1. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314651 by debacles on January 7, 2009 at 11:46 am

Born and raised in Montreal.I did some Physics at McGill and I didnt encounter much nonsnse over there. The more I understood physics and chemistry, the more drawn I became to evolutionary biology. So, I took evolutionary bio at Concordia. The amount of people in that program who don't actually understood natural selection, let alone the more complex molecular interactions, is astonishing. Because of it, I noticed teachers didnt take too well to students helping them understand something, assuming we were making a simple mistake.

One thing that really pissed me off...and is one the many reasons I left...is a question that was posed by teacher about blind cave fish. Our damn evolution teacher didn't know a good answer to that question of "How did they lose their eyes?"....he was using it as an example of something that wasnt yet explained. But it is...I'm sure we can all reason the answer quite quickly...but as soon as I raised my hand and told him it wasnt mysterious at all if you understood the theory you teach...he dismissed my attempt at explaining it to him and the class as a Lamarckian mistake. Apparently lack of selective pressure (and its further implications) was too complicated of an answer. He stopped me and quoted whoever said "If you have a simple solution and a complicated solution, the simply one is most likely correct." Of course, I'm misquoting the quote but you know what I'm talking about. I replied with "Ok. So GOD DID IT." ... that didnt go over too well...

2. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314632 by debacles on January 7, 2009 at 11:30 am

"There may be a lot of things that those of us who are agnostics and atheists have gotten fundamentally wrong.

A little humility would suit us better, and is in keeping with the Enlightenment.

Keep questions open, and keep thinking."

I really don't see how plugging the answer with GOD keeps questions open. The decent answer to a mystery is no answer, hence it being a mystery.

3. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314624 by debacles on January 7, 2009 at 11:19 am

I think I'm going to have a nervous break down soon. I have to deal with creationists co-workers who ask me to answer false questions in only one sentence and unless I can they invoke God. I have to deal with my chiropractor sister who will argue about why vaccinations are bad, and then ignore me when I bring her the studies that prove otherwise. I have to deal with evolution teachers in university who are surrounded by creationist nonsense and because of it assume I'm making a Lamarckian mistake everytime I try to point out something he forgets to mention. I have to deal with my non-creationist friends who believe every conspiracy theory propaganda piece they find on the internet. Ignorance is permuating every facet of my life and I can't stand it. And now we have a professor of Geosciences who doesn't have enough comon sense to notice simple logical fallacies. And don't even get me started on YouTube.

I think I just popped a vain.

4. Assassins of the Mind

Comment #313001 by debacles on January 5, 2009 at 6:49 pm

"That was excellent but I can do without the anti-Iran propaganda. "

I could do without the politically correct incorrect stance. Why don't you start a pan-flute band or something?

KKIIIDDDING

But honestly...Hitch is a fantastic writer and just a brilliantly honest intellectual. How did his brother turn out to be such a loser?

5. Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

Comment #307718 by debacles on December 28, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Nice find Kevleitch. That does make quite the difference. Unfortunately, Rick Warren will still be at Obama's inauguration...

6. Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

Comment #307617 by debacles on December 28, 2008 at 9:23 am

Thanks a lot guys. Now I have to try to convince my sister to listen. She's a chiropractor and I'm subtely(but desperately) trying to keep her from becoming a quack practitioner.

7. Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

Comment #307330 by debacles on December 27, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Can anyone point me to the studies/research/stats that back up the conclusion that vaccines and autism have no correlation.

I had a huge argument about this very topic over christmas dinner. Need to provide my sister some proof so she doesn't continue spreading the lies.

8. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #304110 by debacles on December 20, 2008 at 11:25 am

Jimmy Carr is one of my favorite comedians. Nice to know he's clear minded too.

What's the worst part of rollerblading?













....having to tell your parents you're gay.

9. Earth Not Center Of The Universe, Surrounded By 'Dark Energy': Cosmologists Report

Comment #303907 by debacles on December 19, 2008 at 4:48 pm

I think some of you are misunderstanding "special place". I think the theory just says that were in a considerably less dense portion of space and that by itself would explain the red shift. We wouldnt have to suppose the universe's expansion is accelerating.

