Bob Loblaw
Bluelight Crew
Naked Lunch currently
-
🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
European & African
Drug Discussion
Welcome Guest!
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules -
EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari
What book are you currently reading?
- Thread starter StoneHappyMonday
- Start date
- Status
BlindHelperMonkey
Bluelighter
Spelling mistakes are the only genuine error with my previous post. Pointing them out is also a good way for someone to feel like they've won an argument when they are incapable of engaging in a debate.
if youre going to attempt to be clever, its best to get the basics right
That should be 'you're' not 'youre'. Normally i wouldn't bother to point this out because i know exactly what you meant anyway, it's not that important and it would make me look like a dick. However, on this occasion the irony is great enough that i cannot resist...
If you don't like wikipedia, just read any other website explaining the fallacy of the watchmaker argument;
non wiki link
Wikipedia is just a collection of information. Like an online encyclopedia. I always find people who 'dont trust it' a bit strange. Just use your brain critically when reading wikipedia like you would with any other source of info and you wont go too far wrong; i've found it to be more reliable than the average internet page though clearly it contains errors.
Though i could just explain the points myself. It's pretty simple and straight forward. Just didn't want to derail the thread too much.
If a watch suggests the existance of a watchmaker by virtue of it's complex design, then the watchmaker must be even more complicated than the watch he made suggesting a watchmaker maker and so on ad infinitum.
I do realise the watchmaker metaphor is a metaphor. It's also really bad metaphor for the reasons above.
Pingu said:
I'm a big fan of Iain Banks. Everything he writes is amazing but some are better than others and the current culture novel is top rate.
It is however, as blindhelpermonkey helpfully pointed out, a bit 'gay'. If you don't like reading about non hetrosexual characters (and even non human ones) then you will find this book unpleasant. Some of the scenes played out in virtual hell are especially nasty (and at times gay).
You mention your favorite 'atheism refuting quote' and pick one of the oldest most easily refutable of the 'atheism refuting' debating points. Did you really not expect someone to respond?
Last edited:
pinkpapaver
Bluelighter
facebook and text messages, it is chrismas
Infinite Jest
Bluelight Crew
MrM: I don't think that quote was actually referencing the watchmaker argument 
Watchmaker argument: "life is so complex, clearly it didn't happen by chance, there had to be a designer"
That quote: "God and the universe are so complex that you have no hope of understanding them or trying to explain them, any more than a child could understand a watch"
(Personally I think it's a silly argument as well...it also doesn't "refute" anything, as to refute something means to prove it wrong)
Ah, pedantry
.
I'm reading Bolano's 2666, which i put aside to read the Reluctant Fundamentalist. Not bad but heavy going.
Got Surface Detail by Banks ready to read on my phone at some point soon
Watchmaker argument: "life is so complex, clearly it didn't happen by chance, there had to be a designer"
That quote: "God and the universe are so complex that you have no hope of understanding them or trying to explain them, any more than a child could understand a watch"
(Personally I think it's a silly argument as well...it also doesn't "refute" anything, as to refute something means to prove it wrong)
Ah, pedantry
. I'm reading Bolano's 2666, which i put aside to read the Reluctant Fundamentalist. Not bad but heavy going.
Got Surface Detail by Banks ready to read on my phone at some point soon
MrM: I don't think that quote was actually referencing the watchmaker argument
I think it does because;
It's got the watch maker (master who made it) implied by the complexity and apparent designedness (cunningly fashioned)ness of the watch.
If it isn't then Tolstoy is not as good a writer as his reputation implies as choosing a different metaphor so similar to a famously known metaphor just seems confusing.
BlindHelperMonkey
Bluelighter
im glad you concur
ive been posting on boards for too long to worry about such puerility. all my spellings are correct though
are you an idiot or something? saying something is my favourite quote does not mean it is my most efficacious argument. it just means it is my favourite quote pertaining to said subject. go away, youre annoying and stupid. quite a combination for one who seeks out arguments in book threads
megawoof
Bluelighter
discobloodbath by steven saint james about the club kid era in late 80/90's in new york when the limelight club was in full swing and michael alig promoter killed his drug dealer boyfriend cut him up into pieces and threw him in hudson river
pinkpapaver
Bluelighter
how about what was lost by catherine o'flynn. tindall st press, ready to fall foul of the tory
cu(n)ts its set in brum good book
cu(n)ts its set in brum good book
And you don't see any double standards here? Why is pointing out simple spelling mistakes less purile than (ironically) pointing out grammatical errors?
