alt textIt’s hard to imagine a more extraordinary claim than that some hidden intelligence created a universe of more than a hundred billion galaxies, each containing more than a hundred billion stars, and then waited more than 13.7 billion years until a planet in a remote corner of a single galaxy evolved an atmosphere sufficiently oxygenated to support life, only to then reveal his existence to an assortment of violent tribal groups before disappearing again.
more like “your version of a god is kinda ridiculous if you think about it for like a few seconds”
Xtians: “you can’t ever prove something supernatural doesn’t exist conclusively, that’s why our insanely specific version must be right. Also, we get the fuzzies when we ask ourselves if it’s true. Checkmate, everyone.”
…How can you even take yourself seriously? You’re legitimately crossing the threshold where if I tried to mock 14 year old reddit atheists, and I just wrote that out verbatim, people would say I’m going too far because nobody actually says shit like that. It discredits atheism, I’d rather be a fundy than talk like I’m in a fan sub of Death Note.
The religion vs science dichotomy is false, but I have to admit many religious (mostly Christian) zealots who are uneducated view science as opposing God’s word.
In the Quran mankind is encouraged to study the world and ponder, which explains the motivation behind the Muslim scientific advances at the time.
Even if that was true about Krauss (it would seem from Wikipedia that the only halfway credible accusation amounted to an awkward encounter that was handled by the woman in the moment rather than anything approaching abuse, according to herself. Your two hour video looks to be unrelated to Krauss.), that would still be a poor attempt at distracting from his completely valid point.
And by people not listening to women. Like not believing them about whether or not they were abused.
Investigators interviewed two eyewitnesses, and two other witnesses who immediately spoke with the unnamed woman. The witnesses described the woman as troubled and shocked. The woman told investigators that “she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment.”
FUCJ you fuck you that’s the shit that got him canned cause there were actual eye witnesses. The rest he sets up to be 1 on 1 and in the early 2000s women might as well pretend it didn’t happen cause that’s all they felt they could do. buzzfeednews.com/…/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassm… Shilling for this fuckwit read some linked articles they’re bad, he’s bad, he’s an obvious serial abuser, he hung out with Epstein and defended him when he was accused of prostituting a minor, he does indeed hide in ambiguity and you fucking let those lightly mentioned abuses disappear and center on one where the academic clearly never expected to have someone walk up and grab their tit.
Ok, seems I was too quick to accept the story as told on Wikipedia.
I guess I’ve gotten so used to living in a time where the benefit of the doubt goes to the victims and thought that anything credible would have been included, forgetting about the times where the default was that they got away with everything. I apologize for my mistake.
Speaking of abuse, though, could you please stop with yours? I didn’t do any of the above on purpose and you seem to be absolutely convinced that I did and am trying to shield him somehow, making it your mission to hurl invective at me over and over and over.
Didn’t even notice it was you every time, just responded to all the minimizing comments with frothing rage.
For context, academia is rife with sexual abusers who operate through extensive 1 on 1 abuse via the power difference (they hold funding, they hold access, for grad students they hold your future too). This fucker is horrendous and systemic, but there’s tons more like him. Most don’t manage major media recognition, but they all have hurt many people. Universities don’t like to reprimand professors that are getting grants for “minor” sexual abuse claims, cause if they did they’d have a scandal and less grant money. Usually the best an abuse victim can do is leave, damage their career path in doing so, and make room for a new abuse victim - with no action against the perpetrator.
In academia, the victims are often still minimized. As I said, he was ejected for the boob grab because there were multiple witnesses - that’s what it took. The multitude of everything else in his career was carefully orchestrated so the victim has no witnesses or help. He was ejected for it because the uni admin knew full well about the rest and wanted him gone before anything worse came out.
It’s horrendous, it’s systemic, and the abusers should not be quoted or promoted.
Agreed. I’m gonna delete the comments so that I won’t be contributing to the minimising narrative for anyone who might come across the post later. The original comment I replied to standing unchallenged and upvoted should be enough to set the record straight.
Again, I’m sorry for inadvertently contributing to the problem.
Thx for understanding the severity and apologies for the frothing rage, I have had to see this shitbag for more than a decade skate around from one gig to the next leaving sexual abuse allegations in his wake. If you check his Twitter he’s still using his influence and recognition to get close to young undergraduates on the reg - he’s out of the uni systems finally but there’s still too many places he can operate.
I dont think they are attacking the argument Krauss is making, we just shouldnt give any oxygen to abusers. What he’s saying isnt original anyway, its frequently pointed out.