10. Evan Solomon Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #302779 by debacles on December 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm

McGill sucks. I dropped out because I was surrounded by assholes like this guy.

11. Three Godless Christmas shows

Comment #302038 by debacles on December 16, 2008 at 9:42 am

Richard, I'd suggest you leave the comedy to the comedians. Seeing as it is supposed to be a light-hearted event, I`d suggest quoting someone like Douglas Adams. I think he exemplifies the power of rationality alongside humor the best.
He`s got so many great lines and they can be great topic openers. I`m sure you could search wikiquote yourself, but here`s my favorit Douglas Adams quote:

`imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

12. Interview with Nicholas Wade

Comment #298879 by debacles on December 8, 2008 at 6:40 pm

I don't get all these people who rip on Colbert for not letting scientists talk and get their points across. Would you expect SNL to change into a documentary if a scientist were to host it?

13. H. M., an Unforgettable Amnesiac, Dies at 82

Comment #298821 by debacles on December 8, 2008 at 5:05 pm

This made me think of the character Sami in the movie Memento.

14. Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas

Comment #276292 by debacles on November 1, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Everything's bigger in texas...including lies.

15. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274561 by debacles on October 30, 2008 at 7:40 am

Someone's got to rebut this nonsense of fine-tuning. Life is the one that is fine-tuned to the environment, not the other way around. Universes aren't selected upon...replicators are.

If this is the best creationists have left, just sent up a random student to debate them. Don't waste Hitchens' wit on this. He can't even show his fangs, because this guy is just too below him. Is it just or me or was Turek often looking at the moderator for reassurance? It seemed like a kid doing an oral presentation.

16. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274297 by debacles on October 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Is this a joke? No, really. This is ridiculous. He doesnt have enough faith to believe that cells are so complicated? He doesnt have enough brain to understand that!

This is sad. We shouldnt acknowledge this level of dumb.

17. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273791 by debacles on October 29, 2008 at 9:32 am

I have to agree with Richard. I mean, he's clearly saying he has no worthy opinions and nor does anyone... but i'm assuming he has a hunch and I do. When you sit by not asking any questions while a frog turns into a prince, you're accepting nonsense as sense. The problem is that we're accepting this stuff before we could ever figure out why its wrong. It sounds petty, but I think it slowly builds up a wall.

Douglas Adams said it best...
"It was his subconscious which told him this - that infuriating part of a person's brain which never responds to interrogation, merely gives little meaningful nudges and then sits humming quietly to itself, saying nothing. "

18. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272857 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 9:49 pm

"The multiverse explanation is symmetric, symmetric is good, because symmetric is how we must look at the universe."

I think its a little optimistic to think you'll have strong enough evidence to prove or disprove symmetry at that level. But I think its better to assume there's more of the same rather than more of something else(?) or nothing. Nothing sounds unscientific and uninquisitive. Something else doesn't say anything. So, its basically nothing again. Instead of being permanently stuck thinking about it, I'll follow the only assumption I can make. Of course, I'm aware I don't have many other conceptual options at my disposal. ...our minds, our instruments and our phenomenological experiences are limited.

19. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272806 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 8:37 pm

"We couldn't find symmetry beautiful as a by product of evolution or an an evolutionary adaptation which doesn't point to an underlying fundamental property of the universe?"

Yes...but i think we must still look for symmetry to make sense of things, wether it be visual or conceptual.

20. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272799 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 8:29 pm

"So, we like symmetry because the universe is symmetrical? And we know the universe is symmetrical because we like symmetry? If that's your argument then I'm sensing a circle."

I'm not saying the universe is symmetrical...I'm saying symmetry is an assumption that puts hard things to rest. Symmetry is an assumption to makes things easier to understand when it comes to information intake. In direct observation, through our senses into our brains, symmetry is an assumption we need to take to shortcut to an answer. And, in scientific observation, we must come to conclusions through the same means. Reality does not make symmetry. We don't make symmetry. Symmetry is a means by which WE interpret REALITY more easily.

21. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272788 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 8:13 pm

"Is this assumption a priori or a posteriori?"

first one

I can't say its an absolute, because we might not have the right words to phrase exactly what I'm trying to convey. And if we did have those words, it would be a priori, woulnd't it?

In order for us to use the information we get effectively, we must act on it. In order to act on it, we must make assumptions...many many assumptions. Now what's better than symmetry when it comes to assumption economy? Symmetry is a by-product of our multi-dimensional reality and our assuming brain. However, symmetry in the sense of cancellation is not nearly the same thing.

22. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272779 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 7:44 pm

"Symmetry is largely what beauty is based on. For humans, and other animals. We all tend to love symmetry."

Yes... but we're not just looking for symmetry, because we find it beautiful. I think we find it beautiful for the same reason we should be looking for it. Its what the real stuff is made of!

23. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272743 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 6:59 pm

"I don't understand why that is directed at me. "

I was wondering where that rant came from too. Pretty off-topic. I'm pretty sure what you we're saying is subjective. What do you want...some people need to write papers.

24. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272735 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 6:54 pm

"There are certain possibilities of seeing evidence for other universes within our own, such as certain patterns in the cosmic microwave background."

Care to explain a little. Or link me to something that does... cuz that honestly doesn't sound promising.

What would this evidence back up exactly...mutliverses who aren't in contact...or the different laws meld into eachother. There must be some kind of symmetry...thats all i know....isnt symmetry basically cause/consequence without time....kind of.

25. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272714 by debacles on October 27, 2008 at 6:27 pm

"No, it isn't an equal an opposite assumption. It is a simpler assumption."

I got agree with you... but not completely. It's probably part of something that, as a whole, makes it more understandable. But, now, isn't just science's method you're invoking? I don't see us finding evidence for other universes within this confined universe, or is it? And if it isn't confined, well then things change, don't they? I don't see this issue being made simpler through evidence. Then again,that doesnt stop us from assuming higher levels of symmetry.

26. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #270185 by debacles on October 23, 2008 at 7:47 pm

can't wait to see the backlash

27. Creationists declare war over the brain

Comment #269188 by debacles on October 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm

dont make me slap a dualist

28. The Retirement of Richard Dawkins: Reflections on a Stewardship

Comment #264781 by debacles on October 15, 2008 at 8:08 am

Richard really changed my life for the better. Before reading any of his stuff, I had no one to share my interest in the theory of evolution. The Selfish Gene reaffirmed my strong inclinations, whilst The Extended Phenotype actually pushed my understanding. Thank you for writing all your books...

You didn't open my eyes, but you encouraged me to keep them open.

29. Why Evolution is True

Comment #264073 by debacles on October 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm

No I haven't. I started reading Consciousness Explained 2 days ago after finishing the Ancestors Tale. I have a tendency to storm through things I'm interested in. It seems to me that Dennett's stuff is a lot heavier than Dawkins' though, so it'll probably take me atleast a week to get through this one. Maybe that's because Dawkins explains the obvious so beautifully, whilst Dennett is great at making things that are difficult to understand or even speak about graspable.

Either way, is it important that I read his stuff in chronological order?
I found it quite necessary to read Dawkins in order, atleast when it comes to the Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype.

30. Why Evolution is True

Comment #264050 by debacles on October 13, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I actually like the title because it seems like a title that might actually grab a creationist to read it. I really don't see a problem. And yes, RODTHEFARMER, WE all agree on evolution being fact...but i think it is far more important to make people accept the theory than for us to delve deeper into it. Once you get the jist of it, I believe the fine details are a lot more complicated than you'd ever expect. Once one can grasp the basic idea, he can make reasonable hypothesis on an infinite number of problems/questions...

And, yes, Richard is in the process of writing his version.

If you're confused about certain aspects that science claims as highly probable theories, you should read it. But I doubt most readers on RD.net have trouble with the obvious stuff.

