Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Life, The Universe, And Everything

Posted this on another board (a super secret one that I can not talk about) during a discussion of the new Bill Maher film, Religilous. Decent movie, not a lot of new info if you watch REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER, but it's a solid flick and it does- as intended- generate some discussion.

So I thought this post I made on that subject summed up my views on religion and God pretty darn good. Not that anyone was asking, but hey, I like discussing religion as much as politics, ya go :)

The more I hear atheists talk, the more they seem as diluted as the folks who simply believe in God without any proof.

Given how much has changed in regards to our knowledge of our own planet, let alone the universe and the laws that- we think- govern the majority of that universe, how any atheist can claim that what we've learned through science is enough to know the truth about much of anything is, to me, ignorant. Given how much we know- which is still very little considering the size of the universe and the numerous mysteries we have yet to solve, let alone the mysteries that we have yet to even discover- how atheists can use science as their proof is- to me- as ignorant as a religious person using a religious text as theirs. And it's not ignorant because-clearly- we can see the effects of gravity but we don't- at least most people on a conscious level anyway- see the effects of a God sanctioned miracle. But ignorant because both of these roads to the truth (science and religion) have some massive pot holes. Hell, both roads are mostly made up of potholes and it's rare to even see the road.

Given how little we know about anything in regards to life, the universe, and everything, it seems the height of arrogance on ALL sides to plant a flag and stake ANY sort of claim to ANY sort of truth.

Now a lot of folks bag on us agnostics because we don't 'pick a side'. But when both sides are clearly missing so many pieces of the puzzle, isn't the only logical response to sit back, watch the show, and simply admit, "beats the fuck out of me as to what is going on'?


Thirst said...


IAmMatto said...

To me the thing that separates (most) atheists from those that follow religion on faith alone is that there are atheists that have no problem saying "I don't know why that happened", where the majority of religious folks would credit unexplainable occurrences to God, or some other deity.

I know there is some over simplification going on, and I do think that the atheists that squarely claim "There is no God" are foolish. While there is no proof of the existence of God, there is also no proof that one does not exist (though proving non-existence can be tricky).

There are a handful of atheists, myself included, that believe that the existence of God is irrelevant, as we should only be concerned about what we can affect. I don't care why I have two feet and 10 fingers, it's just important to know that I do. I think discussions as to the "why" for many of the more philosophical topics (afterlife, origin of species, etc...) are enjoyable and should happen, and I frequently engage in heated discussion with a conservative co-worker about such topics, I just don't deem finding absolute answers important, unless of course they encourage/prevent advances in scientific fields such as medicine, physics, chemistry, etc...

I realize there is some debate as to whether I am agnostic or an atheist. I don't believe God exists, but I'm not going to make any sort of hard commitment. When I say it that way it makes me sound agnostic...oh well, I guess I don't really care what I'm called...I've been rambling too long...and my mind is wandering of...I hope I made at least some sense.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, but I dislike your last comment to just sit back. If you don't know what's going on, go try to discover the scientific truth, or go attempt to find God, or, even better, both. Maybe there is no way to figure it all out, but if we don't try then what's the point of even being here?

jonathan said...

preach it! i'm "down with the G O D", as kevin smith likes to say, but religion is bullshit.

da criminal said...

I don't mean sit back and be apathetic. I mean, accept what you know and what you DON'T KNOW and don't be so ignorant to think you have enough information- at this early stage in our evolution- to know any real sense of truth. And FROM that acceptance, then you are free to explore for the real truth, versus being tied down to thinking that is based on so little information that is really is nothing more than a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

Agnostic means without knowledge. It was coined by Thomas Huxley (relation of Aldous Huxley, writer of Brave New World), friend of Charles Darwin. Atheist means without belief in god. Christians are all agnostic (if you have faith, then you are without knowledge, i.e. agnostic), and saying you are too means very little. You are also an atheist, you don't assert the belief that god exists. Even Dawkin's says in his book that on a scale of 1-7 with 7 being certain god doesn't exist and 1 being certain it does exist, he's a 6.

