Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
Arguing With a Believer Is Like Playing Chess (COMIC)
cectic.com — Nice metaphor for religion and how impossibly difficult it is to influence the actions or beliefs of some people with deep seated faith.
MakiMaki- 2844 diggs
- digg it
- JimmySpaza, on 01/18/2008, -356/+116Buried as a hopelessly ridiculous anti-religious bigoted (and lame) comic.
By the way, it's not the believer in God who wants to summarily dismiss potential theories as to the origin and evolution of life. It is the atheist who demands that ALL possibilities must be naturalistic and demands that the supernatural realm not even be considered.
It seems that the atheist makes up his own rules to suit his outlook on life, force a naturalistic explanation for everything, and then rejoices when science, now with its naturalistic blinders on, concludes that natural processes caused everything.
You will never get a full explanation for anything if you only consider certain possibilities at the beginning.- JlmAWP, on 01/18/2008, -32/+133On the other hand, religious individuals have a reputation for manipulating words, lessons, and teachings of the Bible to suit their needs in an argument. The issue isn't with either group of people, or their attitude in an argument. It's the information and evidence we have to work with that does it. In science, there is very little wiggle room with most data, and further results can be investigated to further influence analysis and conclusions. You know, logic and the quest for knowledge. With religion, it's just the same ol' stuff every time....nothing new. The quest for feeling good about your life and the decisions you make.
Oh yeah, and it was all written over 2000 years ago. If that's not rock-solid, I don't know what is. *eyeroll*- robbyjo, on 01/18/2008, -84/+22You're over generalizing. The same can be said to scientists: Some of them have a reputation for manipulating words, analysis, and facts to get funding.
Little wiggle room you said? Think of global warming. Now, are you still going to blame religious individuals for this?- JlmAWP, on 01/18/2008, -13/+80I very clearly said it wasn't the individuals. Don't spin that like a Fox correspondent would.
Scientists lie to get funding for further results and to improve the human condition and to further our species, rarely for themselves. It isn't their fault that the government likes to buy bombs more than finding cures for cancer. Context is key here.
Global warming is a special case in science, since it is not within our human abilities to predict the future. We don't know if this would have happened had humans never industrialized, so it's hard to know whether or not we are causing these environmental changes. Plus, the scale at which this is happening is beyond our ability to analyze it. In either case, both sides Global Warming are backed by statistics, research, actual recorded and documented (and sometimes filmed) data and evidence.
The interesting thing about Global Warming, though, is that there are symptoms....actual SIGNS that it could be happening. Mudslides, extreme weather, CO2 count, glacial melting, and intensity of UV rays are able to be experienced by any human on earth, should they choose to seek it out. They can get readings on it, they can lose their homes from it, and they can be killed by it. It's REAL. Very real. Jesus in a tree, or Mary on a grilled cheese are the two most recent convincing signs of the existence of the, or a, god. Even 250,000,000 individuals all claiming different experiences that can't be watched or documented, but only FELT, cannot find a more recent common ideal or principle to base their faith on. You'd think out of that many people (in our country alone, mind you), there would be some sort of unifying experience or recent event that would make everyone agree. The only one that exists is a book. One book...that has been revised more times than Michael Jackson has had surgery, each rendition with a little bit more influence for A or B thrown in for good measure. - cababika799, on 01/18/2008, -55/+11You know...it's amazing that every other professional capacity has the ability to lie about their work to get ahead except scientists. For some reason, every atheist cannot even comprehend the idea that perhaps someone out there is lying and getting away with it.
Plus, you dog on theists all day long for not being able to verify the proof for themselves and only going off of some book that someone else wrote. When's the last time you got to test everything you know without having to take someone else's word for it?- geometry, on 01/18/2008, -5/+47At least everything learned in science can be questioned and tested. The same can't be said about religion. Most religions teach "truths" that must be accepted without the ability to test, and if you question these "truths" you're going straight to hell. If a scientist tried to tell us a fact but said we can't question it or test it ourselves nobody would take him seriously.
- PleaseJustDie, on 01/18/2008, -7/+32The only problem I have with many theists is that so many use circular logic to explain things. They say things like everything happens for a reason. Then when you ask about a 18 month old being killed by his babysitter swinging him around in a sleeping bag and bashing him against the wall, what reason did that happen for? You get "God works in mysterious ways." Why is it god works in mysterious ways when something bad happens?
I've always found that the simple and obvious answer is usually the correct answer. And the simple and obvious answer is that religion was created as a means to control people. If there is some all powerful being and a heaven, being let into it wouldn't be based on you believing the 1 correct religion, what "merciful" and "benevolent" god would create a rule that would doom 95% of the world's population? No I think its much more likely that when people mostly couldn't read, were born to look forward to nothing in life but working the land for someone else that its easier to control them if they believe that by wasting this life they have something in the next life better.
Whether or not that means a "God" doesn't exist, I don't know. I have no evidence to say he doesn't exist and there are some books that claim miracles that could be used as evidence that he does. However David Copperfield performs "miracles" as well, we just know he's fake. Would we have known he was fake if he said he wasn't and did it 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? - earlycj5, on 01/18/2008, -17/+5I don't recall being told that if I question any "truths" I'm going to hell.
That may be your interpretation but not the one I was taught. - scrappyvintage, on 01/18/2008, -4/+11Wait. . .You've never heard "Don't end in a questionmark what should end with a period"? Christianity is SOLELY based on and exists ONLY because, biblically. . .people like Earlycj5 remain ignorant. Jesus = Fiction, this I know.
- solistus, on 01/18/2008, -2/+7This is precisely why science has peer review. Truly respectable scientific works have been reviewed by many in their field and cite their sources and data meticulously, so anyone who understands physics, math and logic well enough can verify their results and anyone with the necessary training and equipment can duplicate any experiments and collect new data to test the theory. The reason the global warming "debate" is still going on in the US is quite simple: politicians and corporate shills regularly rely on non-peer reviewed studies to make their case, and most people don't care enough to investigate the quality of all available sources. Some scientists lie, sure. The great thing about the scientific method is that we can easily ignore those scientists if we choose to. No such process governs theological arguments. Does this mean all theological arguments are false? Of course not. What this means is that scientific arguments are preferable to theological arguments for the narrow scope of topics that science can speak to (i.e., objective, material facts). It's foolish to dismiss any possibility of any supernatural or spiritual aspect to existence simply because science can explain the physical emergence of living organisms. It's equally foolish to ignore physical evidence in favour of some particular theological argument. The fact that an argument mentions God does not mean it should not be logically constructed.
- michaelb1, on 01/19/2008, -2/+4anything that can be believed without proof can be disbelieved without proof.
- theycallmebubba, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1@PJD - Hang on a second, PJ. I understand that a lot of people say things like what you're saying. Sometimes, people just don't know what to say or do, given a tough situation. But remember - both atheists and theists posit that humans have free will, right?
Consider this, then:
If God is indeed merciful and benevolent, then you're right - he wouldn't want those terrible things to happen to anyone. But remember some other attributes he's credited with: goodness, justice, and perfection. He doesn't mess up... but we do. God didn't choose for the babysitter to kill that child; the person was granted free will to use as they wish, and free will IMPLICITLY allows for the possibility that it will be used for evil.
If that makes sense, then we have to think about the first part, the one about God being 'good and just'. I'll put it this way: if your parents never punished you for anything... if the police never arrested anyone... if judges and juries never sentenced anyone... that would mean, essentially, that doing things most people consider to be 'wrong' would carry no consequences, right? Now we must look at the situation from a different perspective: God's. If he is really perfect, just, and good, then there must be some sort of consequence for those who do wrong by him. Our choices each day to continue pursuing our own interests, etc. are, basically, rebellion against him. But if that's true, then how is he merciful, you ask? I'd submit that there's a striking example of his mercy: Christ. If he was really killed and resurrected for our sakes, and was 'blameless', then God has already provided us with a means of attaining perfection. Because as we all know - we just can't do it. And we can choose to accept that gift whenever we want, using the same free will that, for reasons none of us could ever be content with, condemned a baby to death.
Everyone, no matter HOW 'good' they might try to be, or appear to be, has the capacity for evil and, I believe, utilizes that capacity on a nearly daily basis, in one way or another.
I apologize if this doesn't make too much sense... I tried to say five books-worth of thoughts in a few paragraphs - and it's 2:30am, too... all I was trying to do is post some things that helped those concepts make better sense to me, that's it.
- mightydavefish, on 01/18/2008, -10/+50The difference, if you couldn't figure it out, is that scientists work with data that can be verified and proven. They also use a process called "peer review" to ensure their work is looked over by people with a clue.
The "religious" types lack that basic fact checking ability, and in fact insist that checking the facts violates their religion.
Get a clue.- breadfred, on 01/19/2008, -7/+11Now that is where you are wrong. There is a pope, who has a direct line to God. The pope therefore has Knowledge and can tell Right from Wrong. Mr Pope is therefore is our Peer-review.
do I realy need to put a /sarcasm flag on this? - theycallmebubba, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1I wonder, are you referring only to Christianity here, or to all religions in general, ever? And also, I'm really tired of the gigantic, sweeping generalizations I keep seeing in these arguments - on BOTH sides. "ALL atheists" this, and "ALL religious morons" that... isn't that the very same uneducated reasoning you're protesting? If I remember correctly from philosophy classes, using 'absolutes' is generally a fallacy: you cannot vouch for everything, everywhere, ever, can you? So please, remember that some of us don't, in fact, swallow all we're fed without first chewing it up for a while, and know that many people on this site DO make efforts to check their facts, and to speak in a way that makes as much sense to as many people as possible. All I'm really asking is that you keep your mass-generalizations to a minimum, okay?
