str3ama- valdo, on 12/06/2007, -107/+13... even if it's not real - would say it all
- WasabiBomb, on 12/06/2007, -1/+26Say what, now?
- Marcsib, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3yes, that would pointlessly extend the idea nicely
- m00kie, on 12/06/2007, -241/+24the photo isn't really "real", it can't be seen with the naked eye ... it's an interpretation of sounds. you've gotta run on faith to accept that what you see in that image even exists in the first place.
- crombat, on 12/06/2007, -3/+143No, it's a nebula.
Even if it's not just magnification, it's a shift in the electromagnetic spectrum -- it has nothing to do with sound.- mrwoo, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7Anyway, you can see it with the naked eye, when you look through a large aparture telescope, however it will apear grey, the colors you see in the image are visible through a long exposure with a camera. Astronomicle photos like this of deep space are relitivly easy to make with long exposure camera's. If you have an old SLR camera lieing about, set the focos to infinity get a tripod and point it up at the orion constilation. Then take the photo with the highst exposure, (s normaly) leave the camera shutter open for a good 2 mins, then get it developed. You will see a nice red streak in the orion constilation this is the infamous Orion nebula. So not real? Go take a photo and see! You'll see somthing like this http://members.aol.com/astrophotos/m42090305web.jp ...
- Monkeydew06, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Naked Eye - does not include a large aparture telescope. Naked eye is, just an eye, nothing more.
- whataboutdave, on 12/06/2007, -8/+110So only things that can be seen with the naked eye are "real"? Ever heard of germ theory? The atom?
- eddeh, on 12/06/2007, -0/+14Adding that blind people obviously shouldn't believe anything exists at all according to m00kie since they can't really see anything with the naked eye...
st00pid
- eddeh, on 12/06/2007, -0/+14Adding that blind people obviously shouldn't believe anything exists at all according to m00kie since they can't really see anything with the naked eye...
- plebeian, on 12/06/2007, -2/+100fyi you are not clever
- mydigga, on 12/06/2007, -0/+36You mean “He has delusions of adequacy.”
- greenlight2001, on 12/06/2007, -5/+12haha... it's nice to see someone here on digg who pulls in other concurrently front page stories when making comments.
- mydigga, on 12/06/2007, -0/+36You mean “He has delusions of adequacy.”
- ViciousSquallD, on 12/06/2007, -0/+67Sound can't travel through a vacuum. I think we can all agree on that one.
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -32/+2Sure they can. Just ask anyone on the International Space Station. They just have to be in a container.
- FlyingSpaghetti, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3Please go back to sleep!
- spudnic, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5People on the space station are made out of sound? Awesome
- Rheic, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6...and not in a vacuum.
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1Wow. Some people just can't see a joke in front of their eyes...
- Duamerthrax, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2If he said space instead if vacuum than it might be funny, but all he said was vacuum.
- MacEnvy, on 12/06/2007, -0/+31It can in the Star Wars universe.
- ViciousSquallD, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Touché.
- JohnFrum, on 12/06/2007, -0/+13I don't know. Sherri Sheperd say's god can hear our prayers. How do they get to heaven if they can't go through the vacuum of space?
- scbysnx, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10right, because if god actually does exist he listens to us through sound waves.
- FuzzyBunny, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7I wonder if the sound of the joke flying over your head can travel through a vacuum...
- scbysnx, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10right, because if god actually does exist he listens to us through sound waves.
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -32/+2Sure they can. Just ask anyone on the International Space Station. They just have to be in a container.
- eatasandwich, on 12/06/2007, -23/+3Schme schmoto schmisn't schmeally "schmeal", schmit schman't schme schmeen schmith schme schmaked schmye ... schmetc
- ben_nushmut, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3What's that now? Oh wait, those monkeys are at it again, banging randomly on the keyboard. Proof of evolution: above...
- eatasandwich, on 12/06/2007, -3/+7Actually it was just me adding "schm" to the front of that guys words in a childish mocking fashion. The same behavior gets dugg down in real life too, only with fists.
Still....5 punches is better than 90....
- eatasandwich, on 12/06/2007, -3/+7Actually it was just me adding "schm" to the front of that guys words in a childish mocking fashion. The same behavior gets dugg down in real life too, only with fists.
- ben_nushmut, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3What's that now? Oh wait, those monkeys are at it again, banging randomly on the keyboard. Proof of evolution: above...
- ophello, on 12/06/2007, -16/+3"real" is a term defined within human perception. what is "real" is what is perceived to be real.
hence, spirituality: perceived by some, not by all. you people (as in everyone) all seem to think that "real" is a concrete term. what is real is what we 'agree' to be real, not what actually "IS" real.- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0"Whatever you imagine to be weal, is weal"
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0South-park references usually go over well with the digg crowd.
