tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post2385372800208182580..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open thread on Episode #726Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23523358276523616412011-09-15T22:01:41.305-05:002011-09-15T22:01:41.305-05:00I don't think you guys emphasized enough to th...I don't think you guys emphasized enough to the caller at the end that the most logical explanation for the supposed "New Testament fulfillment of prophecy" was simply that the writers had a copy of the Septuagint in front of them, picked out some random bits that they misinterpreted as "prophetic," and grafted them onto the life of Jesus. That the vast majority of Jews at the time did not even think these passages were prophecies, much less that they that heralded the Nazarean carpenter, speaks volumes. The Christians were simply grasping at straws, trying to give their godhead some credibility.ABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15536547131562840293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4249988956931356262011-09-14T18:11:33.423-05:002011-09-14T18:11:33.423-05:00I has a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Matt called the a...I has a 9/11 conspiracy theory.<br /><br />Matt called the attacks an 'accident', then hastily corrected himself. But I think he KNOWS THE TRUTH and it slipped out.<br /><br />Yes! 9/11 was an atheist publicity stunt that went wrong. They hired some planes to write the words "God is a poopyhead" in the sky (CHEMTRAILS!), but PZ Myers was remote-controlling the planes got confused and...Don'tYouSeeItAllMakesSense!<br /><br />Obama the time-travelling muslim president of Kenya destroyed all the evidence because, erm, he's an atheist too. And a shape-shifting lizard.Eight Tons of Geesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11664651664846004234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78875451593136483752011-09-14T08:28:41.304-05:002011-09-14T08:28:41.304-05:00@TroopDawg
He was banned from posting here for sp...@TroopDawg<br /><br />He was banned from posting here for spamming. And rightfully so, in my humble opinion.Question Everythinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04116650679421736815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12765318838880539982011-09-14T07:11:57.810-05:002011-09-14T07:11:57.810-05:00so has CLF abandoned his fight on this thread unti...so has CLF abandoned his fight on this thread until next week when he will will try to call again and attempt to disguise his voice? this dude needs helpTroopDawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03472898670398412674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17119323284830314812011-09-13T15:03:08.286-05:002011-09-13T15:03:08.286-05:00Oh, the YouTube channel. I thought you were talki...Oh, the YouTube channel. I thought you were talking about the chat DURING the show.<br /><br />Lukas is correct, we do not run any YouTube channel. You'll have to take it up with the owner of the channel, not us.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14426271722823508632011-09-13T14:58:47.982-05:002011-09-13T14:58:47.982-05:00natural intelligence only gets you so far. If you ...<b>natural intelligence only gets you so far. If you don't actually apply yourself to doing the work that you need to do, then you aren't automatically entitled to respect</b><br /><br />I agree. He strikes me as someone who was pretty smart in high school, wasn't accommodated by the teachers and as a result gave up on institutionalized learning. He therefore started educating himself leading to a high degree of proficiency in some subjects and a total lack in others.<br /><br />Much of his attitude seem to be summarized in the following:<br />Are you familiar with <i>[totally incomprehensible term]</i> mentioned in <i>[completely obscure book]</i> by <i>[utterly unknown author]</i>? You haven't? Then clearly, you are of inferior intellect and you may bow down and worship at my feet.<br /><br />What's really depressing is that if he had been properly coached by a teacher with the right capabilities, he could have seriously contributed to the improvement of mankind, rather than just mentally jerking off all over the internet.<br /><br /><br /><b>There's nothing to demonstrate that the god in question isn't Vishnu, Satan, Dionysus, Azathoth, or some completely inscrutable entity as yet undreamed of by the minds of human beings.</b><br /><br />Sure there is. 'Cos, you know, Chris says so, so there.<br /><br />Don't you feel foolish, now.<br /><br /><b>...The Atheist Experience Channel on youtube</b><br /><br />The youtube AE channel is not run by the actual AE guys, but, rather, is a fan-run channel. As such, Russell can't do a damn thing about it. You need to contact the guy running the youtube channel itself.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11500447290376442602011-09-13T13:32:57.830-05:002011-09-13T13:32:57.830-05:00@Kazim Do you know who I can contact to get this c...@Kazim Do you know who I can contact to get this corrected?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85296897442766262512011-09-13T13:27:03.075-05:002011-09-13T13:27:03.075-05:00@Kazim All I got was a message Saying "Bullsh...@Kazim All I got was a message Saying "Bullshit" then I couldn't post again. I am actually a big fan of the Atheist Experience I watch it every week. But this is the first time where I am actually a little upset. I haven't been booted like this since VFX and his creationist babbling were gracing Youtube.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46019623904717983682011-09-13T12:20:22.750-05:002011-09-13T12:20:22.750-05:00I'm willing to grant all premises for the sake...I'm willing to grant all premises for the sake of argument and say that, hypothetically, Chris Langan's argument conclusively proves that a god exists.