There's no scale of belief "atheist - agnostic - theist". Everyone is agnostic anyway, no one claims to "know" whether or not god exists, unless you refer to specific illogical definitions of god, such as the Christian god which is provably false.

In terms of the origin of life, scientists don't claim to know, like religions do, they care about what is actually true over what they want to be true, and work very hard to create theories about it.

"how any atheist can claim that what we've learned through science is enough to know the truth about much of anything is, to me, ignorant" - that's utter nonsense, did you not proof read? Science works, deal with it. Do you

It's no coincidence that as people get more intelligent, they get less religious.

Here's some data, country, then percentage of people who say religion is important, then average IQ.

South Korea 25% 106
Japan 12% 105
Italy 27% 102
Great Britain 33% 100
United States 59% 98
Angola 80% 69
Mali 90% 68
Nigeria 92% 67

I can't believe you think science and religion are comparable. Religion just makes up answers, offers no proof, but threatens you with hell if you don't believe. Science is observable, falsifiable, repeatable, is without bias and most importantly, produces results which lead to significant progress. You use and benefit from science constantly.

Are you happy for your kids to be taught religion? Does "Happy is he who seizes your kids and shatters them against a rock!" Psalms (137:9) sound like good moral advice to teach them? Are you content to read this to your children at night time? "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Please state some of the "potholes" in science.

da criminal said...

My point is that I feel it is ignorant and- more important- a waste of time (in regards to trying to find the big answers...not the small answers of every day life improvement) to choose to explain the world with what we know (i.e. science) because the thing we know more than anything else is that there is SO MUCH we do not know. And so why even take a side when it comes to the issue? If you look at what we know about the world now versus what we knew 2000 years ago, it stands to reason that your take on the world- based on what you know today- will be laughably outdated in the year 4000. The only difference between us and man at 1AD is that we KNOW that our knowledge base about the universe and our place in it is going to shift radically as time marches on. With this knowledge, why do anything other than take an agnostic approach to the situation?

da criminal said...

And to be clear: I am not saying science is as equally absurd as religion. Clearly it is not.

I am arguing for the acceptance of the fact that our scientific knowledge is so limited in regards to the universe and the laws that govern the universe that to claim that what we know TODAY is enough to stake a claim in the debate of 'why are we here/what does this all mean/the big questions' is as equally absurd as to use religion to answer the big questions.

Too much work to do today to debate/discuss...back online tonite perhaps.


Anonymous said...

David, the problem here is that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that scientists claim to know answers for those questions. There's really no need to "argue for acceptance of the fact", it's a straw man argument that's probably arising out of empathy for religious people being mocked in religulous. It was the Biologist J.B.S. Haldane who said, that the world is "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." That seems to be a similar sentiment. Or another scientist John Wheeler said 'If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.'

I think we can understand quite well how life likely arose, and how it spread. And in terms of life and the universe, we do know a hell of a lot so don't under play how far humanity has come, that we've evolved to the point where we can question our own existence, and the depth of our scientific knowledge is mind boggling. I don't think in 2000 years we will be much further on, 4000 years ago isn't much different from 2000 years ago, it just so happens that we happen to live in probably the most advancing few centuries that have happened.

da criminal said...

The only thing I am referring to is that atheists use science as proff that there IS no God. I am not saying SCIENTISTS say this. I am saying that ATHEISTS say this. And in saying that, they are ignorant of how far we have come in our thinking in 2000 years. And I have to disagree with you Anon about what our thinking will look like in 4000 years. Every 5-10 years- if not every year- principles that science held near and dear are being shattered. To assume this will not continue at an even more rapid rate- as our ability to explore and research grows- is hard to swallow.

Anonymous said...

David...just sum up everything and since that everyone has this question in there mind...were not ment to survive. its like in god of war, WE are the mortals and the GODS control everything think of it as the goverment is the GODs, and u and I and the rest of us are the pitty mortals.

Anonymous said...

And don't plz don't mind me while i go to the closest 7/11 and buy my self a can of coke, since i'm just as addicted as you are to caffine :)

kremytu17 said...

David, most Atheists DO NOT claim to 'know' that there is no God; rather, they say that it is just highly improbable. Even Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent atheist on the planet, doesn't claim to know that there is no God.