- breadfred, on 01/19/2008, -7/+11Now that is where you are wrong. There is a pope, who has a direct line to God. The pope therefore has Knowledge and can tell Right from Wrong. Mr Pope is therefore is our Peer-review.
- beclamide, on 01/18/2008, -2/+6@cababika799
I fully comprehend the fact that there are people lying out there and getting away with it. My entire belief in man-made Global Warming is based on the simple fact that Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere creates more ambient heat. Without this scientific fact, and the plumes of carbon from volcanos, we would still be in an ice-age.
If that's the case, then surely us adding to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere will have a detrimental effect. QED.
Yes, it's true this fact is in many books, and there are many different opinions as to why Global Warming happens. You've got to be a complete idiot if you believe what just one book/person says. If you've got half a brain you will endevour to read as many opinions as possible in order to come up with your own conclusion... which is exactly what I try to do on a daily basis. I will never take one person's opinion as fact, but merely as just an opinion. When that opinion is compared to as many others as possible you can make an educated guess.
My educated guess is that there are far too many people in this world that refuse to live life this way, and instead prefer to be "told" what to think; be it theological, environmental, or anything else for that matter. - KingGorilla, on 01/18/2008, -4/+2King me biatch!
JImAWP, just stop playing "chess"
- JlmAWP, on 01/18/2008, -13/+80I very clearly said it wasn't the individuals. Don't spin that like a Fox correspondent would.
- Naryuu, on 01/19/2008, -12/+7the amazing thing is that it was written thousands of years ago and none of it has, or ever will be, proven inaccurate or false. ;-)
- zerobackup, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3Which bible? The King James version full of self-contradictions? The Old Testament? The Koran?
- mGARANDEUR1, on 01/19/2008, -10/+4Atheist also seem to have the same problem. They think that science explains everything. You cannot argue with them because the only thing they can argue is science.
- carpeclunes, on 01/19/2008, -1/+12I don't understand. What else is there to argue? People use science because it is based on what is known, seen, observed and whatnot. An argument about the unknown is silly.
- sidheru, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Would you like to argue whether Superman's, who I contest created Earth, heat ray can melt Titanium? Because I assure you it can and I defy you to prove me wrong...
- curtisag, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1The only source of information you have to argue with is a book that was written 2000 years ago. You believe this book is the word of god, but the evidence for that information is in the book itself. How ridiculous is that? How can anyone put their faith in something so old and out of date. Do you still believe the world is flat? If the bible told you so, you probably would say it was flat at the time of creation. You WANT to believe, just like people who want to believe in aliens and UFOs. It makes you feel better about yourself, what happens to you and your family after you die, etc, etc. People want to believe in aliens and UFOs because it makes them feel better about the universe, that we're not alone after all, and gives hope for a brighter future for mankind. Both belief systems are based on emotion, not evidence. Religious myth started much like the myth surrounding the Roswell UFO crash.
- robbyjo, on 01/18/2008, -84/+22You're over generalizing. The same can be said to scientists: Some of them have a reputation for manipulating words, analysis, and facts to get funding.
- brentinkc, on 01/18/2008, -21/+125Exactly. So, Jimmy, you're willing to admit that it's possible that a bowl of spaghetti created the universe and controls everything in it, including you?
- RocketSeason, on 01/18/2008, -9/+37I am a Christian and I absolutely believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster theroy. True Christians don't try to define God. He is beyond human understanding. For all I know (or care) he could very well be a bowl of spaghetti created the universe and controls everything in it.
As a Christian, I love and worship my pasta-faced god.- ThE0eNiGmA, on 01/18/2008, -6/+21I thought it said somewhere in the Bible that man was created in "his" image. I don't know about you, but I don't look like a bowl of spaghetti.
- ThE0eNiGmA, on 01/18/2008, -8/+3Disclaimer: I am an atheist, and while I like the sentiment in his post, I am just pointing out an inconsistency.
- breadfred, on 01/19/2008, -2/+1Is that your own opinion or can that be verified by an independent scientist?
- plhearn, on 01/18/2008, -2/+19I wish all Christians shared your outlook.
- scrappyvintage, on 01/18/2008, -10/+3You got it all wrong, the spaghetti monster is apparently a human named "Theroy" who admittedly cherishes spaghetti. It's like "Frank the Tank". . .we all know he's not REALLY a tank.
P.S. Religion is for the ignorant.
- ThE0eNiGmA, on 01/18/2008, -6/+21I thought it said somewhere in the Bible that man was created in "his" image. I don't know about you, but I don't look like a bowl of spaghetti.
- tadhgisaledgend, on 01/18/2008, -3/+13Store bought or homemade?
- Identity4, on 01/18/2008, -3/+12I made God in my kitchen...
- FlyingSpaghetti, on 01/18/2008, -4/+34You called?
- DrywallThief, on 01/18/2008, -4/+17/bow
- Yenly, on 01/19/2008, -0/+4All hail! I have seen the second coming.. the end of rigatoni is upon us.
- RocketSeason, on 01/18/2008, -9/+37I am a Christian and I absolutely believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster theroy. True Christians don't try to define God. He is beyond human understanding. For all I know (or care) he could very well be a bowl of spaghetti created the universe and controls everything in it.
- mightydavefish, on 01/18/2008, -40/+20Buried as a hopelessly ridiculous right wing neocon anti-reason pro-ignorance bigoted (and VERY lame) piece of crap.
It's almost as though you are TRYING to be the most ignorant ***** right wing asshat on digg.
I've been suspicious that you can't possibly be real, since someone that ignorant and bigoted would have trouble functioning.
But what other explanation is there for someone who consistently ignores reason and instead blathers some of the most ignorant nonsense seen on digg?
The ignorance of facts, the claiming of ownership of Christianity while at the same time championing the perversion of that religion's basic teachings, the ignorance of other religions, the refusal to think things through, the selfishness, the belief that somehow blind faith grants some sort of superiority (when in fact it's the opposite), the warmongering while being too cowardly to step up yourself, the lack of basic intellectual honesty..... sigh. I guess you are the perfect right wing extremist.
They should make you a poster boy. - RocketSeason, on 01/18/2008, -33/+13I agree with you Jimmy.
- scrappyvintage, on 01/18/2008, -3/+8Drink the Kool-Aid uncle Jimmy made you.
- chicofaraby, on 01/18/2008, -13/+36JS: "It is the atheist who demands that ALL possibilities must be naturalistic and demands that the supernatural realm not even be considered."
Yes, Spaz, we atheists generally prefer to concentrate on explanations that don't involve magic. I was so surprised to see The Spaz get ANY point correct in one of his rants, I felt it deserved to be highlighted. Congrats, Spaz.Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.- realmccoyucf, on 01/18/2008, -2/+6I'll believe in the supernatural when I see some proof dammit!
- phronko, on 01/19/2008, -2/+9What exactly would count as proof of the supernatural?
Even if I started crapping out fairies who teleported around and made cupcakes appear out of thin air, it would only mean that nature is just a bit different than I thought it was. If something exists, it is natural by definition. Defining a god as supernatural automatically assigns it the property of nonexistence.
- phronko, on 01/19/2008, -2/+9What exactly would count as proof of the supernatural?
- solistus, on 01/18/2008, -8/+2Yes, all atheists are the same.
Logic has some wonderful features. You can reach a variety of conclusions, but only logical conclusions. I disagree with material reductionism just as much as I disagree with theism.
- realmccoyucf, on 01/18/2008, -2/+6I'll believe in the supernatural when I see some proof dammit!
- lydecker, on 01/18/2008, -5/+21The supernatural realm, if it exists, is beyond our current capability to understand. Science interprets things in ways we can understand, and it seems that believers who go against science interpret things as "Because God made it so." Neither explains anything, but at least science looks to understand.
If one believes in God, he should believe he made a universe with universal laws that we can deduce through science.- ethanpack, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4"If one believes in God, he should believe he made a universe with universal laws that we can deduce through science."
Completely agree. - captainbeah, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2So well said
- kindrobot, on 01/19/2008, -0/+4"The supernatural realm, if it exists, is beyond our current capability to understand."
I feel it's important to point out that if we did understand it, it would not be supernatural. The "supernatural realm" is a very big place, it seems, with many things. As a matter of fact I would say it is so very huge, that it contains all things that we cannot show to exist. I bet you every dollar I have that the people who live there don't get along well.
- ethanpack, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4"If one believes in God, he should believe he made a universe with universal laws that we can deduce through science."
- inkswamp, on 01/18/2008, -8/+23My friend, you need only look at some of the recent comments from religious folks on Digg to see how completely some religious people fail to understand atheism. The comic points out the fact that religious people cannot step outside their usual structure of viewing things as a belief system (i.e., a game of checkers) to see that what they're viewing simply isn't the same game. An excellent example is the constant insistence that atheism is a religion which I see here on Digg and elsewhere, including in real life, and have heard for many years. That is the crowning glory of ignorance from religious people on this topic. Until that assumption disappears, this comic, whether insulting or not, is pretty damn accurate, from what I can see.
- rossiohead, on 01/19/2008, -1/+5Not that I necessarily disagree with what you posted (it's a good summary of the comic in fact), but the counter-argument from a theistic point of view (keeping with the analogy) might point out that in the comic, indeed both players ought to be playing by the rules. They are playing chess, although the theist is using a different set of game rules in the comic. But if you asked the (atheist) chess-player, he would claim he was not playing according to any pre-defined rules (assumptions) at all.
