Author
|
Topic: Cool Comic Booklets. (Read 82746 times)
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1044
|
There's also a lot of talk about atheists in this thread recently. I believe it was Terry Pratchett who said that there is no believer so firm as the atheist, for he believes in gods so strongly that he feels the need to deny them. He's always good for a laugh, but I don't think he's stupid. Would you mind telling where did you spot that quote? I'm a big fan of Pratchett, but I have never seen it. I also did a few simple google searches and came up with nothing. Not to mention it doesn't sound like something he would say, seeing as: a) It's a great misrepresentation of atheist's position. He's too intelligent make such a misrepresentation unpurposefully. If he did purposefully decide to make a joke about atheists it would be much more accurate and funny. b) As far as I know Pratchett is a non-believer himself, so it seems rather strange he would write something like that.
I think he writes something to this effect in Small Gods, though I believe the actual wording has been twisted around in order to support a point. I seem to recall him going into why being an atheist on Discworld was so difficult (being that anyone who declares that gods don't exist tends to be struck by lightning immediately, with a note attached reading "Yes, we do"). Then again, it's been a long time since I read that one, and I've read a lot of his books, so I could be mixing it up.
Of course, one must also consider that Small Gods spent much more of its time making fun of monotheism (which is another foreign concept for the Discworld), how man twists the word of god around so much that it barely resembles its original form, and how the larger an organized religion gets, the more it's defined by the first word of the term rather than the second. Might be a bad example for backing up an argument in favor of Christianity, no?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
I think he writes something to this effect in Small Gods, though I believe the actual wording has been twisted around in order to support a point. I seem to recall him going into why being an atheist on Discworld was so difficult (being that anyone who declares that gods don't exist tends to be struck by lightning immediately, with a note attached reading "Yes, we do"). Then again, it's been a long time since I read that one, and I've read a lot of his books, so I could be mixing it up.
Ah, yes Small Gods.
There was this atheist character there, that would fit the description. Now I seem to recall something about him hating gods so much that he needs them just as the believers do, or he would have no one to rebel against, or something like that... it was also a long time for me since I last read that book.
Either way , if that's where he got that quote from, he did twist it quite a lot indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I didn't mean it so seriously anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 2847
|
Ah, yes Small Gods.
There was this atheist character there, that would fit the description. Now I seem to recall something about him hating gods so much that he needs them just as the believers do, or he would have no one to rebel against, or something like that... it was also a long time for me since I last read that book.
There's also Feet of Clay, with the atheist golem Dorfl.
''But the gods plainly do exist,' said a priest.
'It Is Not Evident.'
A bolt of lightning lanced through the clouds and hit Dorfl's helmet. There was a sheet of flame and then a trickling noise. Dorfl's molten armour formed puddles around his white-hot feet.
"I Don't Call That Much Of An Argument,' said Dorfl calmly, from somewhere in the clouds of smoke.
[...]
'What you're saying is, you'll accept the existence of any god only if it can be proven by discussion?'
'Yes,' said Dorfl.
[...]
We took him and baked him in the fire and he's turned out to be free, he thought. No words in the head except the ones he's chosen to put there himself. And he's not just an atheist, he's a ceramic atheist. Fireproof!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
Well, the first problem I have with this, is that they try to talk about the probability of a given planet having some specific things that make life on it possible, without actually having a clue what those chances are. 1 in 10? Where in the world did they get that number?
Another thing is they give a number of factors that they claim are necessary for life, without showing why are they needed. Oh, sure if any of these things were different life as we know it[ would be impossible, but it doesn't mean all kinds of life would be impossible.
Thirdly, they claim all these conditions have to be met at once, which is just not true.
When it all began Earth wasn't as "hospitable" as it is now. It changed slowly to the Earth we know now, in no small part thanks to the basic life-forms that lived in very extremye conditions of the past.
So all you really need is only the most basic conditions for life to be met, it will carry on from there.
I might be willing to agree that another Earth is unlikely to be found, but it doesn't mean that life is equally uncommon. Life has shown to be extremely adaptive. Once it shows up, it really doesn't want to go away. So I see no reason why it couldn't adapt to much diffferent conditions then what we have on Earth.
