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  
•       •       •

9410 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 08:17:56 AM
Survey says?
 
2012-12-27 08:22:50 AM
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.
 
2012-12-27 08:56:18 AM

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.


Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.
 
2012-12-27 09:40:22 AM

St_Francis_P: Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.


Hmmm.... my understanding was that according to Susskind,  Hawking was proven incorrect. Perhaps I misread (or missed additional publications after) The Black Hole War.
 
2012-12-27 09:52:19 AM
Richard Dawkins showed them the way, but it was his "beautiful wife", Mrs. Garrison, who showed how one must be a dick to people they don't agree with.
 
2012-12-27 09:54:43 AM

Rustico: St_Francis_P: Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.

Hmmm.... my understanding was that according to Susskind,  Hawking was proven incorrect. Perhaps I misread (or missed additional publications after) The Black Hole War.


It's still in question one way or another. Either way, your sarcasm meter is in dire need of calibration.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:38 AM
FTFA: "  Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind. "

Winner, winner, chicken dinner....and a Nobel Prize.

Dawkins is out of control but he was entertaining on Family Feud and Hogan's Heroes.
 
2012-12-27 10:30:06 AM
Dawkins is all:
www.arsenalia.com
Taking the Ferrari unbelievers out for a spin.

Higgs is all:

www.fiftiesweb.com
 
2012-12-27 10:30:56 AM
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."
 
2012-12-27 10:32:39 AM

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.


Scientists can be religious--even very religious. You just have to accept that religions require faith in the supernatural. Those are two very important and distinct factors:

1) Faith
2) Supernatural

Science does not and cannot address supernatural elements and it never properly uses faith in the religious sense. And it doesn't need to. Science-minded people can still believe. You just believe. That's why it's called "faith". It's when you start using dogma as a weapon against science that we have a problem.  Those people are the problem. They are a threat to human advancement, freedom, peace and cooperation.
 
2012-12-27 10:39:21 AM
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.
 
2012-12-27 11:06:44 AM

Lumpmoose: Science does not and cannot address supernatural elements and it never properly uses faith in the religious sense. And it doesn't need to. Science-minded people can still believe. You just believe. That's why it's called "faith". It's when you start using dogma as a weapon against science that we have a problem.  Those people are the problem. They are a threat to human advancement, freedom, peace and cooperation.


Science and religion are answering two very different questions and there haven't been any scientific discoveries that would destroy the central message of the Abrahamic religions, for example. Now if you decided that the scriptures are the actual word of God and His timescales are the same as ours, yes you've got a problem. However, the Fundies don't like science in any form and haven't for a thousand years now, so I'm going with those people are whackaloons no matter how you look at them.

//The model of the Ark in the Creation Museum is wonderful in how it allows for air circulation and removal of waste fumes without any build up of toxic or flammable gasses and without things like ventilation and powered air circulation.  Pretty farking cool huh?
 
2012-12-27 11:30:51 AM

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.


No surprise, that is what overzealous leaders of religious cults tend to do.
 
2012-12-27 11:46:14 AM

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.
 
2012-12-27 11:47:17 AM
Well, of course he's full of boson.  That's why he's affected by the same field that...Don't blame me, I worship the sun and pray to Joe Pesci.
 
2012-12-27 11:52:19 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


Why should we worry about hurting the image of Atheism? When does theistic asshattery ever cause them to take pause?
 
2012-12-27 12:02:58 PM

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.


He's not a dick about it. Go find me examples of him being a dick.
 
2012-12-27 12:28:37 PM
I guess I don't understand why outrageous claims with no supporting evidence are acceptable targets for ridicule (be it healing crystals, or psychics, or ancient aliens, or whatever), yet somehow the silliness of theism is supposed to be treated with kid gloves.
 
2012-12-27 01:23:12 PM

Slaxl: 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.

He's not a dick about it. Go find me examples of him being a dick.


