The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion
dailygarlic.com — 8. Bad things happen to good people, great things happen to bad people. For a society that constantly gets the short end of the stick when it comes to miracles, why the hell are people stopping to help stalled motorists getting raped & murdered, but every time a girl scout makes it to my door she’s out of thin mints? I’m sick of it!
FirstDigg- 2431 diggs
- digg it
- somespecial, on 01/21/2008, -23/+135Propaganda by the devil!
- joshuaer, on 01/21/2008, -2/+14The article or all the religious ads on the site?
- redfox2600, on 01/21/2008, -26/+8Top 1 reason why religion is better than logic, because the bible said so. Seen our list is shorter we are right and you are wrong.
- str1fe, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10If I wanted people to worship me, I'd certainly say I was right too.
- redfox2600, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2Wow, I guess 5+ people can't tell that post was meant to be sarcastic.
- Sparksnorthern, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Owned
- str1fe, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10If I wanted people to worship me, I'd certainly say I was right too.
- ellimist, on 01/21/2008, -6/+3Ironically, Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie promoting ID is advertised on this site...
- AJH16, on 01/21/2008, -29/+18In all fairness, I'd like to take an opportunity to talk about a few of these points in a rational logical way from the point of view of a scientifically minded Christian. (yes, there are some of us and please don't write me off without reading what I have to say first.)
1) I will agree that it is a more than pointless argument to be used but is not going against any particular religious view. Even if you could successfully argue that this planet is ideal for our form of life, there is no way to argue that it has any proof of a God existing as under a purely chance based beginning of life, as the most ideal situation would be the most likely to produce life. This is perhaps used as an argument against life on other planets but can't really be expected to go very far towards saying much of anything about the existence or lack of existence of God.
2)This is in fact a naive argument presented by the blogger. The foreknowledge of a choice does not necessitate my control over that action. Say that I could tell perfectly if you were lying to me or not. In this situation, you could tell me you are going to do something and if I can tell you are not lying, I can know that you are going to do that. Now expand that knowledge to include complete knowledge of everything that is going on. Given that I know how you make decisions, and given unlimited ability to track everything, I could deterministically arrive at what you would do. This does not mean that I actually have control over you, simply that I know you well enough to know how you would decide in that situation.
3) Haha, while very funny, I some how don't think that was intended as a serious argument. :)
4) I disagree with the basic idea that churches do not believe that evolution and creationism can not co-exist. I know a large number of very devout Christians and even whole churches that do not object to the possibility that evolution could have been a major mechanism used in creation. Much of the order of things being created lines up quite nicely and I have spent a very large amount of time working out multiple ways to allow Biblical descriptions of creation and what we have scientifically observed to be the case. (I would also argue that if my beliefs are accurate, there should not be strongly verifiable evidence against it as God would not conceal his presence intentionally by trying to hide his involvement.)
5) This is an interesting point and one I have also spent much time on. It really however has no place in a logic argument as it is more of a philosophical question. Ultimately everything had to come from somewhere that we can't currently explain. If you take the existence of an all powerful source of everything or if you take on faith that it all simply existed for no particular reason at all, there is still an element of faith in both. Neither viewpoint can logically explain where we come from. There are also many very philosophical views of God or a god that attempt to tackle this problem which actually can make quite an interesting study.
6) OK, again I'm assuming this one is somewhat a joke. Though to give it a serious turn, observe point 2. People have free will to decide who they want, even if it is a bad idea. And in politics these days it seems like much more often than not, most of the options are bad ones.
7) While also an apparent joke/commentary, this is a somewhat less than thought out argument as legalizing pot would cause much more wide public use of pot and so people would be out driving while stoned, and this could end very badly as well. Personally I think comparing tobacco to pot is a much stronger argument if you want to go there as the similarities and harm are a stronger cost/benefit ratio. (Though I will say personally I have no interest in either.)
8) Fallen Earth, Free Will, see above. Also, this entire argument requires a fairly narrow minded view of things and what is of benefit. Yes, bad things happen to good people and will continue to, however there is an underlying question of hope. For someone who does not believe that in the end there will be justice for the suffering they have had to endure on a messed up planet, it is much harder to cope than someone who realizes that in the end there will be justice. Also, there are times when suffering will bring you benefit later. While it is never fun to suffer, it is part of life and it should not be expected that bad things will not happen to anyone. (Also, nobody is perfect and everyone ultimately has screwed up pretty much as badly as other people, even if they act like they haven't.) This could be better filed under arguments about hypocrisy in the church, which I will readily agree is an issue in the modern US church. (As I said, nobody is perfect and luckily God doesn't expect you to have to be perfect, which is the entire point of the Gospel.)
9) I would say that this is a naive viewpoint that is very common among atheists as they have not had any such experiences, however as a long time Christian I can say with certainty that my faith is not blind. I have not seen any physical manifestation of God perhaps, but I have seen, time and time again, things which are so infeasible to happen by random chance and have happened at exactly the time I most needed them that it is more unreasonable to explain it as random than it is to accept it as the best proof possible of the actual, active existence of God.
As a second point on this one, I also believe that in reality if you look for it and accept the fact that there are things about the world that no amount of scientific explanation can explain (see points above on philosophy and origin of existence and reason for it) eventually something must be taken on faith and ultimately there are many indicators that show that things would be at best exceptionally exceptionally unlikely to happen by random chance and much more likely with the existence of some supreme being. From there it is more a matter of being able to look at various religions for the logical fallacies within them. There is more or less "proof" or at least strong support of the existence of a God.
10) This is an interesting point and I will agree is something that unfortunately can not be shown. However, I would not say that it is so unreasonable to assume that a decision in our life could have far reaching consequences. Ultimately, either you think that nothing will happen when you die, or you think that something will. Either suffering, beneficial or more of the same.
Taking a purely logical view of this however, I will simply reference Pythagoras' Wager. Given the four possibilities that you believe in God and there is not, you believe in God and there is, you do not believe in God and there is and you do not believe in God and there is not, there are 4 possible outcomes. In the first situation, you live your life less for yourself and more for others and perhaps do not get quite as much out of life as you may have been able to (worst case scenario). In the second, you give up a small amount in this life and gain immeasurably more. In the third, you may have slight gain in this life, but suffer for it after the fact. In the fourth, you gain a little now and there is nothing after. Under this reasoning, it is clearly best to believe in God as if you believe and are wrong you have a mild loss or a major gain, while not believing in God offers you a minor gain or a major loss.
And lastly as a bonus, I would like to agree with the author's follow up post after the list. It is foolish to accept anything blindly as even from a religious background there are many people who will use blind un-checked faith and abuse it for their own purposes. While an element of faith is necessary for the Christian life, it should still make at least some amount of sense. God is not out to try and hide behind a bunch of trees and jump out randomly. He is consistent and present with his followers according to the Christian faith and if this is the case, it should not be easily contradicted.
Sorry for soap boxing as much as I just did, but I felt that in fairness to the spirit of this topic, I should present some of the logic from the other side.- iamlXl, on 01/21/2008, -11/+11tl;dr
- jonahatan, on 01/21/2008, -7/+14thx for trying... but who wants to read it?
- artofwar420, on 01/21/2008, -5/+10Religious = part of brain still shielded from critical and rational scrutiny
- MrWally, on 01/22/2008, -3/+9I'd hope that if you took the time to read the article you'd read the post before burying it.
- cakenoob, on 01/21/2008, -5/+11TOO LONG, PREEMPTIVELY DUGG DOWN
- silentcollision, on 01/21/2008, -7/+17See this is why digg is retarded.
You'll read an equally long article, but when someone presents a cohesive argument against it, you digg it down purely because you disagree or its too long?
By all means disagree, but if you're going to, at least leave a message to say why.- iamlXl, on 01/21/2008, -5/+12Because wasting my time hearing the same bull-***** religious propaganda isn't worth my time. They all say the same thing, and It only makes me more upset at how brainwashed some people are. I've been raised with CCD and Catholic high school for more than 13 years, so trust me, I have heard all the arguments, and reading them again isn't changing my opinion that it's all nutty.
- silentcollision, on 01/22/2008, -8/+5And how is this any different to the constant atheist or 'rationalist' (whatever the cool kids call it these days) promoting articles constantly appearing on Digg?
Please just remember that not all Christians promote this 'propaganda' that you mention. Yet we're all supposed to feel ashamed and guilty for holding a faith, and genuinely trying to help people?
And why is it any explanation as to why things get buried down without reason? I don't bury anything that I personally disagree with. That's just immature. - iamlXl, on 01/22/2008, -1/+13You're allowed to post as many "faith oriented" articles as you want. That's the nature of Digg. It just so happens that the overwhelming majority of people on this website prefer articles not associated with a religion. You can read them, disagree, and then post a counter argument. However, you have to be warned that AS ATHEISTS, we have already waded through all the "Religious" ideals we have been fed for years. When the majority of us were raised, we were raised with RELIGION in our lives, and many of us came to question that. We are allowed to post articles which say "this is what I believe, and this is why I don't believe in a higher power" and you can disagree, but the fact remains, we already know what every single one of your counter arguments will be. I don't disagree with people believing what they want to, but I've had too many religious people say "Well, you should believe in a God, because something had to create us" to go on acting like relgion hasn't been forced on me. It has become such that Atheists are met with blunt force by religious nuts, and we are forced to retaliate with our views. Seriously, I skimmed through that long religious counter argument above this thread, and it was the same old religious spiel that makes me sick to read. I dugg it down, not because I'm not open-minded, but because I believe "religion" is wrong. I'm not going to say it is "wrong" on the level of racism or sexism, but I believe it is mind control, in most cases. I also believe Atheists can have even greater moral standards than those who are religious because they do not believe it is to rack up points. I could go on for days about why I won't support religion, so I'll stop now.