This is the insistence that atheism is a "religion", I think, insofar as it is does involve accepting a set of assumptions (basic axioms). The argument then becomes whether the assumptions are well-founded and reaasonable. - chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -8/+3I only need to look at some of the recent comments from atheistic folks on Digg to see that atheists are rather self-absorbed and self-righteous. Stereotyping isn't a crime, is it?
- rossiohead, on 01/19/2008, -1/+5Not that I necessarily disagree with what you posted (it's a good summary of the comic in fact), but the counter-argument from a theistic point of view (keeping with the analogy) might point out that in the comic, indeed both players ought to be playing by the rules. They are playing chess, although the theist is using a different set of game rules in the comic. But if you asked the (atheist) chess-player, he would claim he was not playing according to any pre-defined rules (assumptions) at all.
- ethanpack, on 01/18/2008, -7/+14I agree with Jimmy too. The comic ends with "you will never win against someone who doesn't understand the rules."
1. If both people know how to play chess, then the point of not knowing the rules doesn't manifest itself.
2. What rules are there in each individuals deep-seeded beliefs?
3. Why argue about religion? You will get nowhere regardless of what your stance is on it.
The movie Contact illustrates faith the best in this dialog:
(Speaking about a the deceased father of Jodie Foster's character)
- Pastor: Did you love your father?
- Jodie Foster: Yes, of course.
- Pastor: Prove it.
You cannot provide proof of a belief or emotion in something that you feel with all of your heart and soul.- Ph34rb0t, on 01/18/2008, -7/+5"You cannot provide proof of a belief or emotion in something that you feel with all of your heart and soul."
But that does not make your belief or emotion right, or true.- rokinroj, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3it does to the person feeling it.
- phronko, on 01/19/2008, -2/+10OK, I believe in a magical monster made of apples who lives in space and controls the weather on Earth. I believe it wholeheartedly and love him with all my heart. Does that make him real and true "to me" (whatever that means)? Have I convinced anyone that he exists?
There's a difference between a subjective emotion and an objective statement of fact. "I love God" is a subjective statement that nobody but the speaker can prove. "God exists" is an objective statement and subject to the demands of logic and proof. - Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5the "is real for me" statement reeks of willful self delusion, and would require double think.
you beleive in your belief, but if you realise that "it is real for you" then you also believe that you are willfully deluding yourself. - theycallmebubba, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Whatever the case may be, either way, Christians have done something right: Self-delusion or not, it's survived for over two millennia...
- phronko, on 01/19/2008, -2/+10OK, I believe in a magical monster made of apples who lives in space and controls the weather on Earth. I believe it wholeheartedly and love him with all my heart. Does that make him real and true "to me" (whatever that means)? Have I convinced anyone that he exists?
- yelkereb, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4It also doesn't make it wrong, that's the point. We choose to believe, we're not convinced too. One of the things I strugle against most in the people I meet who are Christians is their belief that their job is to convince people their world view is wrong, and that they have the answer. It's not about "winning the argument" it's simply about making a choice. Frankly that's what Jesus' message was, believe if you want, don't if you want, I'm just here to say my peace. It's an "I report you decide situation." We try to make things far too complicated because we want to be "right" and right really isn't the issue at all.
- theycallmebubba, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1This might be the first time someone has spoken so lucidly about this subject... well-said!
- sidheru, on 01/19/2008, -2/+1It does, however make it blind and have less attachnment to being "right" or "true." Being blind does hinder you from seeing and seeking out the truth and encourages ignorance and fruther blindness.
- rokinroj, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3it does to the person feeling it.
- carpeclunes, on 01/19/2008, -3/+2Prove it.
- Ph34rb0t, on 01/18/2008, -7/+5"You cannot provide proof of a belief or emotion in something that you feel with all of your heart and soul."
- bob12321, on 01/18/2008, -2/+5Did we look at the same comic?
- manicleek, on 01/18/2008, -9/+12aaah JimmySpaza, single handedly keeping the "dumb american" stereotype alive as usual
- scrappyvintage, on 01/18/2008, -12/+8Creationism requires the infinite process of creation from a scientific standpoint. A God creates another god creates another god, and the EXACT reciprocate to manifest full circle. This is where our friend Jesus doesn't fit the bill. He created everything and is the proclaimed alpha and omega. Supposedly it begins and ends with him. Arrogant ***** this guy!
Science can prove the existence of atoms, down to the core components that make them. THEY CAN PROVE IT. Yet these atoms are still made of other components that science will eventually discover. It proves the natural cycle that life is never FINITE. Listen, GOD DOESNT EXIST in this scale, "he" can't and you know this. SCIENCE PROVES IT. Religion is the manipulation of common understandings in a society, do this, don't do that. THERE IS NO SCIENCE INVOLVED in religion by definition and there sure as ***** is NO GOD. NONE.- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -6/+4This whole science vs. religion war is what's wrong with America. I believe in evidence and data. I also believe that outside of that framework, people can believe whatever the hell they want to. You might not be in favor of creationism (neither are most sane people), but you're fighting fire with gasoline.
- scrappyvintage, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Core Christian faith IS creationism. Completely.
- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1creationism and ID is a phenomenon isolated wholly within america, even the pope believes the theory of evolution via natural selection is correct.
- scrappyvintage, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Core Christian faith IS creationism. Completely.
- time4evacuation, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4I wish I could digg you twice.
- scrappyvintage, on 01/19/2008, -2/+2Thanks, I knew the fundies would digg me down. One of these days we'll be able to see who in fact does digg some of the best ***** down.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -6/+4This whole science vs. religion war is what's wrong with America. I believe in evidence and data. I also believe that outside of that framework, people can believe whatever the hell they want to. You might not be in favor of creationism (neither are most sane people), but you're fighting fire with gasoline.
- CheeseburgerBro, on 01/19/2008, -8/+4So...scientifically illiterate, huh?
Don't feel too bad. You're in plenty of company. - rollem, on 01/19/2008, -2/+5I have never heard of a non-naturalistic explanation for the beginning of life. I've heard "God did it," but that, by itself, is not an explanation, it's a lack of an explanation. It is hard to imagine a way in which supernatural forces affect natural entities.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -3/+6How did the Big Bang happen? Scientifically hypothesize where it all began, could you?
- kingfoot, on 01/19/2008, -3/+1a man in an infinitely larger universe fired a gun. we are merely on the butt end of a flame trail of a bullet firing.
outlandish enough for ya?- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1If that's your explanation I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. We could be living in God's Matrix for all I know.
- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2oh I see, you believe in the god of the gaps.
of course the very creation of our universe is going to be something difficult to discern, does that mean that if we dont have an answer right now, then its proof of god?
the stars used to be holes in the canvas that made the sky and gods light shining through, people believed it because in the absense of a correct explanation they believed that.
this is what you are doing.- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -2/+2Proof? Of course it's not proof. I believe in the God of the gaps, if by gaps you mean a God who set off a chain of events governed by scientific laws so that there is no way to actually prove His existence.
Aristotle once postulated the "atomos" without any proof. He got credit for being right about that, even though at the time it must have seemed absurd. He also got alot of other things wrong.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -2/+2Proof? Of course it's not proof. I believe in the God of the gaps, if by gaps you mean a God who set off a chain of events governed by scientific laws so that there is no way to actually prove His existence.
- sidheru, on 01/19/2008, -3/+4so, you basically think that since we can't figure it out right now we should stop thinking or looking? This is why religion is harmful. It encourages ignorance by telling people to simply claim something "supernatural" happened and that they shouldn't spend effort discerning the truth.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3Actually no, not at all. I don't agree with a single thing you just said.
- kingfoot, on 01/19/2008, -3/+1a man in an infinitely larger universe fired a gun. we are merely on the butt end of a flame trail of a bullet firing.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/19/2008, -3/+6How did the Big Bang happen? Scientifically hypothesize where it all began, could you?
- stoanhart, on 01/19/2008, -3/+10I'd be perfectly willing to hear out, and potentially accept, any theory involving the supernatural... so long as you can offer some proof to back it.
You clearly don't understand atheism.- JimmySpaza, on 01/19/2008, -9/+4Yeah, I do understand atheism. I used to be an atheist.
- BrentIrwin, on 01/19/2008, -5/+5Thank you! If you are a true atheist, you wouldn't care. I am a die-hard Christian, but I'm not dogmatic. It's a harsh generalization. Shut up, Godless people. I'm not trying to change you.
- jisrael, on 01/19/2008, -2/+6"i'm not dogmatic"... "Shut up, Godless people"
Yeah, you're totally cool. - kingfoot, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2good. now change the other people in your religion who ARE trying to change me.
im not atheist, and im not religious, or a scientologist for that matter, im human. - curtisag, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2You don't speak for all religious people. Many of them try to convince everyone around them to believe in god. Ignorance loves company maybe? Sort of like misery loves company. You believe in god because your parents planted the seeds of belief in your impressionable mind as a child. You can't break free of the brainwashing, you're lost in a matrix of belief and you don't even realize it.
- jisrael, on 01/19/2008, -2/+6"i'm not dogmatic"... "Shut up, Godless people"
- LembasBread, on 01/19/2008, -2/+3It would help if super natural theories were more than String Theory on crack.
- time4evacuation, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2way to make ***** up.
- NoxNoctis, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Wow what you just said is wrong on so many levels. You are misinformed about religion in general as well as atheism, on top of being oblivious as to how much of a hypocrite you are.
The most important difference between christians and atheists is that religious people like you start with the assumption you know everything, while atheists like myself start with the assumption that we know nothing.- JimmySpaza, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1No, I start with the assumption that I know nothing but can eventually find out everything. You start with the assumption that you know nothing but can only find out naturalistic knowledge because you have summarily excluded the supernatural from consideration.