- Otto, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1No. Reality is there whether you are experiencing it or not. It's not just a shared delusion.
And the tree falling in the forest *does* make a sound.- nomadxx7, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1What about Virtual Reality and the belief of "self." The paradox is that VR isn't real but your body may believe it is real and react the same way as if it were. I'd agree with ophello that reality is a perception. Real is defined but what people say is real..
- Bodhinature, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Yes, and reality, in science, must be independently verifiable and objectively studied so that all parties agree that they are all seeing the same thing.
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0"Whatever you imagine to be weal, is weal"
- bitcloud, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5You're not really real... They don't make people who can manage to type on a computer keyboard but still lack a basic understanding of the world around them...
(well they used to, but most of them died whilst attempting to operate cutlery and open their mouths at the same time... Natural selection's a bitch) - antler, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Yes, in response to the argument you meant to make:
There is nothing privileged about a wavelength of 400 to 700 nanometers.
All electromagnetic radiation is equally real. - quaxon, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8Are you an idiot or do you really not know the difference between light particles/waves and sound waves?
- tony23, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Yes
- idontlikeyou2, on 12/06/2007, -1/+20haha
someone is confusing a real image with a winamp plugin. dumbass- nonsapiens, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5I laughed really hard: good one sir, good one
- Spoomeister, on 12/06/2007, -1/+12Sorry, can't see you. You don't exist.
- neko6, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Anything that can be measured exists, anything that hasn't been measured should be assumed not to exist. It doesn't matter if you measure it with the naked eye or with a super-infrared-something or a smelloscope.
- onebadsummer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5dugg for referencing the smelloscope
- sholde4, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3I bet he's writing this on a wireless connection. Irony ftw.
- glasnostic, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1thats not from a radio telescope.. thats the Hubble.. thats light
also.. radio waves are not that different from light. and you don't hear them
*****.. why am i trying to explain science to somebody who obviously thinks this is all just magic - Anthion, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0My invisible friend in the sky who judges you for masturbating is as real as... wait...
- MrNexus, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Stupidest thing I ever heard everyone say. My 4 year old nephew knows more then you. Do research before making stupid comments loser.
- crombat, on 12/06/2007, -3/+143No, it's a nebula.
- buddamus, on 12/06/2007, -76/+20Reality is overrated.
- mikesbaker, on 12/06/2007, -27/+4Or Reality is meaningless.
- Todash19, on 01/28/2008, -22/+2Or, Reality is for those without imagination...
- capiCrimm, on 12/06/2007, -0/+24or LSD.
- Todash19, on 01/28/2008, -22/+2Or, Reality is for those without imagination...
- pendrachken, on 12/06/2007, -2/+19Reality is just for those people who can't handle drugs.
- xptoast, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Do the drugs exist in reality or is that part of the trip?
- Tallon29, on 12/06/2007, -6/+52Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
- SimianSamurai, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Zing!
- chiliwilli, on 12/06/2007, -0/+12reality is realistic
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10And relativistic.
- schrankage, on 12/06/2007, -4/+3Your comment isn't.
- xptoast, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4Reality isnt over rated. If you want to know about reality and the proofs of how it is here and what meaningful things you can do with it instead of filling your life with crap look up giftofexistence.com and see what I mean. Reality does suck because of the people who missuse it.
- ophello, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5reality is what we make of it
- kmesp86, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Yes.
- echolyean, on 12/06/2007, -0/+9"Reality is merely an illusion. Albeit, a very persistent one." -Einstein
- mikesbaker, on 12/06/2007, -27/+4Or Reality is meaningless.
- buddamus, on 12/06/2007, -13/+198But then you have to ask yourself, What is reality.
then it all gets very complicated- floridiot2, on 12/06/2007, -3/+16We're livin' in the Matrix, man!
- gravylookout, on 12/06/2007, -3/+91According to Philip K.Dick, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Seems pretty simple to me...- ZenMojo, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1Too bad nobody knows what that is....
- ben_nushmut, on 12/06/2007, -0/+14Guess that makes Bush real! As for the Constitution... God, I need a drink...
- dunk71, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Make mine a double
- mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -5/+2Its only complicated to people who think they have a higher thought capacity, than what is the case. I would suggest that people stop trying to answer questions, that will ONLY be answered in death.
- ashmael, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2How are you going to have any questions answered if you lack a functioning cerebral cortex?
- mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Jesus says I don't need one.
- ashmael, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2How are you going to have any questions answered if you lack a functioning cerebral cortex?
- xeemo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Not to mention that in the same essay he shares his theory about how we're living in 50 AD.