- Zyphron, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2I fail to understand how you can classify something as universally wrong unless you have something to actually define wrong VS right. I have heard argument upon argument and none of them are logically consistent. Unless something is defining Right VS Wrong, all matters of right and wrong are simply personal preference. If things are personal preference, then you cannot blame someone else if they decide to murder your family or steal your stuff because that is simply their personal preference of morality. You are claiming religion is wrong, but under your definition, there is no real difference between saying that religion is wrong and saying "I do not like chocolate cake."
To me, the only real logically consistent atheist is one who is completely hedonistic in nature. He only does that which makes him feel good. (though he may look at the long term rewards, not just short term pleasures) He is not concerned with what is right, or what is wrong, because he realizes ultimately that there is no way that any standard of Right and Wrong can be applied to a group of people, and that such conventions are just creations of people to keep people under control. And in a Machiavellian fashion, he is completely justified in breaking those conventions whenever possible.
The thing is that none of you are willing to accept that level of depravity. All of you want to maintain some minimum of moral conduct. You all want to be able to say that things are WRONG. That we should be tolerant of each other, and that things like murder, theft, racism, sexism, and even religion are WRONG. You do not simply want to say that you do not prefer these things, you want to say that they are WRONG and should not happen. You want to condemn Hitler for his horrible murderous, racist, and bigoted views. You want to look at the mother who murdered her Children and condemn her has a horrible. You want to look at hate crimes and bigots and all the bad people in the world and say how bad they are, but ultimately, unless there is some standard, some judge, something above ourselves that is defining what is Ultimately RIght and Wrong, then all those things mean nothing. Ultimately, all our righteous indignation at the atrocities committed throughout the world are equal simply to "I don't like chocolate cake."
Personally, I am not willing to accept that. Personally, I don't even think that is very reasonable, since it seems extraordinarily odd that we should all be so concerned with this morality thing if it is simply a creation of our own design. I think it much more reasonable that something put it there. And that something wants us to follow that morality. And that means, that when people break that morality, we can actually say, That was WRONG. You OUGHT to have acted another way. The child murder deserves punishment. The hate crime deserves justice. The downtrodden and the wronged deserve to be protected. Not because that is our preference, but because that is what is RIGHT.
- silentcollision, on 01/22/2008, -8/+5And how is this any different to the constant atheist or 'rationalist' (whatever the cool kids call it these days) promoting articles constantly appearing on Digg?
- shade45, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2I see Atheist propaganda hit the front page nearly twice a week. This article in itself is pure hypocracy, christians are always accused of pushing their beliefs on other people , then atheist turn around do the same with articles like this.
- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5And you're forced to read this because...?
- Zyphron, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1And you complain when Christians evangelize because...?
- iamlXl, on 01/21/2008, -5/+12Because wasting my time hearing the same bull-***** religious propaganda isn't worth my time. They all say the same thing, and It only makes me more upset at how brainwashed some people are. I've been raised with CCD and Catholic high school for more than 13 years, so trust me, I have heard all the arguments, and reading them again isn't changing my opinion that it's all nutty.
- below413, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3First of all, it's pascal's wager, and second of all pascal's wager is complete *****. It relies on false assumptions. For example the premise that there are only two possible outcomes after life, that there either is a god or isn't a god. If one god is logically possible, then all the gods of ancient Greece and Rome and the Hindu gods might also exist, so they have to be thrown into the wager. Also, I would think that a moral god would value actions much more than simple blind faith. The only god I would consider believing in would be much more accepting of an athiest who led his or her life morally out of the goodness of his or her heart than a devout evangelical christian who spews hatred about gays and abortion and is generally just mean to people who aren't like them. On the other hand, if a god does exist and he supports the people spewing hatred in his name, then I don't think he deserves my faith anyway. Finally, another point about Pascal's wager is that one might associate the time and money spent on a church and religion as wasted in the event that there is no god, thus giving a less favorable outcome for believers.
- enemyofstate430, on 01/22/2008, -2/+0Questions 5 and 8 are really the most damning to Christianity, and AJH16 failed to address either of them sufficiently.
Where God came from is not some "oh, let's throw this under the rug because its a philosophical triviality." The answer to where everything came from is the reason religion ***** exist--so if you want to say this doesn't matter, than I guess religion doesn't matter.
And as far as the whole "justice of the universe" is concerned--I think the Universe works on probability. It's not perfect, but GENERALLY speaking, good things happen to good people and vice versa, as like attracts like. Morality does not need a deity and hocus pocus to work: if you are going around shooting people, you're probably gonna get shot--if you bake cookies and give them to everyone in your neighborhood, you'll probably make friends. - Zyphron, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Question 5 - Where God comes from.
There are two issues with this. The first is that this is a problem we run into regardless. If we take a scientific "Big Bang" view of the universe, somewhere along the line, we still end up with a "something from nothing" dilemma. (whether the something is energy, sub-atomic particles, anti-particles, whatever, they are still - Something that started the Universe) We have struggled with this for as long as we have been sentient, so I don't know that it is damning, I just think it shows a lack of understanding on our part.
second, that question is trying to Anthropomorphise God. To use the classic example of a painter, a painter paints a picture. That picture has certain rules, and a "reality" which exists within the ocnfines of the painting. However, the painter is something different from, and separate from the painting. The "rules" which apply inside the painting do not apply to the painter. He does this several times throughout his argument, but I think trying to apply our universes' set of physics and laws to a being that by definition is outside of and above those laws seems silly to me.
Question 8 - The justice of the universe.
Interestingly enemyofstate430, your response does not fall along the same lines that his does. He essentially said. Bad things happen, and a good God would not allow those bad things to happen. My response pasted from above:
I fail to understand how you can classify something as universally wrong unless you have something to actually define wrong VS right. I have heard argument upon argument and none of them are logically consistent. Unless something is defining Right VS Wrong, all matters of right and wrong are simply personal preference. If things are personal preference, then you cannot blame someone else if they decide to murder your family or steal your stuff because that is simply their personal preference of morality. You are claiming religion is wrong, but under your definition, there is no real difference between saying that religion is wrong and saying "I do not like chocolate cake."
To me, the only real logically consistent atheist is one who is completely hedonistic in nature. He only does that which makes him feel good. (though he may look at the long term rewards, not just short term pleasures) He is not concerned with what is right, or what is wrong, because he realizes ultimately that there is no way that any standard of Right and Wrong can be applied to a group of people, and that such conventions are just creations of people to keep people under control. And in a Machiavellian fashion, he is completely justified in breaking those conventions whenever possible.
The thing is that none of you are willing to accept that level of depravity. All of you want to maintain some minimum of moral conduct. You all want to be able to say that things are WRONG. That we should be tolerant of each other, and that things like murder, theft, racism, sexism, and even religion are WRONG. You do not simply want to say that you do not prefer these things, you want to say that they are WRONG and should not happen. You want to condemn Hitler for his horrible murderous, racist, and bigoted views. You want to look at the mother who murdered her Children and condemn her has a horrible. You want to look at hate crimes and bigots and all the bad people in the world and say how bad they are, but ultimately, unless there is some standard, some judge, something above ourselves that is defining what is Ultimately RIght and Wrong, then all those things mean nothing. Ultimately, all our righteous indignation at the atrocities committed throughout the world are equal simply to "I don't like chocolate cake."
Personally, I am not willing to accept that. Personally, I don't even think that is very reasonable, since it seems extraordinarily odd that we should all be so concerned with this morality thing if it is simply a creation of our own design. I think it much more reasonable that something put it there. And that something wants us to follow that morality. And that means, that when people break that morality, we can actually say, That was WRONG. You OUGHT to have acted another way. The child murder deserves punishment. The hate crime deserves justice. The downtrodden and the wronged deserve to be protected. Not because that is our preference, but because that is what is RIGHT.
But as to your particular comment, you do not simply want to claim that good and bad things Generally work themselves out. You want to claim that some things are bad and should be punished and other good things should be rewarded. Think about your own life and the times that you have been wronged, or you have witnessed (or read about on digg) horrible things happening to people. Even if you think "Karma will eventually cause those BAD things to come back on them" you are still acknowledging the fact that there are bad things that deserve to happen to that person. I think if you honestly look at your reactions, unless you are a completely cold and unfeeling person, you will find that human empathy which causes us to desire morality and justice in the world.
- cakenoob, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1NEGATIVE WIN
- poonaka, on 01/22/2008, -13/+11[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by the Church of Scientology International]
- brycelb, on 01/22/2008, -4/+9I'm already sick of this!
- themastersb, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Bad things happen to good people, great things happen to bad people. So true.
- Zyphron, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Yes, but by definition, that cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. What defines a "good" person VS a "Bad" person?
If there is no god, then all good and bad/right and wrong is simply a matter of preference. When you say "You should not steal." All you can really be saying is "I dont like it when you steal." Or "It is inconvenient to me when you steal." This puts moral judgements essentially on the level of the statement "I do not like chocolate cake." (you can insert stealing, rape, murder, etc for Chocolate Cake)
If all moral judgment is simply a matter of personal preference, then you cannot claim that a god does not exist simply because you do not like what happens to people, because you are really just saying that the state of the universe is inconvenient to you. The problem is that this can ONLY apply to YOU. In order to have a morality that actually applies to all people, the type of morality which would allow you to say that it is BAD when something BAD happens to a GOOD person, you would have to have some type of universal standard which was above us, existed in reality, but was different than us, and separate from us.
