Penn Gilette (of Penn&Teller) "What I Believe"
- Thread starter benbradley
- Start date
davids
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 7,956
- Reaction score
- 2,804
Yes yes the article makes perfect sense-he is obviously an astute observer and his logic yet romanitc thoughts strike home-there is no God-Hmmm
I sit and listen to this old disc of mine with Nathan Milstein playing Brahms first violin concerto-logic demands I ask myself is this feeling inside me created by Mr. Milstein and Mr. Brahms simply a chemical reaction of my brain-is Mr. Milstein's playing and interpretation of this work simply some chemical freakish short circuit-same could be said of Mr. Brahms as he sat to compose this work and could only hear the insruments in his head-I mean he really did not have the orchestra sitting in front of him hitting or missing-wait I don't like that I think I will change that-wait I love that I think I will keep it in-then again maybe he had some chemical interaction going on in his brain that allowed him-unlike most others-to do all this?
Hmmm-I wonder cause everytime I get into my fuck you atheist non Brahms/Milstein pick my sorry ass up out of the damned gutter I need to fly somewhere that I never thought I could possibly fly poor me attitude-there is this thing about listening to this work among of course others-that make me wonder-Hmmmm?
Higgins
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 414
Life is hard for Chemicals too
I've always wondered about why the idea that your ideas are "chemicals" seems to disturb people so much. I see each chemical as a tiny monstrous TV commerical full of animated bubbles and diagrams of the stomach and a few Gaussian distributions in bad 1950s design colors and I hope I can live up to the love they have for staying on the air in my imagination.
I've always found it disturbing that I never have found my images of chemicals disturbing. But I can see how other people might have the feeling that they can never quite love their inner chemistry enough.
It's like the "Tinkerbell-effect"...the little light that makes all the children clap...though its just a projected area of increased photon flux that threatens to steal the show.
I guess I'm saying that if you had to clap for your chemicals in some alchemical theater, you'd love them more, even thought they are just some stuff in your head about the stuff in your head.
I've always wondered about why the idea that your ideas are "chemicals" seems to disturb people so much. I see each chemical as a tiny monstrous TV commerical full of animated bubbles and diagrams of the stomach and a few Gaussian distributions in bad 1950s design colors and I hope I can live up to the love they have for staying on the air in my imagination.
I've always found it disturbing that I never have found my images of chemicals disturbing. But I can see how other people might have the feeling that they can never quite love their inner chemistry enough.
It's like the "Tinkerbell-effect"...the little light that makes all the children clap...though its just a projected area of increased photon flux that threatens to steal the show.
I guess I'm saying that if you had to clap for your chemicals in some alchemical theater, you'd love them more, even thought they are just some stuff in your head about the stuff in your head.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 192
Penn is my hero. One day, I hope to shake his hand and thank him for being so articulate, thoughtful, brilliant, and funny. Skeptics and atheists are the minority in this country, and half the time it feels like they're pussy-footing around, as to not offend the religious majority. Penn doesn't give a fuck about any of that. It is just so nice to have somebody in the media who says exactly what I'm thinking, and often, better than I'm thinking it.
Thanks for the link. i would have missed it otherwise.
Thanks for the link. i would have missed it otherwise.
He certainly spends a lot of time being an evangelist for atheism.
It seems to be important to him that others not believe as well.
For someone who claims to be so self fulfilled and content I wonder why this is?
It seems to be important to him that others not believe as well.
For someone who claims to be so self fulfilled and content I wonder why this is?
davids
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 7,956
- Reaction score
- 2,804
I agree with you-it does not bother me in the least-it is just the darned cornsideration of the question that I find interesting. A romantic idea I know-but romantic ideas are for the most part jolly well interesting as well. For the most part I rather enjoy the idea of a chemical aberration being responsible for all things genius-etc. It is just that nagging little man sitting behind me forehead that is always throwing a bloody wrench into my hopefully at least marginally atheotic thoughts-damned chemicals-Dave
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,111
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
He used to have a great show on Showtime which took on many sacred cows. But he lost me when he took on some of the shakier aspects of the environmental movement and the endangered species act.
Nothing wrong with that. They’re no more immune to scrutiny and occasional mockery than is anyone else. But one of the “respected experts” he used to shore up his case was former Congressman Richard Pombo, a long time right wing industry shill and one of the most extreme and dishonest members of Congress.
So I can’t enjoy him quite so much, since I no longer trust what he says. Either he didn’t do his research, which is not good, or he did, and used Pombo anyway, which would be worse. Using Pombo in this context would be like doing a piece questioning Hillary Clinton’s record, and presenting Rush Limbaugh as an unbiased political commentator on the matter.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,661
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Yeah...but you know what I meant. I never thought about it much but I guess atheists enjoy someone affirming their beliefs as much as believers enjoy someone affirming theirs. Perhaps one day Penn will gather thousands in a building somewhere every Sunday....millions will watch on the idiot box to affirm their unbelief. It's interesting. I don't devote time to things I don't believe in and so it's fun to try and determine the motive of people who do.
Last edited:
I haven't gotten past the "Why does it matter if there are gods or not?" part. This drives my fiance up a tree.
Higgins
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 414
Applaud your Chemistry
Well..."chemicals" in general don't mean much to me. Perhaps the weirdest thing is that one's consciousness seems to happen with no particular effort...okay, for me, once I have a few cups of coffee (full of helpful chemicals) then I'm okay...I mean conscious, or at least awake.
