Atheist's Leaky Bucket - Page 2

Akhenaten · 30th July 2010, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Ouch! Puns are fun. I went to my well of creativity but all I had was a leaky bucket.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Maia · 30th July 2010, 12:06 PM

Dear Loki. Motion graphics """"animation""""".

Although it's more than worth watching just to see the part at about 0:41 where Henry is trying to stick a big hank of straw into the bucket. Quite inadvertantly I'm sure, but not really the kind of thing that Christians may want their kid to see, because he'll get ideas. It's a Tom of Finlandkind of thing.

Foster Zygote · 30th July 2010, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Don't get fooled again.

At least one person got it, mg.

Who's that.

Akhenaten · 30th July 2010, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Who's that.

Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday.

Akhenaten · 30th July 2010, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Maia

Dear Loki. Motion graphics """"animation""""".

Although it's more than worth watching just to see the part at about 0:41 where Henry is trying to stick a big hank of straw into the bucket. Quite inadvertantly I'm sure, but not really the kind of thing that Christians may want their kid to see, because he'll get ideas. It's a Tom of Finlandkind of thing.

Warning:

Please ignore this derail. This gratuitous Vengaboys clip is simply a response to the Goddess' Tom of Finland reference and contains no ~~men in stylised sailor suits~~ relevance to the topic at hand.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

hgc · 30th July 2010, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

9. No god needed because of multiverse - where did this come from? No God needed because No God needed. Multiverse is irrelevant. The lack of 'need' for God doesn't disprove him either though. It just makes you an idiot for thinking he is needed.

Dawkins prattled on about multiverses in the least useful section of The God Delusion. Maybe that's where it comes from.

Maia · 30th July 2010, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

Dawkins prattled on about multiverses in the least useful section of The God Delusion. Maybe that's where it comes from.

Well, despite all my problems with Dawkins (most of which weren't even in that book), nothing will ever beat Dinesh D'Souza on that subject for sheer silliness. Chapter Five in Life After Death: The Evidence, "The Physics of Immortality, Multiple Universes and Unseen Realms":

Quote:

Modern physics undermines the premises of materialism. (blah blah blah Einstein blah quantum blah Twilight Zone... no really, that's what he says)

Remarkably, however, it is not only atheists are are distressed; so are modern physicists! The scientists are working hard to come up with an explanation for the Big Bang that avoids having to posit a creator. (blah Stephen Hawking)

Oh no, science may be forced to confront the G-word!
(garbage? gridiron? Goo Goo cluster? G-string? Okay, he didn't write that part.)

(blah Richard Dawkins Anthropic Principle bleh Carl Sagan)

(wait for it)

If our universe were the only one, then the Christian scheme of heaven would seem impossible, or possible only through an appeal to the miraculous. If there are multiple universes, however, it is quite conceivable that one of them operates precisely according to the guidelines of the Christian empyrean. Heaven now becomes a real possibility under the existing diversity of laws that govern multiple universes. Many physicists started down this intellectual path to avoid having to encounter God. In the process, they mapped out plausible scenarios for afterlife realms like heaven and hell.

Last of the Fraggles · 30th July 2010, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

Dawkins prattled on about multiverses in the least useful section of The God Delusion. Maybe that's where it comes from.

I read that book. I'm sure there was something about multiverses in it but it didn't stick in the memory. It certainly wasn't one of the big takeaways.

This whole argument boils down to you can't disprove God when they can't even define God in a meaningful way.

dasmiller · 30th July 2010, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I prefer the Harry Belafonte version; he sang it with feeling

Akhenaten · 30th July 2010, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I prefer the Harry Belafonte version; he sang it with feeling

This one?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Mister Agenda · 30th July 2010, 05:46 PM

I have to say I don't like the multiverse hypothesis. It currently lacks confirming evidence, and I don't see that it's necessary to explain anything. It's presented as a possible explanation for why the physical constants of our universe have the values they do when slightly varying them would result in a universe our kind of life couldn't exist in and the vast majority of possible universes would be of the non-inhabitable type, raising the question of 'out of all the possible universes, the odds of this one being the one that exists is infinitesimal.' However, this is problematic both in terms of coming up with the odds for a one-off event we already know the outcome of, and postulates something that has not been established: that the physical constants are variable, that they could have been other than what they were. Dawkins brought the multiverse thing up at a lecture I attended in response to a question, I thought it was the weakest thing he'd said all night.

dasmiller · 30th July 2010, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

This one?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That's it!

not sure about the video, though. I didn't even know there was a video.