For example, if my dog and my cat exist in my apartment without me, they can do whatever they want, and if the dog chases the cat, then that sucks for the cat. It is inconvenient for the cat, but it is not WRONG for the dog. However, if I am in the apartment, since I am above BOTH the dog and the cat, I can impose rules and punishments on the dog that would make it wrong for him. The analogy is horrible, and has a lot of holes, but it demonstrates the basic idea.
A guy named CS Lewis made the same argument for atheism that you just did. Then a guy named JR Tolkien spent a lot of time talking to him, and he eventually realized the futility of that argument and became a Christian. (writing a book called Mere Christianity, which deals with a lot of these ideas. It might be interesting for you to check out.)- thePuck77, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Your inability to conceive of a morality that is not radical relativism and yet does not depend on a divine mandate is NOT a good argument for the existence of a god OR the unreasonableness of atheists having ethics. It is simply evidence that you have a preconceived notion, based on religion, of what ethics is and what the basis of morality is. Other ethical systems exist and have existed throughout human history, and only a few of them have had anything to do with deities as a basis. Ever heard of virtue ethics? Kantian categorical imperative? Utilitarian ethics? Humanist ethics?
If you are going to base you arguments on ethics, perhaps you should study some. I suggest "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" by Bernard Williams as a start. - Zyphron, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Ok, you will probably never read this, but you obviously did not understand anything I just wrote. I was not claiming there are not secular ethical systems which provide a construct for what is defined as right, and what is defined as wrong. That is obvious. Secular people act 'morally' all the time, without having a theological system to back them up.
What I WAS claiming is that those systems do not make reasonable sense.
Virtue ethics is more a way of thinking about ethics than it is an ethical system all its own. Christianity uses a lot of concepts from virtue ethics actually, but there is a logical reason to believe those virtues are worthwhile. Otherwise, you value a virtue, but have no basis on which to claim that a virtue is actually BETTER than a vice.
The Categorical Imperative does not truly provide a construct for morality, because its key point is simply that what is right for one person must be right for all. It also takes that concept, and implies the "golden rule" concept, that we should treat others the same as we would desire to be treating, but it does not answer at all why treating others is "good." If I truly believed that there was nothing wrong with murder, so long as I did not get caught, then I would arrange my life such that I could not be murdered, but I could murder anyone else (think Mafia Boss) and I would be consistent with the Categorical Imperative.
Utilitianism is actually the best example you have given thus far. This is an actual ethical system, but it defines the greatest good to be that which brings the most happiness to the most people. It is defining people's happiness to be good, but does not provide a logical justification for why this should be so. It puts value on human beings, and their well-being, but there is no reason to actually assume they DO have value.
I am not intimately familiar with Humanist Ethics, but I believe it relies on the basic premise that Humanism (as a philosophy) does which essentially says that all people are valuable, and through a combined effort and realization of this value, we can make life both meaningful and moral. This is still putting a VALUE on humanity, which we have no logical justification to do. Or, more accurately, although we can justify humanity having value in our own minds and in our own moral system, we cannot criticize others who do not come to the same conclusion of humanity's inherent value.
If YOU understand what I am saying, then I am more than willing to listen to your arguments. I have done quite a bit of research on this, and am unimpressed by any of the secular ethical systems I have encountered. Although they all do an excellent job of creating a coherent ethical system, without the need for a God, that is not my issue with them. My issue with them is that they all, at some point or another, put a value on either good behavior, a human life, human happiness, or some other arbitrary factor which they have no basis for actually applying to anyone outside that morality system.
The thing about a morality system is that we do not WANT it to apply simiply to our little group of people who agree to it. Kant's entire argument was that a morality system MUST apply to everyone, which is exactly how we all feel morality MUST work. However, secular morality systems cannot offer a justification as to how such an overarching morality system would actually work, because somewhere along the line, they must put value on something that is greater than themselves. And more than that, they must claim that other SHOULD, or OUGHT TO value that thing as well. It is that act of saying that others OUGHT to do something that points us towards what must exist OUTSIDE of ourselves.
Once again, you probably wont read this, but I would love to hear a response. You seem to have studied this topic somewhat and may have some insight that I have not been previously aware of.
- thePuck77, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Your inability to conceive of a morality that is not radical relativism and yet does not depend on a divine mandate is NOT a good argument for the existence of a god OR the unreasonableness of atheists having ethics. It is simply evidence that you have a preconceived notion, based on religion, of what ethics is and what the basis of morality is. Other ethical systems exist and have existed throughout human history, and only a few of them have had anything to do with deities as a basis. Ever heard of virtue ethics? Kantian categorical imperative? Utilitarian ethics? Humanist ethics?
- Zyphron, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Yes, but by definition, that cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. What defines a "good" person VS a "Bad" person?
- TheMidnight, on 01/22/2008, -4/+5Good grief. This reads like a bad Cracked article written by someone who heard George Carlin back in the 70s while on LSD.
- Cr00kie, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Or is it?
- somespecial, on 01/21/2008, -67/+1010. Wrong. Whoever believes in Christ will never die. :) I'm almost 30 and look 21 , it's working for me.
- MattB123, on 01/21/2008, -1/+9So then you don't get all that stuff when you die? Bait and switch!
- loungechair, on 01/21/2008, -2/+6Same here, except the believing in christ part. The other day I got carded for smokes and the girl behind the counter told me I look 16. I'm 28. Seriously, six-*****-teen.
- jonahatan, on 01/21/2008, -4/+2are you a virgin?
- Epik, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Hey that's a KT Tatara joke!
- ozid, on 01/21/2008, -1/+9figures. im 21 and look 30.
- br0ken1128, on 01/21/2008, -3/+24Tell that to all those Christians who died in the last couple thousand years.. maybe they didn't believe hard enough .. >.< BELIEVE HARDER!!
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3It's so stupid, it *just might* work. But I'm betting it won't.
- iamlXl, on 01/21/2008, -17/+169"If God was around, he’d rather I eat a bag of Doritos and pass out than get drunk, beat my wife and piss on the couch."
I'm all for getting plastered, but that statement is not only Anti-Religion, but also Pro-Legalization. Full of win.- Nerfdude, on 01/21/2008, -1/+53this article is anti-religion, pro-stoner, and pro ron paul. if it was engraved on a sheet of white lucite, it'd be the only story digg would ever need.
- Chirp08, on 01/21/2008, -16/+5who eats so many doritos that they pass out?
- iamlXl, on 01/21/2008, -4/+20The weed helps you pass out, the doritos are just along for the ride.
- Killkennedy, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1LMAO Wonder if the flavour makes a difference?
- Whadabala, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7*WHOOSH!*
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5...said the guy who has obviously never smoked weed before.
- bagelpirate, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5And wife beating.
- iamlXl, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4And Doritos.
- pzwhite125, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1And plaster!
- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Oh my!
- Deadeye99, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0GOD!
- pzwhite125, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1And plaster!
- iamlXl, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4And Doritos.
- stackered, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6Xenu is not happy. Not happy at all.
- skyshock1, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4Because all drunks beat people up and piss on the couch.
- below413, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4And not all stoners run over little girls on their bikes while exiting the McDonald's drive through or shoot their friends with their dad's gun they found in his desk. What's your point?
- skyshock1, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Totally agree. Point is that you can't paint all groups with a broad brush?
- cmackattack, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1or get beat up for acting like an ass... drunks don't fight well.
- below413, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4And not all stoners run over little girls on their bikes while exiting the McDonald's drive through or shoot their friends with their dad's gun they found in his desk. What's your point?
- brubakerj, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3Why? We have to deal with the religious propaganda everywhere else. Every cheap(??) billboard in town seems to have some anti-abortion or pro-jesus slogan now. I wonder what to make of the fact that digg's anti-religion articles so popular. I am willing to conjecture that it's because a large portion of people (or at least the digg demographic which is young, male, technically savvy, and educated???) are sick of hearing ***** from the religious camps, and the anonymous nature of digg makes the group that has been between to submission over religion in real life rather zealot. So I say no filter. Unless I can get a filter from the religious channel's that seem to find their way onto TV and radio, all the damn billboards, the protesters (don't forget westboro baptist church), and all those stupid signs churches like to put out.
- doublehead, on 01/21/2008, -44/+24This is probably the best work on the subject I've seen in a long time. Got me chuckling too :)
Its amazing what people will believe. What I say is, we fire Bush, make Ron Paul god, and be done with the whole magical nonsense once and for all!- masterm1nd, on 01/21/2008, -5/+38Best work? A post written by a 19 year old in his boxers at 3 am on dailygarlic.com with logic in the title where half the points are irrelevant to initial claim?
- Nerfdude, on 01/21/2008, -3/+16hey man, god doesn't exist because hillary's doing alright in the polls, and like... she looks like a mean person. so yeah, no god.
also weed.
- Nerfdude, on 01/21/2008, -3/+16hey man, god doesn't exist because hillary's doing alright in the polls, and like... she looks like a mean person. so yeah, no god.
- codelogic, on 01/21/2008, -2/+27The post was entertaining but FAR from the best work on the subject. Let me quote Bertrand Russell for one:
"I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: 'Oh, but you forget the good God.' Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious."
http://www.users.drew.edu/jlenz/br-best-religion.h ...- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Pretty much everything I've ever read by Bertrand Russell was good.
- kevinmotel, on 01/21/2008, -7/+5does that mean once ron paul is god, diggers won't believe in him anymore?