But saying God created everything is just as plausible as saying magical fairies or aliens created everything; actually, the evidence right now says that no God was needed to create the universe. Science will probably unlock more of those answers in due time, unless religion blows us all up first.

MSeverin said...

"The only thing I am referring to is that atheists use science as proof that there IS no God."

The burden of proof is not on Atheists. Atheists aren't asserting anything. I don't need to prove scientifically or otherwise that there is no Tooth-Fairy, or Santa Clause, but someone asserting that these things exist must provide evidence.

So, while I am open to the possibility that there is a god or God or Gods, it's an unnecessary variable in my world-view. I don't need it anymore than I need the idea of Santa Clause to explain the presence of presents under my tree at Christmas.

Science isn't a thing, it is a process and it is a process that is used for discovering truth backed up by evidence, and when evidence is discovered that reveals the previously held belief to be false, science adapts and changes to accommodate.

da criminal said...

But we ARE discussing GOD and we ARE discussing religion. And the fact is, on that subject there is a storong, common atheistic view that God does not exist or probably does not exist and/or did not create the world. In taking that view, they use the discoveries of the last 2000 years of science to aid in their explanation.

My understanding is the very definition of Atheist is that you are one who does not believe in God.

You can be apathetic and simply not CARE if God exists or if Santa exits,etc. And that works for me.

But you can't take the trouble of calling yourself atheist and then take the stance that you don't have an opinion either way.

A SCIENTIST can not care either way and his definition as a scientist still works. But an Atheist?!?

da criminal said...

And the burden of proof or lack of PROOF IS in the Atheist as well as those who think there is a God.

Again, you don't take a name that means you do not believe in God and then say, well I don't have to prove it.

closetgeekshow said...

The difference between agnosticism and atheism is merely a matter of conviction (or arrogance so would say). An atheist knows there's no God while an agnostic isn't sure if they know. Either way, both await physical evidence before coming to conclusions and both consider God irrelevant in any case.

Science will never answer everything because there will always be unanswered questions, but at least it comes up with repeatable answers that are based on reality and observation - instead of y'know, just pulling answer out of your hat.

Red Peter said...

David, your still dodging the fact that even the most hardline Atheists DO NOT categorically rule out the possibility of any kind of "God".

If they use science, it's usually to discredit certain RELIGIOUS NOTIONS of God, and the dogma that codifies them. Stripped of these notions "God" is reduced to an indescribable, unquantifiable variable with an incalculable possibility of existing.

IE. NOT something that can be reasonably asserted to have any effect on rational thought, at least in the scientific sense.

red peter said...

PS. Your post sounds worryingly like a plea for ignorance, especially at the end there. I don't find it particularly clever or dignified to say, "well we can't know everything, and nothing is for sure, so fuck it, the most enlightened are those who claim to know nothing!"

Although usually this position segway's into some form of New Age consciousness babble, that's been deftly marketed and placed cynically out criticisms reach, using the sentiments you express.

red peter said...

PPS. That's some bad grammar- I'm tired as fuck.

Anonymous said...

Bill Maher isnt an athiest, he's agnostic too.. on the daily show he said that he just wanted to introduce doubt into ridiculous certainties that people have..

just in case there was confusion on that point

Alastor Mused said...

da criminal Said.."
Again, you don't take a name that means you do not believe in God and then say, well I don't have to prove it.
"Believe" is the key word, it doesn't say "the proof of the lack of God"
People of faith that believe in God or Gods don't have to prove it either. By definition it's why it's labeled as a belief or faith. You can't prove to be an agnostic either, you believe it. It's like someone asks you "Because you don't know if God exists or not, you have to prove it."

I think your definition of atheism is misinterpreted. Wiki-Atheism[Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.]The affirmation would denote a Strong Atheist. However the latter would denote a Weak Atheist.
There are several tiers to Atheism. A Strong Atheist is someone that knows God doesn't exist but this doesn't mean that an Atheist knows God doesn't exist as a Weak Atheist doesn't claim to prove it or know. There are also many tiers in Agnosticism. By arrogantly assuming all Agnostic's are Apathetic I would fail to acknowledge someone who believes in Agnostic Theism[which means the person is unsure if there is or isn't a God but decides to believe in a religion].

