The Drabblecast

Mr. Tweedy wrote:The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins: Just started reading this today. First impression: No one has a higher opinion of Richard Dawkins than Richard Dawkins.

Have you ever heard him speak? Clearly, if he cloned himself, stayed in stasis for 35 years until his clone was a thinking adult and then he un-stasified himself and met the cloned version, he would kiss himself squarely on the lips, propose marriage to himself and have obnoxious little babies to crawl around his feet.

If that were possible, would his asexual offspring technically be classified as viruses, or yeast?

F5iver wrote:IMHO: Dawkins is a pompous, self-righteous ass. Sagan was talented with an inflated ego. I like Brian Green so much more. And Hugh Ross (reasons.org).

I agree that Dawkins is pompous but I like what he has to say. I read most of what Sagan wrote, he probably got me started on critical thinking and helped steer me away from my strict Catholic upbringing and the supernatural. I will check out Brian Green and Hugh Ross, I'm not familiar with their work.

After reading the wikipedia entry on "The Blind Watchmaker" I now consider myself an expert on Dawkins. I suppose I can see why Douglas Adams was so enamored of him and how that was reflected in his works.

Personally, I find people that vehemently argue a proof of the non-existence of God to be even more tiresome than people who argue proof of said diety's existence. Proving a negative, well that's just silly, probably impossible. Unless you have a Babel Fish at hand, that is.

Far from settling the argument, both sides can't even agree on a semantic definition of what God is. And when I say "can't" i really mean "can't" After all, how do you define the undefinable?

Favorite bumper sticker I saw on a goth chick's lunchbox at Gencon 2001. "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither the f*** do you!"

There is no proof for God's existence, but there is, I think, proof for the need to believe in God. Because, otherwise, to the proposition: "There is a God", we lose the essential derivative:..."and I am not Him."

Arguing for the non-existence of God is illogical:

If there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard.
If there is no absolute moral standard, then the only standard is my happiness.
Therefore, if believing in God makes me happy, then I should do it, regardless of whether or not God exists.
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the existence of God.
Therefore, shut up.

NO GOD NO not another religious argument! Lock the topic lock the topic ahhhh! It's like I'm on a message board, on the internet.

That was doubly tiresome, but an impressive display of well structured circular logic.

I love circular logic.

It's so, round.

Like a donut.

And I like donuts.

Bo is hilarious.
Wait, so what were we talking about?
Oh yah, doughnuts.
I'm glad God created them-- what a guy!



(male)



(white)



(guy)

Circular logic? How so?

Note that the last phrase can be replaced with anything:
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the existence of God.
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the non-existence of God.
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the existence of Batman*.
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the existence of telepathic octopi.

I don't mean to cause a total tangent, but I'm really curious about where you see circularity. The logic seems sound to me.

*Speaking of Batman, this trailer for the next Chris Nolan movie has got me wishing it was next year already.

And may I add that I was not taking a position on God's existence, but saying that it's healthy to realize we are not God.

But seriously, didn't we used to have a religous thread? I went to go bump it but, barring human error, it appears to be gone. I'm all for shouting the lord up and down, but suffer my Asberger's - it has a specific area to take place in, with nice clean borders (always clean, always clean). This section is for pithy pop culture nay-saying (and yes book reviews), not existential conflict!

Tweeds, you know what happened to that thread?

I believe it came to an inglorious crash-and-burn death when it failed to rouse any vitriol and ended after only two pages with all parties expressing mutual respect. Most disappointing.

drabblecast.freeforums.org/the-r-word-t258-20.html

"House" season opener.

Eight tentacles down on this one. Hopefully deep fried into calamari so something can be salvaged from this poor remake of "One few over the cuckoo's next" with House reprising the role of RPM.

<SPOILERS>
Now I know it's TV and all, but I'd like to know just where the psychiatric units are that employ smoozing at fancy jazz cocktail parties as a standard part of the course of treatment.

Other horrible cliche's and plot contrivances abound, from the short lived fling with the attractive married visitor to House engineering the rescue of a comatose patient by figuring out that the psychotic with delusions of grandeur really does hold the key to what was keeping her locked inside her internal world. (After nearly killing the poor kid by reinforcing his delusions during an unlikely hospital break-out and trip to a carnival.)

Also, House once again avoids being sued for gross incompetence and reckless endangerment, but that's just standard fare. Can't really knock them for that, even though in this case there were presumably no waivers signed beforehand.
</SPOILERS>

Mr. Tweedy wrote:Circular logic? How so?

Note that the last phrase can be replaced with anything:
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the existence of God.
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the non-existence of God.
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the existence of Batman*.
Therefore, the non-existence of God justifies belief in the existence of telepathic octopi.

I don't mean to cause a total tangent, but I'm really curious about where you see circularity. The logic seems sound to me.

*Speaking of Batman, this trailer for the next Chris Nolan movie has got me wishing it was next year already.

I see the problem. You interpret my observation of its roundness to somehow indicate a flaw in your logic. Quite the contrary, that's why it's perfect.

That and the fact that it all leads to telepathic octopi, and telepathic octopi are awesome.

Especially around these here parts.

Hmm... I don't think that's accurate. Circular logic generally means that the conclusion of the argument and the postulate on which the argument is based are one and the same. For example:

ROU is a sock puppet.
Therefore, ROU should be banned.
Only sock puppets should be banned.
Therefore, ROU must be a sock puppet.

Or:

ROU is a witch.
Therefore, ROU must be responsible for our recent crop failures.
Only a witch could cause cop failures.
Therefore, ROU must be a witch.

It's a common logical fallacy, although it's seldom expressed that directly. (You can catch politicians doing it a lot.)

My logic is not circular, because the conclusion does not lead back to the postulate. The postulate "God does not exist" leads to the conclusion "It is reasonable to believe in God." But the postulate "It is reasonable to believe in God" does not logically lead to "God does not exist." Not circular.

Speaking of which, did anyone else see the trailer for "Inception?" :0

I don't believe that ROU really exists.

Phenopath wrote:I don't believe that ROU really exists.

You mean ROU may be a Tweedy sockpuppet?
Charlie spoke to the wall, "How ironic!"

They all may be Tweedy sock puppets, Strawboy. How would you ever know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88hq0756 ... re=related

Mr. Tweedy wrote:They all may be Tweedy sock puppets, Strawboy. How would you ever know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88hq0756 ... re=related

Why do discussions of theology seem to always devolve into solipsism. I wonder where God weighs in on solipsism. I wonder if I'm wondering this at all?

Where is that hollow breeze coming from, and why are the walls becoming transparent around me?