h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Taliesin, hope you don't mind me posting here. I arrived at a thread on your PS yesterday, somewhat belatedly, completely by accident, as the result of protracted (lurking) side-stepping, which I should have found a couple of weeks ago. (Can't remember what exactly led me there; it was nothing to do with the particular thread it related to).

Anyway, just wanted to say I like your thoughts about Pascal's wager. It's a bit too late at night here to think about it seriously now, but I'm glad you started posting in that thread.

Loved the Big Lebowski link as well - loved that film for years.

Will have to look up the bananas thing - don't think I know about that.

Anyway - thought I'd say hi, and hope I bump into you again around this place.

bananas

I really tried to resist posting in 'that thread', and only succumbed due to an unfortunate combination of and what may be loosely described as Outraged Reason

I also admit to being a wee bit bored, which inclines me to mischief
'The finds w*rk for idle hands'

Normally I avoid such discussion, because inevitably some participants seem incapable of rational, honest debate. The same old fallacious arguments creep in -- the 'win at all costs' attitude takes over, and the discussion devolves into a tiresome amalgamation of unreason, nit-picking, and gratuitous insult.

Sometimes, however, I miss the FFF debates http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A665101

Oh, and you're welcome to drop by anytime, here or at my web journals

Bananas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk
I think this is what anhaga was refering to. I thought it was a joke at first, then started to wonder if it could be meant seriously. Then started to think again, it MUST be a joke.

The thread appears to have returned to the proposition that to attempt to consider the existence of god from a rational point of view is unfair, and therefore you must redefine rationalism so that it includes irrationalism - at least in relation to the existence of g. It does get a bit tedious, and I do wonder what the point of arguing is. I'm glad there is someone on the thread who is persisting though.

I'll check out the FFFF link soon. Just watched the Sam Harris Youtube link on your blog - Excellent stuff; thanks for the link. Really enjoyed his first book. Hoping to read the second soon. Brain going to sleep now. Better go. See you later.

For what it's worth, the banana thing is not intended as a joke: God-people seem to really believe it.

Yes.

The banana people actually do believe this is proof of whatever the they believe they believe in.

This is actually # 260 on the list:

ARGUMENT FROM BANANAS (RAY COMFORT'S ARGUMENT)
(1) Bananas have many characteristics that make them attractive as primate food.
(2) They're so good that they must have been designed, just like Coke cans.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Sigh.

re Godlessgeeks link: Very ridiculous, but very true as well.

This one seemed pertinent:
... 229. PASCAL'S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PASCAL'S WAGER
(1) If God exists, it would be really cool. (And I would win big-time.)
(2) If God didn't exist, it would really suck. (But I wouldn't lose much.)
(3) Therefore, God exists. (Or, at least I should believe in God because it's the best bet.)

(Also 236, 275 - and 249 often seems to come in handy too).

Dawkins answers some email -- http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article2037496.ece

Thanks for that link. This is good as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54

I think you can find the first, and numerous others here: www.secularism.org.uk (UK-centric, but also a lot of globally-applicable stuff in the 'What the papers say' section).

I had two bananas today, and I feel no closer to god than yesterday.

There are some good points here also:
http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1796&highlight=reason

Bed-time now I think.

(I hope you - and Anhaga - don't mind if I add you both to my friends list).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeLHKSJVBI0

So, I was just thinking:

If the universe were created 6000 years ago, we could use a simple backyard telescope to watch God Himself forming those bits that are 6000 light-years away from us.

The fact that we don't see any such thing seems to be pretty conclusive empirical proof that the Old Boy didn't do it quite the way the Strong IDers argue he did.

You'd think so. I'm looking forward to the film, despite this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4077987.stm

Thanks for another link, Taliesin:

>>>Is god unbelievable or what?
I'm a christian, and us christians: we understand that miracles that defy the laws of physics are the truth!
We will never question that, because we are 100% certain that god meant what he wrote.
Scientists aren't certain about anything - all they have is bunch of theories.
Clearly, stuff like science and reason have no place in our lives.

This is another joke, surely. (No, it must be).

Oh boy.

(Actually, maybe I'm not looking forward to the film. It was a tremendous trilogy. But being bowdlerised beyond belief, what could be left? Oh well, I'm sure the effects will be impressive).

http://richarddawkins.net/images/Private-Eye-God-Delusion400.jpg

An on-going story in the UK. Should bring a smile to anyone's lips:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=333#comments

(Don't know if Viz was ever sold in Canada).

'I don't travel in circles where people say, ''I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith.'' That's just a long-winded religious way to say, ''shut up,'' or another two words that the FCC likes less.'

http://thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?topessays=3&uid=34

"So, religious belief is somehow the same as mundane experience? Devotion to Allah is just like expecting your car to start? Faith in the Doctrine of the Imaculate Conception is not unlike my expectation that my Black Molly's offspring will be little black fish?"

-- anhaga



What a gem!

This goes on my quotes page

and still no one has replied.


Don't expect any more 'gems' for a while: I'm reading Ross King's GG winner 'The Judgment of Paris: The revolutionary decade that gave thw world Impressionism'; somehow a glass of absinthe has appeared at hand.

cf. http://www.mystudios.com/manet/1850/drinker.html

Nice hat

I'm thinking of getting one myself. It'll go well with the glass on the table.





and the empty bottle on the floor.

I'm very impressed by that painting. I've seen another of Manet's (I think), of a guy and a girl looking not-too-healthy (a bit absinthe-coloured, in fact), sitting at a table, drinking absinthe. I think it's quite famous. But this is less well-known (to me, at least - reminds me a little of Munch).

I've not been online much in the last week. I've read the Penn 'this I believe' page. I like it a lot, though I don't think I'd phrase my position the same way. I think, unless someone raises the subject (some people have no manners), I don't need to actively *believe there is no god*. I do that without thinking about it. If the subject of god is brought up, then maybe I ascribe some kind of meaning to the concept, and then find I actively disbelieve in it, but the rest of the time, it isn't an issue (of course, it is brought up a lot more these days).

>>> So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power...
But, this ''This I Believe'' thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, ''This I believe: I believe there is no God.''

>>> I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more.

>>> Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good...

Got to work on that one, but it's exactly right. If people can convince themselves there's some 'higher power' who judges them objectively, and there happens to be some set of arbitrary rules written somewhere, which supposedly relate to the 'higher power's' judgment, they can internally justify anything, and say, 'I don't need to think about it any further, my conscience is clear. I've tried to follow the rules. If I've misunderstood, it's not my fault. I deserve to go to heaven. And so does anyone I've inadvertantly blown up in the process. God'll sort it out.'

I don't know about Ross King, but I enjoyed Gore Vidal's Judgment of Paris a few years ago. (Had a great line about 'the avalanche of christianity that swept over Europe').

I think you might be thinking of this piece by Degas, G8ch:

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/degas/absinthe/