I just got through reading all of Richard's books... and I have to say, the only writer who seems to delve deeper into the understanding of life is Dan Dennett. For anyone else who's looking for their next mental trip after going through Dawkins' repertoire, I suggest Dan Dennett.

I know i might be getting off topic, but i'm surprised evidence based books on evolution are interesting to people here. Isn't the evidence somewhat obvious and overwhelming? I feel like evidence in evolution at this point is often to figure out history and have a clearer story... I'd be much more interested in a book which presents evidence concerning the big bang, black holes, relativity, quantum theories, quarks level interactions, etc... this stuff seems a little more demanding of structured evidence and explanation.

31. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259769 by debacles on October 3, 2008 at 10:13 pm

i dont understand how they'll get the counterweight attached to it...i think the idea might be possible as a physical possibility if it all of a sudden was true, but i dont see how it can physically come about

32. Closest Look Ever At Edge Of A Black Hole

Comment #243890 by debacles on September 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm

yippers...i love black hole updates

33. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242058 by debacles on September 3, 2008 at 10:57 am

Holy smokes! Thanks for posting that video. I already had my doubts about McCain...but this is a clincher. This woman is a real nutcase.

I have to admit the pro-Obama movement comes off as uneducated enthusiasm for rebellion. But Obama shouldn't be judged on his supporters, we should judge his ideas and goals.
He might invoke God quite often, but I believe that to be mostly pandering...here's a nice little example of Obama's a good rationality.

here's a link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE

sorry guys....just copy paste

34. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241608 by debacles on September 2, 2008 at 9:34 pm

A: "We yell 'OH GOD OH GOD!!!' but we do it without any guilt about taking the lord's name in vain!

I bet a lot of them don't either. Do you think people enjoy fucking behind god's back sometimes? Or better yet like knowing that he's watching. That would be such a weird fetish.

35. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241606 by debacles on September 2, 2008 at 9:01 pm

can understand that you believe that older people haven't quite got the sharpness of intellect to understand jokes like, "I really love Christianity - NOT!" but please consider an alternative explanation to slowness of mind i.e. that we used to find such humour funny a when we were juveniles but we now find it, well, juvenile. It's not that it's light years ahead of us. It's just not very good.

You're humor can be beyong me because you were part of a diferrent "joke" in your lifetime. I'm not trying to tell you that you are stupid. But you do seem enjoyably bitter.

36. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241133 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm

think that at some point in one's life, one tends to compartmentalize and settle on one's own definition and opinion of what is and isn't funny. When you see something that is at the edge of what you are used to or comfortable with, it can seem unfunny, or even make you cringe.

That made the most sense. Thanks. I think that's exactly what's happening with Richard Dawkins and many other older folks. They're very detached from what they're watching and I think its tone is out of their comfort zone. I, however, think its dumb to alienate smart young people by calling their humor bad or dumb. It's really a different approach to humor. The young generations humor is ultra condensed and thus can allow any form of humor, comment and jokes that bomb because they're quickly forgotten. When an older person sees talking poop, they stop looking for the witty symbolism.

37. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241100 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Notwithstanding that, however, part of the art form ought be not to obfuscate your argument so deeply that only your proponents "get it." At that point it's reduced to mere equivocation.

As much as that does make sense, I believe both methods should be employed (dawkins' and Colbert's)...Dawkins is at the forefront of the argument, politely making a clear and concise case to the people on the fence. Then there's those unreachable who are convinced they're right. The people who assume their case is stronger because there's educated scientists willing to debate them. The people who just won't listen. Colbert's basically the older kid making fun of the younger kid who still believes in Santa. He's condescending, and that's just what some need to question themselves and open their minds again. The reason why he isn't more obvious about his true intentions is because that's the punchline. How lame would it be if in between all the shananigans he stopped and said "but honestly guys...let's be serious."?

I know I've mentioned this before, but I think its very important concept to keep in mind. Comedy is a symbiotic retionship of I KNOW YOU KNOW I KNOWs....in this case, I KNOW YOU KNOW I KNOW THEY DONT KNOW...

38. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241098 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 6:51 pm

I'm really getting annoyed at this minsterpretation of comedy.

Colbert is like every single correspondant on the Daily Show, a character to laugh at. Nothing more. There's no truth here. Stewart is the only "real" person on those programs.

I expect someone who thinks Will Smith is funny to think South Park is juvenile and dumb, because they think something dumber is funny. They simple aren't getting the jokes.

But people who understand some of the metaphors and cleverer jokes should understand that the show is self-critical and modest in nature... hence the potty humor. The potty humor is either traditional or used to ruin the more mature moments.

39. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241090 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm

who actually believes that Stephen is an avowed conservative so... I guess it's not so effective. Pretty convincing straw-man.

He might agree with conservative ideas, as do I and as does Hitchens.
Reason doesn't lead to becoming a democrat.

Are we gonna discredit Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy because someone doesn't get it and thinks it doesn't many any sense?

To properly interpret any artform, especially comedy, you must know what tone it is assuming.

40. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241080 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Colbert is not just a Catholic, but teaches at Sunday School. I would think it is very likely indeed he believes in a personal god.

I was actually aware of that before all this ranting. I'm not gonna assume he believes in personaly god based on that. Really. You might think me to be crazy, but I strongly believe religious practices/traditions/community work involve many many strong agnostic rationalists. His parents were catholics who imposed a strong influence of science and logic....they weren't typical at all. My mother does work at synagogues and she's an atheist engineer. My father wears a kippa and thinks its humorous that people believe in any of this crap. Not all atheists are militants like us.

41. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241077 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Debacles,

I have absolutely no idea if Stephen Colbert is an atheist and I don't really care. However, if I can't tell if he is one or not then maybe other people can't tell either, so in what way is he important to the atheist movement in America?

He makes fun of the religious who believe in superstitions. That's why. He's putting himself in their face, laughing at them. He might not be funny to you, but that's besides the point. He's publicly treating the loonies as loonies, something most atheists have a hard time doing.

Surely we have to be able to notice that he's an atheist for him to have any positive effect, don't we?

Well yes, you do. You have to realize he's making fun of his character. You have to understand that below his facade, he's a rationalist.

Apart from this, I have just watched him spend 5 minutes making a woman from the Secular Society look foolish. In what way does this serve our purposes?

His character is what serves our purpose. It is a comedy show though, and the main purpose is to be funny and to be a maniac idiotic straw man arguing republican. He gets the other side on his show too and he basically agrees and thus emphasizes their stupidity. He's simply staying within character. She was the one who didn't take advantage of the situation he creates. It shouldn't be a big deal either way. People who watch the show aren't religious nuts.

Even though, unlike you, I was not able to spot his atheism, why is the 'joke on us' if we don't find him funny?

You don't necessarily have to spot his atheism, but you have to know on what side of the debate he is. He's on the side of science and rationalism. If you think he's being rude, the joke is on you. I'm sure the guests know what to expect, or atleast they're told beforehand. If you are taking anything he takes seriously, you are misunderstanding the tone of the show.

Perhaps it's you who has misunderstood. There are many atheists who will not refrain from criticizing a person simply because he happens to be a fellow atheist. Surely one of the things we aspire to here is even-handedness in dealing with all people, and giving fellow atheists preferential treatment (i.e. laughing even when he isn't funny, simply because he's an atheist) really isn't a great thing to be proposing.

How are you flipping this? I didn't say you had to think he's funny. I'm just saying if you're not aware of the premise of the show, you won't think its funny anyways, and you will misinterpret what he's generally trying to convey.

I think you'd be wrong if you thought that the people who responded negatively to Colbert here were convinced that he meant every word he said. And you'd be equally wrong if you thought that simply saying the opposite of what one really believes is funny.

