If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Peter Higgs thinks Richard Dawkins is full of boson   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 302
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9411 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 2:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



302 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-27 03:42:23 PM
I have no problems accepting everything science has done. I also believe in God. Sue me. I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive. I have no idea what God is or why God is but that doesn't mean it diminishes my faith in science...or God for that matter.
 
2012-12-27 03:46:28 PM

This is a late parrot: Survey says?


I liked him better hosting this game show:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-27 03:46:47 PM
Pick a god, and god.

Religion = Superstition + $$$$$
 
2012-12-27 03:47:52 PM

gaspode: Balls, if it were not for Richard, there would BE almost no modern mass public debate about religion. Before he put out 'The God Delusion' the truth and possible negative social impact of religion had almost become the taboo subject its adherents wish it to be, but now even wet fish like Higgs feel the urge to contribute to the topic. To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.


So you're saying he is a  a founder/popularizer of a system of beliefs and thoughts? sort of a prophet/messiah kinda figure?
 
2012-12-27 03:51:17 PM

Magorn: Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.

Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

Science and religion are not incompatible, if both sides make compromise for each other. That an atheist might play nice and not tell a Muslim that there are no gods does not mean there are gods. There are still no gods. That's as compatible as science and religion get. You leave us alone we'll leave you alone. Truth doesn't change.

Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible.  If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of  what can be experiementally confirmed.  both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not.  Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe.  Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.


Yea, and there's a Tooth Fairy, too.
 
2012-12-27 03:51:35 PM

I drunk what: vactech: I drunk what: that religion is for stupid poopy heads but science will always trump it

Oh noes. I pulled the trump card!

[rlv.zcache.com image 152x152]

Give it a kiss of veneration, IDW.

[www.corporate-aliens.com image 400x300]

i absolve thee


www.gonemovies.com
 
2012-12-27 03:52:53 PM

Inflatable Rhetoric: Pick a god, and god.

Religion = Superstition + $$$$$


Now that's not fair. It's not always about money. Sometimes it's only about the power/control part.
 
2012-12-27 03:53:23 PM
Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?
 
2012-12-27 03:53:23 PM

Magorn: So you're saying he is a  a founder/popularizer of a system of beliefs and thoughts? sort of a prophet/messiah kinda figure?


what are you some kinda crazy fundamentalist??

i bet yer a 'goddelusion' thumper...

i'd love to stay here and badger you some more but i got to go do my evangelical work

cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com

come to our church, we have hot foreigners :D
 
2012-12-27 03:55:15 PM

I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

...
He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him


Is this an occurrence that has ever happened in the history of Farkdom?
 
2012-12-27 03:58:12 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


God evolved.
 
2012-12-27 03:58:44 PM
You wanna watch someone be a dick to the religious, check out Hitchens. No Fark troll I've seen so far is his equal.

Dawkins can be a little "in your face" but I think he comes by it honestly. He has had to deal with religious fundamentalists at every turn. That can make a guy a little jumpy.
 
2012-12-27 03:59:22 PM
Why science and religion can't co-exist:

i560.photobucket.com

Alternately:

i560.photobucket.com

So the whiny little theists think Dawkins is a big meanie? Maybe they should grow some skin, the fragile parsley leaves that they are. Adults who believe in fairy-tales should be ridiculed, particularly when they try to shove their fairy-tales into the classroom.

Talking snakes ... Noah's ark ... People actually believe that shiat?
 
2012-12-27 04:00:48 PM

I drunk what: come to our church, we have hot foreigners :D


From now on we are enemies, You and I. Because You choose for Your instrument a boastful, trollful, smutty, infantile boy and give me for reward only the ability to recognize the incarnation. Because You are unjust, unfair, unkind, I will blockput You on ignore, I swear it. I will hinder and harm Your creature on earth as far as I am able.

//and now I have to go.
 
