great fun. A healthy number of scenes obviously made with 3-D in mind (I saw it in 2-D). All the characters were the flattest of archetypes but it didn't matter. The Princess Bride came to mind in terms of story-telling, superficially the framing, and obvious silly tone (though it didn't have the quality of characters and wit). There were definitely laugh-worthy moments. The CGI was decent, it worked for the movie. The end of the movie felt a touch too contrived but could set things up for a contrived sequel ;0 All in all I would highly recommend it. Just old-fashioned fun.

I also got around to seeing Seven Samurai. It was entertaining. Some of you have recommended it as a model for a Star Wars movie, but I'm afraid I'm lacking in imagination. However, Kikuchiyo reminded me of Anakin - with occasional flare-ups of Jar-Jar.

Warbler said:

NKorea vows to cancel Korean War ceasefire

this is not good.    Just how hard would it be for the US to take over NKorea?

It would likely result in many deaths. Though Korea has some nuclear weapons, they don't have a proven capability to launch them far if at all. They could try to hit South Korea or China or possibly just use them in their own country if they realize they are going to lose. Rebuilding the country and locking down all the nuclear weapons would be a ridiculously huge job in any event.

Neither can I. There will be a big money settlement. Though maybe they are stupid enough to go to trial and lose. The nurse is the likeliest candidate for jail, but I hope they can reach higher up.

All news accounts say they won.

Socotra, Yemen

Impressive basketball shot.

Dogs are wonderful creatures.

Stupid alcohol lawsuit.

I would hate to be the person responsible for this.

Chicago totally looked like that first picture in the 2000s.

Well done, two of my favorite things together.

She strikes me as guilty too, too much story. Same thing for the legless Olympian.

Time magazine has a pretty good (and ridiculously long) article on why healthcare costs so much. Very informative. The author makes some hasty conclusions at various points but I think provides a good base for discussion on how to control health costs.

I think there are good criticisms to be made on an artistic level. There are some really dreadful films that can be similarly criticized.

There is the concern that it will effect behavior. That is one reason why virtual child pornography is made illegal. But this also gets into free speech issues. Some countries outlaw pornography altogether (Iceland is seeking to ban internet pornography in addition to already banned printed materials).

The US is unique in the breadth of its protections of free speech, but an argument can be made that pornography and violence do not really qualify as speech - at least not speech worth protecting. [I don't really see how that can work without harming free speech, but it's not a crazy argument]

I don't really know where to go with it either. I don't think gamers care so much about artistic merit...and in some games the violence may serve a great expressive purpose.

Is acting out violent or sexual scenes worse than watching them in a film? I don't know.

SilverKey said:

A rather radical idea I was playing with: how about making Bail Organa the one who gives Palpatine his emergency powers? It eliminates the need for Jar Jar in the movie, but might also make Organa a bit more interesting character. It would give that little bump on the balcony at the end of AOTC more weight, and would also give him a motivation for starting the Rebellion.

There are some audio material The Force Unleashed cut scenes, voice by Jimmy Smits, that could be useful for this change.

That is absolutely how it should have been. It also adds depth to Leia's efforts as a way to redeem her adoptive father (and a metaphor for redemption of her actual father). As a story-telling device, having the Empire grow out of good intentions and a sincere desire for security is much more interesting and real.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

I heard the meteor will be the next Pope.

no, in order to be Pope, one must be male and Catholic.    the meteor is neither. 

Prove it.

I was discussing this last night - regarding how I might get to be pope. I suspect they could do some kind of pro forma ceremony (baptism, confirmation, etc), wave their hands, and declare a guy Catholic in order to make him Pope. I was baptized as a baby but not sure if that gets me much further than purgatory. I was more excited by the prospect of the Coptic popehood (even cooler hats) but that was filled in November.

Is it true the meteor was 7,000 tons?

Fang Zei said:

Anyone else still slightly hung up on the fact that Episode VII won't (as of now) open with the 20th Century Fox fanfare?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Disney should just give Fox theatrical distribution rights to the ST in exchange for getting home video rights to the existing movies (including EpIV) right away instead of waiting until 2021 (and until forever in the case of EpIV). The majority of the theatrical gross would still be Lucasfilm's (and therefore Disney's) anyway, not Fox's. Fox would merely get a small percentage of the gross in exchange for distributing, just as they did on Empire, Jedi and the prequels. The big difference this time is that Disney could just hold on to the rights for everything else (dvd/blu-ray, download, streaming, tv broadcast).

I would be cool with the planned spinoffs not having the fanfare (maybe just opening with the Lucasfilm logo and that's it), but if you're gonna have "Episode VII" in the title of your movie, you'd better open it right.

I suspect we'll get over it if the movie is good. But seeing the Disney castle, and maybe the Bad Robot logo - is that a possibility? - yeah, weird. I get excited by the Fox fanfare because of Star Wars, not having it will be lacking.

Harmy said:

So what do you guys think about this:
http://geektyrant.com/news/2013/2/14/ewan-mcgregors-obi-wan-spin-off-star-wars-movie-idea.html/

I think if done right it could be quite cool. Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan was one of the best (or more like least embarrassing) parts of the PT and with a good script this could be a cool SW western :-)

It could be quite fun. I vote for James McAvoy to play Obi-Wan.

"Darth Bane: Path of Destruction" had some of the most idiotic battle tactics imaginable. The most glaring example occurred when the Jedi forces decided to split into two groups in order to traverse the forest. The rationale was that a surprise attack by Sith would most probably wipe them all out. So...they doubled their chances of being spotted and increased the certainty that at least half of their forces would be destroyed. It just doesn't make sense to believe they're being all that sneaky by having half an army in an area instead of a full army in an area. I'd love to hear a different take on that.