Internet thread: Share the fun!

Status
Not open for further replies.
cosimo said:
I like AC, I bought it on Steam Early Access, so this is not bashing or anything.
rF2 is just better, but this is very funny, even if you don't remember the pinball game.

Click to expand...


This reflects exactly what i think of AC. Great physics, great damage system, great servers, great MP. And yes, its bashing... :cool:
One beer to movie maker.
 
DrR1pper said:
Buddhatree, i hope i'm not putting words in his mouth but it's my understanding that Dawkins intolerance only extends to religious pernicious beliefs. He has said numerously, that people can choose to believe whatever they like (despite the fact he may think they are incorrect beliefs) so long as they do not negatively affect the rights of others or cause harm. He takes issue with specific religions because of their specific pernicious beliefs either preached by the religious holy books outright and/or derived from its members interpretations of it's holy books. He doesn't despise all religious people, he despises specific religions based on some of their specific teachings. His animosity therefore applies to the specific religious people who hold and act on their specific pernicious beliefs and not because they hold any type of religious beliefs. He thinks it unwise to hold beliefs on faith but doesn't necessarily hold that against someone, completely depends on what that specific belief in faith is.

Then there's the side of Dawkins who actively challenges religions on the basis of their claims.

Might i add, atheism is not the negative claim that a concious god/gods of the universe does not or could not possibly exist, just the rejection of the positive claim that a/some god/gods exist based on insufficient evidence to justify the claim/belief that god/gods exist. However when people like dawkins argue against the existence of "man made" (for lack of a better word) religious claim of god/gods, he basis that on logical, reasoned and contradictory evidence that their claim has insufficient justification to believe to be true. There is evidence for the contrary and therefore deems there to be sufficiently good justification to hold the polar opposite/negative claim that their god/gods do not or likely do not exist.

No doubt Dawkins seems fanatical, however he has never said he is unwilling to see contradictory evidence to his rejection of the claim that some god exists. However unlikely he views that possibility, that door is never shut. I think he's very passionate about his beliefs but i think how passionate, fanatical or not someone is is an irrelevancy to the underlying truth of what someone says and believes.

I also think when Einstein said what he said, his interpretation of atheism was of those that fervently believe/claim that there is no possibility of a concious god/creator of the universe (the absolute negative claim).



Best video explanation on the topic ever.
Click to expand...

Wonderful explanation of what Dawkins is about. Really spot on. :)
 
:)

I love Matt Dillahunty's analogy for why atheism is not a belief.

Imagine a glass jar with lots and lots of gum-balls inside it. If someone asked you to state whether you believed the number of gum-balls in the glass jar is even or odd, your default position should be the neutral position with the response "i don't know" because there is insufficient information to conclude either way. Now if some stranger comes along and claims to know that "the number of gum-balls is even", you can either accept and believe it's even or reject the belief that it's even. However since you're still in the neutral position and no closer to having sufficient evidence to justify a belief either way, the only honest thing you can do is to reject the belief/claim that it's even. Now if you reject the claim that "the number of gum-balls is even", does that imply that you've automatically accepted the claim/belief that the number of gum-balls is odd?

Of course not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
cosimo said:
I like AC, I bought it on Steam Early Access, so this is not bashing or anything.
rF2 is just better, but this is very funny, even if you don't remember the pinball game.

Click to expand...

What makes this extra funny is that Stefano posted this in Twitter. I'm guessing the pinball fantasy is coming to its end, and I didnt even get to experience it :(.
 
Comedian Andrew Maxwell takes five British creationists to the west coast of America to try to convince them that evolution rather than creationism explains how we all got here. Stuck on a bus across 2,000 miles of dustbowl roads with these passionate believers, Maxwell tackles some firmly held beliefs - could the Earth be only 6,000 years old, and did humans and T-Rex really live side by side? It's a bumpy ride as he's confronted with some lively debates along the way, but by the end could he possibly win over any of these believers with what he regards as hard scientific fact?


 
John.Persson said:
Comedian Andrew Maxwell takes five British creationists to the west coast of America to try to convince them that evolution rather than creationism explains how we all got here. Stuck on a bus across 2,000 miles of dustbowl roads with these passionate believers, Maxwell tackles some firmly held beliefs - could the Earth be only 6,000 years old, and did humans and T-Rex really live side by side? It's a bumpy ride as he's confronted with some lively debates along the way, but by the end could he possibly win over any of these believers with what he regards as hard scientific fact?


Click to expand...

That's a good one. My favourite is this part.

 
Neat but not a competitor to OC. It's too early in development. OC biggest hurdle is the resolution problem and time will fix that hopefully in the next two years.
 
New episode, haha Mr.E!
 
 
 


and the less lucky/talented/brave

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Gu8RhXzsk



Forgot about this one.
 
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top