<br /><br />Even if that were the case, you don't get any further than deism. There's nothing to demonstrate that the god in question isn't Vishnu, Satan, Dionysus, Azathoth, or some completely inscrutable entity as yet undreamed of by the minds of human beings.<br /><br />It certainly isn't a convincing argument for the existence of the death-obsessed, punishment-crazed, bloody thirsty deities of the Abrahamic religions.<br /><br />So tout Langan as much as you like. It doesn't make Christianity any less ludicrous than it already appears at face value.Gooberzillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08523854587427187333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69420729150227632202011-09-13T11:32:05.268-05:002011-09-13T11:32:05.268-05:00This calls to mind a scene from James Thurber'...This calls to mind a scene from James Thurber's wonderful "The Thirteen Clocks". The Golux and Princess Saralinda must attempt to start the thirteen clocks while the Prince duels the evil Duke. Princess Saralinda touches each clock, but they don't start. So the Golux exercises his mind thusly: "If you can touch the clocks and not start them, then you can start the clocks and not touch them. That's logic." Saralinda holds her hand a certain distance from each clock and lo! they start right up. Spell broken!<br /><br />Saying that one has used "binary logic" to "prove" something is all very well if one is discussing logical proofs. But if one is interested in real things that can actually be measured, observed, documented and analyzed, one needs proof based on evidentiary support, not clever word play. If the god "proven" by the CTMU exists, when, why, and how does he/she/it interact with the world? Where is the proof of that? If he/she/it *doesn't* interact with the world, why does it matter whether that god "exists" according to logic or not?Kestrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14765691761075518236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12659276318535422072011-09-13T11:12:31.098-05:002011-09-13T11:12:31.098-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ed L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08093580743059072173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28916161907538719162011-09-13T11:09:41.247-05:002011-09-13T11:09:41.247-05:00Oh yeah, "binary logic," that was the ot...Oh yeah, "binary logic," that was the other thing. It's another term he keeps using in this slow, portentous voice that sounds like he expects people to gape in awe at how smart it makes him.<br /><br />Binary logic is covered in Computer Science 1a, and I've also successfully taught it to my nine year old. Whoopee.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31504266426861147012011-09-13T11:04:47.548-05:002011-09-13T11:04:47.548-05:00Ah, apologies, my bad. He's a moron who doesn&...Ah, apologies, my bad. He's a moron who doesn't understand (hah) the "source material" instead. Or is that "sauce material"?<br /><br />Anyone up for organising a Chris Langan/Gene Ray debate?Hairy Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447200409981332335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7186326520546453722011-09-13T11:02:37.874-05:002011-09-13T11:02:37.874-05:00@ CLF Went to the websites you said everyone is ...@ CLF Went to the websites you said everyone is scared of and I understand it all and I'm still not impressed. I have a genuine IQ of 212 and instead of Binary Logic I use the vastly superior Hexadecimal Logic to come to the conclusion that no such god exists. 2+2=4 4+4=8 8+8=10 Case closed.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />ChrisLanganNonFanmikekoz68https://www.blogger.com/profile/02168101511381957884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9742968230057934662011-09-13T11:01:13.484-05:002011-09-13T11:01:13.484-05:00Hairy Chris,
No, that doesn't mean he's C...Hairy Chris,<br /><br />No, that doesn't mean he's Chris Langan. CLF has been copying and pasting from an interview that Langan did in lieu of explaining CTMU himself. You can find the original <a href="http://www.superscholar.org/interviews/christopher-michael-langan/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, with the passage you quoted reprinted verbatim.<br /><br />Also, CLF is Mark/Bob/Tom/etc, who sounds nothing like CL does in the videos.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56814692274524511672011-09-13T10:57:13.766-05:002011-09-13T10:57:13.766-05:00Just a quick one:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ch...Just a quick one:<br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />ChrisLanganFan said...<br /><br /> That’s as simple as I can make it without getting more technical. Everything was transparently explained in the 56-page 2002 <b>paper I published</b> on the CTMU, which has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. But just in case this still doesn’t qualify as “plain English”, there’s an even easier way to understand it that is available to any reader familiar with the Bible, one of the most widely read and best-understood books ever written.<br /> 9/12/2011 10:55 PM<br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />Emphasis mine. Seems like CLF is a sockpuppet...<br /><br />He's a bit too TimeCube for me.Hairy Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447200409981332335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26516590944864681052011-09-13T10:52:03.657-05:002011-09-13T10:52:03.657-05:00Also poisoning the well, I believe.Also poisoning the well, I believe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18401473144943724252011-09-13T10:51:13.987-05:002011-09-13T10:51:13.987-05:00@John K.
