5450
5451

Physics Class (i.imgur.com)

crazyoez が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]idreamofpikas 1596ポイント1597ポイント  (173子コメント)

http://i.imgur.com/4LTyZ1s.gif

[–]c_mitch_run 645ポイント646ポイント  (172子コメント)

Was that Miley Cyrus on the second pass?

[–]nerfAvari 477ポイント478ポイント  (171子コメント)

http://i.imgur.com/c5kxweD.gif

[–]FrontButtBloodFart 196ポイント197ポイント  (168子コメント)

I didn't realize there are so many people offended by NDT's lack of faith. My sister-in-law tried to negate what NDT was saying because, "you know he doesn't believe in god. How smart can he be if he's that dumb?"

For the sake of future family holiday gatherings, I had to let that one go.

Edit: triggered

[–]RealPodrickPayne 57ポイント58ポイント  (30子コメント)

I'm more offended by the man's attitude that he knows about physics and is therefore an expert on history and social science; or, worse yet, that those fields and precision within them don't matter because they're not physics.

Edit: lol at this whole thread. I should have known better than to question the glory of the prophet Neil, peace be upon him.

[–]LalalalaLakers 22ポイント23ポイント  (6子コメント)

I love NDT and the fact that he's made it somewhat cool to be interested in science. But sometimes I see his Twitter and realize it's a karma goldmine for /r/iamverysmart

[–]WeCrescentFresh -5ポイント-4ポイント  (5子コメント)

How did he make an interest in science "cool?" It's not like he's Will Smith over here preaching about stars and stuff. He's just a nerd that dedicated his life to studying science, learned a whole lot and gets a raging hard on from telling others the things he's come to learn. No different than any other brilliant mind that has graced this Earth. Besides the whole "skool is lame and ur a loser if u study" thing is mostly just associated with immaturity. I think most realize around highschool that your brain is your greatest tool in this world and it should be treated/conditioned as such.

[–]LalalalaLakers 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think most realize around highschool that your brain is your greatest tool in this world and it should be treated/conditioned as such.

How can you say that with a straight face, expecially considering this election cycle? Lol. Regardless, NDT did make science cool in the same way that Bill Nye did or even Mythbusters. He got more people interested in science and learning and made it more popular... that's not debatable.

[–]WeCrescentFresh -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Keyword being most, there's always a few dumbasses in every generation. And that's not making science "cool" it's just making its just presenting it in a more digestible manner for kids and others who've never studies any sciences yet so that they might gain interest. That doesn't mean it's cool, just that it's important and often fascinating.

[–]LalalalaLakers 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nah, NDT made it seem "cool" for many young people like myself. That's not debatable.

[–]Byeforever 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd argue the biggest issue for any educational field is to try to make a dent in grabbing the attention of teens and young adults, is to be able to attach faces and 'why does this matter' context to them. I highly doubt many people develop an interest in physics from reading a purely text-based book, or even a book of calculations which at least includes some graphs and tables. Impressionable teens will seek out role models and influences whether they realize it or not. Being able to describe scientific/technical stuff to ordinary people is an extremely valuable skill.

Teens are bombarded by stimuli from the media, much of it being essentially useless drama (celebrity, gossip type stuff particularly). The more an intellectual field can put itself out there, the more likely they are to get additional media spread via the teens/young adults, via the same mechanism by which people would otherwise spread celebrity gossip. People like Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, NDT, etc catalyze interest in the scientific fields by giving science a voice and a face.

Heck, even people who spread scientific misinformation/half-truths (ie: Dr. Oz nowadays I guess, disappointing really) still manage to catalyze interest in science.

[–]Klinky1984 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Instead of telling kids to get off their phone and stop using social media/networks, guys like NDT and Chris Hadfield used those channels to interact with a younger audience. They seemed to "get it" whereas there are a lot of out of touch adults who don't, and would rather complain about how the old days were better.

[–]Maskirovka 33ポイント34ポイント  (5子コメント)

This isn't a defense of NDT in particular, but a defense of erudition in general. It's ok to learn about more than one thing. Also you have to understand that things like Cosmos are not written by NDT alone.

Also, there are ways of understanding the world through generalizations that don't involve studying the minutia of every subject. See the big history project...it's about understanding history and science through complexity and thresholds of increasing complexity. You don't need to read every text from Ancient Rome to "know" things about it.

