What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
662 Comments
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/28/2009, -22/+201Science does not require faith. Stop comparing science to religion.
- ChuckDees, on 03/28/2009, -25/+199Bad Religion is the best punk band evar.
- steve196982, on 03/28/2009, -16/+105If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people - House
- kenhatch, on 03/28/2009, -18/+100Explain to me with 100% certainty what was going on 1 second before god existed.
- Benjamintc, on 03/28/2009, -37/+114Bad Religion rules.
Creationism sucks. - bpwrinn, on 03/28/2009, -17/+81You're ALL WRONG. We evolved from a young girl who was born to a cylon mother and human father, who traversed the stars for years in search of a home on a super battleship! ALL HAIL GAIUS BALTAR, SAVIOR OF THE HUMAN RACE!
- Mokshaguy390, on 03/28/2009, -15/+66Ah jeez. Look, creationists. This isn't a God vs. Science thing. This is fact. Other religions have no trouble accepting this. In fact, many other Christians have no trouble. It's just literalists who cannot fathom that a book which has passed through many, many hands over the centuries could possibly be wrong. Even if your God wrote it, who's to say that man hasn't tainted it? Just take some time to think before you ruin the coming generations.
- Disgod, on 03/28/2009, -8/+55Thinking creationism is complete crap isn't limited to atheism. The pope's came out and said Creationism is garbage. Buddhists think Creationism is crap. Hundreds of millions of religious people think Creationism is crap.
It isn't an argument between the religious and atheists, but an argument about what is and isn't science. Framing it as an atheist vs religion debate is damaging. As millions of religious people know you don't have to give up your belief in a deity to understand how science works and how scientists have reached their understanding of the Universe, and accept that the bible was written by a bunch of bronze age men who had no comprehension of the Universe. - fasda, on 03/28/2009, -11/+53And a man of shallow thoughts refuses to consider evidence contrary to his believes.
- Cadicus, on 03/28/2009, -15/+53Worst Argument Ever
- benjai28, on 03/28/2009, -13/+50LOS ANGELES IS BURNING!!
- smurfsahoy, on 03/28/2009, -7/+42Well maybe if you'd read the article, you'd understand why that is...
Creationism defies reality by trying to rationalize why what's in front of us is an illusion, whereas physics tries to explain what's in front of us... One of those approaches is logical, and the other is not. - S1ngular1ty1, on 03/28/2009, -1/+34So say we all.
- leif77, on 03/28/2009, -2/+35My friend steve did it... now the burden of proof is on you... see how that makes me sound... your argument is no different...
- XandraX, on 03/28/2009, -16/+44Digg certainly has a one track mind...
- Disgod, on 03/28/2009, -15/+41The fool says in his heart there is no flying spaghetti monster.
- SQLserver, on 03/28/2009, -2/+26LOL, go back under the bridge troll. I'll never understand why nuts like you think Obama's some kind of messiah or something. After all, you are the only ones treating him like one.
- inactive, on 03/28/2009, -4/+27thats why that have made devices and experiments which actually repeatably use quantum physics and it works. the same every time
as opposed to praying your team will win which only works 50% of the time (10 for leafs fans)
or plane pilots who pray when they are going to crash, which works 0% of the time. - SQLserver, on 03/28/2009, -6/+28Scientists do not have faith in these things. Instead, they accept that they are true because the majority of evidence indicates so.
- MattNF, on 03/28/2009, -10/+32Time started at the Big Bang. Therefore, there was no "1 second" before it.
Now GTFO, troll. - dianegall, on 03/28/2009, -10/+32None of these things you mention require 'faith'; they are tentatively accepted hypotheses which seem well established, but which would be rejected by any scientists given the requisite evidence.
Assumptions are not articles of faith. Articles of faith do not admit of evidence. Assumptions do. - boshhead, on 03/28/2009, -3/+25This isn't about the existence of non-existence of God. The non-existence of God can't ever be proven scientifically.
The question is should we trust in our God-given or Evolution-given gifts to use reason and study empirical data? Or should we instead bitterly cling to ideas like a 6000 year old Earth, or belief that we are all the descendants of two people instead of evolving from other primates?
And if we don't trust our ability to use rationality when it conflicts with a 2000 year old book, why should we trust our ability to use it at all? Oh, right, because it works for things like building planes and traveling to space... - AManWithNoName, on 03/28/2009, -7/+28No, we digg down full-blown anti-Christian comments as well. See, we don't mind Christians, we hate a specific type of Christians...The creationist, hat-mongering type who claim Obama is the anti-christ, and that ***** must burn in hell. The kind who decry any and all science null and void in the face of their specific interpretation of the Bible. Now, on occasion, the odd digger may accidentally get caught up in the passion of the flame war, and group the sane Christians in with the retarded ones, but we don't honestly hate all Christians. Only the ones who hate us.
- mine4321, on 03/28/2009, -18/+39@danielttt - "Of all the moronic statements I've read on digg...this one takes the cake. Creationism is all about Biblical truth."
Of all the moronic statements I've read on digg...this one takes the cake. Neither creationism nor the Bible is about truth. - Misanthrope, on 03/28/2009, -5/+25Well isn't THAT handy?
- BaphClass, on 03/28/2009, -17/+37Shouldn't you be hiding under a bridge or something?
- boshhead, on 03/28/2009, -0/+19@atmenterprises:
Intelligent life just happening to evolve on an arbitrary but particular planet would indeed be quite miraculous. But intelligent life evolving _somewhere_ in the Universe is probably quite likely given how large the universe is (and possibly there's infinite universes out there, in which case intelligent life evolving in at least one universe in at least one place is starting to sound damn near certain, no matter how astronomical the odds). - boshhead, on 03/28/2009, -5/+24So your argument is that because science cannot (yet) provide all answers to all questions, that means that the answers it has provided so far are wrong?