This is the best way I can explain it.
I am a Weak Athiest which means I believe in Nontheism [which is a term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of—or the rejection of—theism or any belief in a personal god or gods.] and also in Irreligion[is a lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion]. My belief makes me an Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in religion and I don't prove that God doesn't exist but I fail to believe in God, more so on convenience rather then apathy. However my lack of interest in believing in God would make me apathetic as well. So rather I am conveniently apathetic to the belief of God.
I think the misunderstanding lies in interpreting Atheism as 1 definition in this case "The proof of no God" and Agnosticism as "noncommittal". Rather they share more commonalities when further understood. I think the arrogance comes in misunderstanding the terminology and assuming all Atheist's believe they prove that god does not exist much like the arrogance that all Agnostics don't want to commit, both not true for all circumstances.

BTW I can't believe Keith Olbermann just said "Pwned". Maybe I misheard him but lol.

Travis J said...

YES!!! YES!!! please make a Twisted Metal Blog for Twisted Metal Fans That Would Be Sweet!!!! sorry but that is just too awesome to hold back my excitement. Also Davis Jaffe will your game maybe be announced at the Tokyo Game Show 2008, rumors have it that Sony is announcing 11 new never announced games. If this is true COME ON TWISTED METAL PS3!!

Alastor Mused said...

Further studying of Apathetic Agnosticism.[also known as pragmatic or critically as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity]
Absence of religious motivation (in other words apathetic) -belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action. By being apathetic you have no motivation in religious action which in other words means you take no action to believe in something. Much like not believing in God or the apathy (lack of interest) to God.

serialman said...

Can't help but notice that the people who got their nickers in a twist over this the most would be the atheists. They're even bringing up the fact that there are varied types of atheism, with subsets in each. Much like how there are varied types of religion, with subsets in each.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, CliffyB, though I admit that I am a theist based on nothing more than the fact that the belief in something higher than ourselves and an afterlife just "works" for me.

I still adhere to the principals of science. Frankly, one can pray all they want for God to remove a tumor, but going in for chemo works pretty well, too, and I hear tell it's got a higher success rate.

That tends to be my issue with most atheists; they believe that all theists (particularly Christians, for some reason) still live like we did in the Colonial American days when I can tell you that the crazies you see on television are just that: crazies on television. They are a minority. Most of us --in a lot of cases, the younger ones that have been raised alongside the same technology as everyone else in the past 20 years-- don't think that burning witches is an effective way to convert people. In fact, we have found out that taking the much more intelligent approach of discussing such issues with people tends to be a lot more successful in the long-term and if you don't show them your way, at least both parties are more likely to come out with a mutual respect for the other.

I can even tell you that most modern Christians will tell you a similar story as I have; that they just believe the stuff, despite the fact that there is no proof of it. Is it absurd? I suppose. Is it the scourge of humanity that atheists claim it to be? No more so than science. Sure, there are extremists out there, but we must keep in mind that none of the developers of the atomic bomb believed in a personal God of any sort.

Someone much wiser than I once said of religion, that it is very similar to politics: everyone has an opinion towards it and everyone thinks their opinion is probably the closest to the truth.

So my philosophy is simple; believe what you want. If you want to discuss it, I'll happily listen, so long as you listen to my side of it as well. I'm sure we shall both walk out of the conversation a little bit more informed. Just don't do something so unbelievably rude as to say that my way is absolutely wrong and call me a primitive caveman, and I shall grant you a similar respect.

BTW, first time poster, long time reader. Though I might not always agree with you (for the record, I am voting this November, but for neither candidate because neither has presented any evidence to my sensibilities that lead me to think they're qualified to lead the country), I certainly respect your opinions and it's always an interesting read/viewing.

And screw the people who slam you for not posting about gaming. This is your blog; post about whatever the hell fits your fancy!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Douglas Adams, have you ever read his perspective on atheism?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this piece.

Deometris said...