- mike81890, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1I hate that when someone shares an idea it can be invalidated by another idea that person had. For example you attempted to invalidate the previous quote by using a fairly unrelated idea that Dick had.
- xeemo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Well, if you had read this essay you would know that this is the definition that he came up with for a student writing an essay. He said that was the closest definition of reality he could come up with. He never once said that he himself could define reality. In fact, he quotes many philosophers with varying definitions of reality, and comes to many interesting conclusions.
The title of the essay is "how to build a universe that doesn't fall apart two days later". In which he says he enjoys writing about universes that don't fully compute. It's the imperfections that make the worlds that he creates in writing more similar to the one we live in. The world is mysterious, and it doesn't always add up.
- xeemo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Well, if you had read this essay you would know that this is the definition that he came up with for a student writing an essay. He said that was the closest definition of reality he could come up with. He never once said that he himself could define reality. In fact, he quotes many philosophers with varying definitions of reality, and comes to many interesting conclusions.
- mike81890, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1I hate that when someone shares an idea it can be invalidated by another idea that person had. For example you attempted to invalidate the previous quote by using a fairly unrelated idea that Dick had.
- digitalarcanum, on 12/06/2007, -3/+7let's not talk ***** philosophy here. However, if you insist. Descartes said that he didn't know whether or not anything was real. He came to the realization that "I think, therefore I am". He's thinking about whether or he exists, so he must exist. Nietzsche doesn't seem to agree. you can't control your thoughts. you can't make your brain be brilliant on command. "it thinks, therefore IT is. I don't know so much about what myself." is what that amounts to.
- freshgrease, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3Yeah, I studied Descartes in PHIL 281 (Texas A&M University). Descartes is a real mind *****.
- jebudas, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3You cant control the amount of stimulus your brain receives, thus limiting your (brilliant on command) intelligence, but I can control my thoughts and so can you. Apparently Nietzsche couldnt...
- DrMonkeyLove, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Can you really? Or are they really just results of the laws of physics already in motion, which you ultimately have no control over. Is it really freewill, or is it just the way it has to be, and the way it was going to be since the beginning of time? Is freewill just an illusion created by our highly ordered brains?
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2It's a little too simplified.
Nietzsche did believe that we were responsible for our own thoughts but what constitutes our thinking mechanism is beyond our control because we are our thinking mechanism.
For instance, you can't make your mind believe that 2 + 2 = 4. You still have free will inside your thought process but you don't decide what you think, you just think. The same way, you can't simply decide that up is down and you can't hallucinate on command even though your brain has the power to hallucinate.
So, it's true that you have free will, but every decision you make was inevitable. You can control what you think about, but you can't control how you think about things. Because logic is simply physics, your intelligence is composed of laws of logic that existed before humanity did. Up is higher than down, adding things to a group makes that group bigger, etc.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Lol, *for instance, you can't make your mind believe that 2 + 2 DOES NOT = 4***
- Mark7r0n, on 12/06/2007, -1/+12+2=5, for very high values of 2. Done.
- dunk71, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1digitalarcanum can control your thoughts?! can he control mine too? GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!
- billygotee, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Cartesian ontology: I experience, therefore there must be things, objectively, outside of my experience. Nietzsche's disagreement (that reached its zenith in Heidegger's Being and Time and Wittgenstein's Logicus Tractus Philosophicus) is that experience is inextricable from our selves. BUT anything that can be said in Descartes's objective sense is meaningless -- there is only the phenomena that I experience, aside from this nothing can be known or said. So it is true that reality (in the objective sense) is meaningless, if you (as most of the philosophico-scientific establishment) have chosen the phenomenological idea of reality. That is, the interpretation of phenomena as they are presented, and nothing more. The very idea of being is an essential element of experience. Nothing more than this can ever be known by entities that are like us.
- KidVicious, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1You don't really have to ask that question, since it's just a waste of time trying to find the nonexistant answer.
- T4z3R, on 12/13/2007, -0/+142
- mrmcphee, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND, DUDE
- pandawho1212, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3reality is what u make of it! lol
- RussellDovey, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Duh, it's AWESOME! RTFA.
- thepain353, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1well you need to except at least some of the information you receive or you'll just go threw life not believing anything
- Matri, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2I'd rather not go THROUGH life ACCEPTING bad English.
- Bradl3y, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1If you think about the world on the most basic level we can imagine, every little thing that happens is due to cause and effect. You can not break the law of cause and effect. Everything that happens, even every little chemical reaction in your brain, has a cause. Every thought we have ever choice we make happens because of a complex web of causes and effects on the most basic level of our brains. We do not have the power to change what is going on, it is already in motion, and really, we are just along for the ride.