Anyway that's the best I can do to answer your comment since you didn't list anything specific.

[–]covertwalrus 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

I just googled "Neil Degrasse Tyson Arrogant" and got this article. Honestly doesn't seem that bad, one of them is just a Christmas-themed physics joke about wavelengths of light. One of them is criticizing the commercialization of Christmas, which is a concern I've heard coming from atheists and Christians alike. One of them is just a joke comparing Newton and Jesus, and it's been long established that Tyson is a huge Newton fan. And the one about Muslims and Jews not celebrating Christmas is legitimately kind of awkward, but there's a chance he was trying to make a joke where you expect him to say something about religious astrology.

The first comment on the article reads, "I mean, its just stating a series of facts. if you are that insecure in your faith that you are offended by Newton being ACTUALLY born on the 25th of December, then you need to hit church and stop worrying about what an astrophysicist says on Twitter." I have to agree, I don't see any smugness beyond a guy chuckling at his own dumb jokes. Some American Christians are just so hypersensitive that they get offended when they hear anyone saying anything about Christmas or Christianity or areas where science and the Bible contradict.

[–]RealPodrickPayne -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I agree with most of what you've said here. And I never understood the whole outrage, it's fucking twitter. If someone says something that odious to you, unfollow them!

But it's his whole attitude - that non-physics sciences are inferior, that it's okay to parrot crap that gets disproven in intro level college classes (thinking ie of the Giordano Bruno case, which I think was in Cosmos not on Twitter actually) and that being irreligious makes you more intelligent by default - that does irk me. The man is brilliant. He's also conceited. I'd say they run together more often than separately.

[–]covertwalrus 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Giordano Bruno thing was pretty misrepresented, but I wouldn't blame Tyson specifically for that. The original series of Cosmos often had stories about people with out-there ideas which their ignorant contemporaries ruined. I think including Bruno was a poorly hatched attempt to reel in Protestants, since it shows the closed-mindedness of the Catholic church at the time, using an example other than Galileo. While Bruno wasn't a martyr for science, as he's sometimes depicted, he was a martyr for free thought, and that's what Cosmos is about more than just pure science.

That raises the question of why NDT was chosen as the face of the new series. He's definitely less philosophically inclined than Sagan was, but he and Bill Nye (maybe Michio Kaku or Brian Cox) are really the only scientists with enough household name recognition to fill Sagan's shoes.

[–]RealPodrickPayne 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. Overall NDT has been a positive force, as has Cosmos. I would much rather have him at the helm than Kaku, personally. But Tyson was a well known physicist who iirc had a personal friendship with Sagan. He really might have been the best choice.

And yeah you can't blame the host for the content, agreed. But you can blame him for being pompous on Twitter (the horror!).

[–]Other_Dog 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What Tyson does in the media is exactly what Carl Sagan did, and the culture just handles it differently. Cosmos, for example, follows the same format it followed thirty years ago, combining science and history to give the audience a context for what they are learning.

Sagan was an atheist and always quite critical of religion, and he integrated history and sociology into most of what he created. I suppose he irritated some people, but today his contribution is universally lauded. I think people have a hard time with Tyson because much of our culture has since grown fiercely anti-intellectual. Also, as the gif above points out, he's black.

[–]RealPodrickPayne 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sagan also played it fast and loose with history. NDT happens to live in an era of instant fact checking.

[–]The-Yar 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

He has a lot of different quotes on it. Once on the Daily Show he went on about there must be something greater out there we can't fathom.

[–]RealPodrickPayne -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Yeah, NDT's ego.

[–]MoonSloth 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yeah, you're so much smarter than NDT, Podrick. Thanks for pointing that out.

[–]RealPodrickPayne -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Because calling someone egotistical is the same as saying I'm smarter than them, somehow. Nice reading comprehension, sloth.

[–]jdovew -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ding ding ding. I can't stand listening to the man; he's such a smug, self-satisfied asshole.

[–]colmos 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

but he is right, those fields and precision within them dont matter because they are not physics. learn to STEM kid.

[–]Yaranatzu -2ポイント-1ポイント  (122子コメント)

I don't think many are offended per se. More of just annoying. I guess because he makes half-witty remaks about it in his podcast constantly.

I would expect him to have a more neutral stance, because there's no real proof one way or the other.