The way I see it, if you're an atheist it means you believe god doesn't exist, and that's how the dictionary defines it as well. If you start saying that someone can be an atheist and yet not 100% believe in anything, so do acknowledge the possibility of GOD existing, then that's basically defining them as AGNOSTIC, as that's precisely what an agnostic is suppose to be. So it seems absurd to use a similar definition for these two different schools of thought..

Anyways, I'm personally an agnostic that leans towards atheism. Atheism really appeals to common sense, so I find it hard to shirk the feeling of there being no god(s), although I acknowledge the possibility of their existence. I think a lot on this topic and there are a lot of different things to consider.. Just recently I was thinking of the process of death, and it occurred to me that for the most part, death is a GRADUAL process. For instance, the natural death of the brain happens gradually by the cells slowly dying off from lack of oxygen, unless you were incinerated or something. So I'm curious, at what point is it plausible to say the 'soul' leaves the body? It's just strange I guess cause it shows to me how the border between life and death is so incredibly blurred. A person can have half his brain die from lack of oxygen, then be brought back to life as a total retard..Also, just look at a plant , you can pull it from the ground and ruin it's future potential, and yet it's not quiet dead yet.. It's cells are still active for a little awhile and will slowly die off one by one...So I guess the point I'm getting at is, is there a singular death that occurs within an organism that leads to its identity, or "soul" being freed? This brings up an idea to me.. What if we need to fully experience death and the dark, cold nothingness, before our soul can be freed... Okay this sounds really obscure, enough speculating.

Deometris said...

p.s. sorry for grammar/punctuation errors, I wrote this pretty quickly.

red peter said...


Your "an agnostic that leans towards athiems" and you believe in the "soul"?

jd said...

Well said Mate

P.s: ive never played God of War...Forgive me :P


Deometris said...

No...I was asking a question about the how the soul would function IF it existed. I thought saying I'm agnostic was enough to make it clear that I'm only speculating about the nature of the soul's existence..

red peter said...


Oh, OK. I guess that's what whole abortion debate comes down to as well: When does the soul enter the fetus?

Funny thing is, the Catholic church used to think Sperm had souls. No shit.

Dan Allison said...

...But when both sides are clearly missing so many pieces of the puzzle...

You should give Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' a read. He does an excellent job of listing the many facts and reasons (ie puzzle pieces) us Atheists use in the god argument.

For me, being raised a Methodist, it took me some time to come to the decision that there is no god. But now that I have, I can't see my life any other way, as the process in getting to this point expanded my overall conciseness and allows me to see and understand things I missed or over looked when I was younger.

If you are at all interested in the subject, I can't recommend his book enough.

DF334 said...

The problems that I have with reiligion is that every side seems to think that one another is wrong! The Christians think that the Muslims are wrong, Buddist think that Chistians are wrong, and Catholics thinks that everyone is wrong!! Too much control. I really don't think anyone can really explain it, they can just come up with theories!

For one thing, I have had it with the Christian communities,because they never can back up anything they say with something that makes sense. They believe in one thing and that is the Holy Bible. Anything outside of that is uncivilized to them.

I look to everything because to me how can you explain anything if you look to one side of it. I have read many books and have come up with my own ideas. I don't know what type of person that makes me, but one thing I WILL tell you: If you don't believe in GOD then you have serious problems. There are things that even science cannot explain!!! I think that people need to just relax and know that this life is about ONE THING and that is YOU!!! NOTHING ELSE!!

You have to think!! Life's challenges and the choices that you make in Your life and also the ups and the downs teach you a lot. All you have to do is RELIZE that and you will find out a lot about everything. It's like those commercials that they have about drugs and influences: Once you stop listening to everyone and just listen from within, then everything starts to make sense. You think GOD wants you to find out about this world or do you think that he wants you to find out about YOU and become comfortable with YOURSELF??

There is on line in the Bible that everyone overlooks: God created man in HIS IMAGE! If you create something in YOUR image, say for instance a CHILD, then that makes you what??? Think about that!!!

GrYnder said...

Thank yoooou.

I can't throw all of my faith into believing in a God that may not even exist. But I don't want to say something like "SCIENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER," because for all I know there IS some sort of god. Not necessarily any god humans currently worship. Just a higher being that we cannot perceive.

