• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

God, Jackboots and Rule 34.

Migrated topic.
Orion

Orion

Esteemed member
Senior Member
OG Pioneer
Senior member
Peter watts is a great author, not as popular as he should be. Very intelligent man. Here's him hammering it home in good humor:

[YOUTUBE]

Touching on characters in science fiction, evolution, the nature of human behavior, god, and sex.

Free will does not agree with the laws of physics....

This is good material, and this guy deserves a hell of a lot more credit. Especially after the way he has been treated by his country. Wise people like this are so outspoken it's depressing.
 
His talk was interesting, but his atheism was a bit much.

I’m really tired of atheists, especially the militant variety. (Peter Watts doesn't seem to be very militant in his atheism.) Atheists criticize religious fundamentalists, yet fail to see fundamentalism in themselves. Both devout religious people and atheists say “I know things about the nature of existence.” (Things that can’t be known!)

I much prefer an agnostic stance. An agnostic says “I don’t know the true nature of existence. There is much about existence that lies beyond human understanding.”
 
I prefer to take the agnostic route myself, but then again I'm much more inclined to side with science. But for sure, science does not have all the answers. It's just infuriating when people use that as an excuse for the existence of a god, etc. If there IS something similar to what we perceive as god, IT is one incredibly intelligent sonnofa...
 
Orion said:
I prefer to take the agnostic route myself, but then again I'm much more inclined to side with science. But for sure, science does not have all the answers. It's just infuriating when people use that as an excuse for the existence of a god, etc. If there IS something similar to what we perceive as god, IT is one incredibly intelligent sonnofa...
Click to expand...
An agnostic stance is not an anti-science stance. I very much value science, but I also understand that there are questions that lie outside of the scope of science.
 
Right G2...

You can even be deistic or theistic and still embrace science. They are not mutually exclusive.

Take Ben Franklin. Full on scientist. Full on deist.

Plenty of scientists believe in G*D... and a bunch more believe in some form of intelligent design.
 
gibran2 said:
Orion said:
I prefer to take the agnostic route myself, but then again I'm much more inclined to side with science. But for sure, science does not have all the answers. It's just infuriating when people use that as an excuse for the existence of a god, etc. If there IS something similar to what we perceive as god, IT is one incredibly intelligent sonnofa...
Click to expand...
An agnostic stance is not an anti-science stance. I very much value science, but I also understand that there are questions that lie outside of the scope of science.
Click to expand...

Of course, I just tend to lend my ear well to scientists, as I have something to work with, something to back up those claims. Everything outside of that is purely conjecture (when its not direct experience of course). Some even say science proves nothing, but it gives evidence for it, which I think is what watts is getting at with his approach to writing, even though he is creating works of fiction afterall.
 
Back
Top Bottom