That's like a bible lover telling me he doesn't believe ALL the crazy stuff, just some of it. If you believe in talking snakes, there's no point to having a discussion. If you believe Colbert is rude to anyone other than who he's stereotyping, you are so far off from understanding the context of the show, there's just no use talking. It's a conversation ender. He's playing a character people! He can't ACTUALLY BE rude to our side. He's just imitating the people who send Richard Dawkins all those angry rude letters. How can he ACTUALLY BE rude to anyone but them?

42. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241064 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 5:26 pm

"Colbert spends more time attending Mass than I do"

Do you believe he believes in personal god? That seems highly unlikely.

43. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241056 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I haven't read the past 100 comments, but I've read enough to know that this thread is making atheists look really stupid.

If you have anything negative to say about Colbert, other than not finding him funny, the joke is on you. Colbert is definitely a fool blown atheist. It's a character! Every single look he gives is a joke. Everything he says is bullshit. Everytime he says something you don't like, he succeeds in doing his job. This is satire people! You might not think its funny, but for atheists' sake, shut up if you take him seriously(basically, you're missing the joke).

Honestly...he might not be funny but don't fall in his trap. Stephen Colbert is just as important to atheism in America as Richard Dawkins. He might not be proving creationists wrong, but he's the one making them feel dumb.

He's on our side people! You might be confused for the first 10 minutes, but really, cmon. Anyone who thinks for a second that Colbert isn't one of us is wrong.

And if you do. Shut up! You're wrong.

Wether its funny or not is subjective, but you need to be aware that he's saying the opposite of what he feels and what he considers reasonable. It definitely isn't funny if you don't know that.

44. Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

Comment #241045 by debacles on September 1, 2008 at 4:11 pm

whats this dark matter not interacting?

i assume it interacts a lot less but still must interact... didn't we find out that dark matter makes up most of the matter in galaxies?

or is it so strongly affected by normal matter that it is bound to group itself?

help oystein

45. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240660 by debacles on August 31, 2008 at 8:03 pm

I think Richard is simply suggesting that we should approach watching comedy with a critical perspective. The thing is, if I can convince myself its funny, I will. I believe in believing in comedy.

46. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240654 by debacles on August 31, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Sometimes you can understand why athiests are seen as they are.
I tried reading through all the posts, but was too irritated.
Colbert is just like many comedians. Sometimes he borders on brilliant, sometimes not so much.
Carlin was the same way. Dying didn't make him perfect any more than it made Falwell a good human being.
Southpark has lasted 11 seasons and still manages to shit out a diamond from time to time.
I have an IQ in the low one fifties and I think fart jokes are fantastic!!
A couple of you cats need to pull that barbed stick out of your asses and try to giggle a little more often.
Don't be afraid to laugh at the silly stuff.
It doesn't make you seem like less of an intellectual, just less of a prude. "

YES YES YES EXACTLY

The more I think about it, the more I see how South Park and Colbert's funniness stems from expecting it to be funny. I see what Richard is saying, but I think the reason he comes off as petty is because these shows are actually funny and he doesnt see it. Not that he should, since they're aimed at my generation. The problem is that the show is funny because of Colbert, not the jokes. If you think his character is funny just as an idea, you laugh the whole way through. It's like any SNL skit with Will Ferrell.

47. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240602 by debacles on August 31, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Diacanu, your avatar kicks ass!

48. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240592 by debacles on August 31, 2008 at 4:16 pm

"Humor is neither completely subjective nor completely objective. I would bet a whole lot of dough that there is a correlation between intelligence and discriminating taste concerning humor. Simply put, what I find to be not funny tends to nevertheless appeal to those who, in my opinion of course, simply aren't very bright. "

I get what you're saying. There definitely is a correlation. However, it doesn't mean a smart person can't laugh at something stupid.

I for one cannot laugh at something stupid coming out of something stupid, but i find myself laughing at something stupid coming out of something smart which is aware that part of it is stupid.

Part of South Park's charm is its self-deprecation. It's I KNOW YOU KNOW I KNOW thing. The cheap humor is supposed to come off as cheap. Smart people with a good sense of humor think purposely being "proud" of bad humor is funny. There's too many layers to comedy, and that's why I say its subjective. There's bad and good comedy, but its hard to explain why something is funny, especially when its good humor.