- SuperMoses, on 01/21/2008, -5/+7I'm an atheist and I thought this was an incredibly weak post. I don't doubt this was just RP spam.
- antiorblkflag9, on 01/21/2008, -5/+3Besides the Ron Paul spam it was pretty funny.
- cmackattack, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1idiot.
- Hecubus452, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2This is anti-god and pro-Ron Paul. Seems like a contradiction to me. This is the same Ron Paul who is anti-separation of church and state, anti-flag burning, and anti-abortion. Check his wikipedia for your self. Yeah, that screams "freedom" to me. (sarcasm)
- gingerboyiv, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4"We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court." - Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 3, 2003
"The Federal Government has NO RIGHT to get involved in religion AT ALL. Neither to approve nor dissapprove of anything religious. That's it. The complaint is that our government has meddled in our affairs to such an extent that we no longer have the right to say what we want." natschults on Ron Paul's view of religion
and as for anti-abortion, he is just like he is for flag-burning, since it is not mentioned in the constitution it is rather simple, it is a states rights, and the states have the right to decide if it is right or wrong. I did not check wikipedia, because well wikipedia is unreliable.
"- Hecubus452, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1So it's OK for states to squash free speech, but not the federal government? Just because Ron Paul says that the constitution says it's OK for states to decide whether flag burning should be banned doesn't make it right, free speech is one of the most valuable rights we have, and I'm not going to vote or support anyone who is willing to let basic free speech be violated for any reason.
Even if he won't let religion into the government, he will still be our president, and will be making big decisions about science policy, and I'm not going to let someone who doesn't understand the basic concepts of science and thus believes that evolution is "just a theory" and who is "an unshakable foe of abortion" into our highest political office. - Hecubus452, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1And Wikipedia is actually very reliable because the the bottom, they list all of their sources that you can easily click and see for yourself. You're not supposed to take Wikipedia's word for it, it just points you in the right direction.
- Hecubus452, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1So it's OK for states to squash free speech, but not the federal government? Just because Ron Paul says that the constitution says it's OK for states to decide whether flag burning should be banned doesn't make it right, free speech is one of the most valuable rights we have, and I'm not going to vote or support anyone who is willing to let basic free speech be violated for any reason.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2"This is the same Ron Paul who is anti-separation of church and state, anti-flag burning, and anti-abortion."
I'm not even going to try anymore. I'm a smart animal. I learned that banging my head against the wall over and over doesn't work. So I'm not going to bother to point out why these statements are wrong AGAIN.- Hecubus452, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Maybe you know something i don't, you know, I'm just basing my knowledge off of the man's quotes, maybe I'm doing something wrong.
Anti-separation of church and state - "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance"
"SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags." from a resolution introduced by him. (105th CONGRESS, 1st Session, H. J. RES. 82)
"As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life." (From his wesite)
Maybe people wouldn't keep saying these things if his quotes weren't so easily accessible and so clearly demonstrate his views.
I don't know, I may be alone on this, but it's important to me that our president be scientifically literate and not say evolution is "just a theory" (http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/419326/r ...- rarson, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I already told you, I'm not going to try. Myself and plenty of other people were all able to figure it out on our own, so if you're reasonably intelligent, you should have no problem doing the same.
- Hecubus452, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Maybe you know something i don't, you know, I'm just basing my knowledge off of the man's quotes, maybe I'm doing something wrong.
- gingerboyiv, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4"We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court." - Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 3, 2003
- masterm1nd, on 01/21/2008, -5/+38Best work? A post written by a 19 year old in his boxers at 3 am on dailygarlic.com with logic in the title where half the points are irrelevant to initial claim?
- Member148, on 01/21/2008, -73/+14Everyone makes their own decisions, just be prepared to live and die accepting the results. When people find out that God lives, it's to late to say oops I didn't realize, can you give me another chance? Chances are over. The only thing someone in that position can do is roll with the consequences no matter how horrendous. That will be the last time, people in that state, will see peace and tranquility.
- dgendreau, on 01/21/2008, -5/+36So, say you get into this Heaven place... Will you experience this eternal peace and tranquility if one of your children or parents end up burning in hell forever?
- cowsgonemadd3, on 01/21/2008, -30/+2Yes you will as there will be no tears in heaven. It says so in the Bible.
- loliel, on 01/21/2008, -1/+32Sweet, I want to go to heaven where I can be turned into a mindless, uncaring zombie... wait, or was that Raccoon City? Can't keep my fictional settings straight.
- swazo, on 01/21/2008, -1/+19Im sorry but eric clapton says otherwise.
- unorginalityftw, on 01/22/2008, -0/+11I'd feel pretty ***** to know my loved ones are suffering for eternity for what could only be a finite (read: overkill) amount of sins or wrongdoings. I'd be downright pissed.
- cmackattack, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1it also says something like 400k people will be saved, so to think that you will be one of these 400k is retarded....you have a better chance to win the powerball lottery. .. and that's only if an afterlife existed.
- dgendreau, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1@CGM: I just checked your comment history. Holy crap you were serious! Ah well, your comments make you look about 12, so I'll give you a breeak.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 01/21/2008, -30/+2Yes you will as there will be no tears in heaven. It says so in the Bible.
- Zarokima, on 01/21/2008, -6/+50The only requirement for getting into heaven is believing. A paradise where many of the inhabitants are murderers, rapists, or any other manner of vicious criminal who "found God" in jail, contrasted with a hell where many (probably most) inhabitants are genuinely good people who were either atheist or just the wrong religion, doesn't seem like paradise. I'd rather go to hell than submit to a god with that level of jackassery.
- homie7, on 01/21/2008, -29/+0For your info, all you must do is ask to be forgive. Don't condemn others or you shall be condemned yourself.
- donjacko, on 01/21/2008, -1/+9dont you dare say "you shall be condemned yourself" as if its actually going to happenand not might happen. thats just ignorance taken to the highest possible level
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+7Well some Christians just throw all that ***** out the window when they start talking about how much they hate gays and atheists.
- calax21, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2thank you rarson
- sexymuffin, on 01/21/2008, -7/+1How are you determining who's "good"?
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -3/+7Most people are good aren't they? I think "most people" probably covers a whole load of people who don't believe in this particular god. So lots of people are going to be burn in hell for being born in the wrong place and indoctrinated into the prevailing religion of their home nation. Lets hope this god doesnt mind if we prayed to another god, as long as we believed in one of them -although he tends to get a bit pissy about that in that book.
- sexymuffin, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Again, how are you determining who's good? By your standards? By society's standards? By whose standards? Who gets to ultimately decide what is good?
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -3/+7Most people are good aren't they? I think "most people" probably covers a whole load of people who don't believe in this particular god. So lots of people are going to be burn in hell for being born in the wrong place and indoctrinated into the prevailing religion of their home nation. Lets hope this god doesnt mind if we prayed to another god, as long as we believed in one of them -although he tends to get a bit pissy about that in that book.
- diggjones, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1Are you upset that God offers eternal life to everyone freely not matter what they've done in the past? You shouldn't be. You should be happy that God offers even the worst criminal forgiveness. You can claim it too.
- Acolyte357, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2"Are you upset that God offers eternal life to everyone freely not matter what they've done in the past?" Yes, and why the ***** would I want to hang out with "even the worst criminal". Your god is dieing.
- cmackattack, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2this thinking promotes evil deeds done on Earth up until the moment someone knows they are going to die... that's awful. Think I'd rather be good, then burn, than evil and an etenal hypocrite....
- Pilomotor, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1A god "with that level of jackassery" sounds more like the traditional devil. Makes you wonder just who's in charge of hell's torture.
- homie7, on 01/21/2008, -29/+0For your info, all you must do is ask to be forgive. Don't condemn others or you shall be condemned yourself.
- thankyousir, on 01/21/2008, -5/+4pascal's wager is a condiment argument, it is good, but must go with other logic, else it tastes nasty
- theaverageidiot, on 01/21/2008, -41/+4Sometimes I'm shocked at how ignorant digg users are. Member148 points out a perfectly good point, yet he gets dugg down.
Think about this: as an atheist, there are no supposed benefits - you have nothing to lose and no reason to live. Christians believe that there is a God, Heaven, and Hell, and that if you don't believe you burn in hell forever. If Christians are wrong (which I am one and I don't think they're wrong), then well, it doesn't make a difference. But if the atheists are wrong, then they get the shaft.
I don't know. I guess I'm just speaking my mind.
And watch, now: on the single fact that I'm a Christian, I'm going to get dugg down. Hypocrites. I listen to all sides.- artgon, on 01/21/2008, -5/+44So you're more concerned about covering your ass than actually believing in God?
As an atheist, at least I know I believed in truth, reason and rationality over believing in some imaginary man in the sky JUST IN CASE. - JigoroKano, on 01/21/2008, -6/+41Atheists have no reason to live?
I don't think you could be more brainwashed.- bsmang, on 01/21/2008, -1/+17Yeah really! Might be closer to say atheists have no reason to die... but they do anyway, just like everyone else. This is what scares me about religious people. Many of them actually think we have no reason to live. I know these are in varying degrees, but wtf...
- davidrools, on 01/21/2008, -8/+2He must mean no eternal reason. Since, if life ends with death and that's that, it makes no difference whether your goal is to kill as many people or save as many people as you can while you live.
- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2If you start killing people, you're likely to end your life earlier than if you didn't, especially in Texas. Makes perfect sense to me.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Wow, I apologize, hit my touch pad and it randomly landed on the bury button, of all things. I would have dugg you up. Sorry.
- navster15, on 01/21/2008, -1/+29And you presume that you are following the only true religion. Let me know how it feels when Buddha reincarnates you as an abused puppy.