- kjcdude, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3ahhhhhhhhhhhh fix the dam comments, i accidentally dugg this guy up :(
- boscheironymous, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
- bowens44, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3Please provide evidence that anything 'super natural'. exists.
- alkaline213, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2
"You will never get a full explanation for anything if you only consider certain possibilities at the beginning." This is one of the statement by the OP that I found particularly ironic.
God works in mysterious ways, is the only explanation christians have for anything.
I stopped believing in folklore and fairytales when I was about 13. I don't know why some people can't just grow the ***** up and realize that we are all we will ever have and we should enjoy this life while we can without trying to impress an invisiible man in the sky.
- JlmAWP, on 01/18/2008, -32/+133On the other hand, religious individuals have a reputation for manipulating words, lessons, and teachings of the Bible to suit their needs in an argument. The issue isn't with either group of people, or their attitude in an argument. It's the information and evidence we have to work with that does it. In science, there is very little wiggle room with most data, and further results can be investigated to further influence analysis and conclusions. You know, logic and the quest for knowledge. With religion, it's just the same ol' stuff every time....nothing new. The quest for feeling good about your life and the decisions you make.
- drachemorder, on 01/18/2008, -139/+86This works in exactly the opposite direction as well. The problem is that the rules --- i.e. the assumptions you start with --- define your conclusion. Atheists and Christians will never get anywhere in an argument because the fundamental assumptions are completely foreign to each other.
- JimmySpaza, on 01/18/2008, -71/+14Not true. There are many Christians who believe what they believe due to SCIENCE. I believe that the Bible is accurate BECAUSE of naturalistic science, not in spite of it.
- drachemorder, on 01/18/2008, -50/+15Science applied from the correct presuppositions, maybe. The problem with atheistic science is that it starts with the assumption that God either doesn't exist or doesn't have any noticeable effect on the universe, and because of that assumption it is incapable of seeing any evidence for God. You and I do see that evidence because we start out with a worldview that allows for God. But the reason the atheists never see it is because their worldview doesn't allow for the possibility in the first place.
- brentinkc, on 01/18/2008, -16/+63Sorry to interrupt you guys' circle jerk, but that "evidence" you keep referring to is evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not your "Christian God". Sorry to burst your bubble.
- Terr01, on 01/18/2008, -10/+45"he problem with atheistic science is that it starts with the assumption that God either doesn't exist or doesn't have any noticeable effect on the universe"
Please tell me exactly how you would make an empirical test for this, thanks.- FlyingSpaghetti, on 01/18/2008, -4/+19I, for one, will now begin all scientific endeavors with the understanding that our universe is NOT laid flat on the back of a giant tortoise. This will help my studies immensely.
- Terr01, on 01/19/2008, -4/+3If God is so eager to be undetectable and un-noticeable, who are we to defy his will to remain secret?
- jmkiii, on 01/18/2008, -5/+19The only presuppositions made in science are that our observations are at least somewhat accurate.
- kelly, on 01/18/2008, -18/+6"Please tell me exactly how you would make an empirical test for this, thanks."
I'll give this one a shot.
Here's an example:
It has been demonstrated both mathematically and experimentally that time is not a constant, but is dependent on the gravitational pull at the location where time is being measured. This concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein and is called gravitational time dilation.
For instance, time moves 5 microseconds per year slower at the Royal Greenwich Observatory (which is located at sea level) than it does at the National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado (which is 1 mile above sea level). Atomic clocks flown around the world in different directions seem to vary by the amount predicted by Einstein’s equations. The direct result of this gravitational time dilation is that seemingly strange things happen to time near areas of space known as black holes.
A black hole is an area where matter is so concentrated that its gravity prevents even light from escaping. Indirect observations seem to indicate that several areas of our universe do indeed contain black holes. Black holes are so dense that they actually "bend" the fabric of space. In addition, time moves exceedingly slow at the boundary of the black hole. Thus, if you could move from the center of a black hole outward, while observing what was happening far away, it would appear that clocks and all natural processes were proceeding in rapid fast-forward. Although one has never been observed, Einstein’s equations also predict the existence of "white holes". Instead of collapsing inward, matter (and space itself) would expand outward from a "white hole". When matter inside the white hole moves past the boundary, the boundary begins to shrink inward. Eventually the radius shrinks to zero and the white hole disappears, leaving behind all of the matter which it originally contained. However, the first material out would have aged millions or billions of years while the last material out may only have aged a matter of days.
Dr. Russell Humphreys has proposed that this expansion of a "white hole" rather than the standard "big bang" theory is the method God used to create the universe we live in. Three effects should be apparent if this is how our universe formed. First, the expansion of space would have left a very uniform background radiation throughout the universe. Second, as space itself expanded, the light coming from stars (which formed as the matter moved out of the white hole) would be shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Third, if the earth was close to the center of our universe, it would have been one of the last things to have emerged from the white hole. Billions of years would have elapsed for distant stars giving plenty of time for light from those stars to have reached the earth. These three observations are exactly what we find as we observe our universe!
From the moment that all the matter of the universe was created (day one of creation), until the earth emerged from near the center of the white hole (at which point stars would have appeared), it is quite mathematically feasible that only four 24-hour-days had passed on earth. Although this theory is quite controversial (and rejected out of hand by those who are committed to evolutionary development theories), this type of work demonstrates that there is not necessarily a contradiction between a six day creation and modern science.- jmkiii, on 01/18/2008, -5/+20You bought one of those Jump to Conclusions mats, didn't you?
- sonoran, on 01/18/2008, -2/+7This doesn't sound like any description of white holes I've ever heard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole.
You seem to be implying that a fully formed earth existed in a white hole waiting billons of years for the event horizon (moving at the local speed of light by the way) to move past in and eject it into space. White holes would be subject to the same tremendous gravitational tidal forces that black holes are. Intact planets would not be what they eject, it would be gas and dust. There'd be no "earth" for time to pass on. - HollowMarkeD, on 01/19/2008, -2/+2Thats a nice theory and a possibility, but since time is always relative to the observer, you could find a spot in the Universe where 4 days would of passed since the beginning but 15billions years of expansion is seen in the universe around us. You could just as equally find a spot in the Universe where the Universe was created 4 minutes ago but with the same observation from Earth of 15billion years worth fo stellar evolution.
- nitsuj, on 01/19/2008, -2/+4"Dr. Russell Humphreys has proposed that this expansion of a "white hole" rather than the standard "big bang" theory is the method God used to create the universe we live in."
FAIL for assuming that 'God' created the universe without a single shred of evidence.
Let's look at some creationist material for this hypothesis: http://creationwiki.org/White_Hole_Cosmology
FAIL for obviously being ridiculous junk science.
Let's see what talkorigins has to say: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang. ...
"Humphreys models the center of the universe as a "white hole", the opposite of a black hole (instead of matter only flowing inwards, a white hole constantly emits matter and energy). He fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else), but that is far from the only problem with the model. In particular, Humphreys badly mangles the standard GR treatment for gravitational time dilation: in order for time to pass more rapidly far away from the Earth, we would need to be near a black hole, not a white hole. Humphreys tried to salvage his model by later claiming a time dilation within the white hole, but this was equally unworkable. It goes without saying that his model fails to explain a vast array of cosmological observations, e.g., the existence of the CMBR and its anisotropy, supernovae time dilation, the light element abundance and so forth."
Let's stick with a theory that explains current cosmological observations shall we?
"Although this theory is quite controversial (and rejected out of hand by those who are committed to evolutionary development theories)"
Controversial because it's ***** junk science desperately held onto by creationists. - rspeed, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2That isn't empirical evidence at all, though, it's a hypothesis. We're asking for a theory.
- markp88, on 01/18/2008, -20/+11I am a Christian physicist, and I have no problem with requiring empirical evidence for 'scientific' investigations. But to require the 'scientific method' be applied to Philosophy is misguided to say the least.
P.S. Forget your Spaghetti Monster, it is such a lame metaphor (certainly not remotely chess-like)- geometry, on 01/18/2008, -4/+3That's great that you make that distinction, can you spread that to the rest of the believers. I don't know of any scientific theories that attempt to answer philosophical questions. But I do know of many believers who attempt to use religion to answer questions of the physical world. You stay on your side and I'll stay on mine.
- FriarZero, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4Alright, let's apply evidence and reason to whether or not the bible is reliable. Whether miracles can occur or have occurred. Whether or not there was ever a historical Jesus. Whether of not there is a soul. Whether of not prayer works. Whether of not Christians suffer less or are happier than non-Christians. Whether or not there was ever a Moses or a King David. If you take a look at the evidence, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the most easily debunked world religions.
- sonoran, on 01/18/2008, -2/+6Well that's exactly the question isn't it? What objective verifiable reason can you offer that would cause us to reject the Spaghetti Monster in favor of Jahweh (the abrahamic god)?
- Fizox99, on 01/18/2008, -3/+7@Terr01:
I think what he is saying is that some assumptions are necessary because neither the atheist or the religious viewpoint can be tested. This test you ask for applies to both sides of the argument, which makes the *discussion* of assumptions valid.
Additionally, why is everyone digging him down? I know that you all think he is stupid for believing in something, but he is trying to make his points coherently and without flaming other people while doing it (i don't know about his other posts, but he isn't here). Why would you dig someone down who is trying to have a legitimate conversation, even if you think his beliefs are illegitimate.
Just makes me sad to see that there is seldom any substantive debate because one side (either for that matter) cannot put whatever personal anger they have aside.- lydecker, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1"Additionally, why is everyone digging him down? I know that you all think he is stupid for believing in something, but he is trying to make his points coherently and without flaming other people while doing it"
Because the Thumbs up/ Thumbs down has turned more into "I approve of your overall message" than "I approve of your individual post." I believe it would be better for most to only support good logical arguments, but mob mentalities are usually incapable of that. I'm part of the digg mob, and I accept my weaknesses.