- ashmael, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1That's a mechanical deterministic clockwork version of the universe that has been disproven by quantum mechanics.
- ndonohue, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1This would be a good XKCD comic...
- thirty704, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1Psalm 14:1
- joshuaer, on 12/06/2007, -20/+179Real or fake Jesus, God, Santa, and star wars are here to stay.
- floridiot2, on 12/06/2007, -5/+61Good, I love star wars.
- shawn1122, on 12/06/2007, -1/+25well you are on digg,,,
- badassninja, on 12/06/2007, -20/+3You're an ass.
- skyfire1, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6And you're a bad assninja.
- echolyean, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10I'm digging up both of you to show my support for the proper use of "you're"; it's about time lame comments at least got that right.
- GuacamoleSan, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4And im replying to this to make a super-long reply chain
- echolyean, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Rock on!
- Nidis, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1Everybody has aids aids aids
- Monkeydew06, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0Come on everybody we got sewing to do!...... WOOOO!
- mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I will help you.
- skyfire1, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6And you're a bad assninja.
- trogdor282, on 12/06/2007, -4/+5Not to mention that the hubble camera is black and white, and some NASA artist colored that photo. So it's not even strictly reality either!
- realunderdog, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4"Not to mention that the hubble camera is black and white"
You mean I believed a lie all these years? - glasnostic, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1"Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing. The colors in Hubble images, which are assigned for various reasons, aren't always as the image would appear if viewed by the human eye. The colors are often used as a tool, whether it is to enhance an object's detail or to visualize what ordinarily could never be seen by the human eye."
you are only partially right - ndonohue, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1the raw images are in black and white, because it generally takes in only one wavelength at a time, from my understanding. The images are later colored using the known data, whether its in false color to represent wavelengths we cannot normally see, or 'true color'. They don't just make up colors to look pretty.
- realunderdog, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4"Not to mention that the hubble camera is black and white"
- dutchb0y, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9Good! they're all entertaining fiction.
- Rheic, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0I'm sure people were saying that about Mithras and all the other extinct gods/cultural icons a few hundred years ago.
- insllvn, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1You can go to hell, Star Wars will last forever!
- doctorfungi, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1That's pretty much the message of the "Imagination Land" South Park three parter.
- Monkeydew06, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Actually even that was false, Jesus was flesh and blood, his divine nature is questionable, same with Dutch Sinterklaas, his magical nature is fake, and Star Wars characters are fake, but the script and film exist.
- Monkeydew06, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0Ummm.. Sorry to burst your bubble but Jesus was a real dude... he exists. And Santa is a deviation from Dutch Sinterklaas, a real dude. And star wars, while having a whimsical storyline, was really filmed, was really written, and exists. 75% of your statement has been deemed false.
- joshuaer, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Jesus was real show me is body please even if you can that will only prove that some one named Jesus is dead. It will not show that he is the son of god!
- Monkeydew06, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0I never stated Jesus was the son of God, I said his "divinity" or his God-like abilities are questionable. And no I can't present you with his body. But there are accounts written down that tell of a living, breathing, carpenter named Jesus. By your same logic, your fake. I can't see you, if you send pictures of me, I could never know it's you. You could visit me, and I will never know it was actually you who made the comment. As far as I know, your comment is nothing more than a elaborate computer glitch that just so happened to form words that pertain to the subject. In fact, by your logic, you can never be sure anything exists.. and frankly, that must be a sad and lonely life on your tower of willing ignorance. Or rather it would be, if you had proof that you exist.
- joshuaer, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Jesus was real show me is body please even if you can that will only prove that some one named Jesus is dead. It will not show that he is the son of god!
- floridiot2, on 12/06/2007, -5/+61Good, I love star wars.
- etherreal, on 12/06/2007, -7/+19What, yoda isnt real? Damn.
- OffPiste, on 12/06/2007, -15/+3Silicone or natural.
- laterthandawn, on 12/06/2007, -9/+54Atheism isn't necessarily a set belief in reality as it stands. I know plenty of wacky atheists. And by "wacky," I mean "creatively intelligent."
- JigoroKano, on 12/06/2007, -8/+23I think in the West, atheism is often conflated with scientific skepticism and naturalism, whereas Buddhists, Jains, and some Hindus are technically atheist despite holding irrational beliefs.
- MASH007, on 12/06/2007, -4/+13Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus are NOT atheists. Atheists reject the idea of higher power. The religions you just listed have 1 or more higher power(s) they believe in.
- Murdats, on 12/06/2007, -2/+18what is buddhisms higher power?
- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -0/+27Most would say Buddha, but most are ignorant and know nothing. Buddhism in fact is not a religion at all. It's simply a way to live your life and has nothing to do with faiths gods or any of that in any way. Being such you could practice buddhism and still call yourself an atheist, catholic, whatever.
- dudersman, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Buddhisms higher power equals greatest potential of human conciseness - transcendental self
- khellendros1984, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Buddhism is kind of a subset of the beliefs of Hinduism, dropping most of the religious aspect, but keeping the concepts of self-betterment.
- ZenMojo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Actually, Buddhism at its creation still included many of the Hindu beliefs, and many of the beliefs still hold mystical, supernatural aspects. The central tenets of Buddhism can be reapplied to any other belief structure, but it would be a modified version of Buddhism.
- MonkCanatella, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1That elephant dude.
- copperdomebodha, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2If you recall, Buddhism is the name applied to the teachings of the Buddha set down after his enlightenment. Actual Buddhism would be the realization of enlightenment and thus the attainment of Buddha-ism. There is an enormous gulf between the two.
At it's core Buddhism does not hold to the belief that any of the gods of the multitudes of heavens in any of the multitudes of world systems that have existed throughout countless beginning-less time are real. All this is illusion.
Buddhism holds no belief in a higher power because higher denotes duality and that itself is illusion. - JigoroKano, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2That is not strictly correct.
Mahayana Buddhists (Tibetan, et al: the most common branch) do not believe in *a* higher power. Following in the philosophy of Nagarjuna they do not believe in any immutable entity. There cannot be any eternal, all powerful god. There are often, but not always, "gods" but they are no more special than ascended people. Plenty of Buddhists do not believe in any gods at all.
Hinduism is not one religion. Most Hindus believe in something ranging from polytheism to pantheism. But some do not. Nastika Hindus do not believe any of the gods or anything such thing.
Jains believe in a spiritual naturalism and may speak of "God" but it is strictly is not an entity. The man who sold his soul on Ebay was raised Jain, and as even he describes it, technically atheist.
- Murdats, on 12/06/2007, -2/+18what is buddhisms higher power?
- MASH007, on 12/06/2007, -4/+13Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus are NOT atheists. Atheists reject the idea of higher power. The religions you just listed have 1 or more higher power(s) they believe in.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -10/+33Atheism is a rejection of the absurd notion that one or more gods exist.
In my opinion, it's definitely a stepping stone closer to reality than any religion, ever, can offer you.- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -33/+5You are an idiot.
- blackfox026, on 12/06/2007, -0/+20You're delusional.
- browwiw, on 12/06/2007, -4/+16Leave him alone. He was butt molested by his pastor.
- killakan, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Really? Prove your faith to me. Go to the roof of a 10 story building, pray to God to keep you safe and then jump off and land head first on the parking lot asphalt.
If you survive, then I will consider believing in your god.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -5/+28Both sides of the God argument should take into account that "absurd" is relative, and using it like that is a fallacy of argument, meaning that it accomplishes nothing. Calling a theist absurd for accepting the possibility of God doesn't affect most of them.
Atheists (and others, such as agnostics) place the burden of proof on theists to prove that God exists, and as far as an atheist being convinced, this is correct. But most theists believe in God based on faith, therefore telling them that God is irrational based on Science (not necessarily true) has no effect. While it is a burden on theists to prove their beliefs to an atheist, the reverse is not true, because theists are not basing their beliefs on proof. As far as I am concerned, as long as there is no proof that God doesn't exist, it may be irrational to a degree, but it is definitely not absurd to me that a person is comfortable with the idea of God (because it is definitely "possible" that he exists). The biggest fallacy of most the comments on this page is that they refuse to accept what other people perceive. Most atheists I know have told me their biggest problem with religion is that they are often hostile towards people with different beliefs. How exactly is reversing that (atheists telling religious people they are absurd, for example) the solution?- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -10/+4So I take it you have proof that one or more of the hundreds of gods worshipped over the last several thousand years exist?
I'm very eager to see such evidence, or were you just going on a hunch?- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8What? I never claimed any of that. You missed the point entirely. I pointed out no specific type of existence of God as proof of anything.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -7/+1"What? I never claimed any of that. You missed the point entirely. I pointed out no specific type of existence of God as proof of anything."
OK, cool. You post suggested that you held a religious belief.
Thanks for confirming that you either don't hold a religious belief, or you don't hold a religious belief that you're capable of substantiating. - duality, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Groovemaster, have you ever considered the possibility that both Atheists and the numerous varieties of theists might all be wrong, and the only ones who have their heads screwed on right are the ones who choose not to make any assumptions about reality (i.e. agnostics)?