[–]FrontButtBloodFart 46ポイント47ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why is it ok for people to be outspoken for God, but not when they're against it? It's his podcast, he can say what he wants and you the listener can chose to listen or not. Freedom!

[–]Yaranatzu 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm not the one against it, I'm just saying why people may be annoyed it by it. I don't have a problem with him saying anything, but if you listen to the podcast there's a lot of comedy in it, and when these specific remarks sound like tired jokes then we should be able to criticize it without arguing over the subject matter. Freedom.

[–]FrontButtBloodFart 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I understand your point. Let's both enjoy our days!

[–]Yaranatzu 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol hard to do because Reddit, but let's try:D

[–]thedeliriousdonut -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not if I have anything to do with it, you monster.

[–]cuddlefucker 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why is it ok for people to be outspoken for God, but not when they're against it?

I would argue that it fundamentally goes against another thing that NDT stands for: spreading the love of science. If you're constantly insulting people's beliefs, you'll be alienating them from your message.

[–]Based_Shinji 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

I mean, there's pretty good proof against taking the Bible literally

[–]Yaranatzu 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sure but that has nothing to do with the existence or non-existense of God.

[–]SDbeachLove 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

He never really comes out and says God doesn't exist. It's more like taking wise cracks at some of the claims people make of him.

[–]Yaranatzu 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Listen I really like his podcasts, I was only explaining why others may find him annoying with such remarks.

[–]FruitierGnome 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

He did on Joe rogans podcast. Joe is equally annoying on that subject and has even less credentials in that field.

[–]SDbeachLove 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh really? I'll have to listen to that episode then. I used to listen to Rogan all the time, but some of the pseudo science stuff he says drove me nuts.

[–]so_taint 11ポイント12ポイント  (45子コメント)

You would have to go through your entire life with a "neutral" standpoint on everything then, because there's no real proof of anything.

[–]Yaranatzu 1ポイント2ポイント  (44子コメント)

So would you claim that believing in God is ignorant because there is no proof, but then make an exception when believing God doesn't exist? That makes no sense.

You would have to live on a neutral standpoint all your life sure. But that doesn't stop you from learning about the truth.

[–]awfulein 9ポイント10ポイント  (13子コメント)

Not him, but I suspect he'd probably claim that there are no logical reasons to believe that God exists, and so hence -- for a reasonable person -- taking a "neutral" position makes as much sense as taking a "neutral" position on the subject of unicorns and leprechauns.

If you believe that we should be taking a "neutral" position on God in the same way that we take a "neutral" position on unicorns and leprechauns, well then I agree, and I believe NDT feels the same way. If you believe there is some distinction, you should go into that.

[–]lets_trade_pikmin 5ポイント6ポイント  (12子コメント)

As an atheist who has dedicated his life to scientific research, I will say that believing in a god and believing in unicorns are completely different.

As far as god is concerned, there are a lot of mysteries that science hasn't answered. There will probably still be a lot of unanswered questions 1000 years from now -- "turtles all the way down" and what not. God might seem to some as a likely candidate for the bottom turtle, the explanation that needs no further explanation, which to some would make him seem inevitable for the parsimony of the universe. I disagree -- even if one of those turtles was a god, we'd still have to explain the turtle underneath him, so that wouldn't solve anything. But for these people, belief in god is roughly equivalent to physicists' belief in the Higgs boson before it was discovered several years ago -- we were so certain that it existed, because it would have been a nice explanation for phenomena that we'd already observed.

On the other hand, no one expects unicorns to explain away all of the mysteries of the universe, so unicorns wouldn't simplify anything and would therefore not be parsimonious. Believing in them is the opposite of parsimonious, because it would actually complicate our explanation of the world, rather than simplify it.

Now, here is where I will piss off many religious people: while a belief in god could be viewed as parsimonious, a belief in the bible or quran or any similar holy text is absolutely not parsimonious. They all contradict observed information about the world and are not logically sound. We could talk about this for ages, but the bottom line is that there is a big difference between being religious and being open to the possibility of a god.

[–]awfulein 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

...You're right except you're wrong.

You're basically saying that if you define God the way you want (seemingly: the creator of the universe) then it is parsimonious.

Unfortunately, I would say the vast majority of theists believe in the God of their holy book. In another comment to the OP, I actually do specify a God with agency and the capability to interact with the Universe.