2012-12-27 04:03:05 PM
Dawkins is a great scientist, but a horrible philosopher. Overall I am not a fan and would tend to agree that he should be described as a fundamentalist. However he does have a point with this: "The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."
 
2012-12-27 04:05:41 PM

ProfessorOhki: Inflatable Rhetoric: Pick a god, and god.

Religion = Superstition + $$$$$

Now that's not fair. It's not always about money. Sometimes it's only about the power/control part.


There's always money involved, and slogans have to be succinct.
 
2012-12-27 04:08:30 PM

ObscureNameHere: Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?


No, none.

And I'm not loud.
 
2012-12-27 04:12:35 PM

enforcerpsu: I have no problems accepting everything science has done. I also believe in God. Sue me. I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive. I have no idea what God is or why God is but that doesn't mean it diminishes my faith in science...or God for that matter.


Being reasonable has no place on Fark!
 
2012-12-27 04:14:17 PM

Madame Psychosis: Is this an occurrence that has ever happened in the history of Farkdom?


every blue moon. with him? i wouldn't hold my breath
 
2012-12-27 04:15:34 PM

ObscureNameHere: Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?


Of course there are. That said, we can still rationally examine and explain why we might act irrationally. For (admittedly, pretty bad) example, playing the lottery. The odds of winning are terrible and we know we're probably not going to win, but we might still do it because it's an enjoyable feeling to be hopeful. We're not going to plunk down that $1 with the expectation of winning though.

I'd like to think that's a decent description of most the Christians in the US. They 'believe' because it makes them feel good, not because they think they're literally going to be flying around with angels after they're dead. But hey, it's fun to hope, right? Irrationality v. rationality, IMHO comes down to being aware of the unlikeliness and intentionally putting it aside in your mind for whatever reason v. being convinced that it's actual fact. A decent person would also have the maturity and responsibility to realize when it was something they used simply because of how it made them feel and not force it on others. You can be rational and believe in stupid things, you'll just be aware of how stupid they are.

Hell, sometimes I think Evangelicals are the most rational - look at the great lengths they go through in order to convince themselves of something they must know inside just doesn't feel true. But hey, maybe if they can get enough other people to think the same thing, it'll become real, right?
 
2012-12-27 04:15:41 PM

Inflatable Rhetoric: ObscureNameHere: Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?

No, none.

And I'm not loud.


Congratulations! You are the first human in existence to break free from the 'burdens' of emotions and not have one iota of silliness or irrationality (i.e. 'fun') at all to occupy your time. The Pon Far begins in 7 years.
 
2012-12-27 04:27:08 PM

Magorn: S

Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible.  If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of  what can be experiementally confirmed.  both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not.  Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe.  Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.


There is no need to proof that God exist, just as there is no need to proof that Santa Claus exists, as for both there is more than sufficient scientific, logical and common sensical evidence that they are human inventions.

You can make a pretty convincing scientific argument based on the lack of any proof for the existence of god, lack of proven miracles in recent times, archeological, historical and philological studies that prove that religious books are made by men and full of historical contradictions and were based upon older religions, studies that prove that prayer doesn't work, scientific studies that explain many things that the old people saw as miracles, psychological studies on mass delusion, recent examples of how lies and scams grow out to be religions (mormonism, scientology) and studies from a sociological and evolutionary psychological points of view that explain the origins and development and human need for religion.

You would have all that versus some thousand year old books full of fairytales, impossible happenings, contradictions, and evil, wrathful and completely illogical gods. Based on what science has found out, it is quite obvious all the world's religions are made up by man. In addition, the whole idea of a God, goes beyond common sense. Why would there need to be a God anyway? Where would God himself come from? Who created God? God is not an answer, it is just another question in an infinite string of questions. There is simply no real argument for the existence of God, let alone the biblical God. None whatsoever.

Therefore there is no need for the enlightened to prove the existence of God as the likelihood of him existing , given our current knowledge and common sense, is extremely negligible.