This is the correct decision. After all, logic is ternary, not binary. The "burden of proof" is a highly unscientific concept. In the matter of scientific inquiry, the inability to prove something is completely meaningless, except as a tool to come up with more questions. In order to be sure of the correctness of some scientific truth, you must either have solid proof of it, or you must solid disproof of it.
The theists say "yes" without evidence. The Atheists say "no" without evidence. The two groups are more alike than either would care to admit. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe what you want, but you should make sure that the lack of logic that you criticize Christians for doesn't exist with yourself.
- hellokittyownsu, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11Beautifully said.
- ZenMojo, on 12/06/2007, -5/+3In other words, atheists are skeptics, a position that agnostics and theists find untenable. Theists are faith-based, a position which agnostics and atheists find untenable.
The simplicity of the argument is that, when you boil it down, atheists want to skip the several millenia of philosophical debate that preceded them by 1) erroneously assuming that skepticism is a modern belief system and 2) erroneously assuming that only skepticism is a tenable belief system. They can argue all they want, but as long as they attempt to argue from the skeptical position they will lose everyone who isn't a skeptic, which is the majority of the scientific and religious population.- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2Thank you for understanding. In my eyes, the problem is not that people see things differently, it's that they can't understand why other people see things differently than they do.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4"Thank you for understanding. In my eyes, the problem is not that people see things differently, it's that they can't understand why other people see things differently than they do."
I'm perfectly capable of understanding why people believe religions to be true. It's because they desperately want them to be true.
It's just sad that no-one who subscribes to these embarrassingly ridiculous fairytales has any evidence to back up their astoundingly childish beliefs. - B1gm1tch, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1You really are quite the tool Groovemaster, sorry to say. Your willingness to quickly jump in and ridicule those who don't agree with you only shows a hardline presupposition before even considering the question of whether or not a God or Gods exist. Remember, the scientific method necessitates that no a priori assumptions be made.
I could point out articles like this whole web page presents http://www.detectingdesign.com/ , made by someone seemingly more educated than anyone on the subject, and you'd reject it with some ridiculous claim like, "Well I still can't SEE God, therefore God does not exist."
Evolution doesn't disprove the concept of God as many believe. In fact, many supporters of Intelligent Design also support evolution. However, I suggest that you read the same author's page on Irreducible Complexity, and why it essentially disproves evolution/natural selection as the sole mechanism resulting in the organisms we know of.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
And with that, I stand by my conclusion that Atheism is ***** for the simple reason that even if no God or Gods exist, such a thing is unknowable. And quite simply, when you digg deep enough, you just might discover that evidence points to the contrary. - copperdomebodha, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Irredudable complexity is a false argument. Don't defend this position or you'll find yourself proven ( yes, proven ) incorrect.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2"As far as I am concerned, as long as there is no proof that God doesn't exist, it may be irrational to a degree, but it is definitely not absurd to me that a person is comfortable with the idea of God (because it is definitely "possible" that he exists)."
Then by this logic, it is only "irrational to a degree" to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and invisible orbital teapots, and in no way absurd, because after all, it is "possible" they exist.
I however, do consider it absurd, not because it isn't "possible", but because it is incredibly improbable. God is no different than the FSM. Absurdity is directly proportional to improbability. Being comfortable with the idea of something doesn't make it more true.- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2"Absurdity is directly proportional to improbability"
FSM is a bad example of your point in my opinion, and a pathetically uncreative one. Everyone on this forum is always like FLYNG SPAGHTII MUNSTRE!!!11
While you are technically right, there is a reason that people believe in God and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. God is a solution to the creation of the universe, but the FSM is just a notion to prove that God is an irrational mindset to hold. Why is it absurd to believe that the universe may have been created by something? We DO NOT know what created the universe, if anything, and therefore it is not absurd to assume that ANYTHING might have done it, and until there is a definite answer I think that people have every right to hold whatever belief they want, and should be respected for their stance. I am religious but I am not trying to convince any of you of anything. I have my own beliefs and I only want to be understood without being ridiculed, because there is no place for that. I will never ridicule an atheist for having no beliefs in God, and I only wish they would not ridicule me.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2"Absurdity is directly proportional to improbability"
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -10/+4So I take it you have proof that one or more of the hundreds of gods worshipped over the last several thousand years exist?
- damentz, on 12/06/2007, -8/+1d00d, noone is going to read that paragraph when you put so many words in it
- xptoast, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3I read it. Would you have liked it if he made nine or so comments to break down the same thought?
- ophello, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2ahh, good, lets get into an argument about the merits of belief in what cant be seen. really constructive.
- ZenMojo, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4It is. It's the basis of philosophical inquiry going back to the prehistory and evolved over those millenia to modern debate structures. Throwing all of that out only makes you sound uninformed.
