-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Something From Nothing - a conversation w/ Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss
- Thread starter stonehart
- Start date
Free episodes:
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
I wouldn't say took off - just Tyder and I clarifying out individual points of view. It was a great video. I watched half of it on my lunch hour. They both have a great sense of humour.
I think I've already ran my mouth enough.
V
Voyager
Guest
Something From Nothing:Glad you both enjoyed it. My view of things aligns very close to that of the video so enough said I guess
I watched it yesterday while doing some amp repair work as it can get a bit repetitive.. so it keeps the mind working
Getting back to Dawkins - I can see the logic in evolutionary theory no problem, I can also see an argument for a god creating the circumstances in which 'design' happens by evolution, thereby having said god's hand in creation.
I have nothing really to add to such a debate but I would love to ask Dawkins if there are any parts to evolution that don't make sense, that he is still looking for proof of. If he is a true scientist he will openly admit if there are holes in the theory.
I think 'The Selfish Gene' should be required reading at school - only for the reason that it can give you a fantastic insight into what could really be driving humans to do the things we do.
I was talking to a friend who is not very versed in science and I was trying to explain, solely from a genetic point of view how a stupid, ugly rapist could drastically improve his genes for the next generation by raping beautiful, intelligent and healthy women.
Yes it sounds a horrible thing but purely by 'selfish gene' terms, it makes absolute sense. This ugly reprobate is unlikely to attract any females, let alone any who will be considered 'trading up' genetically. By committing a heinous act, he may actually have passed on his genes and fathered a more healthy and nicer child than he was himself.
Anyway, my mate thought any such thinking was just sick and that no-one else in the world would think that way. So I tried to illustrate how powerful genes are in controlling and modifying our behaviour, even going against our 'better judegment'.
I started to ask him about all the women he had slept with and then I asked him how many of them he thought could 'be the one' who he might intend starting a family with.
'None of them' was his answer. I pressed further, trying to goad him into admitting that some of them must have been good wife material etc.
He assured me that no, none of them had struck him as the one he wanted to have children with etc.
Next I asked him how many times had he slept with these women without contraception, risking preganancy - 'hundreds of times' was his answer.
So I then put it to him that despite his denials that any of them were worthy, why did he risk tying himself to them ALL and possibly years of childsupport costs etc if he had no intention of having a child by them? Especially when he could not claim ignorance of the birds and bees.
I had truly stumped my mate - he had no good explanation as to why he might risk all that an unwanted pregancy can bring for what was often just a few minutes of average so-so sex?
I put it to any man who can say the same as my friend that the reason 'it feels so good' and the reason he is 'so horny' etc is precisely that genetics DEMANDS that having sex is so good you risk things all out of proportion for what is in actual fact quite a short time of pleasure. (who said masturbation was bad?)
My friend actually admitted that this was a whole new way of thinking for him. It was for me when I first read about genes probably being the real controlling factor in our lives.
If any of this does not make any sense at all, then read the book and think about exactly what you may or may not have done in your life that could be viewed as your genes trying to make sure you do your bit and ensure the genetic baton is passed onto one more generation.
If you think about it, every single male before you in your family line, every single last one without exception, regardless of how poor or ugly they were - they all managed to father a child that went on to father a child. Are you going to be the first one in a huge line NOT TO MANAGE IT?
(I genuinely find this a real headf*ck, esp as so far, I am not yet a dad!)
I have nothing really to add to such a debate but I would love to ask Dawkins if there are any parts to evolution that don't make sense, that he is still looking for proof of. If he is a true scientist he will openly admit if there are holes in the theory.
I think 'The Selfish Gene' should be required reading at school - only for the reason that it can give you a fantastic insight into what could really be driving humans to do the things we do.
I was talking to a friend who is not very versed in science and I was trying to explain, solely from a genetic point of view how a stupid, ugly rapist could drastically improve his genes for the next generation by raping beautiful, intelligent and healthy women.
Yes it sounds a horrible thing but purely by 'selfish gene' terms, it makes absolute sense. This ugly reprobate is unlikely to attract any females, let alone any who will be considered 'trading up' genetically. By committing a heinous act, he may actually have passed on his genes and fathered a more healthy and nicer child than he was himself.
Anyway, my mate thought any such thinking was just sick and that no-one else in the world would think that way. So I tried to illustrate how powerful genes are in controlling and modifying our behaviour, even going against our 'better judegment'.
I started to ask him about all the women he had slept with and then I asked him how many of them he thought could 'be the one' who he might intend starting a family with.
'None of them' was his answer. I pressed further, trying to goad him into admitting that some of them must have been good wife material etc.
He assured me that no, none of them had struck him as the one he wanted to have children with etc.
Next I asked him how many times had he slept with these women without contraception, risking preganancy - 'hundreds of times' was his answer.
So I then put it to him that despite his denials that any of them were worthy, why did he risk tying himself to them ALL and possibly years of childsupport costs etc if he had no intention of having a child by them? Especially when he could not claim ignorance of the birds and bees.
I had truly stumped my mate - he had no good explanation as to why he might risk all that an unwanted pregancy can bring for what was often just a few minutes of average so-so sex?
I put it to any man who can say the same as my friend that the reason 'it feels so good' and the reason he is 'so horny' etc is precisely that genetics DEMANDS that having sex is so good you risk things all out of proportion for what is in actual fact quite a short time of pleasure. (who said masturbation was bad?)
My friend actually admitted that this was a whole new way of thinking for him. It was for me when I first read about genes probably being the real controlling factor in our lives.