Any intelligent, educated person that has access to the internet or a good library and still choses to believe, against all factual evidence and common sense, in fairytales and invisible skywizards, deserves all the ridicule he or she gets. .
 
2012-12-27 04:28:44 PM

Uncle Tractor: Why science and religion can't co-exist:


neat, so then Science doesn't use Faith? do tell

ProfessorOhki: Hell, sometimes I think Evangelicals are the most rational - look at the great lengths they go through in order to convince themselves of something they must know inside just doesn't feel true. But hey, maybe if they can get enough other people to think the same thing, it'll become real, right?


cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com

oops, unintended lulz 5 yard penalty
 
2012-12-27 04:29:31 PM

raerae1980: FTA: "Higgs argued that although he was not a believer...."

Soooo then, they are in agreement?
I like this quote from Hawkins, "No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."


I really doubt that's true, however.  If the kind of Rapture evangelical Christians believe in were to actually happen, the next day people like Hawkins would be trying DESPERATELY to explain it away rather than say, "Oh, guess we were wrong.  Whoops."
 
2012-12-27 04:37:45 PM

radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.


Depends which sense of the word "prove" you're using.

Magorn: If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of what can be experiementally confirmed.


Science also includes testing by parsimony, as well as by experimental reproducibility (in part since the latter relies on the former). The sense of "proof" in science is marginally broader than you seem to think.

Anyway, I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not. - Richard Feynman


enforcerpsu: I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive.


Somewhat like cats and mice being mutually exclusive. They don't have to be, and certainly aren't absolutely exclusive; but they do tend to be, with more of one correlating to less of the other.

ObscureNameHere: Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?


Depends whether you consider there to exist any is-ought bridge that is "rational". Otherwise, deciding that I ought to get out of bed in the morning is clearly irrational.
 
2012-12-27 04:43:35 PM
lol Fark fat zstupid men, if you have a reasonable arguement, feel free to aproach me personally, otherwise, I'm glad the guy is dead
 
2012-12-27 04:44:35 PM

Magorn: Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible. If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of what can be experiementally confirmed. both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not. Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe. Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.


You do realize that science and religion are incompatible for exactly the reasons you go on to list, right? It's the fact you can't, through experimentation, support a claim of existence or non-existence that MAKES religion incompatible with science. Your first sentence makes no sense, given that you're already obviously aware of this.

Now, I'll agree that you can't apply science to religion as it's almost always, by definition, untestable. However, that means kindly get your mysticism out of everything that CAN have evidence gathered in support or against. I'll admit that we can't set up an experiment to see if God's real or not. Now, if they would just kindly admit that evoking God doesn't let them ignore centuries of research in hundreds of disciplines, that'd be great. The thing that the faithful just don't seem to be able to respect is the breadth of science's ability is always growing while religions is always, "whatever is left." If the future mimic's history, the final point of contention between the two will be humanity understanding nearly everything about our universe, with religion left going, "well, there's still a guy on the outside who did it."

You know what pisses atheists off more than anything? When someone gets out of a 5 hour surgery, after a full complement of doctors, techs, nurses worked their asses off, utilizing techniques honed by trial and error and equipped with tools that have been innovated again and again to keep up with discovery, and goes "thank you God for making me well." It's one thing to see a God in the unexplained, mysterious aspects of the universe; I can understand why you'd want to. It's entirely different when you let it blind you to the realities of the world.
 
2012-12-27 04:47:07 PM

abb3w: Depends whether you consider there to exist any is-ought bridge that is "rational".


4.bp.blogspot.com

i thought you'd never ask
 
2012-12-27 04:47:34 PM
Atheism is a Religion.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.
 
2012-12-27 04:49:29 PM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Why science and religion can't co-exist:

neat, so then Science doesn't use Faith? do tell

ProfessorOhki: Hell, sometimes I think Evangelicals are the most rational - look at the great lengths they go through in order to convince themselves of something they must know inside just doesn't feel true. But hey, maybe if they can get enough other people to think the same thing, it'll become real, right?

[cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com image 500x283]

oops, unintended lulz 5 yard penalty


Hey, I never said I liked Dawkins; the guy is sort of an asshole. Once you brand yourself that concretely one way or another and make a business out of it, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up proselytizing your cause. Once you're that deep in, you probably do need to keep convincing yourself you've been doing the right thing.
 
2012-12-27 04:50:49 PM

abb3w: Somewhat like cats and mice dogs being mutually exclusive.


nice try you sneaky little atheist

if we did ever get along it would be mass hysteria
 
2012-12-27 04:56:09 PM

ProfessorOhki: Once you brand yourself that concretely one way or another and make a business out of it, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up proselytizing your cause.


so then agnostics are the irrational ones?
 
2012-12-27 05:00:11 PM
Maybe there is a god, we can't be certain.

If it's the bible god, I don't like him/her/it.

He/she/it is an asshole.

And allah is no better.
 
2012-12-27 05:07:14 PM

Inflatable Rhetoric: If it's the bible god, I don't like him/her/it.


what problem do you have with Him?

lemme guess, the OT (Man's) interpretation of Him? did you keep reading??

didn't notice a major difference between the NT and the OT??? minor details, such as having direct access to His Word as opposed to 3rd party biased interpretations of Him?

and you claim to know the Bible? i'm unconvinced..
 
2012-12-27 05:13:15 PM

I drunk what: ProfessorOhki: Once you brand yourself that concretely one way or another and make a business out of it, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up proselytizing your cause.

so then agnostics are the irrational ones?


Huh? I'm just saying that if you're in the public eye, you tend stick to your guns, even if you ever doubt yourself (especially when you're doing speaking events). That's what Higgs was talking about. He's got the impression that Dawkins's cause has become self propelled and even in the face of contradicting evidence, would refuse to reexamine his stance. The ones willing to reconsider in the face of evidence ARE the rational ones. You've got to be able to ask yourself if you're pushing a cause or the cause is pushing you.
 
2012-12-27 05:17:43 PM
Well at least we know why the Israelite s spent 40 years in the desert, must have been hard to build a giant particle accelerator with bronze age tech. to etch those tablets
 
2012-12-27 05:18:48 PM
Dawkins is certainly capable of being a dick.  A while back some controversy erupted in the skeptical community over one woman's comments about some behavior she thought was inappropriate at a skeptical conference, which she said was kind of creepy and said "hey guys, don't do that," which set off a firestorm of anger. It was rehashed endlessly, and at one point in yet another comment thread Dawkins popped in randomly with an extraordinarily dickish screed.  Rather than me trying to quote the whole thing, here's a rehash.

I'm not at all trying to get into who is wrong and right in this situation.  Just that the sarcastic, snotty little rant he posted was his entirely unsolicited reaction to a woman whose entire crime was to say "that was kind of creepy, guys, please don't do that."  So yeah... Dawkins can be an absolute prick when he puts his mind to it, and that right there is the evidence.
 
2012-12-27 05:21:21 PM

I drunk what: Inflatable Rhetoric: If it's the bible god, I don't like him/her/it.

what problem do you have with Him?

lemme guess, the OT (Man's) interpretation of Him? did you keep reading??

didn't notice a major difference between the NT and the OT??? minor details, such as having direct access to His Word as opposed to 3rd party biased interpretations of Him?

and you claim to know the Bible? i'm unconvinced..


He created malaria and mosquitoes to spread it. Is that sufficient?
 
2012-12-27 05:21:52 PM
Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.
 
2012-12-27 05:22:38 PM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Why science and religion can't co-exist:

neat, so then Science doesn't use Faith? do tell


Faith in talking snakes and faith in the work of your predecessors are two different things. Maybe you were thinking of something else?
 
2012-12-27 05:23:08 PM

douchebag/hater: Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.