- booshack, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Will you people please understand that most atheists are agnostics? The majority, and certainly most academic ones, do not "believe" that there is no god, they just deem it highly unlikely due to a number of reasons, concerning lack of evidence and rational problems with the concept of an omnipotent being. Agnostics are basically what is also called "weak atheists", and people who are certain there is no god are called "strong atheists". Then there are the people that say that they believe there is "something". Those are called wussies.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Yes, but most are agnostic toward the existence of God in the same way they are agnostic toward the existence of magical pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. That is to say, they are basically atheists because they hold the existence of God to the same incredibly large improbability as all other mythical and imaginary things. It's the phrase from Dawkins: "almost certainly does not exist."
- booshack, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2That is definitily true in regards to the Judeo-Christian god, or any judging and controlling god with seemingly human qualities. Dawkins says that this form of god almost certainly does not exist, but he also stresses the fact that we can not really say anything about whether there is a non-intervening creator of the universe, including those that may be impossible to fathom or impossible to detect, and that one may even define the rules and judging of random events as the universe itself, making the term "god" meaningless. I just want to make sure that the theists are denied the common argument that atheism is just another form of faith or belief rather than the lack thereof.
Remember parents: Teaching your kids to believe in something is indoctrination, teaching them critical thinking and rational thought is not indoctrination, it is the lack thereof.
- booshack, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2That is definitily true in regards to the Judeo-Christian god, or any judging and controlling god with seemingly human qualities. Dawkins says that this form of god almost certainly does not exist, but he also stresses the fact that we can not really say anything about whether there is a non-intervening creator of the universe, including those that may be impossible to fathom or impossible to detect, and that one may even define the rules and judging of random events as the universe itself, making the term "god" meaningless. I just want to make sure that the theists are denied the common argument that atheism is just another form of faith or belief rather than the lack thereof.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Yes, but most are agnostic toward the existence of God in the same way they are agnostic toward the existence of magical pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. That is to say, they are basically atheists because they hold the existence of God to the same incredibly large improbability as all other mythical and imaginary things. It's the phrase from Dawkins: "almost certainly does not exist."
- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -33/+5You are an idiot.
- Anthion, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1atheism is a declaration of a lack of specific belief. It makes no claim about what a person does believe or might believe.
- JigoroKano, on 12/06/2007, -8/+23I think in the West, atheism is often conflated with scientific skepticism and naturalism, whereas Buddhists, Jains, and some Hindus are technically atheist despite holding irrational beliefs.
- Discerneth, on 12/06/2007, -47/+9Humans lack the fundamental capability to perceive a great deal of reality. Why do we put so much trust into it?
- 3toe, on 12/06/2007, -1/+13Who says we do?
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -8/+1Most of the people commenting here, I'd bet.
- StarManta, on 12/06/2007, -4/+13Because god lacks the capability to make himself more perceived by us. Why should we put so much trust in a being who so clearly desires to be ignored?
- ophello, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1if you yourself are a doorway to that reality, then denying it is denying self.
if god can only be found behind the camera, and not in front of it, then what does that say about what the camera captures?
god isnt something to find "out there". most atheists dont have a clue what "god" means at all.- agaudet, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I know what god means
I just dont believe I need to make some magical lifegiver up in order to feel like my life has meaning
"God" is the meaning of life to alot of Christians, which is sad, because once you die and hes not there
you have wasted your life - killakan, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1By your own definition, your god is all knowing and all powerful. Therefore, your god should have the power to make himself known, to provide irrefutable proof of his existence, yet he does not.
You are an idiot and a liar and a delusional fraud who should be culled.
- agaudet, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I know what god means
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Trying to justify your choice much?
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Whoops, this was a reply to ophello.
- ophello, on 12/06/2007, -6/+1if you yourself are a doorway to that reality, then denying it is denying self.
- WasabiBomb, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I take it you don't drive, then? 'Cause that requires a good amount of "perception of reality".
- joshuaer, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1the whole talking in the 3rd person like you are not a human and talking to some one else who is not human just did not work for me. Yes All humans have issues some worse then others but at the end of the day Who else are you going to trust your dog or a rock?
- 3toe, on 12/06/2007, -1/+13Who says we do?
- Doomsan, on 12/06/2007, -23/+56What's with the black rectangle?...way to delete a watermark.
- CGorman68, on 12/06/2007, -5/+32*sigh...*
Idiot.- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -14/+3Not nice to talk about yourself in such a rude manner.
- mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9I know you are, but what am I?
- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -14/+3Not nice to talk about yourself in such a rude manner.
- jon30041, on 12/06/2007, -1/+84No, that's a Black Rectangle. It's like a Black Hole, but it ***** your ***** up WITH GEOMETRY.