- lydecker, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1"Additionally, why is everyone digging him down? I know that you all think he is stupid for believing in something, but he is trying to make his points coherently and without flaming other people while doing it"
- lydecker, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4Science doesn't assume things have an impact unless they are proven to. Occam's Razor is about looking to find the simplest way to explain things in order to USE that explanation to manipulate to our advantage. We manipulate our knowledge of the universe to advance our society and technology...
If we assume that God does exist and God does have a noticeable effect on the universe, what is that effect? How do we quantify that effect? What implications does God's existence have and how can we use that in our universe? If it's something that can't be answered, then it has no place in science.- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1maybe god just spends his time producing the occasional outlier in data sets.
- inkswamp, on 01/18/2008, -5/+12"The problem with atheistic science is that it starts with the assumption that God either doesn't exist or doesn't have any noticeable effect on the universe..."
Wrong. Atheism starts with NO assumptions at all, including concerning the existence of God. Because there is no evidence for the existence of God, an atheist has no reason to believe in one. That's not an assumption.
It's amazing. You're doing exactly what the comic illustrates--judging the arguments and viewpoints of others from your own preconceptions about how things are. You believe there is a God so your conclusion is that atheists *assume* otherwise. They assume nothing. They don't believe because there is no evidence and no way to test it. Can you understand that?- Ph34rb0t, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3Everyone on Digg needs to learn the Bracketing system of Edmund Husserl before talking about this religion stuff, both sides. ;)
Bracketing - suspension of all empirical and metaphysical presuppositions...
For the rest... http://www.creatorix.com.au/philosophy/21/21f06.ht ...
- Ph34rb0t, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3Everyone on Digg needs to learn the Bracketing system of Edmund Husserl before talking about this religion stuff, both sides. ;)
- theyerb, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1Science should assumes a clean, objective slate as far as I'm concerned. Science isn't concerned with "disproving a god" so much as finding the objective truth, and trouble is for believers, there isn't a shred of evidence to your point of view. I was a Christian-- a youthgroup going, mission trip-to-Mexico Christian for that matter for the first 20 years of my life. I have since wholeheartedly abandoned that line of ignorance.
- mightydavefish, on 01/18/2008, -13/+22Ah, fine.
So you believe the science that supports your religion, but not the science that opposes it?
Man, you ARE the perfect right wing asshat.
Too bad you are perverting Christianity so badly.
I read your comments, loser. You represent Christianity like I represent 7 foot tall chinese basketball players.- sirhc7, on 01/19/2008, -5/+2mightydavefish - your the one that sounds like an asshat. If you think science opposes his religion then you are delusional. Science can not be used to prove that God does not exist, just as it can't be used to prove that he does exist.
- Scaryclouds, on 01/19/2008, -3/+1Do you not do this in your own life mightydavefish? I guarantee that you have beliefs that you hold and will continue to hold because you only listen to view points that you agree with. To chastise one person's fault for a fault you hold yourself is a very high form a hypocrisy.
- kelly, on 01/18/2008, -15/+9Here's another example:
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about 5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!
It has been estimated by evolutionary anthropologists that the earth could have easily supported 10 million hunter/gatherer type humans. To maintain an average of 10 million people, spread over the entire planet, with an average life span of 25 years, for the last 100,000 years . . . .would mean that 40 billion people had lived and died. Archeological evidence clearly shows that these "stone age" people buried their dead. Forty billion graves should be easy to find. Yet only a few thousand exist. The obvious implication is that people have been around for far less time.
Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planet’s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.
Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars":
All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long ago disappeared.
All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.
The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.
The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago un-spiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed.
Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young.
What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old ? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age". A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this flood.- geometry, on 01/18/2008, -3/+4You expect to be able to find a grave for the 40 billion people that have lived on this earth? Do you understand anything about weathering and other physical events that can erode or destroy graves?
Just as an example, over 2,000 people were killed and buried in the world trade center. How many bodies did they find? Nothing close to 2,000 bodies. And we're talking about only weeks and months to recover the bodies. Now lets imagine somebody was buried 40,000 years ago, you really would expect to be able to find that body? - helfire, on 01/18/2008, -2/+7Nice copy/paste, cant read the first 2 paragraphs without tearing my eyes out. Logical formation of arguments escapes whoever wrote this. Any references to the many numbers or facts are surely not needed, right?!
- CCB0x45, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6The problem with everything you are saying(assuming it is true) is that you are presuming the only alternative option is that a supernatural thing popped it all into existence. There is no evidence of that at all except a book written by men long ago that has been edited over and over again. You can argue that the solar system is older or younger than some theories, but that doesnt allow you to jump to the conclusion that it all popped into form at once, because even the inconsistencies in time still show things to be very different in age any way you look at it.
- MarkKezner, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3[citation needed]
- sonoran, on 01/18/2008, -1/+8"For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age". A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. "
Huh? It doesn't depend on the rate "cabon-14 generation", it depends on the rate of radioactive decay of carbon-14 to carbon-12. The amount of carbon on the earth would not affect this in the least. They're measuring time by how much of the carbon-14 isotope had decayed to carbon-12. Man this is basic stuff! - init100, on 01/19/2008, -1/+5"However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth."
Let me introduce you to a concept known as tectonics. This means that the crust of the Earth actually changes with time. Tectonic plates move, material moves down into the mantle in subduction zones, and new material is created in divergent plate boundaries. This process provides a reasonable explanation of why newer craters are more abundant than older ones.
- geometry, on 01/18/2008, -3/+4You expect to be able to find a grave for the 40 billion people that have lived on this earth? Do you understand anything about weathering and other physical events that can erode or destroy graves?
- drachemorder, on 01/18/2008, -50/+15Science applied from the correct presuppositions, maybe. The problem with atheistic science is that it starts with the assumption that God either doesn't exist or doesn't have any noticeable effect on the universe, and because of that assumption it is incapable of seeing any evidence for God. You and I do see that evidence because we start out with a worldview that allows for God. But the reason the atheists never see it is because their worldview doesn't allow for the possibility in the first place.
- hanmik, on 01/18/2008, -6/+22Why is this statement getting dugg down? Do you not like the statement or don't believe he is correct?
- boxybrzown, on 01/18/2008, -2/+21It's because his user icon is a cross.
- hazard99, on 01/18/2008, -22/+12Welcome to Digg. Here the Atheists are more closed minded than the most fundamentalist conservative Christians. If you post ANYTHING supporting religion, your comment will be burried because they aren't open to other people's thoughts.
:)- KingGorilla, on 01/18/2008, -5/+7You sound closed minded
:( - sleepwalkers, on 01/19/2008, -2/+2Just because you're dugg down doesn't automatically mean people are digging you down because they're not "open to other people's thoughts"
It certainly could mean that they're digging you down because they don't agree with what you have to say, though.
- KingGorilla, on 01/18/2008, -5/+7You sound closed minded
- fred13snow, on 01/19/2008, -0/+6It's being dugg down because he's wrong...
Believers start with assumptions, non-believers start with facts, not assumptions!
- kelly, on 01/18/2008, -19/+5Here's another example:
Stars are spheres made up primarily of compressed gases that are millions of times larger than the earth. Like everything else in our universe, they eventually wear out. At a certain point in the life time of a very massive star, it implodes upon itself releasing energy exceeding the output from an entire galaxy. This supernova results in a center that is so dense that it cannot collapse further, and the rest of the stellar debris spreads outward.
These super-nova remnants (the collapsed center and the spreading debris) should be detectable for millions of years after the implosion. Based on what we currently know about stars, scientists estimate that a galaxy the size of the Milky Way (our galaxy) should have one supernova approximately every 25 years. This is based on historical observations over the last 2000 years. If our galaxy is 10 to 20 billion years old, millions of supernova remnants actually observed indicates the age of our galaxy. However, if time has moved in fast forward for distance galaxies during the formation of the universe, then only those remnants relatively close to earth are of significance in revealing the age of the universe near Earth's location.
Theoretical models suggest that the expanding debris from a supernova would go through several stages as the matter and energy disperses. During the first few hundred years after a supernova, material is hurtled outward at thousands of kilometers per second. Later a blast wave forms, emitting powerful radio waves for 10,000 more years. During the final stage the material becomes so spread out that only heat energy is detectible.
Although opinions vary fairly significantly, scientists can estimate approximately how many supernovas should be visible from each stage of development. Even if supernova remnants last for an average of only 55,000 years, we should be able to detect many that have exploded in our galaxy. Naturally those who have a bias for an old universe will tend to explain away the lack of remnants based on an inability to detect them. First stage supernovas are hard to detect because of the massive number of stars in the plain of second stage supernovas we have been able to detect is an indication of the actual detectability throughout history.
Most experts seem to agree that one supernova every 25 years in a galaxy our size is within reason. Therefore, if our galaxy is in excess of 100,000 years old, and the remnants last an average of 55,000 years, there should be 55,000 years divided by 25 supernova/year=2,200 supernova remnants out there. If we can only detect 1/2 of those remnants, there should still be 1,100 detectable. However, if our galaxy is only 10,000 years old, the number of second stage supernova remnants actually detected is very revealing as to the true age of our galaxy. Only around 200 have been found. The chart graphically illustrates which theory best explains the observable data.
This is one more piece of evidence which indicates that the earth and the universe are far younger than the assumptions of evolution allow. Indeed, the vast majority of dating methods indicate a relatively young earth.- chicofaraby, on 01/18/2008, -2/+19I can see how the fact that we aren't sure as to the exact age of the galaxy means that it was caused by magic. It's all so clear to me now.