I did a Google search for "Dawkins ridicule them" and got tons of hits.  Here is just one.
http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridi cu le-them-in-public/

At the "Rally for Reason" he urged people to "mock and ridicule Catholics, in public."

Now personally, I think the Catholic Church is terrible, and religion is a harmful thing.  Fundamentalists of every stripe shout and scream at non-believers and are in my opinion, dicks.

How is Dawkins urging like-minded people to do basically the same thing NOT dickish?
 
2012-12-27 02:07:22 PM
Dawkins responds to a similar allegation made by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o

Worth watching (it's 2 minutes).
 
2012-12-27 02:11:29 PM

St_Francis_P: Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.


Sometimes I think the physicist are making inside jokes. I came across one pointing out that the mass of a black hole is directly proportional to the size of the event horizon and a black hole with the mass of the universe would be the size of the universe.

Compared to that, Dawkins calling someone silly is irrelevant.
 
2012-12-27 02:11:54 PM

Rustico: Hmmm.... my understanding was that according to Susskind, Hawking was proven incorrect.


Hawking was wrong about what happens to information in a black hole, he said its destroyed, Susskind said it wasn't. This is different from the issue of black hole radiation.
 
2012-12-27 02:12:28 PM

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


No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).
 
2012-12-27 02:12:50 PM
The world is filled with assholes who think "I'm right, and that excuses any bad behavior on my part".
 
2012-12-27 02:16:27 PM
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.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.
 
2012-12-27 02:18:25 PM
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2012-12-27 02:18:48 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.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.


Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.
 
2012-12-27 02:19:55 PM

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.
 
2012-12-27 02:20:40 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


....and?
 
2012-12-27 02:21:25 PM
Not being a 'loud athiest', I am often curious what the ideal citizen is to a Loud Athiest. I think they secretly believe that all humans should really be Vulcans. Loud Athiests do not seem to have a framework to accept or deal with the fact the humans are NOT inherently 'rational' beings and never will be due to our emotional wet-ware.

Religion -- while perhaps being 'wrong' factually -- makes its daily bread by providing coping mechanism for an irrational world.

I don't have an answer, just fascinated by how it all plays out in future.
 
2012-12-27 02:21:47 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: 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.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.


Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.
 
2012-12-27 02:24:21 PM

radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: 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.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.


What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread.  I honestly want to know.
 
2012-12-27 02:26:57 PM
fc09.deviantart.net
 
2012-12-27 02:27:13 PM
I've always viewed Richard Dawkins as kind of a dick. He resorts pedantic, childish tactics in attacking religion; tempering the beliefs of those very people he is trying to rationalize with.

I'd like to see more people able who intellectually hold their own tear him down. It would be good for him to have his ass handed to him every once in awhile.
 
2012-12-27 02:27:37 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Slaxl: 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.

He's not a dick about it. Go find me examples of him being a dick.

I did a Google search for "Dawkins ridicule them" and got tons of hits.  Here is just one.
http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridi cu le-them-in-public/

At the "Rally for Reason" he urged people to "mock and ridicule Catholics, in public."

Now personally, I think the Catholic Church is terrible, and religion is a harmful thing.  Fundamentalists of every stripe shout and scream at non-believers and are in my opinion, dicks.

How is Dawkins urging like-minded people to do basically the same thing NOT dickish?


Protestants mock Catholics quite a lot.

//recently went to a unassuming protestant church where the congregation had a loud guffaw over a story of John Knox :

"The prisoner was told to give it a kiss of veneration (picture of the Virgin Mary). He refused and when the picture was pushed up to his face, the prisoner seized the picture and threw it into the sea, saying, "Let our Lady now save herself: she is light enough: let her learn to swim."

A good time was had by all with that one. "Silly religious people" I thought.
 
2012-12-27 02:29:30 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


Do you know why they call it Atheism?

Because when you see it you turn 360 degrees and walk the other way.
 
2012-12-27 02:29:43 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.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.