Thinking about brain chemistry is close to thinking about one's own personal rhythms: waking/sleeping...eating drinking...thinking about this and that...it like all right there in the flow...
Well..."chemicals" in general don't mean much to me. Perhaps the weirdest thing is that one's consciousness seems to happen with no particular effort...okay, for me, once I have a few cups of coffee (full of helpful chemicals) then I'm okay...I mean conscious, or at least awake.
Thinking about brain chemistry is close to thinking about one's own personal rhythms: waking/sleeping...eating drinking...thinking about this and that...it like all right there in the flow...
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 926
- Reaction score
- 2,300
- Location
- Strawberry Fields Forever
- Website
- www.myspace.com
We humans sit aboard a planet that is a mere speck of nothingness in a universe so vast our minute little minds can't even grasp the concept of it. How anyone can say with such certainty that something doesn't exist seems a bit egotistical to me.
(For the record, I find Penn very entertaining and I love to watch him, whether or not I agree with him.)
(For the record, I find Penn very entertaining and I love to watch him, whether or not I agree with him.)
davids
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 7,956
- Reaction score
- 2,804
Yes yes well put-my problem is after all said and done aare the glips in the process that often are the most creative-so yes it is and can be chemical but the romantic in me which is always confronted with the rather pedantic logical me-are quite often at the old heads of loggers. It is the damned genius which let's say for simplicity's sake is musical. I mean in point of fact folks like-oh-lemme see-Wagner and Beethoven two to say the least on a social plain were not nice guys-rather brutes is what they were yet the music-God the music-so the chemicals? Yes of course quite so-however the Godly music-maybe not your personal God but the one of Einstein-universal and elegantly musical in all ways-nice thought that is for me-just a nice romantic concept-now where are me damned chemicals anyway??
Higgins
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 414
Do or not
To say that something of which you see no evidence does not exist is much less egotistical than to suggest that people find something credible purely on the basis of your assertion that it is credible.
To say that something of which you see no evidence does not exist is much less egotistical than to suggest that people find something credible purely on the basis of your assertion that it is credible.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 926
- Reaction score
- 2,300
- Location
- Strawberry Fields Forever
- Website
- www.myspace.com
I totally agree with that, too. I'm just pointing out that it's impossible to say what can or can't exist elsewhere in this universe based on the limited knowledge that we have.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,661
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
I agree. I don't go around talking about the fact that I don't believe in something. But on the flip side, I don't walk around talking about things I believe in either.
So I can forgive an athiest for discussing his non-beliefs when I consider that it is encouraged by most Christian churches that the members go out and "disseminate" their belief to the non-believers. Many even have a sign as you leave the parking lot that reads: "You are now entering the mission fields."
If they'd stop telling everyone what they believe, maybe the athiests wouldn't feel it necessary to talk about their non-beliefs.
I lived in the Middle East with my parents until a year ago, and their Christian friends made several attempts to try to convert me. Since these were family friends and my parents didn't want to offend them, I was rarely allowed to present my own point of view. And since that was the Middle East, there were no non-religious books or programs or events. That's one reason I left, and one reason I enjoy someone presenting thoughts and reasoning I agree with (I don't consider these beliefs - more like the lack of them). It can be difficult to be an atheist, especially in a society which disapproves of you and wants you to stop being what you are, so it's pleasant to hear someone speak up for what you think.
That's by literal definition, but I've even heard some Christians claim that atheism is a religious belief. Even without that, the word evangelism can be extended to mean the unsolicited presenting of an argument with the aim of wining others over. Or to quote m-w.com:
1 : the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ
2 : militant or crusading zeal
While that's a point, I'll quote Isaac Asimov on God who said "the burden of proof is on the positive." Why should one even consider a metaphysical question such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when the existence of angels hasn't been established?
This is close to how I feel. I can hardly begin to respond to this without writing several paragraphs covering some critical years of my life, and I might as well flesh it all out for a memoir rather than squeeze it into a post here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,661
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Well of course they're going to say that. They can't understand how someone could possibly live WITHOUT any religious beliefs so they project their own shortcomings onto the atheist.
In fairness, however, Penn IS presenting this as a religious belief. It is not just a lack of belief (as some define atheism), it is a positive belief that there is no God.
Higgins
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 414
The idea of a universe
You posit the idea of a universe and then say it has no use or content.
In fact as soon as you formulate "universe" you are talking about a set of elsewheres about which you have a lot of reliable fundamental knowledge.
Now, I myself am not saying "God does not exist"...as a Christian in Name only this is not a sensible thing for me to say...but I am saying two things:
1) Christianity took itself on a ride to nowhere when it decided its God had to be totally, objectively cosmic. Why can't he be completely local? or even "all in my head"? Why is that bad?
2) The proto-scientific idea of a "universe" posits a complete, absolute fullness of being in which God is completely contingent and in fact absent for all practical purposes.
You posit the idea of a universe and then say it has no use or content.
In fact as soon as you formulate "universe" you are talking about a set of elsewheres about which you have a lot of reliable fundamental knowledge.
Now, I myself am not saying "God does not exist"...as a Christian in Name only this is not a sensible thing for me to say...but I am saying two things:
1) Christianity took itself on a ride to nowhere when it decided its God had to be totally, objectively cosmic. Why can't he be completely local? or even "all in my head"? Why is that bad?
2) The proto-scientific idea of a "universe" posits a complete, absolute fullness of being in which God is completely contingent and in fact absent for all practical purposes.