1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    05 Oct '11 21:041 edit
    YouTube

    Funny!

    But disconcerting when you see where the script is from.
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 Oct '11 21:32
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk

    Funny!

    But disconcerting when you see where the script is from.
    Not sure funny is the right word. Definitely interesting.

    I don't know what you mean about the script though.

    Could you elaborate?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    05 Oct '11 22:59
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk

    Funny!

    But disconcerting when you see where the script is from.
    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.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 Oct '11 23:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    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.
    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 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"Reveal Hidden Content
    ( 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.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    06 Oct '11 00:321 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    There are some people that show arrogance in chess as well, thinking
    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)
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    06 Oct '11 18:48
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    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.
    Whoops 😳

    Posted wrong link!

    Try this: YouTube
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    06 Oct '11 18:57
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Whoops 😳

    Posted wrong link!

    Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8
    You, know, in retrospect.... The first video was more interesting.

    But yes it's moderately funny.... and you know.... tragic.
  8. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    06 Oct '11 18:59
    Atheists don't rule worlds; but if they did, Earth would probably be the best world in the universe
  9. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    06 Oct '11 19:231 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Atheists don't rule worlds; but if they did, Earth would [b]probably be the best world in the universe[/b]
    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 *Reveal Hidden Content
    ( See footnote )

    in their thousands Reveal Hidden Content
    ( 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
  10. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    06 Oct '11 21:42
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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
    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?
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    06 Oct '11 22:201 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    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?
    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 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.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    06 Oct '11 23:25
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Whoops 😳

    Posted wrong link!

    Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8
    Now, that is my kind of video, these young guys sound like brilliant
    intellectuals as well as good Christians standing up for the faith.
  13. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    07 Oct '11 08:59
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    Have you read any Iain M Banks? I think you'd like his 'Culture' stuff.

    --- Penguin.
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Oct '11 11:04
    Originally posted by Penguin
    Have you read any Iain M Banks? I think you'd like his 'Culture' stuff.

    --- Penguin.
    I have, and I do :-)
  15. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    07 Oct '11 14:55
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    But 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"?

    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?
Back to Top