Stick with LandoverBaptist.org. Much better church.
 
2012-12-27 05:23:34 PM

douchebag/hater: Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-27 05:24:40 PM

revrendjim: AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

Yes, but the dickishness of one's demeanor has no bearing on the truthfulness of the argument.


And what, EXACTLY, is the truthfulness of the argument?

He can no more prove there is no God than religious people can prove there is, it's that simple.

As I just posted 'Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church'.
 
2012-12-27 05:26:09 PM

douchebag/hater: He can no more prove there is no God than religious people can prove there is, it's that simple.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-27 05:26:17 PM

Inflatable Rhetoric: He created malaria and mosquitoes to spread it.


[citation needed]

Inflatable Rhetoric: Is that sufficient?


nope

Uncle Tractor: Maybe you were thinking of something else?


Faith is: The evidence of things unseen.

I was thinking that words have meaning. and you were about to tell us how Science never engages in such nonsense? do tell

douchebag/hater: Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.


fair enough, how about we scrap both?
 
2012-12-27 05:32:52 PM

Uncle Tractor: Faith in talking snakes and faith in the work of your predecessors are two different things.


tattooedphilosopher.files.wordpress.com

of course they are two different things, it's ok when you use the word, it's bad when we do it, i get it

so what happens when the work of your predecessors records the account of talking snakes?

wat do?
 
2012-12-27 05:33:53 PM
Citation?

If god didn't create malaria & mosquitoes, who did? Doesn't god claim to be the creator of all living things? Or is he lying about that?
 
2012-12-27 05:37:24 PM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Maybe you were thinking of something else?

Faith is: The evidence of things unseen.

I was thinking that words have meaning. and you were about to tell us how Science never engages in such nonsense? do tell


Words do have meaning, but I'm not sure what you think that particular word means.

As for things unseen; take the electron. We can't see it. We can't even be 100% certain that it exists. However, the electron theory does a really good job in explaining a whole bunch of phenomena. It does such a good job that it made it possible to build the computer you're using to post on fark. Maybe some day, the electron will be disproven, and an entirely new theory will take it's place. For now, the theory is good enough that one can act as if it was true.

That's non-religious faith. Another example would be the faith that you can buy milk and eggs at the local grocery store. You haven't seen the milk and eggs yet, but you have faith that they're there (and sometimes they're not).

Then there's religious faith: The one with the talking snake and the magical boat with two of every animal that somehow neither ate each other nor died of inbreeding later on (plus a boatload of other silly nonsense).
Was that what you had in mind?
 
2012-12-27 05:40:30 PM

ciberido: raerae1980: FTA: "Higgs argued that although he was not a believer...."

Soooo then, they are in agreement?
I like this quote from Hawkins, "No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."

I really doubt that's true, however.  If the kind of Rapture evangelical Christians believe in were to actually happen, the next day people like Hawkins would be trying DESPERATELY to explain it away rather than say, "Oh, guess we were wrong.  Whoops."


Really? You really think that?

If some sort of apocalypse does happen, I doubt "whoops" would be the first thing said by an atheist. "Finally: evidence!", maybe.

You are not grasping that most atheists aren't out to change your mind. They are out to stop you constantly trying to change theirs. I'd love to meet Yahweh, if only to ask why he's such a nasty coont.
 
2012-12-27 05:43:09 PM

I drunk what: of course they are two different things, it's ok when you use the word, it's bad when we do it, i get it


You obviously do not get it.

so what happens when the work of your predecessors records the account of talking snakes?
wat do?


Then you evaluate the evidence for talking snakes. If you find no evidence for such a thing, you might decide that said predecessor was wrong, possibly on shrooms, and then you discard the "talking snake" theory.

See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. Religion, OTOH, is supposed to be the eternal truth. Fixing what's wrong in a given religion will wreck it, while failing to do so will make it increasingly irrelevant and backward.
 
Displayed 50 of 302 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report