Lord Muck oGentry · 30th July 2010, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

I have to say I don't like the multiverse hypothesis. It currently lacks confirming evidence, and I don't see that it's necessary to explain anything. It's presented as a possible explanation for why the physical constants of our universe have the values they do when slightly varying them would result in a universe our kind of life couldn't exist in and the vast majority of possible universes would be of the non-inhabitable type, raising the question of 'out of all the possible universes, the odds of this one being the one that exists is infinitesimal.' However, this is problematic both in terms of coming up with the odds for a one-off event we already know the outcome of, and postulates something that has not been established: that the physical constants are variable, that they could have been other than what they were. Dawkins brought the multiverse thing up at a lecture I attended in response to a question, I thought it was the weakest thing he'd said all night.

Well, if I've got you right, I'm with you: when we talk about possible universes we are talking not about universes but about possibilities.

hgc · 30th July 2010, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Maia

Well, despite all my problems with Dawkins (most of which weren't even in that book), nothing will ever beat Dinesh D'Souza on that subject for sheer silliness. Chapter Five in Life After Death: The Evidence, "The Physics of Immortality, Multiple Universes and Unseen Realms":

Actually, I do find multiverses interesting. I just didn't find them well placed in that book. I like reading Dawkins for biology, and a little less so for religion/atheism. For cosmology, I'll go elsewhere.

D'Souza has made a career out of boldly displaying breathtaking inanity. The comparison isn't fair.

thatguywhojuggles · 31st July 2010, 04:11 AM

The way I see it on the Multiverse issue is that if I believe in it, and it turns out I'm wrong, it won't matter because according to Christianity, your memory is wiped when you go to heaven, so I wouldn't know what an idiot I was for believing such a silly notion. On the other hand, If I don't believe in it and I'm wrong, then those damn atheists were right, and there won't be any heaven.

catsmate1 · 31st July 2010, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

So is The Curse of Chalion, only its theology is at least internally consistent.

But that's an Intelligently Designed theology

Beerina · 1st August 2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

If our universe were the only one, then the Christian scheme of heaven would seem impossible, or possible only through an appeal to the miraculous. If there are multiple universes, however, it is quite conceivable that one of them operates precisely according to the guidelines of the Christian empyrean. Heaven now becomes a real possibility under the existing diversity of laws that govern multiple universes. Many physicists started down this intellectual path to avoid having to encounter God. In the process, they mapped out plausible scenarios for afterlife realms like heaven and hell.

I prefer the episode of the New Twilight Zone, or maybe it was the New Outer Limits, where some people are trapped in a space ship graveyard inside a black hole. They are hassled by the ghosts of the other crews, who are shocked and demoralized that nothing can escape a black hole, even the power of God's salvation.

30th July 2010, 12:06 PM	#42
Maia Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1,261	Dear Loki. Motion graphics """"animation""""". Although it's more than worth watching just to see the part at about 0:41 where Henry is trying to stick a big hank of straw into the bucket. Quite inadvertantly I'm sure, but not really the kind of thing that Christians may want their kid to see, because he'll get ideas. It's a Tom of Finlandkind of thing.
	__________________ Satan, aka Precious the Cat-- the Comic! Come and read at Stripgenerator!

30th July 2010, 12:17 PM	#43
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	Originally Posted by Akhenaten Don't get fooled again. At least one person got it, mg. Who's that.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

30th July 2010, 12:23 PM	#44
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,646	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Who's that. Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

30th July 2010, 12:49 PM	#46
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,993	Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles 9. No god needed because of multiverse - where did this come from? No God needed because No God needed. Multiverse is irrelevant. The lack of 'need' for God doesn't disprove him either though. It just makes you an idiot for thinking he is needed. Dawkins prattled on about multiverses in the least useful section of The God Delusion. Maybe that's where it comes from.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

30th July 2010, 03:09 PM	#47
Maia Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1,261	Originally Posted by hgc Dawkins prattled on about multiverses in the least useful section of The God Delusion. Maybe that's where it comes from. Well, despite all my problems with Dawkins (most of which weren't even in that book), nothing will ever beat Dinesh D'Souza on that subject for sheer silliness. Chapter Five in Life After Death: The Evidence, "The Physics of Immortality, Multiple Universes and Unseen Realms": Quote: Modern physics undermines the premises of materialism. (blah blah blah Einstein blah quantum blah Twilight Zone... no really, that's what he says) Remarkably, however, it is not only atheists are are distressed; so are modern physicists! The scientists are working hard to come up with an explanation for the Big Bang that avoids having to posit a creator. (blah Stephen Hawking) Oh no, science may be forced to confront the G-word! (garbage? gridiron? Goo Goo cluster? G-string? Okay, he didn't write that part.) (blah Richard Dawkins Anthropic Principle bleh Carl Sagan) (wait for it) If our universe were the only one, then the Christian scheme of heaven would seem impossible, or possible only through an appeal to the miraculous. If there are multiple universes, however, it is quite conceivable that one of them operates precisely according to the guidelines of the Christian empyrean. Heaven now becomes a real possibility under the existing diversity of laws that govern multiple universes. Many physicists started down this intellectual path to avoid having to encounter God. In the process, they mapped out plausible scenarios for afterlife realms like heaven and hell.
	__________________ Satan, aka Precious the Cat-- the Comic! Come and read at Stripgenerator! Last edited by Maia; 30th July 2010 at 03:10 PM.

