John Safran Discussing Atheists June 16, 2007

John Safran Discussing Atheists

By Guest Contributor
June 16, 2007

I say this in a Homer Simpson voice: I think he’s talking to you…

Bonus points to anyone who can explain the Big Bang in the fewest words.


[tags]John Safran, atheist, atheism, Homer Simpson[/tags]

Previous Post
Seattle Writers Get Churchified
Next Post
eHarmony Saying No to Atheists?
"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."
larry parker
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"Is it a Radio Flyer?"
Troublesh00ter
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."
NotAgain Delightful Bītch
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"Free ice water at Wall Drug"
Wacker von Wackenfels
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

  • I have A Brief History of Time on my desk next to my monitor… but I read the whole thing, dammit!!!

    Anyhoo… Big Bang in the fewest words…

    KABOOM! existence.

    In a slightly greater amount of words:

    Existence as we know it began as an explosion of extremely dense material that is still expanding the universe at an incredible rate, and can therefore be potentially said to be still happening. What existed before the Big Bang is difficult to theorise because of the nature of such an event. Some say that nothing, not even time, existed, but some others believe that the explosion took pre-existing crap from another dimension or another universe and made it our own. It is imperative to realise, however, that since we cannot replicate non-existence and we cannot replicate the Big Bang within the non-existence, we should not trouble ourselves to more than theorise about what was before the explosion. To prove anything conclusively at this time would be impossible. We have evidence of almost everything from a second after the Big Bang and onward through time, but attempts at collecting evidence from before the Big Bang would be a maddening exercise in futility. Since it cannot be tested, we cannot say either way. We do, however, have evidence of the Big Bang itself in that we can see the universe expanding outward from a central location.

    Personally, I like my first of the two explanations.

    I may make it into a tee shirt.

  • We are faced with a choice–either we believe in eternal matter (see first comment) or we believe in eternal being (a Creator, as in Genesis).

  • Miko

    We are faced with a choice–either we believe in eternal matter (see first comment) or we believe in eternal being (a Creator, as in Genesis).

    We don’t know that the matter is eternal. Just that it can’t be destroyed now. And when you factor in antimatter that’s not quite true either. In any case, it’s not a choice between what we think is eternal: it’s a choice between accepting the position supported by evidence (CMB) and ignoring the evidence. And of course I’m sure some people will soon chime in that it’s a false dilemma anyway, since the two (Big Bang and creator god(s)) aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

  • Mriana

    When does someone have to be a genious to be an atheist? OK I don’t know a lot about the Big Bang and probably couldn’t tell you why it’s more rational, but I know it is. Then again, I guess that is why I’m a non-theist. :blush: Oh well.

  • people who aren’t comedians who have this attitude are highly annoying.

  • Darryl

    He reminds me of something Woody Allen once said to his niece in Crimes and Misdemeanors: “Don’t listen to what your teachers tell ya, you know. Don’t pay attention. Just, just see what they look like and that’s how you’ll know what life is really gonna be like”.

  • Ouch… I’m an arts student in the humanities (and read Brief History of Time).

  • Anna Lemma

    We don’t know that the matter is eternal. Just that it can’t be destroyed now.

    Matter and energy are not eternal. Matter can be converted to energy and the reverse as well. Remember E=m*c^2? That equation states the amount of energy (E) released by converting a given mass(m) of matter times the speed of light squared.

  • @cautions

    I’m not quite sure if that comment was directed at Safran, or other people that might ACTUALLY hold the view he’s talking about in that clip. But, just for the record, he is a comedian (of sorts).

    @Everyone Else

    For us Aussies, we can listen to him on the Radio every Sunday night, but if anyone else is interested, he has a weekly podcast (basically, the Sunday night show without the music breaks).

  • Jonas G

    If it were Ray Comfort making this video instead of a comedian I’d point out the fallacicy of Bifurcation, and any other logical fallacies I could find.

    Using Belief in it’s two meanings. (belief based on evidence) and Faith (belief w/o evidence) one could still accept both a God and the Big Bang.Theory.
    (Just have Faith in a God who does things that way)

    Oh and of course it’s not necessary to know how something works to doubt that it works magically via a Deity. In otherwords ‘You need Faith to be an atheist’ is a bogus argument. (God of the Gaps argument)

    Hey I am pointing out fallacies :
    – I never said if and only if Ray Compfort had made the video –

  • Miko

    Matter and energy are not eternal. Matter can be converted to energy and the reverse as well. Remember E=m*c^2? That equation states the amount of energy (E) released by converting a given mass(m) of matter times the speed of light squared.

    That’s more a conversion of form. When people say that matter/energy are eternal, they’re usually getting at a conservation principle, like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

  • Ben

    Big Bang in the fewest words…

    Sciencespeak for “Poof – God did it.”

  • Alex

    Good to see him making apperances overseas, i love John Safran Vs God.

error: Content is protected !!