Not true; eventually science will figure out whether Hawking radiation is a real thing.
 
2012-12-27 02:31:58 PM

What_do_you_want_now: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

....and?


And that's terrible!
 
2012-12-27 02:32:07 PM

ObscureNameHere: Not being a 'loud athiest', I am often curious what the ideal citizen is to a Loud Athiest. I think they secretly believe that all humans should really be Vulcans. Loud Athiests do not seem to have a framework to accept or deal with the fact the humans are NOT inherently 'rational' beings and never will be due to our emotional wet-ware.

Religion -- while perhaps being 'wrong' factually -- makes its daily bread by providing coping mechanism for an irrational world.

I don't have an answer, just fascinated by how it all plays out in future.


I find that most loud athiests are not so much atheists as they are asshole ex-somet-sect-or-other. They're like asshole ex-smokers or asshole ex-drinkers or asshole ex-meat eating vegetarians. As for me, I don't need you to be wrong in order for me to be right in my atheism.
 
2012-12-27 02:32:41 PM

vactech: Protestants mock Catholics quite a lot.


Eh, I think Higgs makes a bad choice of words when he says Dawkins is a fundamentalist of another kind.

...but that's only because "douchebag" isn't a very gentile word to use in an interview, I think.
 
2012-12-27 02:33:45 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: 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.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.

What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread.  I honestly want to know.


You're arguing over who is the bigger asshole.
 
2012-12-27 02:34:13 PM

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.


And we're done...at least before the obligate godbots start raving.

I will admit that I can see where even atheistic scientists find Dawkins an irritating prick. Their contemporaries found Martin Luther and Jesus Christ equally a pain in the ass, I'm sure. But when your mandate is paradigm-shifting, you tend to use a crowbar more than a dental pick when attempting to create leverage.
 
2012-12-27 02:36:43 PM

Valiente: But when your mandate is paradigm-shiftingattention-whoring, you tend to use a crowbar more than a dental pick when attempting to create leverage.


There we go.
 
2012-12-27 02:36:46 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.



Most religions aren't based on vague ideas of a silent magical being that hides out of reach and can't be proven or disproven. The Bible, for example, makes all sorts of claims about what God does or has done. Science does tell us about whether the universe was created in seven days and whether people can live for nine centuries. Sure, the goalposts are constantly on the move and everything that was once literally true can suddenly be a metaphor when it is no longer defensible. But I don't think there is any reasonable doubt at this point that the gods of the Bible or the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon don't exist. None of those books limit themselves to discussion of events "outside the boundaries of time and space".
 
2012-12-27 02:38:50 PM

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

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).


He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.
 
2012-12-27 02:39:52 PM
Dawkins gets the hate because he stands his ground and doesn't apologize for it.
His biggest haters are those with the biggest butthurt.

/boohoo, skydaddy doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-27 02:40:14 PM

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

Soooo then, they are in agreement?


They agree on both the what and lack of whos, but not the hows.
 
2012-12-27 02:40:43 PM

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.



"[Peter Higgs] agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief"
 
2012-12-27 02:42:29 PM

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.


Atheism can't be hurt. Unlike religion, it doesn't require believers.

It's in essence a logical position built on observation and evidence. If there were no atheists, God still wouldn't exist.

So Dawkins is less an asshole than an emetic: He's acting to purge out the poison of hard-core belief systems, which are rallying worldwide at the moment because science can't fix human nature.

So I guess you could call him a puke.

Also, I never get the sense that "light believers" are his target, nor does he despise all the top-rank art and music inspired by religious impulses (or religious commissions, glory be!).

It's just the dangerous farktards who not only believe, but insist it would really be easier for everyone if you believed, too, and lived by principles held by stoned shepherds 3,000 years ago.

That way lies madness, or at least a big uptick in camels and tents.
 
2012-12-27 02:43:14 PM
Well, we all have opinions.
 
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