"1. Write a long and complicated pa...@John K.<br /><br />"1. Write a long and complicated paper that uses obscure and technical language, making it extremely difficult for anyone to actually understand.<br />2. Proclaim that this paper proves the existence of god.<br />3. When, inevitably, people point out that the paper is incomprehensible, deflect all criticisms on the basis that they are not smart enough to understand it or not academically qualified to criticize it."<br /><br />That's a textbook proof by intimidation fallacy.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02429301960848495781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48505563035705528622011-09-13T10:45:58.031-05:002011-09-13T10:45:58.031-05:00Even the more complex parts of Einstein's theo...Even the more complex parts of Einstein's theories can be cartoonized and put on the discovery channel so that people can understand it.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20915024836944682102011-09-13T10:36:16.547-05:002011-09-13T10:36:16.547-05:00So I had my Android playing what I THINK is the Ch...So I had my Android playing what I THINK is the Chris Langan video during my commute this morning:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0</a><br /><br />Then I remembered that I attempted to get through it once before, and I made it less than halfway through the first of three segments. This time, through supreme effort of will, I made it through one and a half segments before giving up in disgust.<br /><br />Why? Because the video itself contains no content, at least not up to the point I heard. It's essentially Chris Langan's autobiography, and most of it is completely unwarranted (IMHO) bragging.<br /><br />Chris's own account of his high school years makes him sound like a world class asshole. He concluded early on that he could easily master the material, so he spent his last couple of years telling off his teachers, ditching class, and acting indignant that they didn't recommend him for college early. In college he had some cockamamie story about how he got unfairly grouped with a bad crowd, thought they were going to expel him, and preemptively dropped out.<br /><br />IMHO, natural intelligence only gets you so far. If you don't actually apply yourself to doing the work that you need to do, then you aren't automatically entitled to respect. That seems to be the story of his life.<br /><br />This guy may be a genius, but he sure doesn't come across in the video as anything other than a braggart. For instance, at one point he is asked how big his brain is, and he makes a smug joke about how he could measure it using the Archimedean method of submerging his head in water. That seemed to impress the interviewer; personally I heard the story of Archimedes as a little kid and was somewhat less than amazed. It's also just flat out wrong; that would measure the size of his HEAD. It would do nothing to isolate his brain unless he actually removed it.<br /><br />Please tell me if there is more valuable content past the point I stopped watching. All I've heard in 15 minutes are fawning questions about his self-evaluation, and Chris pretending to be modest while engaging in content-free narcissism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65938281781444188372011-09-13T10:19:23.341-05:002011-09-13T10:19:23.341-05:00There are no real refutations of CTMU because ther...There are no real refutations of CTMU because there is nothing there to debate. I’ll break the theory down right now:<br /><b><br />1. Write a long and complicated paper that uses obscure and technical language, making it extremely difficult for anyone to actually understand.<br />2. Proclaim that this paper proves the existence of god.<br />3. When, inevitably, people point out that the paper is incomprehensible, deflect all criticisms on the basis that they are not smart enough to understand it or not academically qualified to criticize it.</b><br /><br />Set theory experts have looked at the CTMU and declared it word salad. There is nothing to discuss.<br /><br />I may not be able to completely understand relativity theory, but I sure as hell can observe the effects of nuclear energy that are based on it. If Mr. Langan wants to impress the natives he is going to have to break out the flashlight, not go on endlessly about electrical theory that they are unable to understand.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22571656868109513952011-09-13T07:57:27.711-05:002011-09-13T07:57:27.711-05:00I believe Carol Vorderman has a higher I.Q than Ei...I believe Carol Vorderman has a higher I.Q than Einstein, does that make her a authority on any given subject over Einstein? What if I had an I.Q of 221 and I claimed I could disprove God mathematically? Would you accept me as an authority over Langan? No? Then its just based on your nonsensical, religious presupposition my friend.<br />And by the way 'Mark', we are getting impatient with your presence here.The Dimeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07627095819806734435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74995568632119568122011-09-13T07:53:30.368-05:002011-09-13T07:53:30.368-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Dimeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07627095819806734435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24286370542240904292011-09-13T07:10:50.281-05:002011-09-13T07:10:50.281-05:00RE: Chris Langan
I saw a comment saying that he&#...RE: Chris Langan<br /><br />I saw a comment saying that he's "smarter than Einstein" by his big fan boy here.<br /><br />There are a lot of people who have a higher IQ than Einstein did. It doesn't mean anything whatsoever. Einstein isn't famous for his IQ. Einstein is famous because he revolutionized entire fields of science in one fell swoop and in just a few short years.<br /><br />Einstein is famous because he did something valuable for humanity with his brain; not because he simply had a big one.<br /><br />Langan, as far as I know, hasn't contributed anything like that to the Sum of Human Knowledge, so that argument is absolutely pointless to me.<br /><br />Also: You can't prove God with math. It's just a rhetorical exercise in spouting off assumed bullshit. To begin such an argument, you have to assume that there is a God - and there's no proof of one in any way whatsoever. So going on that assumption is a false beginning which, invariably, will render any further argument (no matter how long, intelligent, or entertaining) completely moot.Summer Sealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05366565083839326072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83958885909586430662011-09-13T05:52:05.478-05:002011-09-13T05:52:05.478-05:00The most important aspect of being intelligent is ...The most important aspect of being intelligent is not to establish authority, but rather in the ability to successfully explain something to others who don't understand it yet.<br /><br />If you can not or will not do this, then you aren't meeting the burden of proof. You're also not meeting the presentability requirement of science in that the knowledge is buried by obfuscation.<br /><br />Even after it is explained, does the "theory" have any testable hypotheses? Is there any established ways that it could be falsified? <br /><br />Without meeting these requirements and burdens, his "theory" is not science, and is disqualified.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.com