I don't really want to get too deep into it. My post will be gigantic and mostly filled with ramblings.

GrYnder said...

Oh yea. Off topic. 22 days 'till Halloween! YEAH. Gonna go to some Halloween themed events around the city on the 31st... Gonna be a blast! And then the next major holiday... CHRISTMAS! :D

From what I've seen, you're just as stoked as I am! :D

*Listens to Christmas tunes*

comedianx said...

Well, Jaffe, let's never have any beliefs based on science because *gasp* they might change in the future.

Science may not have all the answers, but it's the best answer we have. Accordingly, atheism my not be the best philosophy there is, but it's the best one we have in the face of the absurdity of religion.

With all the centuries of History, Philosophy and Science showing religion (née God) as a man-made construct, Agnosticism is ambivalent mealy-mouthed fence sitting when the world requires more.

Joel said...

well, comedianx, lets not forget that science doesn't PROVE there is no god.

just because there are scientific theories that could explain the lack of a god, or whatever, that doesn't mean that science proves that god doesn't exist.

what Jaffe is saying is that there is TOO MUCH unknown about the nature of the universe to take a conclusive stance!

i think agnosticism makes the most sense, you have the best view sitting on the top of the fence. you can see both sides of the issue, while everyone else can only see things from their own side of the fence.

i have serious questions about God, if he indeed does exist, like.. why would he conceal the fact that he even EXISTS? i can't see the benefit of that. there seems like better options, but there are other questions as well.

but i think a world without god begs certain questions as well...

fact is.. life itself begs questions, and although science helps us understand stuff about the world, we have to understand that its PRIMITIVE science that we have today, compared to what it will be in a few thousand years. we have much to learn about the universe still.. so GO AHEAD an make a guess..

but don't tell me you KNOW something that science can't prove... thats just ignorance.

Anonymous said...

The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.

Read it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
lk mastthew dickinson said...

Is the Mossad too busy?

red peter said...

wow anon, I thought you were making a really bad joke until the you posted the address. Get a life.

David, I'm sorry you have to put up with this shit. Hope it doesn't stop you blogging.

Gothdom said...

Yeah, Anon is really sick.

Dave, I admire the way you talk with us, i.e. frankly. We discuss on subjects and that's that. I used to do that with my friends all the time...

until they contracted the drug abuse disease, but that's another story.

Anon should just help community and commit suicide. He's part of the society's problem. He's uninformed, racist, and gullible. He might be George W. Bush himself lol.

Dave, don't stop you're blog because of this ass.

On the religious note, I'm between agnostic and atheist. I don't believe in god, but in case there's one, I think he doesn't even care about the planet earth. Why should he? (or He or they?) I mean, I have created a cardboard Mega Man when I was ten, now it's somewhere in the bottom of a box and I won't go and help it. Also, if I were a god and saw how humanity is going, I'd give up too.

But I think that those who believe have the right to do so, because it makes them go through the hard parts of life. Praying is another name for meditation.

I'm a nihilist though. I believe strongly in the fact that we are parasites and we shouldn't be able to travel through space. We'll be the "Aliens"... you know, we do come out of a belly, we shoot acid at each other (anon's speach is proof) and we don't care at all for another's life.

P.S.: Sarah Palin got reprimended by Brigitte Bardot. Cat fight is on!

Matthew DIckinson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nathaniel LeMoine said...

Okay fine, I thought God of War was freaking awesome. Especially the fireball part where all those fireballs are coming barrelling down at you in an amazing way down that slanted corridor. I love shit like that and it's rarely produced in ... whatever, in today, these days , especially in video games. Or something.

gothdom said... :)

greenmaze (paypal)

jaffe said...

Matthew, clear the hell out of here please. you're keeping me from blogging which is keeping me from making my stupid gmae.

Matthew said...

Sorry! I'll leave! Just delete these comments if you don't like them. You have the power! You're the blog-owner!


meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee said...

Heeyyyyy check out these cool YouTube videos:

I'm bored as fuck and I don't wanna die. I'm bored as hell and I wanna keep on goin

Just ban me please, thanks


pretty please, huh? yeah?