Also, if you want to play with probabilities, have you ever wondered what are the odds of *you* beeing born? Of all the people on the planet, your parents had to get togather, and they would have to do it at the right time, or *you* wouldn't have been born. Miraculous isn't it?
But then, if all the conditions, needed for you to be born, weren't met, what would happen? Well, someone else would be born.
A much different outcome, yet, in most aspects, just as good.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
Hey all, back after a long lurk....
Meep-eep:
following your quote about dorfl i had a re-read of "feets of clay", god i love terry pratchet!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I'd rather not play that right now, for various reasons. Is this by the guy who claims that finding a planet favorable to life has a 1 in 10^100 chance? Because once I went down his list, and it was full of duplicate entries and total irrelevancies. I trashed it at
http://www.dare2share.org/boards/viewtopic.php?t=513&start=158
(the list was put forward some posts earlier)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Well, the first problem I have with this, is that they try to talk about the probability of a given planet having some specific things that make life on it possible, without actually having a clue what those chances are. 1 in 10? Where in the world did they get that number?
I agree actually.. However, don't 1 in 10 odds seem rather generous when you consider the likelyhood that our solar system is at the right spot in our galaxy? Not too close to center of galaxy, not too far out ,and in between galactic arms which keeps us out of nebuleas cloudsand high radiation.,(not to mention, provides a good viewpoint for human exploration of the universe). Isn't it also odd that 95%+ of galactic matter is clumpped into the center and arms of the galaxy and earth is one of the rare final few precentile? Not only that but our sun doesnt have a companion star which most systems have. Most bi or tri star systems would be far too radio active for life as we know it..
All the other factors were given equally as much generosity imo. Solar habital zone, right mass, stabilizing moon, not too close to sun to mass lock like venus etc. etc. How do you quantify the likelyhood? 1 in 10 seems very generous!
Now realize of course I'm relying on scientific theory for most of those conclusions, after all, we've never been beyond our own solar system (voyeger's close).
Another thing is they give a number of factors that they claim are necessary for life, without showing why are they needed.
Well that's where the other 55 minutes of the video come in.  Their argumentation is convincing.
Oh, sure if any of these things were different life as we know it[ would be impossible, but it doesn't mean all kinds of life would be impossible.
That's the whole point, complex life like we find on earth. We can only speculate based on known life. Sure, their may be energy crystal based easter bunnies from the planet Zar, but the point is moot .They are describing the likelyhood of all these conspiring statistics to be in the same place and at same time to make earth what it is, and eventually produce us humans.
Thirdly, they claim all these conditions have to be met at once, which is just not true.
When it all began Earth wasn't as "hospitable" as it is now. It changed slowly to the Earth we know now, in no small part thanks to the basic life-forms that lived in very extremye conditions of the past.
So all you really need is only the most basic conditions for life to be met, it will carry on from there.
I actually agree with this.. partly. They do have to be met at once because that IS what is happening here on earth. All those criteria are being met right here and right now. if you change any variable, we don't have earth as we know it. For example do you realize the global effects of just several degrees in average global temperature would do to us? We see records of cyclic ice ages and warming trends in earth's history and most are caused by a small deviance in average global temperature.
I agree not all these conditions have to be met to sustain simple life such as bacteria and microbes. But what about complex life forms like humans? Now the conditions are much more picky.
I might be willing to agree that another Earth is unlikely to be found, but it doesn't mean that life is equally uncommon. Life has shown to be extremely adaptive. Once it shows up, it really doesn't want to go away. So I see no reason why it couldn't adapt to much diffferent conditions then what we have on Earth.
I agree here, good point. However,the DVD deals with human life in particular.
Also, if you want to play with probabilities, have you ever wondered what are the odds of *you* beeing born? Of all the people on the planet, your parents had to get togather, and they would have to do it at the right time, or *you* wouldn't have been born. Miraculous isn't it?
Ahh, nice try, but if the other planets in the solar system had complex life, you might have a point..
But then, if all the conditions, needed for you to be born, weren't met, what would happen? Well, someone else would be born.
A much different outcome, yet, in most aspects, just as good.
The problem with your argument is that all people are pretty much the same. Two eyes, two ears etc. etc. Not a good analogy because Earth is the oddball in our solar system. Why haven't the other planets developed ecosystems and trive with life? Especially different life forms?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2006, 12:58:56 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