"When you realize why you dismiss all other gods, you will then realize why I dismiss yours." - msflower97, on 01/21/2008, -1/+26"Think about this: as an atheist, there are no supposed benefits - you have nothing to lose and no reason to live."
What about living life here on earth as a good person, helping others through it along the way...there's no benefit in that? Human life existing merely as a precursor to the afterlife is a sad thought for me. - Betaflame, on 01/21/2008, -1/+17So you believe God decided that I should be born, become and athiest, and burn in hell. Because he knew me before I was concieved, knew all I would do in life, and where I would go in death. Sounds like a swell guy to me.
- Kerrigore, on 01/21/2008, -0/+29You're been dugg down because you're repeating the utterly fallacious and oft-debunked Pascal's Wager, not because you're a Christian.
- paganhobbit, on 01/21/2008, -1/+14As an atheist, I have plenty of reason to live. I believe life is the most special thing there is and I want to hold on to it and experience it for as long as I possibly can and spend it with people that I love and love me. Life itself is the benefit. Too bad so many people don't view it that way.
Your very comment makes it sound like you're a christian more because you're afraid to go to hell than because you love god or Jesus Christ.
Member148's post wasn't making any point, it was an attempt by a person to make themselves feel superior at the expense of the possible eternal damnation of an entire group of people. Very christian-like, I'd say. - donjacko, on 01/21/2008, -0/+13seriously, athiests have no reason to live? im an athiest. i love life. my purpose and therefore reason for being is to enjoy life and improve the world. i am more content with that purpose than a christian can ever be
- CharliesRevenge, on 01/22/2008, -0/+9I will always continue this comment when needed:
Just because you announce that you're about to get dugg down doesn't make you look less foolish. It just means you already knew you were wrong or a jackass and clicked the "submit" button anyways.- cmackattack, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2indeed
- mooseontheloose, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6Won't you look like a jackass when you're burning in hell because you forgot that the other millions of options that exist, like the God that will punish you for blindly believing in him while rewarding us atheists that chose to use the logic and reason he gave us :)
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10"If Christians are wrong (which I am one and I don't think they're wrong)"
No *****. Buddhists don't think they're wrong. Jews don't think they're wrong. Atheists don't think they're wrong. If anyone honestly thought their religion was wrong (not that atheism is a religion), then *they wouldn't believe it!* Duh! Your chosen religion, if you grew up on it, is a completely arbitrary factor decided by where you *happened* to be born and what your parents *happened* to teach you. If you grew up somewhere else, you wouldn't be Christian, but you'd still be saying the same dumb ***** ("I think my religion is the right one").
My life has been a lot more fun to live since I gave up Christianity. Serving some fantasy master in the sky is not my idea of a good reason to live. I have a lot more fun without the restrictions of the Christian religion, and I'm still a good person, which is the entire point of being Christian in the first place. If anything, I'd say that Christians have a lot less to live for because their enjoyment of life is so much more limited. Not to mention, it's a lot of time and energy to waste on something that by all logic doesn't exist. But the worst part is how so many Christians let their religion think for them. People actually HATE homosexuals for no other reason because a book says homosexuality is bad. They're not even thinking for themselves.
No thanks. - sealhands, on 01/22/2008, -1/+10"on the single fact that I'm a Christian, I'm going to get dugg down. "
shut up. its the nonsense you said before you claimed to be christian that is the reason you are dugg down. christians havent been persecuted for 1700 years, in fact, they are the ones doing most of the persecution. youre lucky all you get is dugg down.
- artgon, on 01/21/2008, -5/+44So you're more concerned about covering your ass than actually believing in God?
- Rakuseki, on 01/21/2008, -1/+17Pascal's Wager assumes that the condition of having a god favors the god the person believes in. The entire wager goes out the window when you take into account the first commandment. There have been many religions since the dawn of man, many of which have been 'snuffed out'. The sheer possibility of having a supreme being that is -your- supreme being is just as unlikely as not having one at all so the idea that "Well, I can believe in my god and be covered even if he doesn't exist" can't work.. Say that to some Pangaean Overlord who hates that his religion died out when the continents split and doesn't like the idea that his people have been worshiping some guy pinned to some wood. Ah, the Catch 22.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3"The sheer possibility of having a supreme being that is -your- supreme being is just as unlikely as not having one at all"
I disagree, I think it's much more likely that there is no supreme being, based on the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3"The sheer possibility of having a supreme being that is -your- supreme being is just as unlikely as not having one at all"
- paganhobbit, on 01/21/2008, -1/+18I think it's a good thing that people who spend their entire lives as slaves to a non-existent entity will never realize they were wrong. Think of how depressing it would be to realize you wasted your one chance at life being a servant to nothing.
It is a shame, though, that the ones who kill for this same non-existent entity don't realize this same thing. They truly would deserve spending all time with any sort of emotional or physical pain hell could conjure. - br0ken1128, on 01/21/2008, -1/+29"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed" - Albert Einstein
Too many people accept religion for fear of hell and the reward of heaven.. it really is a sad thing. - reginaldino, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3arse, i accidentally dugg you
- drgmdp, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1***** that, i prefer having some devil inspired fun while living
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5"When people find out that God lives"
IF "God" exists.
You know, this "God" character is a real *****. He gives us "free will," then imposes the harshest penalties if we don't do as he says (which, by the way, is only known to us through a poorly-written, millennia old, human-written and edited book that has been translated time and time again by more imperfect humans). He gives us the intelligence to reason, but expects us not to use it as he gives us absolutely no logical signs of his existence. Either he doesn't exist, or he's playing a huge prank on us. - ggnictee, on 01/22/2008, -3/+1it's never too late. We all have fallen short and all will be forgiven. Unconditionally, absolutely and eternally.
God is not an intergalactic cop, just waiting for you to break the speed limit so he can throw you in jail. I promise everyone on digg: when you get to heaven there will be a room waiting for you.- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4That argument can be used for any religion:
"it's never too late. We all have fallen short and all will be forgiven. Unconditionally, absolutely and eternally. [insert deity or deities] is not an intergalactic cop, just waiting for you to break the speed limit so he can throw you in jail. I promise everyone on digg: when you get to [insert afterlife state] there will be a room waiting for you."
Show me I'm wrong.
- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4That argument can be used for any religion:
- RIOGoose, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Ahh yes, ye olde standby of Christianity: belief through fear. Believe, or else! Because if you don't, it might actually be true! And then where would you be, eh? Hell, that's where. With all of the people who existed before Jesus, and that guy from Queen who was gay.
- dgendreau, on 01/21/2008, -5/+36So, say you get into this Heaven place... Will you experience this eternal peace and tranquility if one of your children or parents end up burning in hell forever?
- orchardo, on 01/21/2008, -40/+5"I love walking on two legs and peeing standing up, but telling me that we have to be created by a magical being just because we exist, begs questioning." My favorite of the MANY great one-liners in this post. He's almost as funny as Dane Cook. (JK -- NO ONE can be as funny as Dane Cook. Only an intelligent designer -- which doesn't exist -- could make someone as funny as Dane Cook. Which means Dane Cook does not exist.)
- fasda, on 01/21/2008, -3/+29Dane Cook? Funny? you need to get a brain.
- bahamutxd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+11He's pretty funny when he's telling other people's jokes.
- orchardo, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Um, kidding.
- lukas88, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Their hatred of Dane Cook blinded them to the subtlety.
Yeah subtlety is hard for digg.
- lukas88, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Their hatred of Dane Cook blinded them to the subtlety.
- mashw, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1Yeah but that's not "logical" so to speak, it's a misuse of the term begs the question, but we all do it.
- booboolean, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Yeah, out of the 300,000,000 ***** on the internet who write humorous little rants in this exact same style (most of them for Cracked.com), this is undeniably one of the lamest. I agree with the sentiments and all, but "It’s nature’s undo button once you figure out that giving tigers the ability to fly just wasn’t the best idea out on the market." is ***** gay, I don't care who you are.
- fasda, on 01/21/2008, -3/+29Dane Cook? Funny? you need to get a brain.
- alfonzzo, on 01/21/2008, -21/+5did you see zeidgeist?
- dgendreau, on 01/21/2008, -3/+13I think you mean Zeitgeist.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/- alfonzzo, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3yep, mistyped
- dmbohn, on 01/21/2008, -8/+4not taking any sides, but after watching that movie i did research on my own and it's a load of *****... the movie is riddled with historical inaccuracies
- Rakuseki, on 01/21/2008, -4/+2Kinda like 'What the Bleep! do we know".
- soulkitchen, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4historical inaccuracies like what?
- dmbohn, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1all of the birth dates of the "saviors" are wrong sans the commonly accepted date of birth of Jesus, look it up.
- UltraPenguinX, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2You didn't like Zeitgeist? YOU MUST BE A CHRISTIAN OMG STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON MY ZIONIST THEIST SCUM!
- jonshipman, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2Time Ghost!
- soulkitchen, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2more accurately: "The spirit of the time."
- norman619, on 01/21/2008, -2/+9I'm guessing this Zeitgeist is a video religious folks hate? I ask because when I question religion and the accuracy of their claims I often get accused of watching it as if that explains why I question religion. As if w/o a video people would NEVER question religion and all of its usual contradictions. All the bad mouthing is making want to go check it out now.
- MacEnvy, on 01/21/2008, -6/+2I'm guessing you aren't going to like it, norman. There's a lot of "truther" stuff in it too, and while it's compelling, it's the weakest part of the film. The religion stuff is very informative though.