Chimes at Midnight fight scene by Orson Welles

Good editor! said...

Hey, now this one actually relates to what was in his post:

"Orson Welles Tribute- On Death"

good editing!

matthew871 lkui788888888 msd dickinson stalepie matthew said...

Hey why am I still not banned here, is david jaffe asleep? :(

That's okay

Matthew ICknson said...

I mean that's great!! Just as good as Orson welles!

i mean the visual movement and all that stuff

Funny man said...

"And this is why families shouldn't intermarry "

New Family - Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates Ad (Long Version)

There's some gum in my roll

Death Adventures said...

Manny's Movie Review

Death Adventures said...

Manny's Movie Review

Jack_Vykios said...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm an atheist because someone has yet to give me any real proof of god. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove anything, with science or religion, it doesn't matter. The moment I see any indication that there is a god, then I will consider the existence of one, but there isn't much that was attributed to god by bronze age scholars that can not be understood by science today. My position on god, however, should one exist at all, is that he's cruel and insane and morally backward. The Biblical God, especially, although, in honesty, it's only he that I've put much research into, although I understood that of Islam is no better.

Basically, do I know if there is a god? No. Do I believe in him? No. Why? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise. God has always just been a god of the gaps, and now he just gets in the way. I hope he dies soon, to be honest. It'll save the taxpayeres a lot of money, and scientists will be able to progress almost entirely unhindered, at least by religious fundamentalists.
But...then again, maybe I'm being just a little too much optimistic.


Zach J said...

I feel you're discrediting an important part of religion; spirituality. Though many people look to it for "answers" and "explanations," I think there are many people that use it as a way express a sense of connection and mysticism to other people and things "beyond our world."

My father is a minister, but I'm secretly agnostic. I've met a full range of "believers," and not all of them are uneducated, blinded, and ignorant. They're people that understand their world scientifically, but believe in something more than heat makes things melt.

When I did believe in God (around 8), I lost a toy in my backyard, which was quite large. I closed my eyes and prayed with all my heart that God would help me find it. As soon as I opened my eyes, I saw the toy about 20 yards away. The toy was all black and would have been well hidden at even 10 feet in my backyard, but I saw it immediately.

It's moments like that, that make me question whether we're "alone" in the universe. Why would God help me find a toy when there's sick and dying people? Why would he have allowed Jesus and Peter to walk on water? I think it's because they...we, believed.

I also think one should consider the Hebrew's history. While most the world had fifty gods, they only had one. Why, in their minds, did one God rule over all?

But whatever. I don't really believe in it. I'm just trying to argue that it's not about explaining why Rainbows appear or how the world was created. It's about exploring ourselves in a way that isn't just neurons sending signals.

And it's also about Morality. I know a lot of Old Testament heavy-hitters like to go on and on about how God punished them gays in New Orleans. But the New Testament has a stronger approach toward love and compassion. Jesus told a wealthy guy he had to give up all his possession and money to get to heaven.

Have you seen/heard of For the Bible Tells Me So? It's a documentary about the Christianity and homosexuality. I think it's a great film that looks to build a compromise between the "literallist" and the more liberal believers.

But ultimately, I can appreciate many believers. They're usually some of the kinder people I meet. They devote themselves to a strict moral code. They slip up, as do we all, and not everyone involved is a Saint, but these guys are building homes, donating food to the starving, and doing a lot more than just sitting around being ignorant.

David said...

Remember, Jaffe, there's only 1 *REAL answer to life the universe, and everything...

42! :D

ConceptCreature said...

I think that's a very healthy P.O.V. to have on religion, Dave. I think the person that admits their skeptical attitude towards ANYTHING, not necessarily just religion, leads a better life towards discovering the truth than one who is convinced they do have all the answers, and then are completely inflexible to the possibilities and what new knowledge they may discover.
That's why when people ask me if I'm a "Christian", I usually respond with, "I am, and then some." When they look at me puzzled, I tell them that I'd never just be ONE theological ideology, it's too limiting on the grand scale of things. Also giving yourself a singular label like that doesn't invite others to the party, and if you're really going to pursue a spiritual life, you can't keep anyone out.
Also one of the most influential spiritual guides I've had in my life was a pastor that when I asked him if there was a Hell, his answer was, "I don't know." I thought for a man that's dedicated himself to such a noble cause as spending his life in helping people understand God, it was very impressive for him to admit he doesn't have all the answers.