"That is not very bright. Really. Unless you were trying to be funny, in which case you could probably find one person in the world that would laugh, but that still wouldn't make it so.

Colbert should be judged by how good he is off the cuff, not by how he delivers his canned humor. Most people can simply deliver a well written joke. Colbert has become too over the top, a caricature of himself. This bit was sorely lacking. "


I'm not trying to be funny, I'm trying to define funny as what it is, funny.

"Ahh, I'm glad I'm not alone. Everything about him just rubs me the wrong way. Actually I think it's his odd body language, quite arrogant. I can't laugh at him, or even smirk. If I even see him on TV I just get angry. It's the strangest thing as I can see how irrational and inexplicable it is, but I just feel something close to rage whenever I see him."

I can explain it. He comes off as an arrogant douchebag, which translates to cockblockery for guys. You're alpha male complex(wouldnt actually call it a complex though) is simply doing its job and telling you to "avoid man who steal woman" or "kill man who steal woman".

49. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240564 by debacles on August 31, 2008 at 3:29 pm

"Of course, if somebody finds something genuinely funny and I don't, that's totally fine. Tastes differ. I think the Dead Parrot sketch is hilarious. You think South Park is hilarious. No problems. All I was cautioning against was the tendency to PRETEND to find something funny just because it is expected of us, perhaps because we are so anxious to let others know we've seen the joke. Really, it's OK to find something unfunny, even if it is supposed to be funny. And it's OK to have different tastes in what is funny.
Richard"

Agreed. There's no arguing to do there. Ironically, South Park brings that out of a lot of people. I'm a big a fan of South Park, for what most people here would probably consider the "right" reasons. I love the pushed metaphors and its take on many social issues. I'm not too fond of the potty humor, but its still enjoyable. I don't find it funny because poo is funny to me. I find it funny that clearly very intelligent witty people making the show insert poo in between witty social commentary. People don't seem to get that smart people making dumb jokes, when they know that they're dumb, is still smart jokes. Comedy is based on an intimate relationship of the minds of the comedian and the viewer. The I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT I KNOW etc factor is very important. Richard, you're just missing one of the I KNOWS. I believe with South Park, the I KNOW you're missing is a generation thing.

I actually feel bad that you're missing out on all the fun. Of course, you can only have fun if you want to.
Maybe you should relax, get stoned(the good kind)... and watch mutiple of episodes of a good comedy show. I'd suggest The Office, Stella, South Park, Extras, Curb Your Enthusiasm... these are all witty comedy shows that approach humor in unconventional ways. You really need to watch many shows to get the jokes. Until you know what tone the show is conveying, you won't appreciate it for what its worth.

50. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240538 by debacles on August 31, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Colbert is funny and so is South Park. You know why? Because people laugh while watching the shows. Richard, you're simply not in on the joke. You don't get it. That is all. Not because you're too dumb, but simply because humor is subjective. Just because 90% of people do not think South Park is funny doesn't mean it isn't. For something to be funny, you need one person to think so. That is all. Comedy has no purpose other than to make laugh and Colbert and the South Park creators abide by this rule.

Richard, you say she was given a hard time by Colbert. How could he? Comedy is self-deprecating in nature. As soon as you make a funny you're telling everyone to not take what you say seriously. The bottom line in comedy is FUNNY, and i wouldnt want it any other way; we wouldn't have much to laugh at if people were taking everything seriously all the time. And on top of it, you shouldn't be concerned with Colbert viewers. I bet if you polled his viewers about their beliefs, you'd notice there's no one to convert. Colbert and his viewers are mostly rationalists who are trying to have a good laugh and enjoy themselves.

I think its quite ridiculous to ask why something is funny. Laughing is awesome. If we think something that isn't typically funny is funny because it isn't funny, that's awesome! Makes more things funny and makes our lives easier to cope with.

Richard, if you're trying to analyze humor, jokes on you.