Talk to most Theists long enough and, in my experience, they are very likely to hit some wall of their own chosen theology, which makes their God claim not parsimonious. If they don't, then they effectively define God into that which we don't understand which -- although I think it's stupid -- I cannot disagree with. They're the outliers though.

[–]Zabjam 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I will say that believing in a god and believing in unicorns are completely different.

I wouldnt say that. It all comes down to what the attributes of your god or your unicorn are. If your god is a kind of mysterious spirit in some pantheistic worldview that doesnt intervene with the world and it just IS there but on the other hand you think unicorns fly through the stratosphere and fart ozon to protect us from UV-C rays... You would need the unicorns to explain our world, but not your god.

It just comes down to how you define your mystical friend. And since everyone has a personal definition of their god, it basically becomes synonymous to a unicorn.

[–]smartassguy 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Nah, I believe in God, but i also agree the bible is probably really flawed and I can't take it seriously.

[–]dt25 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

So would you claim that believing in God is ignorant because there is no proof, but then make an exception when believing God doesn't exist? That makes no sense.

Disbelief is not a belief. That's the same reasoning that treats atheism as a belief system when it's exactly the opposite.

It's not an exception to assume something that hasn't been proven to exist doesn't, it's the rule when it comes to science as well as non-religious logic.

[–]DarthRainbows 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Atheism is not a 'belief system' but nor is belief in God (or unicorns). There is no 'system' in either.

It's not an exception to assume something that hasn't been proven to exist doesn't, it's the rule when it comes to science as well as non-religious logic.

I don't think scientist assume something doesn't exist if it hasn't been proven to exist..

[–]Downvotesturnmeonbby 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agnostic would be disbelief, atheism is most definitely a belief. You firmly believe that God doesn't exist.

[–]so_taint -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

[–]Fuego_Fiero -5ポイント-4ポイント  (19子コメント)

Well there is plenty of proof God doesn't exist. Just like we can say pretty definitively that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist. The complete lack of evidence is proof in and of itself.

[–]DerRussinator 8ポイント9ポイント  (14子コメント)

That's... A logical fallacy, mate. Lack of evidence is not evidence of... Anything.

[–]TastesLikeBees 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Lack of evidence is not evidence of... Anything.

Yes it is. It's called "evidence of absence".

[–]Yaranatzu 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh not this again. Unicorns have no relation to the existence of the universe. You wouldn't give the same example with aliens now would you, because that possibility makes sense, just like the possibility of God makes sense.

[–]BaggaTroubleGG 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought gods owned people, not created universes.

[–]DarthRainbows 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah. I'm not sure. The reason we have this discussion is because of religion, which can be explained without invoking the supernatural. If we were all super-rational robots who never believe in gods and unicorns and what not, I don't think anyone would seriously posit the explanation of the origin of the universe as 'A Big Guy Did It All'.

[–]smartassguy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[–]HALL9000ish -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Prove to me you can't fly. Difficult isn't it.

I can fly. I'm not going to do it for you, but I can do it.

Believe me?

[–]Yaranatzu -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Does you flying have any effect on my existence? I don't think so, so I couldn't care less if you could or couldn't.

[–]ZDTreefur 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The question wasn't whether you "care". It was whether you believe his claim or not.

[–]HALL9000ish -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm using it as an example of proving something doesn't exist, in this case my ability to fly. When I'm not flying, you can't prove it either way. However it's rediculous to believe me if I clame I can fly.

(If you don't think it's rediculous, I'd like to sell you a rock that repels tigers. It evidently works because I haven't been eaten by a tiger. $500).

Oh, and depending on the method I used, I'd revolutionise at least one of the sciences. I'd care about that, not sure about you.

[–]smartassguy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find his stance to be pretty neutral in his podcast. I mean he does sometimes have those remarks, but usually he defends religion as a right in America and doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't force your beliefs on others.

[–]aclashofthings 0ポイント1ポイント  (37子コメント)

I think the idea of God is so farfetched that it's safe to say He doesn't exist without tangible evidence.

[–]MalcolmTurntbull 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

His apparent non-existence is proof enough for me.

[–]lukas8u -1ポイント0ポイント  (25子コメント)

do you believe in free will?