- fasda, on 01/21/2008, -8/+3ok while I do agree that religions are full of ***** so is that movie. To me a big linchpins of the hole movie are that drastically different opposing cultures incoperate each others culture and that during the course of a civilization that there is no drastic change in its culture. which if you think about it for a second is pretty crazy.
- dgendreau, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4"drastically different opposing cultures incoperate each others culture"
"during the course of a civilization there is no drastic change in its culture"
WTF? At what point does the movie suggest these points???
To me, the main point(s) of Zeitgeist are:
1) Christianity is a myth as demonstrated by its early plagiarism of myths which predate Christianity by thousands of years. Mithras, Osiris etc.
2) Christianity is full of Astrological symbolism that explains a lot about events in bible. A context which is lost on the vast majority of modern day Christians.
3) Religion has always been used by the wealthy few to manipulate and control the masses and channel wealth.
4) 911 was a false flag operation (I have my doubts here, but with the way Bush Co has been acting lately, its not impossible)
5) The wealthy few continue to fleece the masses via the Federal Reserve. By issuing currency and charging interest on every dollar in circulation, they have created a powerful system of stealth taxation which affects the lower and middle classes disproportionately.
6) The founding fathers opposed and warned us against such a banking scheme because England used such methods against us when we were colonies.
7) The Federal Reserve was forced upon us after the wealthy supposedly engineered several stock market crashes and touted it as a way to prevent future crashes. The law was somehow passed in secret during the dead of night.
While I dont agree with all of the points made by the movie, I believe the section on Religion is dead on.
- dgendreau, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4"drastically different opposing cultures incoperate each others culture"
- danthemanhan, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1overrated and full of paranoid speculation
- dgendreau, on 01/21/2008, -3/+13I think you mean Zeitgeist.
- orchardo, on 01/21/2008, -27/+63Oh, and to the author -- because I liked your post so much, I'm going to send you one of those little battery-powered handheld fans so that your stay in hell will be more pleasant.
- homie7, on 01/21/2008, -14/+6Do not condemn others or you yourself shall be condemned
- donjacko, on 01/21/2008, -1/+7i repeat my earlier reply to that comment
- unorginalityftw, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3WHOOSH!
- Chirp08, on 01/21/2008, -5/+28He can't go to the hell he doesn't believe in ;)
- Darthyoshiboy, on 01/21/2008, -8/+11Just because you don't believe in New Jersey, doesn't mean that you'll never go there.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -2/+8Yeah but is there really any doubt in your mind about the existence of new jersey?
- ralphie81, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4I'd rather go to the state of Denial.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5But why would you "not believe" in New Jersey? New Jersey actually exists.
- Chirp08, on 01/21/2008, -1/+10I live in New Jersey ironically.
- Zephkiel, on 01/22/2008, -0/+7I'm so sorry.
- Darthyoshiboy, on 01/21/2008, -8/+11Just because you don't believe in New Jersey, doesn't mean that you'll never go there.
- Radan, on 01/21/2008, -1/+13Hm... Copy, paste from the comments on the blog anyone?
- orchardo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8I have about one funny idea a day ... don't begrudge me for milking it for all it's worth.
- eclectro, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1I necessarily would not say he is going to hell. Indeed, this is not the worse of the pathetic flamebait to come down the digg pipes. I'm not even going to bury this one.
- Vowieotw, on 01/21/2008, -0/+15Don't worry, The Bible says that Hell has liquid sulfur but sulfur can only exist in the liquid form under 830 degrees F. Hell is not as hot as some would like you to believe
- orchardo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+9It actually sounds quite balmy.
- SlipstreamLucas, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1and no battery charger? you cruel, cruel man.
- homie7, on 01/21/2008, -14/+6Do not condemn others or you yourself shall be condemned
- Error601, on 01/21/2008, -19/+13Using the phrase "believe logic" shows you don't know what logic is or how it's designed to be used.
- MattB123, on 01/21/2008, -2/+4I believe logic will show that it isn't designed at all.
- masterm1nd, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1designed TO BE USED.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -2/+4I think you missed his point...
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1LOUD NOISES!
- theycallmebubba, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Then what's the point of using it to argue with? If there is no design to logic, then what is the alternative? How did it come about?
- masterm1nd, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1designed TO BE USED.
- kaelyiesta, on 01/21/2008, -1/+5You misunderstand his use of the word 'belief'. The word is ambiguous and can mean one of two things: The advocation or appreciation of something(I believe in the harm principle) or it could also mean the acceptance without proof of something existence(I don't believe in Santa Claus). If I used the first meaning of the word 'believe' in the second example, it would mean that I don't approve of the fictional character Santa Claus(and I'm a giant douche that doesn't like kids getting toys from a jolly old man) but since it is ambiguous, most people would assume I meant the second meaning, and I question whether or not he exists at all.
So to say 'believe logic' isn't necessarily contradictory to the very point of logic. It's just the ambiguous nature of the English language.
- MattB123, on 01/21/2008, -2/+4I believe logic will show that it isn't designed at all.
- nico623, on 01/21/2008, -7/+95Real Reason we believe Logic over Religion : Spock believed in logic.
- Privil3g3, on 01/23/2008, -1/+0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ...
a logical religion alternative
- Privil3g3, on 01/23/2008, -1/+0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ...
- EatingPie, on 01/21/2008, -46/+226There's a false dichotomy between logic and religion. Christianity, AT ITS CORE, is logical -- and I'm not talking about debated and fringe beliefs, but the basic core. Francis A. Schaeffer explored the logic of Christianity, building a foundation in three areas: Being, Morality and Knowledge.
Unfortunately, Christians have decided to attack science at the wrong level. Christianity is a PHILOSOPHY, not a science. Philosophy works in a strong logical foundation, but works "below" science. Not HOW the universe works, but WHY the universe works. Christians attack the how, and usually with bad science and unfounded suppositions.
-Pie- popothebright, on 01/21/2008, -16/+41Saying that Christianity is a "philosophy" ignores the dogma and focuses on the moral teachings -- which are neither original, nor unique to Christianity.
Christianity (and many other religions) discourages reason, question and personal interpretation. Such discouragement, by definition is anti-philosophical. Therefore it can only be considered 'philosophy' by those who do not practice it devoutly. A paradox which defeats it's definition as a philosophy.- Katelyn4978, on 01/21/2008, -14/+9I disagree... as a Christian, I have chosen to analyze my beliefs, compare them with others, and have deep discussions about the subject. My friends and I not only analyze what is right and wrong, but WHY they are right and wrong, IF the original teachings still apply today, etc. etc. I do agree that many Christians these days do not do any of those things, and blindly believe what they are told... but then - the same can be said of athiests, etc.! I think that logic and philosophical thought is essential to any Christian's life... but so many people fail to see this...
- norman619, on 01/21/2008, -6/+8Blind belief is what is required if you are to believe the bible which is Christianity's sacred book. The book is full of contradictions. too many for a thinking person to take it seriously. The basic philosophy of Christianity tends to be the basic rules to living in groups with lots of dogma added to them.
- Rickler, on 01/21/2008, -5/+2http://cectic.com/094.html
- nigh7dagger, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1I've read some lists of these supposed contradictions and most of them involve reading the Bible 100% literally or don't use context. I just picked a random "contradiction" from a site and guess what? It's wrong.
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Some books go by the matriarchal bloodline and some go by the patriarchal. Both are right. - SprostonGreen, on 01/21/2008, -0/+5How many Christians -really- have actually read the Bible by themselves? The whole thing. Not just sat in church and heard parts of it read aloud, or picked out bits and pieces to read every once in awhile. This is an assumption, but I get the feeling it's not a whole lot. So your "thinking person" can get past the contradictions part because they're not actually reading it. After all, it IS a book, and a large one at that. They get the disjointed, cleaned up version in church.
Of course this doesn't apply to every Christian, but I bet it's more than are willing to admit it.
I'm not a Christian or an atheist, nor do I subscribe to any of the world's other numerous religious offerings. I've been to Christian church services. I've read the Bible and seen the contradictions.
- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2"I do agree that many Christians these days do not do any of those things, and blindly believe what they are told... but then - the same can be said of athiests, etc.!"
And what precisely are these "atheist" teachings that we're supposed to follow?
- norman619, on 01/21/2008, -6/+8Blind belief is what is required if you are to believe the bible which is Christianity's sacred book. The book is full of contradictions. too many for a thinking person to take it seriously. The basic philosophy of Christianity tends to be the basic rules to living in groups with lots of dogma added to them.
- TedTschopp, on 01/21/2008, -7/+5There are several problems with your statement. Most Christian thinkers will agree that Christianity is -NOT- about morality. Christianity is not designed to make an immoral person moral. I don't want to drag out the verses and the theology on this, but the traditional view of Christianity taught throughout the centuries is that this. When Christianity has problems is when believers start to think that Christianity is about Morality.
While I would agree that I have experienced many Christians who would discourage Reasons and Questions, I would also say that the bible encourages Reasoning and Questions. Again, there are bible verses and theological arguments that support this. Historically christianity and the bible have encouraged the personal questioning and reasoning of the scriptures.
I will agree with your statement that the discouragement of questioning and reasoning is anti-philosophical, I would not apply it to historical Christianity.- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Religion is about morality in the same way that bubble gum is about automotive design.
- itux1985, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1@ popothebright
Agreed.
These sort of people believe that there is a "right and wrong" "good and evil". If you believe that you are "right" or "good" not "Wrong" or "Evil", there is no compromise. But some people need to be told what to do. Its not their fault, it is just the way it is. They always need a CHOICE tho. - ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -7/+1The fundamental flaw in your diagnosis is that it ignores 3 millenia of philosophical, ethical, and logical exegesis and evolution in hundreds of communities founded on different religious textual interpretations.