If any of this does not make any sense at all, then read the book and think about exactly what you may or may not have done in your life that could be viewed as your genes trying to make sure you do your bit and ensure the genetic baton is passed onto one more generation.
If you think about it, every single male before you in your family line, every single last one without exception, regardless of how poor or ugly they were - they all managed to father a child that went on to father a child. Are you going to be the first one in a huge line NOT TO MANAGE IT?
(I genuinely find this a real headf*ck, esp as so far, I am not yet a dad!)Actually a satanist is a christian..............................Finally, if I were an athiest I would be a satanist. I promise you I'm not.I say that because a satanist does not believe in satan or god or anything else. But, they don't pretend a morality and they are honest with themselves. They take what they want and when they want as long as they can get away with it. After all if it all comes to nothing anyway then there is really no "logical" reason for the illusion of love of anything but yourself. Now, some people do admit this and they are true atheist and I can at least respect their honesty. But, some want to play because it sounds good and you can dance to it. That is until you turn on the light and really look at what you are saying. This is not a scientific (nor can it be debunked scienfically) response. This is honestly what I think when I really and truly look at what words mean and what the ultimate truth of a belief system is. Take it or sugar coat it and Darwin bless you. Lavey too.
A perverted christian yes, but still a christian.
He believes in the christian god, and the biblical satan.
He simply choses to worship satan instead of god, but
Its all from the same theological construct.
Satanic rituals usually use the same implements as christians they just pervert their use, they hang a cross (upside down)
They say the lords prayer (backwards)
A satanist isnt a hindu, or a taoist, or an adherant of shinto.
A satanist is a perverted christian.
They are most certainly not athiests, they believe in a deity just like you do.
They subscribe to the same god you do, they just chose to worship satan, himself just another character from the bible
tyder001
Paranormal Adept
This shows you know nothing about Anton Lavey and Satanism. He absolutely did not believe in satan or god or anything but himself. Now, the impostors and the hangers on? I don't know. Even Jaques Vallee dabbled in the church of satan. No, bud, they aren't "Chrisitan" or any other flavor of deity worhshipers. I'm not a satanist. I was just making some points as to why I feel the way I do about worldviews. Just putting it out there. But, do google Anton Lavey and the Church of Satan. You might be susprised at what you find.
tyder001
Paranormal Adept
The Church of Satan does not worship or support a belief in the Devil or other supernatural entities. "My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason," said Peter Gilmore.[3] Gilmore defines the word Satan: "Satan is a model or a mode of behavior. Satan in Hebrew means 'adversary' or 'opposer'; one who questions."[3]
Satanists within the Church of Satan adhere to these as guidelines on how to live. However, it is important to remember that Satanists generally do not view the Satanic sins, statements, and rules of the earth as things that one must go out of their way to do. The Satanist ideally sees these things as truisms and how they naturally live their lives, as opposed to a Christian or Jew, who would strive to follow the words of Christ or the mitzvot, respectively.
Rest of article here. But, there is much more historically if you really want to know. Anyway, these folks are the real deal. I don't respect them but I do respect their directness.
Church of Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Satanists within the Church of Satan adhere to these as guidelines on how to live. However, it is important to remember that Satanists generally do not view the Satanic sins, statements, and rules of the earth as things that one must go out of their way to do. The Satanist ideally sees these things as truisms and how they naturally live their lives, as opposed to a Christian or Jew, who would strive to follow the words of Christ or the mitzvot, respectively.
Rest of article here. But, there is much more historically if you really want to know. Anyway, these folks are the real deal. I don't respect them but I do respect their directness.
Church of Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh for goodness sakes this is too easy to prove.
Is Satan a character from the christian bible ?
Of course he is
Ergo its the same theological framework, they have a priesthood a black mass and a church..........
A satanist is just a perverted christian
They are not a perverted hindu, or a perverted hare krishna.
Its a perverted form of christianty, the devil is your creation, its a character from your book.
Is Satan a character from the christian bible ?
Of course he is
Ergo its the same theological framework, they have a priesthood a black mass and a church..........
A satanist is just a perverted christian
They are not a perverted hindu, or a perverted hare krishna.
Its a perverted form of christianty, the devil is your creation, its a character from your book.
tyder001
Paranormal Adept
They pervert it because they don't believe in it. That's my whole point. Anyway, in my first post I tried to explain what my thoughts were and a little bit of why I'm not an atheist. I wans't trying to attack anybody. I was actually just sharing some points that I had thought through over the years. I'm not trying to say it's the last word on athiesm. I was just giving my point of view. But, that's all it is. If it works for ya then fine. If not, then fine.
tyder001
Paranormal Adept
I should have known better. I was trying to say some things I had been thinking about. But, personalites and agendas (yes I'm guilty also) tend to sidestep the original intent for the purpose of "scoring" points. Anyway, that's what I get for skipping the baseball game tonight and coming here. 
I was trying to say some things I had been thinking about. But, personalites and agendas (yes I'm guilty also) tend to sidestep the original intent for the purpose of "scoring" points. Anyway, that's what I get for skipping the baseball game tonight and coming here. oh hell I think I started it all over again ... sorry all
As for Satan the word simply means foe or to be a foe of nothing more
Interestingly enough the early judaic texts didnt have hell or the devil
The character was added by christians later, as a boogyman to scare you into church.
And also as a mechanism to demonise Pan who was popular with the greeks and romans
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
more or less yes that is correct Mike. When the word Satan appears in the old testament it is generally related as the need for an adversary