[spravka.ua]

I watched 7 minutes of that and thought it was stupid.

JM

[tramadolwithall]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
You made it... :hmm:

"Jonathan Miller examines the history of atheism."

[venediene]

The discussion with the anthropologist in part 4 is very enlightening. Very nicely done program.

[Vikonbarius]

Very nicely done. Cures insomnia!

11th December 2006 01:14:05 AM
11th December 2006 02:26:35 AM

The whole thing is an hour long....

[poRmawayncmop]

Yup. Something intellectually stimulating will make plenty of people sleepy.

[Noilemaillilm]

it's bad that I have an exams tomorrow morning... otherwise I would be watching the show

@Nostromo

What is the meaning of IRC?

[M1iFiNmC]

thanks!

[huylibizonoff]

At about what minute does Part 4 kick in?

[TSVIDeo]

I remember watching this whole things some time ago along with several of the interview which were oroginaly hour long and very deep debates, only tiny fragments of which got used in the show. I found these even better then the show.

[iodigmaFemZem]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I watched 7 minutes of that and thought it was stupid.

JM What turned you off?

[yarita]

There's a lot more of that.

[Lxbsvksl]

The overbearing smarminess notwithstanding, there are some interesting points to it. One wishes a debate were exposed, and not simply a polemic.

[Tazqoaap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The overbearing smarminess notwithstanding, there are some interesting points to it. One wishes a debate were exposed, and not simply a polemic. That's because there can be no debate. If there is, then the aethiests are forced to admit their believe that this is no God is based on just as muh faith as religionistas belief that there is. It's better for them to invoke 9/11 and the Crusades and call that logical reasoning.

[Verger99]

Originally posted by DaShi
That's because there can be no debate. If there is, then the aethiests are forced to admit their believe that this is no God is based on just as muh faith as religionistas belief that there is. It's better for them to invoke 9/11 and the Crusades and call that logical reasoning. It's statements like this that spawn invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.

[DavidQD]

Originally posted by loinburger

It's statements like this that spawn invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. It's statements like this that spawn nonsensical debates. I'm not asking anyone to prove that God does/doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that aetheists can't prove that God doesn't exist, and thus must believe that he doesn't to remain aethiest. Religionistas must do the same but in vice versa.

[CruzIzabella]

Originally posted by DaShi
It's statements like this that spawn nonsensical debates. I'm not asking anyone to prove that God does/doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that aetheists can't prove that God doesn't exist, and thus must believe that he doesn't to remain aethiest. Religionistas must do the same but in vice versa. Nobody should need to "prove" anything -- the religionistas have faith, the atheists have doubt, and that's all that's really needed.

The problem with bringing proof into the picture is that nobody can prove that invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters don't exist (hence the reason I said that your statement spawns IPU's and FSM's, as these are common responses to the "atheists can't prove God doesn't exist" statement). The reason that IPU's and FSM's are irrelevant is because nobody has faith that IPU's and FSM's exist, whereas plenty of people have faith that God / gods exist. "Why do you have faith in God / doubt God's existence" is a valid question to ask a theist/atheist, whereas "prove that God exists / doesn't exist" is just going to get a bunch of idiotic ontological proofs or invisible pink unicorns.

[Breilopmil]

Originally posted by loinburger

Nobody should need to "prove" anything -- the religionistas have faith, the atheists have doubt, and that's all that's really needed. except many "religionistas" have doubt as well. I have doubts about G-d, and also doubts about a universe without G-d. So I live in a state of contingency, in which I wrestle with G-d, and try to seek Her, with the tools that my tradition gives me. Im not assured of what I will find, and my faith is not in any theology, but that the search is worthwhile. That would seem to make me "not religious" by the definition of the christian fundies, a definition you apparently share.

[saopinax]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
That would seem to make me "not religious" by the definition of the christian fundies, a definition you apparently share. I never said that having faith/doubt was an either-or proposition -- the religionistas have faith, but that doesn't mean they can't have doubt as well. Come to that, the religionistas who don't have any doubt tend to scare the hell out of me.

I guess if I were asked to pin down the difference between an atheist and a religionist (without resorting to meaningless statements like "a religionist has a faith/doubt ratio in excess of 3/5"), I'd say that the religionist has sufficient faith that he has or will arrive at some metaphysical truth (be it G-d, Nirvana, etc.) that he seeks out that truth, whereas the atheist has sufficient doubt that he cannot find such a metaphysical truth (either because it is beyond his grasp or because it doesn't exist) that he doesn't attempt to seek it out.

Originally posted by DaShi
I'm not asking anyone to prove that God does/doesn't exist. The problem is that you're equating faith with doubt, i.e., doubting a statement is the same as having faith in the opposite, which is crap. If I say "I doubt that it will rain tomorrow" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that it will not rain tomorrow." If I say "I doubt that God exists" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that God does not exist." Even if you take out the "absolute" qualifier the statements are still quite different. Plus, when you consider LOTM's post above, equating faith with doubt would mean that LOTM has faith that G-d exists and also has faith that G-d doesn't exist, which is silly.

[Tic Tac Took]

Originally posted by Lorizael


This isn't enough, though. The burden of proof is on the person trying to assert the existence of something. What burden of proof? There is none.

I've seen lights in the night sky that I couldn't explain. This is evidence of UFOs and aliens. Therefore, I will take aliens into consideration when determining my actions. Originally posted by DaShi
It's statements like this that spawn nonsensical debates. But this is crazy. There's no proof here. It is illogical to base your decisions or actions off of something you cannot prove. That's the unpredictability of life and is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is not illogical to not base your actions off of something you have no proof for or against. What? So it is illogical? Anyway, irrelevant.

[marketheal]

Originally posted by Lorizael
It is illogical to base your decisions or actions off of something you cannot prove. We do this all the time, though. I can't prove that it's going to rain tomorrow, but I'm going to bring an umbrella anyway. I can't prove that the dissertation committee is going to pass me, but I'm going to try to finish my dissertation anyway. I can't prove that my parents are still going to be alive in fourteen days, but I bought them christmas presents anyway. It's impossible to function without basing some (if not all) of your decisions/actions on your unproven beliefs.