In layman's terms: You don't know what the ***** you're talking about.- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3Where are the ethics in telling people not to eat pork, that it's ok for their god to kill entire populations on a whim, that women are second class citizens?
You can exegete (or creatively interpret) scripture as much as you like. Unless it's written down, or you can draw a logical conclusion based on the raw text alone, then you're merely pulling stuff out of your ass to justify your own biases.
- nullifidian0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3Where are the ethics in telling people not to eat pork, that it's ok for their god to kill entire populations on a whim, that women are second class citizens?
- Katelyn4978, on 01/21/2008, -14/+9I disagree... as a Christian, I have chosen to analyze my beliefs, compare them with others, and have deep discussions about the subject. My friends and I not only analyze what is right and wrong, but WHY they are right and wrong, IF the original teachings still apply today, etc. etc. I do agree that many Christians these days do not do any of those things, and blindly believe what they are told... but then - the same can be said of athiests, etc.! I think that logic and philosophical thought is essential to any Christian's life... but so many people fail to see this...
- dopesick, on 01/21/2008, -5/+15popothebright - Is not very accurate in his statement. Christianity in its own does not blatantly discourage reason. However many of those in the faith choose not to question it.
- MonkCanatella, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Actually, God does discourage reason. I"m sorry
- clubby, on 01/21/2008, -17/+11Christianity is not a philosophy, it's a religion. Religion uses philosophy, poorly, to justify its own ludicrous claims, but it absolutely is not philosophy, anymore than a shark is a Remora. And don't give me that how vs why nonsense. Religion aims to control both how and why, but it's given up on convincing most people that it's right about the "how" part. The "why" part is equally nonsensical, but it's harder to pick up on, and it's all they have left.
- Birdoftruth, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5Their is bias in your statement thus detracting from the logic in it.
- curtisag, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2He may be biased, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
- Agilus, on 01/21/2008, -3/+3Today we have an article discussing a similar topic over at http://www.booksunderthebridge.com . There's a clear distinction between what is religion and what is science, but some extremists hope to confuse the two.
- PropCulture, on 01/21/2008, -7/+18Christianity at its core is logical? The core of Christianity is a man, born of a virgin, came back from the dead. That's two strikes against logic right there.
- jhoekman, on 01/21/2008, -6/+8That's the problem when people talk about logic. All logic is based on rules or assumptions. It is possible for an argument to be completely logical yet at the same time based on assumptions that you don't agree with. Does this make it illogical? No, it makes the assumption faulty. So, feel free to attack the assumption, but do it correctly. Don't inaccurately call it illogical, because it is very logical, weather or not your agree with the assumptions.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Logically, it makes more sense that she lied about getting knocked up to prevent being stoned to death.
Your post simply makes no sense. How exactly are both a virgin birth and a resurrection at all logical? I noticed you conveniently left that part out.
*****, I'm asking for logic from a person that can't even use the word "weather" correctly. I'm wasting my time, aren't I? - curtisag, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2So, basically, your assumption is that the bible is the truth and Christ really was born of a virgin and rose from the dead? So given this "sensible" assumption, therefore Christianity is logical? Logic dictates things like, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Formulating an assumption that the literal interpretation of Jesus' life is correctly recorded in the bible is an illogical assumption because it defies all reason with zero proof whatsoever. Assumptions must be based on something concrete, otherwise I can assume that a flying spaghetti monster rules the universe and we are play things in his sand box. I know this because I had a vision (IE a dream) in which the "truth" was revealed to me. I then wrote this "truth" on an ancient piece of paper 1000's of years ago, and it still exists today.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Logically, it makes more sense that she lied about getting knocked up to prevent being stoned to death.
- ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Parthenogenesis and resuscitations are the unpossibles! Sorry, I just had to make fun of that.
- chugger1992, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1The whole point is that God did it.
- jhoekman, on 01/21/2008, -6/+8That's the problem when people talk about logic. All logic is based on rules or assumptions. It is possible for an argument to be completely logical yet at the same time based on assumptions that you don't agree with. Does this make it illogical? No, it makes the assumption faulty. So, feel free to attack the assumption, but do it correctly. Don't inaccurately call it illogical, because it is very logical, weather or not your agree with the assumptions.
- wildmonkeys77, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4Exactly
What most people forget is that CATHOLIC DOCTRINE clearly states that Evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory behind the creation of the world.- Schmecky, on 01/22/2008, -0/+7The previous Pope accepted Evolution. The current Pope doesn't even defend the notion of the Earth revolving around the Sun.
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4Who gives a ***** what the Pope thinks? Are Christians unable to think for themselves?
- cmackattack, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1obviously...?
- airstrike, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Catholics listen to the Pope over anything else. Being the Vicar of God "implies his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Catholic Church." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ] That is how it works. If you don't like it don't be a Catholic but please let other people freely think for themselves and choose their religion.
- rarson, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Wait wait wait... so the Pope kind of speaks for God, right? So I guess God just can't make up his ***** mind about evolution? Because it's not like the "word of God" is just some old goofball ranting his opinion on science, right? RIGHT???
So if the Pope obviously isn't speaking directly for God, then why the ***** does anyone give a ***** what he thinks?
- rarson, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Wait wait wait... so the Pope kind of speaks for God, right? So I guess God just can't make up his ***** mind about evolution? Because it's not like the "word of God" is just some old goofball ranting his opinion on science, right? RIGHT???
- rarson, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4Who gives a ***** what the Pope thinks? Are Christians unable to think for themselves?
- Daz3, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2"Evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory behind the creation of the world."
Since when is the theory of evolution a theory claiming to explain the creation of the earth...
- Schmecky, on 01/22/2008, -0/+7The previous Pope accepted Evolution. The current Pope doesn't even defend the notion of the Earth revolving around the Sun.
- sbgunn, on 01/22/2008, -1/+10Don't sign your posts.
-Gunn- trollhunter, on 01/22/2008, -2/+0Good idea.
Signing your posts sucks.
-T. Hunter
- trollhunter, on 01/22/2008, -2/+0Good idea.
- ElbowGeek, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2Whoah... That's DEEP!
- cnot3, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4That may have been the smartest thing I ever read on digg.
-C Note - ElbowGeek, on 01/22/2008, -3/+4No. Religion is a bunch of ignoramuses sitting around their mud huts scratching their balls in the dirt wondering why volcano is erupting, and concluding that some random god is pissed at them for not sacrificing enough virgins. Science is a very few brainiacs attempting to figure out just how volcanoes work.
- rplantz, on 01/22/2008, -4/+2you're an idiot
- Daz3, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4How is the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent logically sound?
At its core Christianity is contradictory. - sk11, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2"Christianity, AT ITS CORE, is logical"
At the core of christianity lies the notion that blood sacrifice redeems sin, it's why christ's "death" was necessary. How exactly is that logical? How is original sin logical? How can anyone bear responsibility for something that happened before they were born?
- popothebright, on 01/21/2008, -16/+41Saying that Christianity is a "philosophy" ignores the dogma and focuses on the moral teachings -- which are neither original, nor unique to Christianity.
- Zarokima, on 01/21/2008, -8/+53http://xkcd.com/373/
- Dudsmack, on 01/22/2008, -4/+2By definition, isn't anything "supernatural" outside, or 'above' the natural system? And, as such, isn't it impossible to prove a supernatural occurrence? How could one refuted something supernatural (outside of our system) by an experiment inside our system.
- sidheru, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2A supernatural occurance that occurs in our system would not be supernatural. Thus we can assume that because there have been no evidence of "supernatural" occurances, the lack of evidence proves either EVERYTHING supernatural exists, or that none of it does.
- Dudsmack, on 01/22/2008, -4/+2By definition, isn't anything "supernatural" outside, or 'above' the natural system? And, as such, isn't it impossible to prove a supernatural occurrence? How could one refuted something supernatural (outside of our system) by an experiment inside our system.
- chays, on 01/21/2008, -3/+18i want some damn thin mints
- FirstDigg, on 01/21/2008, -3/+10Thin mints are great too, but my favorites are the Samoas.
- bahamutxd, on 01/21/2008, -6/+4I think you're getting dugg down because people really like those peanut butter ones.
- alpharaptor, on 01/21/2008, -4/+2samosas with that green sauce or chutney, hell yeah!
- trollhunter, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0would you PLEASE stop mentioning the mints?
hmmmm.... minty goodness
- FirstDigg, on 01/21/2008, -3/+10Thin mints are great too, but my favorites are the Samoas.
- Haiz, on 01/21/2008, -4/+22"About the Author: David enjoys long walks on the beach, casual strolls down the boulevard and writing long and drawn out posts in his underwear in the wee hours of the morning."
Best part of the article. - larryboymi, on 01/21/2008, -3/+9#1 Reason - It's easier?
- norman619, on 01/21/2008, -5/+3No no no. Logic tends to take away the feeling of safety and comfort religion offers. W/O religion we are forced to acknowledged that there is no all knowing all seeing beings looking out for us and as long as we live by his rules life shall be good. That warm feeling most kids have knowing mommy and daddy are there to protect them. This is logic's undoing. We also have the things logic got wrong in the past. Just because it makes sense (logical) does not mean it is correct.
- larryboymi, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1I'm confused, so you're saying logic is or isn't easier?
- TypeEE, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3HE is trying to explain it's not easier, it's a feel of security.
