|Jeff Fries - 2009-08-30 |
|Freeman Gordon - 2009-08-30 |
|charmlessman - 2009-08-30 |
So... wait, is this... PRO-atheist? Or con?
Wow, that's how I spell? I TURN FACE AWAY.
Sounds like good context, but i think the method is not that funny. Also, they should make fun of the amazing-douche-ist. Easy, but much needed target.
|Riskbreaker - 2009-08-30 |
Too stupid to be funny.
|Toenails - 2009-08-30 |
Wow, he's got my number.
Brief History of Time is my Bible, yet I still can't rationalize why the Big Bang makes more sense than Genesis (because Hawking says that the laws of physics break down at the point of the singularity, anything could have happened).
Also, what sort of elitist fag uses bookmarks? Either dog ear your page or break the spine, Jesus it's not rocket science.
Just to clarify.
I'm not saying the Big Bang is as stupid a theory as Genesis (Background space radiation does point to a singularity), I'm simply saying I'm not smart enough to fully understand it, therefor I cannot rationalize it very well.
The Big Bang theory is the best fit we can come up with for the observable evidence. Genesis is a series of legends created by unknown authors which are contradicted by science, archeology, written history and every other pertinent field.
Yes, I could not explain all the evidence against Genesis as if I were an expert. No one could. There's too much of it. So what?
I won't pretend to be an expert on cosmology or astrophysics, but my standard of belief in the Big Bang Theory is two-fold.
First, due to the observable red shift we see in galaxies, and the fact that's it's pretty evident that large objects in space are generally moving away from each other, you can logically conclude that they used to be closer to each other. Go back far enough in time and they would've been so close as to be a single point in space.
Second, we don't live in a static, eternal universe. I say eternal in the sense that it hasn't always been, for all we know it could always be, but it has a definite beginning. If it was, with our understanding of physics, the universe would've uniformly spread it's heat out over time due to entropy, resulting in a universe filled with an even layer of radiation, and no nebulae, plants, stars, or galaxies.
well, also plants
|CornOnTheCabre - 2009-08-30 |
oh yeah? well at least I don't wear glasses, fag
|poorwill - 2009-08-30 |
I didn't even get my arts degree, so fuck you.
|dr_mr_vandertramps - 2009-08-30 |
i can dig what he's driving at, but i think he's defining atheist in the "THERE IS DEFINITELY NO GOD" sense and not in the "There could be a god, but the odds against that are astronomical" sense.
|Document - 2009-08-30 |
The incredible thing about John Safran is that, even though his intentions to troll were mentioned twice already in these comments, even though he's a self-proclaimed troll, even if this clip is taken from a show called JOHN SAFRAN VS. GOD (for fucks sake), people are still angrily one starring him.
This is the kinda stuff Cena Mark has wet dreams about.
One-star votes on poeTV are exactly what he wants?
Who, Cena or Safran?
Because I don't think Safran knows about us, Hooker.
OH GOD SHUT UP YOU BABY
Yes, Document. That was my point.
I never understand why people think that things that aren't funny or clever deserve praise, simply if they are DELIBERATELY not funny and clever. That's not better.
|jreid - 2009-08-30 |
I've seen this whole series, and while this clip taken out of context makes him look like more of a whiny twat than he is, he actually makes a lot of great points including this one.
Made me eat my humble pie, being an atheist yet still having to base whatever I believe on faith.
Not to engage in the fag dancery or anything, but you don't have to be a physicist to not believe in a magical man in the clouds who made everything with special powers. This point of his is predicated on the idea that you have to believe in _something_, which is itself predicated on the infuriating social notion that "I don't know" is an embarassing and shameful position to hold.
What Hooker said. He tried to pick on an easy target, and misfired badly. Even non-creationists fall into their bad arguments sometimes, including "If you can't fully explain a phenomenon, you must respect any alternate theory, even those that are illogical, unsupported, or contradict known evidence." You can rule out wrong answers, without knowing the right one.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|