Also, not that I'm an expert in this area so I'm not going to be able to go much further than this: But I believe time didn't exist prior to the big bang, so that makes your question nonsensical. And no, I don't completely understand what the hell that means either, but I'm not a theoretical physicist and neither are you. - afallowhorizon, on 03/28/2009, -2/+21If there is one thing worthy of being buried, it's hat mongering. I like to keep my head covered, I don't see why that's a sin!
- SQLserver, on 03/28/2009, -5/+23You cannot prove yesterday existed, or that a website called digg exists. Nothing outside of mathematics can be proven. Go on, try proving that Digg exists.
You simply have collected evidence and formed a theory in your mind that this website exists. You cannot prove it.
Thus, belief in anything is irrational. We should simply accept which conclusions are most likely based on the evidence. For example, based on the massive amount of evidence, a website called Digg exists. Thus, I accept that there is empirical evidence that such a website exists. Another example is evolution. Because of the massive amount of evidence, I accept that there is empirical evidence that all life on Earth came from a common ancestor. - Misanthrope, on 03/28/2009, -0/+18Hells yes. See the avatar.
:) - iamfast, on 03/28/2009, -6/+24You're right, we should stop comparing science to religion.
"a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."
-Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion" - 1940 - Diefree, on 03/28/2009, -7/+24Because the theoretical physics, actually all science, has this little thing called evidence and logic. So no it's not remotely the same, nice try at the strawman argument though.
- mine4321, on 03/28/2009, -77/+94Don't read the Bible... it's as goofy as creationism.
- Disgod, on 03/28/2009, -4/+21The guys who wrote the bible weren't the first to figure that fact out. The Babylonians and Persians had enough astronomical knowledge that they had to have figured it out over 3000 years ago. The guys who wrote the bible just added in existing knowledge.
Btw the bible also claims that the Earth sits on Pillars and I'm pretty sure that there are none. You are selectively choosing your passages - CubFan185, on 03/28/2009, -13/+30Agreed.
The very concept of the Judeo-Christian God comes from the Old Testament. So to say that you are a Christian while denouncing creationism just weakens the argument for ANY degree of religion even further. Not that it's ever had a leg to stand on. At least Creationists stick to their guns (often literally as well as figuratively). If you acknowledge that the vast majority of the Bible is clearly wrong, why do you still hold on to one part of it? - browwiw, on 03/28/2009, -2/+19I'm all for a god that makes hot blonde angels that give you blow jobs while you're trying to have a serious discussion with the Admiral.
- inyearstocome, on 03/28/2009, -2/+19In no offense to you, why do you still consider yourself a catholic if you accept that the church has many backwards and frankly un "christian" practices?
I guess I'm just curious why you've stuck by a denomination instead of just calling yourself a believer or a christian with your own free beliefs--not tied to an institution that is subject to as much corruption as any other institution run by man.
Again, I mean this with no offense, more as an inquiry :-) - SQLserver, on 03/28/2009, -8/+25Scientists cannot currently tell, as there is currently no known empirical evidence on which to base an hypothesis.
Why does it matter? - blix797, on 03/28/2009, -2/+19okay, let's see here...
Number 1, athiesm is the default position, to claim knowledge of a god's handiwork is to require the burden of proof. Number 2, science makes no claim of knowing what happened before the big bang, we merely have a pretty good idea that it happened. Number three, forcing the "god" option simply because science cannot explain something is a false dichotomy. It doesn't HAVE to be your god, or any god. We just don't know.
And just for good measure, "I contend that we are both athiests, but I merely believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you do not believe in paganism, greek gods, norse gods, and the like, then you will understand why I do not believe in your god." - t1ckt0ck, on 03/28/2009, -3/+20exactly what I thought when I saw the title of the article.
- SQLserver, on 03/28/2009, -3/+19This is simply not true. Scientists should have faith in nothing.
For example, scientists do not believe that the data recorded is accurate. They simply accept that it is most likely accurate as all available evidence showed it to be so.
Scientists do not believe instruments work properly. They simply accept that it is most likely true based on the evidence that they have obtained(IE- instruments are generally reliable and well made). - jeffhughes, on 03/28/2009, -3/+19The real test of "faith" is when it is threatened. If a scientist had any reason to believe that his instrument was not working properly, he would either a) correct or throw out the data, b) fix the instrument, or c) get a new instrument. When most religious people are confronted with evidence contradicting their faith, they simply cling to it even more. THAT'S the difference.
- Disgod, on 03/28/2009, -6/+22It isn't even a theory, nor a hypothesis. It is a MYTH.
- TDDebug, on 03/28/2009, -28/+44This article teaches Atheists nothing new and religious pawns will think it's a test of their faith.
- Marc11, on 03/28/2009, -3/+19You don't have to know with 100% certainty how the universe was created to not believe in a god.
- seanayb, on 03/28/2009, -10/+25Dugg for actually distinguishing between moderate Christians and ridiculous ones.
- Benjamintc, on 03/28/2009, -17/+32Jesus was preparing his sleigh driven by 8 flying reindeer.
- eir574, on 03/28/2009, -0/+15"Plus, the odds of life just appearing on a planet and evolving to what we are today is nearly infinitely small."
Flip a coin eight billion times in a row. The odds of any particular sequence of outcomes are pretty darn small (add more coin flips if you'd like to make the number even smaller). The system had to exist in some state. The fact that the particular 8 billion long string of heads and tails was an unlikely outcome doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. - ChuckDees, on 03/28/2009, -3/+18Yes you are.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 675 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is