[–]BaggaTroubleGG 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Can you define it?

[–]lukas8u 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion

  • google

[–]BaggaTroubleGG 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

With that definition it depends on whether the universe is deterministic or not. If it is then you could say that everything is fated, therefore no free will.

Free will is a pretty tough question.

[–]aclashofthings 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

Tell me how that's relevant.

[–]lukas8u 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

well you're going to have to answer first.

[–]Wolabe 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

It doesn't actually matter philosophically. Both having and not having free will with the existence of God lead to huge logical problems.

[–]Yaranatzu -4ポイント-3ポイント  (9子コメント)

I think the idea that we came from nothing is even more farfetched, considering we're here arguing about it. So no it's not safe to say that because there's no tangible evidence that he doesn't exist either.

[–]awfulein 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

I replied to you elsewhere, regretfully, but just to confirm: You think that the idea of an infinitely, incomprehensibly complex, sentient being existing outside of space and time, with an agencied mind, capable of interacting with the universe in meaningful ways -- but whose impacts on the universe are for some reason impossible to test or discern from pure chance in a controlled way -- is less-farfetched than saying "it looks like all matter in the universe is expanding outward, but a long long time ago, it was really tight together, and before that it is impossible to know"?

[–]Downvotesturnmeonbby 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm not religious by any means. But then you have to wonder. What did set up the universe initially, in that unknown time? What made existence as we know it possible? We don't see any signs of expansion ever reversing and the Big Bang repeating, so what racked the billiard balls to begin with?

[–]awfulein 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

No one knows. Isn't that fun?

What we do know is that it's not reasonable to make up something to answer it.

[–]NewWorldDestroyer 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

You do realize that we came from stuff that made other stuff that eventually made us right? Humans didn't just start roaming the Earth one day.

[–]Yaranatzu -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

? I think you're confusing my stance with religion. I didn't claim any of this, nor do I support religious claims.

[–]Fuego_Fiero 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But we didn't come from nothing? We came from the Big Bang.

[–]SDbeachLove 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can't really prove it. However, there is good evidence that most tangible parts of God are not real. He didn't create us in him image. There are no miracles or answered prayers. He doesn't seem to favor one sports team over another. You can say those parts are fiction.

[–]Yaranatzu 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

For sure, I never made any argument against that. You can totally argue that the God prominent religions tell us about doesn't exist. I was merely referring to the possibility of an entity, independent from religion.

[–]Zabjam 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Browsing through your answers to the posts in this thread and seeing you back up every time like "I did not make an argument for this or that" I start wondering what kind of god this would be. Its shrinking constantly to a point where it becomes so insignificant that it cant affect anything anymore. Not even your existence you claim it needs to have an influence on to be considered by you.

[–]Jack21222 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would expect him to have a more neutral stance, because there's no real proof one way or the other.

If there's no proof of something, one way or the other, the default stance is that it doesn't exist.

Nothing exists unless there's evidence that says it does. That's just the way it works. The alternative is that we assume everything exists, so I could just make something exist by speculating on its existence.

[–]Borgismorgue 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Theres no real proof. Not one "way or another" though.

Thats not how proof works.

If theres no real proof of unicorns... if you believe in unicorns, you're not berated for not having faith in unicorns.

Why is that? Because believing in something without evidence is not a factor of intelligence. It is literally the opposite.

If someone went around believing everything they were told without needing proof, you'd consider them to be stupid, wouldnt you?

This is the only reason that atheists consider religious people to be intrinsically stupid.

You're believing something extremely important... society altering and empire destroying based on fables... and then taking pride in your ignorance.

[–]Borachoed 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Do you believe that there is an invisible magic teapot circling your head at all times? It's undetectable by any normal method, but trust me, it's there.

You can't tell me I'm wrong because there's no real proof one way or the other.

[–]smartassguy 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes I cannot tell you you are wrong but I can choose not to believe it. That's not really comparable either, Christianity is a pretty big religion that has been around for thousands of years, and yet I still wouldn't judge you or think of you as inferior as long as you don't do the same for me if I don't believe in the teapot.

[–]Borachoed 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How long a belief has existed or how many people believe it is IRRELEVANT to its validity. Pretty basic fallacy there. People believed the sun orbited earth for thousands of years

[–]Yaranatzu 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Does the teapot have any affect on my existence of the infinite universe? I highly doubt that's in the same class of examples. Do you believe aliens don't exist because we've never seen them? Probably not. Do you believe there is a possibility they may exist because we exist? I hope you do.

