Episode 50 — Gravity
Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:02 PM
Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:35 AM
Also David and Christina make a good couple *wink*
Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:58 AM
But if convincing opposing evidence were discovered I would be enthralled just like anyone else and I know that there is an infinite amount of things that we don't know. But simplifying that vast realm of the unknown into a simplistic patriarchal 'god' figure-a concept that was conceived of during more primitive times-just doesn't make sense to me.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 05:35 AM
I was so happy to get a "shout out" from the guys at the end of the episode.
As I have mentioned before, I an a devout Greek Orthodox Christian who is a scientist and engineer. IMHO religion is about belief based on faith. I don't find scientific knowledge and faith incompatible.
Good luck to Dustin in his new endeavors.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 06:06 AM
@Jookerson Being an Atheist doesn't make you a scientist, clearly from your assertion from a single piece of evidence you are not a scientist. The rest of your article has links showing it isn't a clear causation it is at best a social correlation. Dawkins is a pop writer he isn't a good scientist and hes an even worse philosopher.
Interesting that you would reference the big bang theory (developed by a priest) and evolution (Gregor Mendel was a monk and responsible for half of the modern synthesis). You are falling into the modern false dichotomy of science vs. religion. Science is the best system that can help us develop an understanding of the natural material world. It is not a life style or philosophy, capital "A" atheists always conflate a philosophy with the totality of science.
"But simplifying that vast realm of the unknown into a simplistic patriarchal 'god' figure-a concept that was conceived of during more primitive times-just doesn't make sense to me. "
Guessing that the whole point David was making (having not listened yet taking a stab at it) was that stating explicitly that there is definitively no God or gods is intrinsically unscientific because science requires the door for further evidence to always be left open. You personally just assumed that the only religious explanation is "Simplistic patriarchal", did you ever even bother looking for evidence that that isn't the basis of religions? Say Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Ba'hai, oh and Judaism and most of Christianity. The big man in the sky thing is a demonstration of a weak understanding of the Abrahamic religions it gets trotted out any time someone wants to slyly use an ad hominem argument to dismiss an entire field of thought.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:37 AM
But then getting on the message boards and aruging about...whatever we're aruging about above...not fun.
But it is nuts.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:15 AM
Since you didn't listen to the episode much of your comment doesn't even make sense. David said that atheists tend to 'have a limited knowledge of science', that why I linked to statistical evidence that at the very least, a solid majority of the people who have the most in depth knowledge of science are atheists.
I never said being an atheist makes you a scientist. The Dawkins 'scientific approach' to atheism-which you are obviously unfamiliar with-just means that you are not a '7', or 'dogmatic' atheist- just as science never fully proves something, it only builds evidence that can always be contradicted by new evidence. Nothing to do with 'being a scientist,' it's about the willingness to change your mind.
Dawkins is an eminent biologist from Oxford, take five minutes to read through his wiki since you don't know his work. But you're referencing the person rather than their argument, which is just poor argumentation.
I know that the BBT and Evolution were developed by deeply religious people (and Newton wrote more about religion than science.) This is not evidence for anything. If you think it is, again that's just poor argumentation since good science depends on the methods and the evidence not, bizarrely, the religious affiliation of the scientist...
As for the rest of your comment, you didn't actually listen to the episode so you didn't hear them specifically talk about believing in 'God' and a 'creator.' that's why I reference a patriarchal figure. Next time listen to the episode before you comment.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:32 AM
Ha! Tig, you need to come back. Look at all this arguing. You're the glue that holds this thing together. Please get better and return soon.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:46 AM
Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:59 PM
I am what some people call a "lower-case-a-atheist", where I simply have an absence of belief in a god or feel there isn't enough evidence.
Then there is what some people cal a "capital-A-Atheist" who believe that there is no god.
Agnosticism, in the strictest terms refers to religion, not god. So you can be an agnostic who believes in god (usually called diest or thiest) and you can have a religion without a god, such as zen budhism, or people who follow religious ceremonies, but don't believe in god.
It's really up to the individual what they call themselves. I wouldn't try to make parameters for christians to determine their christianity.
I am an organizer for an atheist group here in Sacrament, and I consider myself an agnostic and an (lower-case) atheist.
What the former guest said about atheism is accurate, in my opinion.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:13 PM
I enjoyed this episode a lot because it's always great to have someone there with some serious explaining to do. It always gives you guys a lot with which to work, and Christina brought it. I can't imagine how in-depth you guys would've got, had there not been time constraints.
And like everyone else, I send well wishes to Tig. We miss you! Beepboop boop boop
Posted 02 May 2012 - 06:07 AM
It was especially nice of you fellas to be SO friendly to Christina, who (judging from her voice) is some sort of weird looking nerd lady that really struggles in social situations.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:28 AM