Something that’s has irked me for some time now is how many people latched onto the Atheist movement as an edgy teen but now look back on it in reverence and not shame. This seems to be a common theme in academia and is prevalent even in communities like this one. The lamentation of the “golden-age” of atheism is peak hubris. Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety. Their lives were consumed by the need to disprove God and religion. However these were the shortsighted desires of pseudo-intellectuals, they accomplished nothing productive, and if anything, opened the door for the screaming children that replaced them. I don’t think Dawkins, in his wildest dreams, ever saw his fall come from his own hubris. The intellectual argument over dismantling religion somehow disproving the existence of a god is what fueled the SJWS and their own brand of hubris in the early 2000’s. BTW Dawkins, this is what happens when you remove the “tumor” of religion, you hack. As you see today, Dawkins was swallowed by the stupidity he helped bring about, the Maximilien Robespierre of the modern era, begging for trannies to not cut off his head.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
You have a problem with that?
???? No, what about it, i am mildly curious, since boundness of universe is not something that can be experimentally verified or falsified given our present knowledge.
You’re kidding right? The infinite monkey theory is borderline retarded, we tried it, the monkeys shit on the keyboard and didn’t type any English words, which is exceptionally difficult considering that a and I are words. The fact of the matter is ancient aliens make a more convincing argument for human sapience than “it just kinda happened bro”.
It's not a theory, it's slightly advanced math (the infinite version, the finite version is middle school level of basic). Granted, result is pretty absurd, but so are conditions of it.
There's not enough cells, let alone living organisms, on Earth for appropriate sense of scale, so nope lol.
Luckily humans are stupid enough that any such argument falls apart because once again, if ancient aliens participated in humans acquiring their sapience... why are humans so stupid?
It’s a theory, most of math is a theory. Mathematically it would take trillions upon trillions of years based on the current metrics, far longer than our estimated timeline of earths existence. The scaled version show that monkeys were not capable of even baseline interest in the process. The concept would only work if the monkeys actively participated, which is redundant on its face.To pretend we could generate intelligent thought through random chance is as stupid as us pretending artificial intelligence developed itself. If ancient aliens participated in human sentience they likely did so with no care of us aside from being an experiment of their abilities. Sapience and intelligence are to completely different concepts, with the latter requiring the former to exist.
All of math is theory, but let's just say that mathematical theory and scientific theory are 2 vastly different concepts, even if many scientific theories worth anything can be written as mathematical theories.
[citation would be highly appreciated]. Because i too can pull numbers out of my ass. Besides, even if it takes trillions and trillions of years... why are you assuming Earth is somehow unique in Universe of trillions and trillions of planets that may have comparable initial conditions?
Yes, so what? If your issue with infinite monkey theorem is that it uses monkeys as example of someone who would produce random inputs instead of less biological source of randomness... Well, i can only say math is really not your strongest suit. I can only suspect it was not the strongest suit of someone who unironically setup such experiment either.
Given that general artificial intelligence does not exist and does not even seem to be possible given our current technology level and pace, your confidence is confusing.