- banq59, on 01/18/2008, -6/+7You are so stupid.
- kelly, on 01/18/2008, -8/+2Shoot, and to think that I spent all that time typing this out and you managed to break my argument apart with only 4 words. You are very intelligent.
- geometry, on 01/18/2008, -5/+10You realize that your religion has done everything possible in the past to stop the science that your are now sighting. The world is flat and the heavens circle us. Telescopes are a creation of the devil.
- falstaff, on 01/18/2008, -2/+16So you contend the galaxy is less than 10k years old. This means either:
a) Stars can spontaneously go supernova within 10k years of creation at an alarmingly high rate, and we have no guarantee than our sun will be around tomorrow.
b) God created a galaxy of mature stars, some of which have gone nova over the past 10k years.
For the sake of continued argument with myself, I'll assume you believe in B.
We also know the speed of light, and that we can detect objects further away than 10k light-years. So I hope it's safe to assume that God created a galaxy with light already traveling toward Earth so that we can "see" things farther away than we should be able to see. On the same page still?
So God creates a mature galaxy with light already bouncing around where it shouldn't be. Just to fool us all? OK, I shouldn't question WHY God does certain things, but it seems an awful big hole in God's logic to create a perfect replica of a billions-of-years-old galaxy and then *forget* to add detectable star remnants. That would be a mistake on God's part. That can't happen.
Or maybe we just can't detect thousands-of-years-old explosions from thousands of light-years away. Hey, we're not perfect.
So the real question is, do you believe in a fallible God, or fallible humanity?- Prefection, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Well said, and done with class. Kudos.
- wyndl, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11Kelly, you seem to present some interesting information, but if you wouldn't mind, could you site your sources? I would like to double check your usage of the words "most experts agree", and "vast majority of dating methods". It sounds to me like you are being fed science-like information in order to argue with dimwitted people that don't like to do research. I am not one of those people.
Sources, or you are just spewing propaganda. - HollowMarkeD, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1Another interesting theory but a very significant answer drawn from a vast assumption its easy for us to detect with any effiecincy supernovae remants. That we observe 10% of the figure would be amazing, and you can write off half the supernova in the galaxy since they'd be on the other side of the galactic centre and we'd have no line of sight. Even then, an order of magnitude difference in whats predicted and whats observed is fairly good for cosmology. It seems you are using good scientific facts at a higher level than most bad science used to promote a divine creator but with the same conclusions. The "God of Gaps" is a cop out, IMO.
- SuperDevil, on 01/19/2008, -2/+5Ok, ok. Everyone who thinks these "scientific" posts by Kelly are *****, you're completely right. Kelly is getting all of his/her information from Dr. Russell Humphreys, who is a known crackpot in the scientific community. He's been making the same arguments, which were very lovingly regurgitated here for us by this Kelly (thanks, buddy), for years now and every single one of them are misleading and complete and utter *****. All of his points have been scientifically proven incorrect and are purposefully vague.
Kelly, I'm sorry to inform you, but your beloved Christian scientist who has "proved" scientifically the "young world/universe" theory for you and your sheeple, is a liar and a swindler just like all the other assholes who are using your "blind faith" against you for monetary gain. Either that or he really is an idiot... Maybe next time, unlike a mindless drone, you should question this ***** instead of taking it at face value and making an ass of yourself and your faith, because scientifically speaking, these assertions carry about as much water as a thimble.
Read here for an explanation of Dr. Humphreys and intelligent arguments against his pseudo science... http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm - bolognium, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1"Most experts seem to agree that one supernova every 25 years in a galaxy our size is within reason."
...and you base your logic on what 'most experts seem to agree'. No wonder you would think human beings from 1700 years ago knew everything about everything.. no matter the countless times they were proven wrong by more evolved beings.
- rollem, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4... because logical discourse is impossible for a religious person to understand? I don't think so. They are forced to admit an illogical explanation and therefore cannot "play the game."
- dash1185, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4That is *****. The guy is right, because science and religion are not mutually exclusive. A christian believes in something that our senses can not experience, nor any sophisticated instrument. By definition, just like belief cannot argue with science and a logical reasoning, science cannot argue with the existence or absence of a god. The only purely rational and logical position is to be an agnostic.
Now it is true that many fundamentalist christians do not "play the game", but so do not many atheists, who falsely base their opinions on science. Atheism is a belief, just like any religion.- chicofaraby, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2"Atheism is a belief, just like any religion"
Atheism is a lack of belief. That's the definition of the word. Stop trying to make us into you. YOU can believe in magic. We don't.- falstaff, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67
"Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial." (Among many other definitions)
Theistic: Belief in God. Atheistic: Belief in no God.
I believe in science and logical, testable conclusions. So as soon as you can show me a test that proves the non-existence of God, I'll call myself an Atheist. Until then, the only consistent position is one of agnosticism. I don't know, and I don't really care. Evangelical atheists are no better then evangelical theists.
- falstaff, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67
- chicofaraby, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2"Atheism is a belief, just like any religion"
- dash1185, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4That is *****. The guy is right, because science and religion are not mutually exclusive. A christian believes in something that our senses can not experience, nor any sophisticated instrument. By definition, just like belief cannot argue with science and a logical reasoning, science cannot argue with the existence or absence of a god. The only purely rational and logical position is to be an agnostic.
- sirhc7, on 01/19/2008, -6/+4It does work both ways. I agree. An atheist is just as adamant about their "beliefs" as someone who is religious. In fact an atheism is a religion, or at least it becomes one, by many who are atheist. They even get together and have athiest meetings, and send their kids to atheist summer camps :)
- Hopewell, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2That's a shame you're getting dugg down for saying something that is so plainly obvious. Arguing from conclusions is fruitless. Dialogue about your premises is far less of a waste of breath.
- Scaryclouds, on 01/19/2008, -2/+4To every person who dugg down drarchemorder, in the comic you would be the guy who screams "King me biatch." Feel free to digg me down if you can logically explain why drarchemorder statement is wrong (to me if you want, but more importantly to yourself).
- sotopheavy, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1He is right in some way. Any logical argument starts with a set of assumptions and then as long as each step is taken logically from those assumptions to a conclusion then you can say that the assumptions imply the conclusion. If the assumptions can be shown to be false this does not make the conclusion false, it just means that the conclusion is not implied by the assumptions. It also means that it is not a logical argument.
Just like a Christian can be a believer because they didn't logically analyze their belief, an athiest can be an athiest without logically analyzing their lack of faith. Basically both crowds have their sheep. I have studied Christianity, Buddhism and Greek Mythology. I have come to the conclusion that neither side has all the answers. At least science admits it. - zen4444, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Mystics use logic and reason when they measure baby formula for their children, when they do their taxes, when they pay their bills, and when they work; yet they do not find these same all important tools necessary when they formulate their theory of everything.
- JimmySpaza, on 01/18/2008, -71/+14Not true. There are many Christians who believe what they believe due to SCIENCE. I believe that the Bible is accurate BECAUSE of naturalistic science, not in spite of it.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/18/2008, -30/+228Science deals with observable reactions. It then tries to deduce the reason for the reactions. Claiming an invisible spirit, or soul, caused it you are leaving science and entering into mystical spiritualism. Did God, or Jesus, or Shiva, or Krishna do it?
Nah - gravity did it.
That said though, there should be no conflict between religion and science. One deals with observable items, the other with internal matters.
At least IMO.- tattertech, on 01/18/2008, -4/+25But your opinion doesn't match many peoples. Many people believe religion deals in both material and immaterial things.
- mOdQuArK, on 01/18/2008, -1/+17Which leads the non-religious (who supposedly base their worldview on physical observations) to believe that those people are morons...
- curtisag, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1Hear Hear!
- Insolent, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2But... shouldn't we respect everyone else's opinion even if they belligerently refuse to examine the facts? After all, if someone refused to take math they could deny all the things that are mathematically proven even if lives depended on their understanding and it would be their right.
- candafilm, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Not when it affects your life. Unfortunatley, there are many people in high places that push this into the general population.
- kubedawg, on 01/19/2008, -4/+1Exactly. Who says that God didn't make the Earth with dinosaur bones already on it to throw us all off? And what makes people believe in a diety in the first place? The problem with science is that it's not provable. Everything could have been completely different 100 million years ago, including that thing we call gravity. Hell, Earth might not have even been here for 100,000 years. These things we do not know. Beliefs in anything, including science, are only that, and will never be 100% provable, because we didn't live during that time where dinosaurs walked the earth. I know science isn't trying to PROVE anything, however, since there is no way to prove or disprove both creation and evolution, it will always come down to one's beliefs. I'd like to think that there is some sort of God out there who made us, because we are truly an amazing species. It's hard to believe how advanced our minds and bodies are compared to the rest of the animals on Earth. However, I'm personally not sure if I have the faith to believe in something that might not exist. Then again, what if God does exist? Am I supposed to change my moral compass to how God see fits? No, I'm going to alter it based on my own personal feelings and experiences, and if that gets me a ticket into Heaven, then so be it, if Heaven or God don't exist, then so be it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
- sidheru, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2that's absolutely retarded. Science, for one, is entirely based on proof. The rest of your comment's even more stupid. It's akin to an existential axiom that "nothing exists." If the earth has only existed for 6000 years, or if fossils are fake, or if we didn't actually exist, then there's no point in doing anything including eating, drinking or living. If you want to deny what we see and observe and perceive, then we might as well deny our existence, and simply stop all those actions that keep us existing since we don't....
- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1maybe we did live with the dinosaurs and just forgot.
also, (good) scientific studies and the like will say that their studies "show this" or some such, its the pseudoscience that says "this proves this" because real scientists understand nothing can ever be proven, just demonstrated to be a likley case.
there would be few people that say our model of the atom now is what its like, after all you only have to see how our model as improved over time and would be a fool to think it was perfected now.
some with any field, our understanding grows and what is accepted changes, all we can do is collect evidence and say that this evidence seems to support this hypothisis.
this is what the "King my bitch" people fail to understand (among a lot of other stuff)
- mOdQuArK, on 01/18/2008, -1/+17Which leads the non-religious (who supposedly base their worldview on physical observations) to believe that those people are morons...
- Archer007, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5It's The Whole Sort Of General Mish-Mash one gets when debating these things.
- geometry, on 01/18/2008, -0/+11I agree with you. Science can teach us all about facts and why things work and are the way they are. But science for the most part does not attempt to teach morals or how to live your life in a meaningful way. Those who depend on religion for their day to day existence should realize that the overlap religion has tried to create into science is not necessary and a fallacy.
Religion has been hijacked by the leaders to serve their own good, the same way this country has been hijacked by it's leaders to serve their own good. The same way this country has become something that would make the founding fathers cry, religion has become something that would make it's original leaders / prophet cry. Do you really think that Jesus would agree with the way most "Christians" lead their lives?- FriarZero, on 01/18/2008, -5/+3No because Jesus told his disciples not to preach to the gentiles (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24), called the pharisee hypocrites for not stoning their unruly children (Matthew 15:4), told his followers to take no thought for tomorrow as god would clothe and feed them (Matthew 6:34), and he said that anyone who has the will to do so should castrate themselves (Matthew 19:12). There is one thing Jesus would like about modern Christians, he would love people like Phelps and Falwell because Jesus himself said he came to bring division and bloodshed (Matthew 10:24, Luke 22:36, Matthew 10:21, John 2:14). Jesus was great wasn't he?
- slightlygifted, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1if your religion wants you to castrate yourself you best find a new one.
- kaptainKraken, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1religion's is that of an opiate of the masses, it serves to calm the ignorant of the fears of the unknown. that's it. morality and spirituality is like opinions, they are not objective at all they introduce feeling into things that should not need any to function. feeling can unfortunately for most people be very misleading.
we should learn from the past, but i'm not sure we are learning from it, i see allot of revisionism going on to suit people purpose.
history should be ideally and absolute objective thing, so should teaching.
- FriarZero, on 01/18/2008, -5/+3No because Jesus told his disciples not to preach to the gentiles (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24), called the pharisee hypocrites for not stoning their unruly children (Matthew 15:4), told his followers to take no thought for tomorrow as god would clothe and feed them (Matthew 6:34), and he said that anyone who has the will to do so should castrate themselves (Matthew 19:12). There is one thing Jesus would like about modern Christians, he would love people like Phelps and Falwell because Jesus himself said he came to bring division and bloodshed (Matthew 10:24, Luke 22:36, Matthew 10:21, John 2:14). Jesus was great wasn't he?
- Alex2, on 01/18/2008, -12/+4"Nah - gravity did it. "
What's gravity?
Please post your answer in a reply which does not rely on one of the several untested 'String Theories'
Because technically, String Theory is a religion where people believe they can extrapolate an equation which describes a subatomic interaction to an equation which describes galactic sized things.- Thuktun, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5We don't know exactly what causes gravity, but we can see that it behaves in ways that can be described mathematically and used. If we discover cases where those rules don't work anymore, we revise the model until we have new rules that *do* work.
String theory is simply a theory. Some people might be enthusiastic about it, but if it were proven false, they'd move on, not revolt and start killing people.- Blackthorne, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3I don't see how String theory could yet be considered a scientific theory, considering it is as yet unproven. The String Hypothesis might be more appropriate, although not quite as catchy.
- HollowMarkeD, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5No, string theory is science, which is not regarded as fact until it can provide provable results. A religion is a belief that is regarded as fact despite any evidence shown to the contary (geology, evolution etc.)
- Thuktun, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5We don't know exactly what causes gravity, but we can see that it behaves in ways that can be described mathematically and used. If we discover cases where those rules don't work anymore, we revise the model until we have new rules that *do* work.
- augsod, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1Donald Knuth talks about this in his book "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Thinks About." He brings up a good point: some people are so struck by the sheer depth of their profession or field of interest that they can't help but liken the feeling to the awe of God. I guess those people *really* enjoy their jobs.
- Nerfdude, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7wait, so this isn't about trying to talk sense into mac owners?
- uberfr4gger, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Someone give this man a medal.
- thebrawl, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3Goddidit. King me, biatch!
- TheWindBlows, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Yua heared him...
King da man!
Biatch !
- TheWindBlows, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Yua heared him...
- Blackthorne, on 01/19/2008, -2/+2So, let's say a portal opened from earth into heaven, and through the portal, you can see God sitting there on a cloud. If a scientist tries to take a microscope through the portal so he can see what God is made of, does the microscope just spontaneously explode? Or disintegrate? Or what? It's all just magic? Not made of anything?
Look at it another way. If science ever did prove anything about religion (say, that we have a soul), the religious right would seize on it and trumpet it to the skies. The only reason they try to say it's "outside science's reach" is because there's never been any such proof.- MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Could be anything. If god exists, then he in some fashion is made of something. Otherwise he would be nothing, and not exist.
On the other hand... he may be made of materials that are not observable, or measurable, perhaps dark matter, dark energy, or even anti matter. What you are seeing may be an elaborate illusion being projected into your mind.
You could be living in a computer simulation being run be beings who are themselves in a higher beings computer simulation.
The difference is you don't discount things, you observe things and formulate a working theory to explain what you are seeing. If that theory conflicts with other established theories then they are all re examined to determine where the error is.
Religion is largely a leap of faith. And not just on word of god. You read the bible and you have to trust everyone who lived before you that they didn't alter the text to suit their own interests, or by accident.- jsaya, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Humans often think in a fleshly, physical sense - Question 3 "What sort of body does he have?" and the related paragraph provides the answer - http://www.watchtower.org/e/rq/index.htm?article=a ...
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Could be anything. If god exists, then he in some fashion is made of something. Otherwise he would be nothing, and not exist.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3However religion and science do conflict. The age of the Earth.
Light from distant galaxies takes billions of years to reach earth. The Bible does not claim the earth to be a mere 6000 years old. But Religious Dogma, the living interpretation of the Bible does.
The explanation is that God put the light already on it's way to earth. A claim based on nothing, but still within Religious context.
Dinosaur fossils have been found all over the earth. And have been carbon dated to millions of years in age.
The explanation is that carbon dating is inaccurate beyond 4 or 5 thousand years. That Dinosaurs existed in biblical times but the monstrous creatures were mysteriously left out of all record. That they were herbivores and mysteriously never domesticated. Mysteriously because these are claims without any supporting logic.- offwithyourtv, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1Speaking of "inaccurate," why is this flagged as inaccurate? It's just a comic! Where's Digg's sense of humor today?
- jsaya, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3You may find this to be an Interesting read - "BOTH science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe that contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. True religion makes these discoveries meaningful by teaching that the mind of the Creator lies behind the design manifest in the physical world." - http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.ht ...
- tattertech, on 01/18/2008, -4/+25But your opinion doesn't match many peoples. Many people believe religion deals in both material and immaterial things.
- brentinkc, on 01/18/2008, -28/+218This poor man is obviously not aware of the Flying Spaghetti Monster bishop to E6 block! It's foolproof!
- Dugout21, on 01/19/2008, -2/+3MASSIVE WIN!
- celkin, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2-Mate in 143 moves.
-Oh poo, you beat me again! - TheWindBlows, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3What happens when you place Rick James in ... anything!
- designer, on 01/18/2008, -77/+24Wow, atheists are great. Just ask one.
- Linzee82, on 01/18/2008, -4/+22Okay. Yes, we are great. Thanks for the compliment.
- SuperWinner, on 01/18/2008, -3/+20We don't build huge churches and go to them just so we look like we are "good" people. What a huge waste of land that could be used for home owners or legitimate businesses.....
- breadfred, on 01/19/2008, -3/+2I am an atheist. But I still believe that churches bring some good. They bring communities together where it counts- where you are, geographically. Pfft if only there was something that atheists had that was comparable to that. Communities are important to people, that is you and me alike, and I think that is where religion started. Just basic human interaction. And as people have different opinions, you have to have a common goal/hook. What better than a all-seeing being (whatever his/her name is) with a great power that rules your life, to make you all come together and 'fight the same cause' ? a common cause makes you friends and will bring communities together.
- inkswamp, on 01/18/2008, -3/+15We atheists think we're great just like you religious people think you're great. But instead of having faith in our greatness, we gather evidence to support it.
- Ruthleess, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Interesting comment. In the same vein I invite you to ask a religious person for a neutral view on their beliefs.....
- gnslngr1919, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3It's just a joke guys. No need to bust out the bury brigade.
- loopis, on 01/18/2008, -7/+41Arguing this issue will get you nowhere. Trying to learn why the other person thinks the way they do would be a better served approached. In my experience non believers are more curious in learning all the facts including those perceived religious related facts from others. The end game for a non believer (again in my experience) is not change the other persons mind but to share ideas and learn. I think believers are more aggressive with trying to save all the non believers, hence the arguing beings.
- markp88, on 01/18/2008, -2/+9Sadly for many believers this may be true. But talk to many Christians (usually those who have actually studied the bible) and they are more interested in sharing and learning. However, when atheists start talking about Spaghetti Monsters you know it is time to just ignore them.