You didn't say it was your favorite quote. You said it was your 'fave atheist-refuting quote'. Since it in no way refutes atheism i am not sure how this can be, unless you yourself are an atheist and appreciate the uselessness of this argument which is still (comically) used by deists in debates.
Maybe you just liked the olde englishe it was written in?
BlindHelperMonkey said:
MrM said:
BlindHelperMonkey said:
So you don't read wikipedia because you can't handle the spelling mistakes?
captain codshit
Bluelighter
Anyone know if there's any books full of Happy Monday's stories? Like an autobiography type thing? Or any similar books full of superstar chaos :D
Pingu
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,337
yeah there's bezs autobiography. i think its called freaky dancing. one of my favourite autobiographies.
theres one about the hacienda by bernard summers which is very good aswell
endlessnameless
Bluelighter
Both Leonard Cohen's and Keith Richard's respective biography/auto-biography.
Last edited:
pinkpapaver
Bluelighter
yesterdays sunday world
pinkpapaver
Bluelighter
of course, it is a good read, id love to have time to read the observer on sunday, or even thru the week, but im quite a busy person, i can read other things though. thinking of trying some jilly cooper for christmas, never read any of her stuff before. wouldya recommend it ?
i must say though , that plato fella, he tells a good story too doncha think?
i must say though , that plato fella, he tells a good story too doncha think?
Shambles
Bluelight Crew
You do know he plagiarised the Don Juan stuff and was also a totally evil scumbag don't you? Have got the whole Castaneda collection here but never gotten around to reading them. Once you know how much of a twisted, lying fuck the author is it makes it kinda hard to accept his bullshit stories somehow
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Great documentary about Casteneda's life and where the Don Juan stuff was stolen from.
Classic. Was way better than I expected. More like an early, survival horror/zombie book than a hokey killer plant silly thing.
Have a great one about the whole Madchester era and the history of Ecstasy with loads of Mondays stories in it. Can't recall what it's called but is written by a semi-famous old punk who is often to be found opining on late night arts programmes like The Late Show. Rob somebody I think. Will post it if I stumble across the book amongst the rubble of my room.
Blind Watchmaker silliness aside, the above exchange did remind me that I've been meaning to get cracking on some Iain M Banks stuff for ages. Have only read a coupla short stories of his before and really enjoyed them. Just found a copy of State of the Art by him in my To Read pile - thanks for the reminder, MrM
BlindHelperMonkey
Bluelighter
yours was unintentional, mine was not (excuse the double negative). as long as i get my point across im easy with regards to all that. its not an error, its just a time saver - whereas theres no advantage to you spelling incorrectly. and youre right, it is a purile act - but i only did it because you for some odd reason felt compelled to interject with how foolish you thought my 'argument' was, even though i mentioned nothing about arguments and was just responding to someones enquiry regarding anna karenina. if you pick at me im gonna do the same to you.. but as i generally admonish those who look for online arguments i'll forget about it. six of one et al
if id of known my post was going to be dissected by a semanticist i wouldve made it crystal clear for you.. its fairly simple really - 'atheist-refuting' is the subject. whether its effective or not is up for debate, it may surprise you to know that im actually agnostic and am fully-versed in pre-big bang theory. i used to argue with a girlfriend about how causality only came to be after the creation of space/time and therefore nothing was required to have 'put' the primordial atom there, it can simply of just appeared in an example of effect preceding cause. but yknow what? it never made a jot of difference to her. she had FAITH that was utterly immutable, so its just not worth it striving for the most devastating argument to shut the believers up.. as they just dont pay heed to it, the debates are mutually exclusive. i guess one thing you must consider is this; if youre right and my ex is wrong we shall never know any different, as you will no longer exist to congratulate yourself on your wisdom.. but if SHE'S correct and youre wrong, well then youll burn in hell for all eternity - i guess i just like to play it on the safe side.
some of the greatest atheistic minds to of ever existed have crumbled when asked to reaffirm their (non)belief upon their deathbeds. as a very famous guitar player once sang; as we enter midnight, when death comes slippin' in your room, youre gonna need somebody on your bond
but back to my point, the 'atheist-refuting' bit is still a quote which contains an argument that seeks to admonish the disbeliever. therefore it is an atheist-refuting quote. youre probably correct in that a better choice of word may have been possible, but as i said i was just responding from the heart and didnt realise someone would take umbrage to it.
thats one aspect yes, and no re; wikipedia. its the mistakes per se. but this is the last i shall speak on the matter, i say good day to you sir. and back to the topic
- Status