I think it's not easier when you are bombarded with facts that counter your belief. - curtisag, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Larry:
He's saying accepting logic instead of religion is a hard thing for some people. It means giving up on the hope of eternal life after death and finally having to recognize that when you die, you're just worm food, nothing more. And all of the terrible people in the world that get away with all sorts of things at our expense, well, they really do laugh last, because they will not be punished in some afterlife in which retribution will be handed out. Your mental crutch and safety net are gone when you accept the fact there is zero evidence for god, and the truth hurts some. This is why so many religious people build up mental walls against logic and reason, especially as it pertains to their beliefs.
- EXreaction, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2At least then you can question the evidence and make a claim on your own experience and not spend all your time making up excuses to get yourself out of the final answer, that he/she/it has no logical reason or need to exist (and actually makes they whole creation of the universe much more complicated).
Ask yourself, why does any god need to exist? Because we need to have come from somewhere is the main reason, right? Well, by saying that we need to come from somewhere, you MUST apply the same laws to everything, therefor any god must have come from somewhere. So what, now the gods have gods that made them? And those gods were made by some other gods, and then you should realize that it is an infinite loop that could not possibly explain things and only complicates matters. You do not NEED an answer to live, just go on with your life and maybe you'll make some hypothesis about it yourself in the future.
- norman619, on 01/21/2008, -5/+3No no no. Logic tends to take away the feeling of safety and comfort religion offers. W/O religion we are forced to acknowledged that there is no all knowing all seeing beings looking out for us and as long as we live by his rules life shall be good. That warm feeling most kids have knowing mommy and daddy are there to protect them. This is logic's undoing. We also have the things logic got wrong in the past. Just because it makes sense (logical) does not mean it is correct.
- omnirusa, on 01/21/2008, -2/+9I agree with this, but if there was a god I would think he could preform better miracles then making an extra bag of thin mints appear for you.
- norman619, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3I want Nilla Wafers
- BOFH2, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2he might even be able to perform also
- tiekyl, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0Bit off topic, but, thin mints don't come in "Bags"...they come in boxes.
- Samiyam, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1like TWO extra bags of thin mints?
- RIOGoose, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1You obviously haven't experienced the absolute ecstasy of finding a bag of thin mints that you didn't know you had.
Also, thin mints come in two bags. Inside a box. Technically, we're still right :-P- trollhunter, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0i'm with you RIO although I think "absolute ecstacy" is a bit of an understatement.
Thin mints are god's way of saying "I love you...honest. ;)"
- trollhunter, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0i'm with you RIO although I think "absolute ecstacy" is a bit of an understatement.
- ControlcChris, on 01/21/2008, -30/+98"Religion easily has the best ***** story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money." -George Carlin
- homie7, on 01/21/2008, -17/+4You don't know what you are tlking about, you can break the comandmets millions of times alll you must do is ask to be forgiven and you shall.
- msflower97, on 01/21/2008, -6/+3And you better hope you get to ask that one last time before you die...
- br0ken1128, on 01/21/2008, -1/+5So you're saying I can be married, cheat on my wife, kill a few people and then pray it away? maybe once or twice a week? .. are you nuts? it's not that simple .. you have to mean it .. if there is a god and he created you, he knows you more than you know yourself.. if you ask for forgiveness and you know you're just going to do it again tomorrow, I'm pretty sure you don't get forgiven ..
- Killkennedy, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3The wonderful thing about religions are that if you look hard enough you'll find one that matches you're requirements. I'm sure there must be one that allows the fore mentioned atrocities if you recite the right poem before going to bed.
- ghostelephant, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1you're kind of right and kind of wrong. practically any legitimate religion would allow the worst atrocity you could think of but all require atonement eventually if you are to get into heaven or whatnot. whether in your 500th karmic reincarnation or sometime during the eternity in hell.
- slightlygifted, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2lol. ever heard of the unforgivable sin? i used to be a devout christian and there was a sin jesus said was unforgivable. blasphemy against him and leading people away from him. so if their was a God all digg users would be going to hell whether they like it or not but whatever. i like seeing christians who dont even know whats in their bible and have probably never read it in its entirety act like experts.
- mangee, on 01/21/2008, -5/+2Sorry "Teh Invisible Man" is now "teh Ceiling Cat" - changed that a revision or two back.
http://lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Proof_of_Ce ... - thecheatah, on 01/21/2008, -7/+2Don't use the word religion, its a REALLY bad generalization of your view of what religion is. Not all religions fall into your narrow minded view.
- SlipstreamLucas, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3please point out one that doesn't....
- jdfoote2, on 01/21/2008, -11/+1Ah yes - a the straw man conceptualization of God as the man in the sky - wonderful argument! Silly Christians!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man - Killkennedy, on 01/21/2008, -3/+0What about the Da Vinci Code?
It's also a lot shorter - HoratioHellpop, on 01/22/2008, -5/+2And of course Carlin conveniently ignores the New Testament.
- curtisag, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4And you conveniently ignore the jews who don't believe in the New Testament, along with every other religion in the world. And both religions are full of *****, his point is spot on.
- trollhunter, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3As one should... sequels suck.
- homie7, on 01/21/2008, -17/+4You don't know what you are tlking about, you can break the comandmets millions of times alll you must do is ask to be forgiven and you shall.
- popothebright, on 01/21/2008, -5/+3B..b..but... the Fateball disagrees with you!
http://www.ifate.com/fateball.html - uziko, on 01/21/2008, -13/+1Because logic by definition is fact.
- MattB123, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4Well maybe to those who don't understand logic.
I'd say it's more drawing conclusions based on observations. - ThinkFr33ly, on 01/21/2008, -2/+6Huh? No, it's not. The following is a logical statement, but it is not factual:
“All college students are older than 80” and “George W. Bush is a college student” deductively imply “George W. Bush is older than 80” even though these statements are all false (factually incorrect).
Please read http://profmulder.home.att.net/basiceval.htm- uziko, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1what? the? *****? uh, saying that george bush is older than 80 years old is not logic or fact. only factual things are logical, anything that isn't a fact, is wrong therefore not logical. i'm at a loss as to what the ***** you were attempting to say
- HeyaBILL, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3Did you even click the link he posted? You are flat wrong.
Something does not have to be factual to be logically sound.
"NOTICE that logical assessment of an argument is independent of factual assessment."
Go back to Phil 101.
- HeyaBILL, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3Did you even click the link he posted? You are flat wrong.
- sidheru, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2His basic assumptions in processing the logic were incorrect, but his logical processes were sound. If A is B and C is B, A is C. The fact that "A is B" may be wrong is another issue.
- uziko, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1what? the? *****? uh, saying that george bush is older than 80 years old is not logic or fact. only factual things are logical, anything that isn't a fact, is wrong therefore not logical. i'm at a loss as to what the ***** you were attempting to say
- MattB123, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4Well maybe to those who don't understand logic.
- masterm1nd, on 01/21/2008, -5/+33Half of these don't even have anything to do with religion. Wheres the logic in that?
- Rickler, on 01/21/2008, -4/+4Marijuana is natural... while alcohol is made by warlocks using devil magic.
- nessup, on 01/22/2008, -1/+9I myself am an atheist, and I do agree, a good portion of this article is immature. Matter a fact, all of it is immature. Points are being made with extreme ego centricity.
- Picaroon, on 01/21/2008, -2/+8He should have added to the section on earth being "perfect" for us that if it weren't "perfect" for human life, we wouldn't be here. Anthropic principle, I believe it is called.
- empiric, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1"Hey... did you hear that Jill in Customer Service won the lottery 10 days in a row? How do you think that happened?"
"Well, it's very simple. If she didn't win the lottery 10 days in a row, we wouldn't be here talking about how she won the lottery 10 days in a row."
"Oh... case closed!"- bswinson, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3No, it's more akin to why you live in the suburbs and not on top of a volcano.
- empiric, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1"Hey... did you hear that Jill in Customer Service won the lottery 10 days in a row? How do you think that happened?"
- Makaveli604, on 01/21/2008, -5/+86Hahaha. I love how "Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion" can become Ron Paul spam.
- fictionalOne, on 01/21/2008, -5/+15I was just about to post the same comment. Doesn't this person know how Christian Ron Paul is?
- seeyounorth, on 01/21/2008, -5/+5Agreed! Sounds like the author drank the Ron Paul Kool-aid only because it was free or he was high. Let's not even get in to how pro-life Ron Paul is and the author's comment about Republicans at the end...
- wishninja, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2liberty to believe what you want is much better than the alternative of wallowing in your apathy holding your breath for an atheist to become president. Good luck with that!
- wishninja, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2Who is your non-Christian candidate for president?
- ahvi, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2The fact is that Ron Paul has stated that evolution is questionable. That alone makes him undesirable to many atheists.
- wishninja, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1You are dead wrong on that one if you look at Ron's supporters he is way stronger with non-believers then with any other candidate running. Look up the exit poll data for Michigan. Ron Paul would never impose his views of evolution on anyone. The data is on this link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228184/
- fictionalOne, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Well, since being pro-abortion makes someone a non-christian, I guess it will technically have to be Obama. Of course, I would never question someone's faith. It is not my place.
- ahvi, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2The fact is that Ron Paul has stated that evolution is questionable. That alone makes him undesirable to many atheists.
- seeyounorth, on 01/21/2008, -5/+5Agreed! Sounds like the author drank the Ron Paul Kool-aid only because it was free or he was high. Let's not even get in to how pro-life Ron Paul is and the author's comment about Republicans at the end...
- fictionalOne, on 01/21/2008, -5/+15I was just about to post the same comment. Doesn't this person know how Christian Ron Paul is?