- geometry, on 01/18/2008, -4/+3I totally agree. I'm not a believer but I've read the Bible multiple times and the Torah. I speak with "Christians" and find that I know more about the Bible than they do, how sad.
- bmcnally, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1One of the things I've found about arguments (especially with religion and politics) is that they are like a fencing match: both sides will do pinpricks on each other, neither actually fully defeating the other, but will learn something in the process and will remain friends (if they were indeed friends or acquaintances when the argument began).
A bad argument, on the other hand, is like a street fight. Both sides end up looking like the crap got beaten out of them, and there begins bad blood. - empiric, on 01/19/2008, -3/+0Minor correction: Nonbelievers have no endgame.
- KyleGoetz, on 01/19/2008, -2/+1"In my experience non believers are more curious in learning all the facts including those perceived religious related facts from others."
I don't know what site you visit, but in my experience a great many non-believers just want to rip on religious folks and don't give two ***** about respecting them. Get off your high horse: many people on both sides of the fence are hate mongers.
- bort901, on 01/18/2008, -3/+71I am not so sure the comic was direct specifically at religion. Aren't their just as many 'believers' out there they believe in astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, visiting aliens, etc. that won't listen to reason?
- CatsAreGods, on 01/18/2008, -3/+10There's just as many irrational people that refuse to consider evidence for some things labeled "supernatural".
- mithrasinvictus, on 01/18/2008, -6/+399% of 1% of the population equals 1% of 99% of the population, your point?
- Neiby, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2Conversely, there are irrational people who dismiss evidence for some of those things out of hand without examining it. I am a rational and skeptical person, but I remain open to following evidence where it leads even if the destination is unpopular or perceived as "weird".
I'm not saying there is any evidence to support astrology. In fact, the evidence is massively against it. However, there are some things that are considered to be metaphysical that can be researched and tested. For example:
* Reincarnation: Study the research of Dr. Ian Stevenson (now deceased) and others at the University of Virginia Health System Division of Perceptual Studies
* Survival of consciousness after death: Read the works of Dr. Gary Schwartz from the University of Arizona VERITAS research program.
* PSI Phenomena: Read the work of Dr. Dean Radin and others associated with IONS (www.ions.org)- ricree, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4Ah yes, the good old "close minded card". When all else fails, you just tell people that they are dismissing things too readily.
The thing is, though, that you're ignoring the plethora of generally weird ***** that most skeptics do believe in. For example, much of quantum mechanics is weird, hard to understand, and counterintuitive. But time and time again it has stood up to the test of experimentation. We can observe that the universe is not only expanding, but is actually accelerating. Why? We're not really sure, but because the evidence is clear and unambiguous it is not dismissed by skeptics. According to relativity, time and space are altered depending on the speed you are traveling, and there is a fixed "speed limit". Again, completely counterintuitive to our personal experiences, but because it is held up in experimentation it is accepted by skeptics.
Psi research and other paranormal research is at best only able to produce results that are on the very edge of statistical significance, and even then fail in replication. In decades of study, no one has been able to put forth a plausible mechanism, nor have they even been able to show that there is even a real effect to study.
Skeptics don't believe in it because we insist on requiring that claims are actually backed by evidence. When you look at many of the counterintuitive elements of science that are accepted, it is clear that the issue has nothing to do with being closed minded, and everything to do with a consistent lack of evidence. Given the subject of this page, I think that it's only fitting to close out with another cectic comic that does a good job getting my feelings on this issue across. http://cectic.com/036.html- Neiby, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1This is the point I was making! If you'd read the research I pointed you to, you'd see you were completely wrong. However, it's easier to just dismiss it out of hand, isn't it? It's much easier to toss up some stale old argument that isn't actually true and ignores years of current, ongoing research that actually is statistically significant.
- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Dr. Ian Stevenson (now deceased)
shouldnt that be changed to "now reborn"?
- ricree, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4Ah yes, the good old "close minded card". When all else fails, you just tell people that they are dismissing things too readily.
- CamperBob, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2If you have evidence for something, it's not supernatural, now, is it?
- Kypt, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1If superman lived and died a "normal" kryptonian life in earth....would that be natural or supernatural? Just wondering...
- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1existing in the natural universe, yes.
it would be alien behavior, but not unnatural.
- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1existing in the natural universe, yes.
- Kypt, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1If superman lived and died a "normal" kryptonian life in earth....would that be natural or supernatural? Just wondering...
- getbusyliving, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I didn't think it was necessarily poking fun at only religion either. I thought it was just directed at people who are inclined to believe in any sort of unverifiable nonsense.
- chicofaraby, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4"Aren't their just as many 'believers' out there they believe in astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, visiting aliens, etc. that won't listen to reason?"
Absolutely. Believeing in a god is exactly the same as believing in Bigfoot. You can call it the FSM, Xeno, Yaweh, Thor or R2D2, but that won't make imaginary critters real.- ricree, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Well, not exactly. In and of itself, there is nothing unreasonable about an apelike creature living in north america. The reason that belief in bigfoot is unreasonable is due to the complete lack of evidence and the level of scrutiny and lack of potential habitat. Basically, if something did exist we really should have seen evidence by now. God, on the other hand, is a much more unreasonable claim. We are supposed to believe that there is some sort of all present, all powerful, and ever judging deity who used to do all sorts of crazy miracles in the ancient past, but now expects us to be satisfied with images on pieces of toast.
- diabulos, on 01/18/2008, -3/+2Ask a 'rational' person to believe that you can communicate with something billions of light years away in a split microsecond and they'll laugh, yet quantum entanglement does it, and it is science. Tell a 'rational' person that an object can be here now and appear somewhere else suddenly without actually traveling through space and they'll laugh, yet a quantum leap is just that, and it happens, and it is science. Hundreds if not thousands of principles and foundation tenants of quantum mechanics and quantum physics are unverifiable and unexplained, yet they are considered math, science and are the basis for most of the science underlying current advances. Lets not be arrogant.
- juniorb, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3If you talk to any real quantum physicists s/he will explain that the only reason these quantum events are unexplainable is because we lack the ability to observe and measure them. We can only observe them indirectly, like trying to tell what color shirt a person is wearing by studying his shadow.
Quantum physics is as close as science has come to religion.- HollowMarkeD, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Quantum physics is such a successful theory as its results are dependable, even if on a quantum level it is supposedly entirely random. Its applications make the microchip possibile, upon which computers are made for you to type out your comment. If belief in Jesus provided material eveidence and applications for more people, I'm sure it would be just as accepted as fact. It isn't.
- diabulos, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1I am far from a 'believer' my point was that sometimes, just sometimes, scientists spent centuries calling something impossible, witchcraft or whatever and then it turns out that principle, as weird as it sounds, becomes a fundamental piece of their theories (tele-transportation and quantum entanglement for example). I am saying, science is short sighted, it has been throughout history, so don't call something supernatural or otherworldly because in thre years time science may be spousing that same concept because it correspond to the behavior of a particle. And juniorb, I happen to be a quantum physicist.
- curtisag, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2There's nothing arrogant about people placing science above superstition. Our arrogance comes out when we become close minded and unwilling to consider new possibilities. Quantum physics provides us with real world solutions and technological advancement. As a physicist I'm sure your familiar with the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The key for all of us to keep an open mind. I'm an atheist, but I have an open mind about many ridiculed subjects like alien life, the possibility UFOs from other worlds have visited our own planet. At least some people have seen UFOs, taken pictures they claim are UFOs, and videos. But there are no videos of God, no evidence whatsoever. I can't say I believe UFOs exist, but at least I can say there is at least a little evidence (although that evidence may be flawed or hoaxed).
- breadfred, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1forget it - bury, I am not clever enough o explain the intricacies of quantum mechanics
- ricree, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Incidentally, quantum entanglement does not, as far as I'm aware, actually allow any communication to take place. And besides this, it isn't "unverifiable and unexplained". I'm fairly certain that it has been demonstrated experimentally.
- Murdats, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1quantum entaglement does NOT ALLOW FOR COMMUNICATION OVER INFINTE DISTANCE!
that is bad interpretation of science, if you really care, read more about it because it is something I have not the patience to clarify.
as for the second thing, I am not sure what you are refering to, but I would also assume its a bad interpretation aswell.
- juniorb, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3If you talk to any real quantum physicists s/he will explain that the only reason these quantum events are unexplainable is because we lack the ability to observe and measure them. We can only observe them indirectly, like trying to tell what color shirt a person is wearing by studying his shadow.
- Scaryclouds, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Really it could be applied to any person who refuse to dump a schema despite all the evidence proving that schema wrong. Hate groups and an easy example of this, fanboys could be an example as well.
- CatsAreGods, on 01/18/2008, -3/+10There's just as many irrational people that refuse to consider evidence for some things labeled "supernatural".
- themanipulator, on 01/18/2008, -31/+175I really don't understand why people on digg are so obsessed with bashing "Believers" and Atheists... who cares? really?... if the guy sitting next to you believes in God, and that belief is causing you no harm, leave his beliefs alone, unless you are both willing to have a meaningful discussion of your fundamental differences in beliefs... The same goes the other way... "Believers" [usually on digg it's Christians, but w/e] shouldn't try to convince someone to turn to God unless the other person is willing to engage in respectful conversation...
Seriously... stop bashing "Believers" or Atheists as one whole group or another.
It's perfectly reasonable to publish articles about the stupid things that extremists like the WBC and Scientology and [*insert extremist atheistic group-- i honestly don't know one... and I'm Christian, but w/e*].
Just stop carpet bombing people who have different beliefs with your hatred.- Zlorp, on 01/18/2008, -31/+53the problem is that on a large scale these peoples "beliefs" DO cause harm to society. the mindset that religion requires le