- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59Not sure funny is the right word. Definitely interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk
Funny!
But disconcerting when you see where the script is from.
I don't know what you mean about the script though.
Could you elaborate?
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I missed the humor. It is a good video to show how both many religious and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk
Funny!
But disconcerting when you see where the script is from.
non-religious people think and react. The narrator seems to dismiss his
arrogance in thinking he knows the full truth by seeming to place himself
in the middle of the extremes. I think it is a mixture of truths and lies but
I am only human and only God knows for sure.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI didn't think it funny, so you're not the only one.
I missed the humor. It is a good video to show how both many religious and
non-religious people think and react. The narrator seems to dismiss his
arrogance in thinking he knows the full truth by seeming to place himself
in the middle of the extremes. I think it is a mixture of truths and lies but
I am only human and only God knows for sure.
It seemed quite serious, and well thought out and presented, to me.
He isn't claiming to know the full truth, or the absolute truth, nobody can.
On the topic of arrogance....
I was once in a conversation with a builder doing some work on the house (having just made him tea).
The topic got to climate change (man made) and he said he thought it very arrogant that people
thought that we could effect something as big as the planet and climate.
The idea that Humans actions could have such a great effect on the world was arrogant and claiming
we were special.
I didn't say this at the time as I wasn't about to get into a big argument with a guy working on my house.
But I thought it arrogant to think that no matter what we humans did it wouldn't have any consequences
and that we could do what we liked forever with no repercussion.
Particularly given the science that says that the very composition of the atmosphere that he was claiming
we couldn't effect was made in the main by bacteria and basic single celled organisms.
If they could effect the atmosphere and climate surely we could.
And given he was a builder, and not a climate scientist, was it not arrogant to assume that he knew better
than the almost the entire field of relevant experts?
Actually neither position need be arrogant.
Science has good solid evidentiary and theoretical reasons for concluding the climate is shifting, and that
our activity is to blame.
This evidence and conclusion has been subject to huge scrutiny and attack and has only gotten stronger.
So agreeing with this position can't be considered arrogant.
And the claims my builder were making were based in his lack of understanding fuelled by deeply inaccurate
and confusing reporting, which often inaccurately portrayed both sides as being equal.
It wasn't necessarily being arrogant in those circs to hold the position he did (and still does)
Arrogant is a term often thrown at people who belong to an opposing camp in theology.
I suspect that a lot of it comes from the misconception that one side must be arrogant, and as it couldn't be
the side that "I"
( being the person doing the misconceiving )
am on it must be the other side that is arrogant.
In actual fact while either side may be arrogant, neither side need be, they might both be in the middle ground.
06 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere are some people that show arrogance in chess as well, thinking
I didn't think it funny, so you're not the only one.
It seemed quite serious, and well thought out and presented, to me.
He isn't claiming to know the full truth, or the absolute truth, nobody can.
On the topic of arrogance....
I was once in a conversation with a builder doing some work on the house (having just made him tea).
The topic g side may be arrogant, neither side need be, they might both be in the middle ground.
they know a better move than a Grandmaster when they are only
an intermediate chess player.
However, in rare cases a person that seems arrogant can actually know
what he or she is talking about. One of my sons told me that his boss
told him a story about one of his customers that used to come in to
the shop and tell the most outlandish stories he had ever heard about doing
so-and-so and receiving rewards from the President and such. He had
always thought the guy was the biggest liar he had ever met, until one
day he saw a picture of the guy with a former President giving him an
award. Then he began to think maybe all those other things might be
true too, and maybe that guy wasn't full of shiiiit, after all.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and
over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God
He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and
God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;
and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every
living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhoops 😳
I missed the humor. It is a good video to show how both many religious and
non-religious people think and react. The narrator seems to dismiss his
arrogance in thinking he knows the full truth by seeming to place himself
in the middle of the extremes. I think it is a mixture of truths and lies but
I am only human and only God knows for sure.
Posted wrong link!
Try this:
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergActually I think that one of the great things that will be possible in the next couple of centuries will be the creation of giant space habitats *
Atheists don't rule worlds; but if they did, Earth would [b]probably be the best world in the universe[/b]
( See footnote )
in their thousands
( With a total combined internal surface area many times that of Earth )
which can each have a significant population with its own system of government, religion, and system of ethics.
Thus it would be possible for real tests of what types of societies really do best and are nicest to live in in a pretty controlled way.
I would very definitely pick an atheist rock to live in.
*Basically hollowed out asteroids spun to create internal gravity called 'rocks' in the colloquial
06 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeWould your rock of choice make it a REQUIREMENT that everyone living in it had to be an atheist?
Actually I think that one of the great things that will be possible in the next couple of centuries will be the creation of giant space habitats *[hidden]( See footnote )[/hidden]
in their thousands [hidden]( With a total combined internal surface area many times that of Earth )[/hidden] which can each have a significant population with its own system ...[text shortened]... ically hollowed out asteroids spun to create internal gravity called 'rocks' in the colloquial
What if your rock of choice's government then decided that you were engaging in behaviors it deemed to be "religious" and threw you in prison?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo.
Would your rock of choice make it a REQUIREMENT that everyone living in it had to be an atheist?
What if your rock of choice's government then decided that you were engaging in behaviors it deemed to be "religious" and threw you in prison?
I definitely would not have people thrown in prison (or deported to a different rock) for believing in god.
However with tens if not hundreds of thousands of otherwise identical rocks/worlds/habitats to chose from
[and each one having an internal area equivalent to a small to medium country]
the most important distinctions would be the politics and culture of the place you chose to live on,
which of course removes a lot of the reasons for conflict between cultural groups.
They don't have to live with each other if they don't get on.
Also the evidence suggests that given I high level of education, and material comfort, with no indoctrination,
the majority seem to default to atheism.
So my hypothetical almost exclusively colonised by atheists rock would likely stay that way.
This is not to say that some people on it wouldn't chose a faith, or that people with faith would be barred from
visiting, but it would be considered bad manners to move to a community and culture you don't intend to support
or join. Not illegal, just considered antisocial.
There was a great article written by a nasa guy on building space habitats that gives an idea what I am talking
about it, but I can't seem to find the right combination of google search terms to bring it up.... assuming it still exists.
07 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeHave you read any Iain M Banks? I think you'd like his 'Culture' stuff.
No.
I definitely would not have people thrown in prison (or deported to a different rock) for believing in god.
However with tens if not hundreds of thousands of otherwise identical rocks/worlds/habitats to chose from
[and each one having an internal area equivalent to a small to medium country]
the most important distinctions would be the polit ...[text shortened]... d the right combination of google search terms to bring it up.... assuming it still exists.
--- Penguin.
07 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut if your atheist rock didn't actively ban people from practicing religion, what would prevent new religions from developing? Perhaps your own children become interested in "finding a deeper meaning"?
No.
I definitely would not have people thrown in prison (or deported to a different rock) for believing in god.
However with tens if not hundreds of thousands of otherwise identical rocks/worlds/habitats to chose from
[and each one having an internal area equivalent to a small to medium country]
the most important distinctions would be the polit ...[text shortened]... d the right combination of google search terms to bring it up.... assuming it still exists.
What would prevent religious people from other rocks from sending missionaries to evangelize or colonize your rock?
How many people would really care whether they were displaying "bad manners?" Do you think that would be sufficient to maintain the atheist status quo?