Anonymous said...

i believe in what we know. the universe is awesome.

there's no reason to believe in a god. any god. we made them all up, like elmer fudd & Boba Fett, cool ideas, but thats all.

the "we can't disprove god" line is bunk. i COULD be typing this with a spiked tentacle jutting from my tailbone (i'm not). you're not going to think i am though, you'd say, "that's retarded, send me a non photoshoped pic, or i'll just assume your using your hand"

tim said...

Bloody hell, what a superb debate to see happening. Personally, as an atheist, I've always looked to the logic inherent in the question: "Can an omnipotent, omniscient, supreme being create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it?"

It's a slow burn that question, but worth thinking about.

Cheers, Tim at

AlexG said...

Whats up David Jaffe... First off I'm an atheist. Now many people wanna throw atheists, and the religious in the same boat, because both parties are making a claim without any proof. This is just not so, the reason it is not so is because a "logical" atheist would have no problem believing in God, if there was enough evidence suggesting that such a God existed. The religious on the other hand will continue believing even when faced with mountains of evidence suggesting otherwise. But there is a reason it is called faith.

Anonymous said...

I know I'm a bit late to the party on this...but from what I understand from your logic, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, or Zeus, or Vishnu, Nyssius, or Mami Wata, or Orixa, or Rugiewit, or Odin, or Santa etc. and in regards to these beings, act as if we do not know if they exist or not. (I only made one of those up by the way). You're also saying the jury is still out on whether the Ancient Mayans and Aztecs where doing a good thing by sacrificing thousands to keep their Gods from destroying the world. You cannot say for sure that they were wrong?

You can apply the same logic outside of religion. Our science is so simple we cannot prove that carrots are do not feel pain. The safe thing to do (if one does not wish to inflict pain) is not eat carrots. Therefore ethical Vegans are ignorant to take their position on the matter.

It's a clever trick to suppose that because we don't entirely know, we cannot draw a conclusion, but we do so everyday. We do not know that we will not be run over when we cross at the zebra crossing, therefore the logical thing is to not cross the street.

It's a ridiculous example but it demonstrates that we make the decision to cross the street on the probability we won't be hit by a car and die.

When the Atheist says "There is no God" he says with the same conviction as one that crosses the street..actually more so, there are lot of examples of why not to cross the street, but no examples of the existence of a being who calls himself/herself God.

Probability seems to be on the side of the Atheist, unless the evidence of God's existence is produced.

I can think of some reasons to consider whether a God exists, but nowhere near enough to return to an assumption that we don't have enough evidence to say he probably does. His existence is highly improbable, or at least as probable as Chaac.

Anonymous said...

i can get silkroad gold cheaply,
Yesterday i bought sro gold for my brother.
i hope him like it. i will give silkroad online gold to him
as birthday present. i like the cheap silkroad gold very much.
I usually buy the silk road gold and keep it in my store.

wangzi said...

Breitling Watch in 18k Gold and animation case with blooming credible casting is able cut out for connoisseurs. Navitimer World has All-overs White chaw with Montbrillant Datora sub-dials Date indicator at the 3 mark Unidirectional Ratcheted Breitling Avenger Cambered azure anxiety proofing on both carelessness.

I regularly buy Louboutin Shoes , so I have many shoes in my Christian Louboutin Boots box for two seasons, although they are my best good. Christian Louboutin Sandals can be more and more girls and sexy good girl must keep intact all the time flat, charming and attractive. Buy cheap shoes, many Christian Louboutin Pumps ?

When buying portable HOPE AND FAITH , make sure you carefully examine basic features such as display resolution and battery of life for maximum efficiency. You can expect newer models of HOPE AND FAITH DVD player to arise in the coming years as this technology continues to improve its quality and offer more innovation. These newer HOPE AND FAITH DVD COLLECTION models will also introduce more advanced features that will enable you to enjoy more functionality and entertainment however you like it