[–]Borachoed 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does the teapot have any affect on my existence of the infinite universe? I highly doubt that's in the same class of examples.

Yes, I forgot to tell you, it has a HUGE effect on the existence of the universe. The cosmos was poured from it, and if it stops spinning, we all die! So you see it's in the same class of examples.

Do you believe there is a possibility they may exist because we exist? I hope you do.

I think that there is compelling circumstantial evidence that they do exist. Namely: We know life has arisen on at least one planet. Our solar system doesn't seem to be all that special in the Universe, so it seems likely that life exists on other planets.

So, I believe in the possibility of aliens because there is evidence for it. Now, if somebody told me that they believe in not just the possibility of aliens, but the existence of little green men from Mars.. well, I hold that belief in the same regard as I do the belief in the Christian god.

[–]HALL9000ish 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would expect him to have a more neutral stance

He is agnostic.

[–]blacktoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

I would expect him to have a more neutral stance, because there's no real proof one way or the other.

It's the lack of proof which allows NDT to accept the non-exsistance of a god.

I can't domonstrate the non-exsistance of unicorns on earth. But the lack of proof is enough for me to confidently say they don't exist.

[–]Yaranatzu 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Unicorns and spaghetti monsters are horrible examples, because their existence doesn't theoretically have any affect on you, or this plant, or this universe. It's a lame analogy that athiests throw around to sound cheeky, with no substance.

You wouldn't say the same about aliens because the fact that billions of worlds exist in the universe favours the possibility. Similarly, the fact that we exist and those billions of worlds exist favour the possibility of an entity or force that started it.

[–]blacktoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unicorns and spaghetti monsters are horrible examples, because their existence doesn't theoretically have any affect on you, or this plant, or this universe. It's a lame analogy that athiests throw around to sound cheeky, with no substance.

Replace unicorns with Zeus if it makes you feel better. Any old god is easily shrugged off as ancient mythology, but they were once held to the same level of belief as the current iteration of gods. We can passively not believe in zeus, but not believing in modern versions of god is some big deal.

And our exsistance does mean this all started somewhere, but exactly how is a mystery. Saying "god did it" is lazy. We don't know, we may never know, but why give up and settle on some story told over 1000 years ago?

That's no fun.

[–]papa_georgio 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Similarly, the fact that we exist and those billions of worlds exist favour the possibility of an entity or force that started it.

How so? All you've done is move the bar. Who created the creator? The crux of it is that you can't disprove something that doesn't exist, the onus for evidence is on the side making the claim. Same goes for ghosts, unicorns, alternative medicine, etc.

[–]Jack21222 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You wouldn't say the same about aliens because the fact that billions of worlds exist in the universe favours the possibility

Yes, we would. It's literally the same stance.

Anybody who not only claims that aliens exist, but also goes on to try to give details about a specific alien race, is considered a nut job and summarily denounced.

I think that there is a possibility that life on other planets exist because life on this planet exists. That isn't a stretch at all. However, there is no comparable analogy with God. We can't say "well, we know these little godlings and spirits exist, so maybe there is a bigger overarching God."

[–]iloveartichokes -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

You wouldn't say the same about aliens because the fact that billions of worlds exist in the universe favours the possibility.

Lol no it doesn't. 0% with more possibilities is still 0%.

[–]PutASoJOnIt 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just because something hasn't yet been proven doesn't make it false. If your statement were true, then back in, say 1782, black holes didn't exist because we didn't have proof they existed. 0% with more possibilities is still 0%, right?

[–]iloveartichokes -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, just like unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and god have a 0% chance of existing until they're discovered.

[–]scoopsofsherbert [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You know he's agnostic right? He's made it pretty clear in several videos but apparently a lot of his fans don't like his view and have even gone as far as changing his Wikipedia page to make it say he's atheist.

[–]DroidLord -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Holy shit I don't know how you managed to let that one slide. I guess I'll never understand naive people who take the heavily modified words of something that might have happened as the absolute truth, but maybe I'm just dumb.

[–]SDbeachLove 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Toot sniff

[–]BabyBundo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just snort laughed so obnoxiously. Thank you.