30th July 2010, 03:19 PM	#48
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,355	Originally Posted by hgc Dawkins prattled on about multiverses in the least useful section of The God Delusion. Maybe that's where it comes from. I read that book. I'm sure there was something about multiverses in it but it didn't stick in the memory. It certainly wasn't one of the big takeaways. This whole argument boils down to you can't disprove God when they can't even define God in a meaningful way.

30th July 2010, 05:46 PM	#51
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,619	I have to say I don't like the multiverse hypothesis. It currently lacks confirming evidence, and I don't see that it's necessary to explain anything. It's presented as a possible explanation for why the physical constants of our universe have the values they do when slightly varying them would result in a universe our kind of life couldn't exist in and the vast majority of possible universes would be of the non-inhabitable type, raising the question of 'out of all the possible universes, the odds of this one being the one that exists is infinitesimal.' However, this is problematic both in terms of coming up with the odds for a one-off event we already know the outcome of, and postulates something that has not been established: that the physical constants are variable, that they could have been other than what they were. Dawkins brought the multiverse thing up at a lecture I attended in response to a question, I thought it was the weakest thing he'd said all night.

30th July 2010, 06:35 PM	#53
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986	Originally Posted by Mister Agenda I have to say I don't like the multiverse hypothesis. It currently lacks confirming evidence, and I don't see that it's necessary to explain anything. It's presented as a possible explanation for why the physical constants of our universe have the values they do when slightly varying them would result in a universe our kind of life couldn't exist in and the vast majority of possible universes would be of the non-inhabitable type, raising the question of 'out of all the possible universes, the odds of this one being the one that exists is infinitesimal.' However, this is problematic both in terms of coming up with the odds for a one-off event we already know the outcome of, and postulates something that has not been established: that the physical constants are variable, that they could have been other than what they were. Dawkins brought the multiverse thing up at a lecture I attended in response to a question, I thought it was the weakest thing he'd said all night. Well, if I've got you right, I'm with you: when we talk about possible universes we are talking not about universes but about possibilities.
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986

30th July 2010, 08:44 PM	#54
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,993	Originally Posted by Maia Well, despite all my problems with Dawkins (most of which weren't even in that book), nothing will ever beat Dinesh D'Souza on that subject for sheer silliness. Chapter Five in Life After Death: The Evidence, "The Physics of Immortality, Multiple Universes and Unseen Realms": Actually, I do find multiverses interesting. I just didn't find them well placed in that book. I like reading Dawkins for biology, and a little less so for religion/atheism. For cosmology, I'll go elsewhere. D'Souza has made a career out of boldly displaying breathtaking inanity. The comparison isn't fair.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

31st July 2010, 04:11 AM	#55
thatguywhojuggles Resident Juggler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 1,338	The way I see it on the Multiverse issue is that if I believe in it, and it turns out I'm wrong, it won't matter because according to Christianity, your memory is wiped when you go to heaven, so I wouldn't know what an idiot I was for believing such a silly notion. On the other hand, If I don't believe in it and I'm wrong, then those damn atheists were right, and there won't be any heaven.
	__________________ \/\/ALTER Juggler-Artist-Atheist My Portfolio/ResumÃ© "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65 A.D.) "A lie goes half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get his pants on." - Winston Churchill.

31st July 2010, 06:47 AM	#56
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,107	Originally Posted by PixyMisa So is The Curse of Chalion, only its theology is at least internally consistent. But that's an Intelligently Designed theology

1st August 2010, 04:12 PM	#57
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Quote: If our universe were the only one, then the Christian scheme of heaven would seem impossible, or possible only through an appeal to the miraculous. If there are multiple universes, however, it is quite conceivable that one of them operates precisely according to the guidelines of the Christian empyrean. Heaven now becomes a real possibility under the existing diversity of laws that govern multiple universes. Many physicists started down this intellectual path to avoid having to encounter God. In the process, they mapped out plausible scenarios for afterlife realms like heaven and hell. I prefer the episode of the New Twilight Zone, or maybe it was the New Outer Limits, where some people are trapped in a space ship graveyard inside a black hole. They are hassled by the ghosts of the other crews, who are shocked and demoralized that nothing can escape a black hole, even the power of God's salvation.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 1st August 2010 at 04:13 PM.