You fucking fuck victim minimizing fuck, it’s linked in the Wikipedia article under a lightly tidy “variety of sexual misconduct claims”. buzzfeednews.com/…/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassm… he’s literally barred from setting foot on any campus where he worked in the last few decades, he’s a serial sexual abuser who used the victim minimizing era to get away with way too much. Don’t quote the fuck don’t minimize the victims don’t be a bitch for some shitbag guy abusing subordinates in academia - it’s notoriously easy STILL for abusers to operate in the lax rules and enforcement many unis have
This fuckwad especially thrives on recognition to hide his sexual abuses. He has sexually abused people (buzzfeednews.com/…/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassm…) and used his influence to get corrupt administrators in universities to look the other way in their sham investigations. He thrived in the era where women couldn’t speak freely about sexual assault and he was jettisoned since unis could no longer sweep it under the rug anymore. But no justice for the abuse victims. And yes, the wiki article is edited so it downplays everything in that Buzzfeed article and only really talks about what got him kicked out of academia finally. That’s by his design, he works hard to minimize and hide his chronic sexual abuse history.
You cannot take the tankie line and hold up some shitbag cause the asshole said something you kinda like then dismiss the multitude of sexual abuse accusations. Paraphrase and don’t name them. This fucko doesn’t deserve his name remembered, too many fucks like him in academia, they are predators creating hostile and abusive environments for women. Fuck that bitch.
yeah, he’s also made thinly-veiled remarks supporting race-based eugenics, and has a bunch of friends that more openly support it. Fuck that guy. So many grifters, no group is safe from grifters.
Nothing more than that, in humanity’s frame of reference, things come into being, exist, and deteriorate. I have no reason to think the Universe is any different, since it seems to be made of the same stuff.
“Come into being” is veeeery different from “created”. Also, there’s no reason to believe it ever even did that. For something to begin, it must have been preceded by time in which it didn’t exist. Time is a function of the universe, so it makes no sense to say anything happened “before time”.
Religion, phylosophy and science have all been seeking the answer to this question for so many centuries. It won’t surprise anyone when I admit that I don’t have the answer!
Coming into being and being created are the same thing, depending on your definition. Our consciousness is most likely just an emergent effect of our chemistry, which is an emergent effect of plain physics. The same physics that causes star systems to form causes ant colonies to form. So “god”, “nature”, “natural selection”, etc could be entities with a conscience in some plane of existence that we don’t understand. I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in a dumb ancient book, but I accept that there can be things well beyond human comprehension.
Coming into being and being created are the same thing, depending on your definition
My definition for creation requires a creator. And to be clear, creators are conscious agents choosing to create. A wave, for instance, has no creator - it comes into being when water currents collide and move together.
Our consciousness is most likely just an emergent effect of our chemistry, which is an emergent effect of plain physics. The same physics that causes star systems to form causes ant colonies to form.
Agreed.
So “god”, “nature”, “natural selection”, etc could be entities with a conscience in some plane of existence that we don’t understand.
This is a leap of logic to me. It’s conceivable, I’ll admit, but many things are conceivable, such as Cthulhu.
I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in a dumb ancient book, but I accept that there can be things well beyond human comprehension.
This is key. Causality being a rule within the universe doesn’t mean it has to apply to the universe itself. Causality basically just describes the relationship between the temporal and spatial dimensions, and these are both just features of the universe, so it would actually be very weird if it applied beyond that.
Furthermore, by that logic, God shouldn’t exist either.
You can’t just start with an unsupported assertion and derive a logical conclusion from it. Your axioms need to be provably true. Logical reasoning does not work when based on either false or unfalsifiable premises.
Well, for causality to exist you need time, and since time is only a dimention within the universe there is no reason to believe that there exists causality beyond it.
I’m not suggesting that time is the reason for the universe, I’m just saying the lack of it beyond it makes it improbable that its phenomena also apply beyond it.
Causality is the phenomenon that relates the past with the present.
Not necessarily. In a hypothetical scenario where time travel is possible, it would be possible to make things happen after they took place.
For anything, including time, to exist, certain conditions need to be met. Nothing is possible without the things that make it possible. That’s what causality is.
That is only true because of causality. No causality means no this.
bong rip
Where exactly is my logic flawed?
I’d say about the place where you contend that the only thing stopping the impossible from being actual is time.
let’s just assume that time travel is impossible, shall we?
You DO know what the word “hypothetical” means, right? 🤦
Causality can only be observed to apply to things.There is no reason to believe that it would also apply to dimensions.
Yeah there is. The reason being that nothing can exist without being caused to exist. Not a magic sky daddy, not universes, not dimensions.
To believe that something can exist without something causing it to exist is the kind of thing that leads to religion and other superstitious nonsense.
You’re being very vague. Please elaborate.
I’ve already told you all there is to know about whether it’s possible that anything can exist without causation, but I’d be happy to give you a four word refresher course: it by definition can’t
You DO know what the word “hypothetical” means, right? 🤦
What I’m saying is that a hypothetical without grounds doesn’t disprove anything.
The reason being that nothing can exist without being caused to exist.
You seem to hold this as some infallible doctrine, huh? Do you have anything to support this claim?
If nothing would be possible without cause, there could not be any original cause and therefore nothing could exist. Believing this, therefore, automatically makes you reject the existince of anything.
Keep believing your high as fuck in a dorm room style hypothesis if you want. I’m not gonna continue to try and reason with someone who’s clearly impervious to reason when it comes to their favorite stray thought.
Add comment