Imagine being turned into a flat square, rectangle, or rhombus, and THEN getting sucked into oblivion. Welcome to the Black Rectangle, sir.- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/06/2007, -7/+10jon30041.numOfFans++;
- capiCrimm, on 12/06/2007, -4/+46obviously that's where God is hiding.
- browwiw, on 12/06/2007, -1/+16He has an incredible amount of back child support due.
- realunderdog, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Logged in to digg you.
- browwiw, on 12/06/2007, -1/+16He has an incredible amount of back child support due.
- psperl, on 12/06/2007, -0/+21High resolution images of nebula and other celestial objects are usually pieced together from many smaller images. It is likely that the original source image (From NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc.) also contains the same "gap", as they just didn't have the time to point the telescope in that direction. It is very common to see high resolution images like this with irregular outlines, as scientists have to prioritize the telescope's time.
- a3r0, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nuts_.and._bol ...
Second question - mercano, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3If you look closely at the rectangle, you'll notice its full of stars.
- CGorman68, on 12/06/2007, -5/+32*sigh...*
- shivaman, on 12/06/2007, -14/+8I wish I could get this in a bigger size. I would plaster it all over the place. I love it!
- chrisaug18, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5Ya, anyone one have this in a good enough resolution for a sharp looking desktop background?
- ViciousSquallD, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2You can make your own at mobuck.com and a number of other places.
- khellendros1984, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4You could always find a similar astronomical picture and plaster whatever you wanted on it. Frankly, I don't insult the disbelief of non-theists, and I don't understand why they think they can convince me that my completely illogical beliefs are false using fact. You can't logically argue with a God-believer, but you can piss them off pretty well.
- frozenpxl, on 12/06/2007, -46/+15This makes no sense. At all.
- ADrunkenMan, on 12/06/2007, -2/+7Why do you say that?
- hellosaysme, on 12/06/2007, -14/+3It really doesn't. A lot of people, myself included, see the unbelievable beauty in nature as proof that there is God. How could a random explosion create something like that without a little help?
- Locke2053, on 12/06/2007, -3/+11Let me try to follow your logic: The natural universe seems beautiful to products of that natural universe, therefore a flesh-eating jewish zombie did it.
Yeah, that's proof, alright. - evodude, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6Well, since you can't see how it could happen (and you are widely regarded as the smartest person to ever live, now or in the future), it just couldn't have happened. Glad we got that settled.
- Psytherium, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1So you're saying it was unlikely a random explosion created something like that without a little help from a God who wasn't created, but has always existed.
Fellow Christians, please think before you try to use baseless arguments and faulty logic. - ADrunkenMan, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1You should look into chaos theory and fractals to see that you dont need an all powerful god to create seemingly wondorous things from simplistic equations and principles.
- Locke2053, on 12/06/2007, -3/+11Let me try to follow your logic: The natural universe seems beautiful to products of that natural universe, therefore a flesh-eating jewish zombie did it.
- hellosaysme, on 12/06/2007, -14/+3It really doesn't. A lot of people, myself included, see the unbelievable beauty in nature as proof that there is God. How could a random explosion create something like that without a little help?
- deadmann, on 12/06/2007, -11/+2Atheists think they're not a religion.
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3I think you're an idiot.
- deadmann, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1For maintaining that the existence or non-existence of a god has not been proven? For not scapegoating religion for all the problems in the world that are just as likely to arise out of human nature whether or not religion is present?
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Who said i was accusing you of that? None of what you just said has any relevance with your first statement.
- deadmann, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1For maintaining that the existence or non-existence of a god has not been proven? For not scapegoating religion for all the problems in the world that are just as likely to arise out of human nature whether or not religion is present?
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3I think you're an idiot.
- ADrunkenMan, on 12/06/2007, -2/+7Why do you say that?
- NeverReturnKid, on 12/06/2007, -8/+52The pic does not say it all.
- Pilot85, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3That's zen, man.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 12/06/2007, -5/+3The pic clearly says all.
- cstaylor89, on 12/06/2007, -2/+0Do you actually think before you type? Or do you just fart out phrases?
- sgtbutterscotch, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1wait, what? then what doesn't the picture say that should be said? excuse me for being stupider than you.
- cstaylor89, on 12/06/2007, -2/+0Do you actually think before you type? Or do you just fart out phrases?
- rune420, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1I love how your comment had 42 diggs when I read it.
- icegoddess13, on 12/06/2007, -14/+5don't worry, Yoda's real. he's my homie. we play Lego Star Wars every weekend /:)
- mach32, on 12/06/2007, -30/+6the prose of a a 6th grader, fits right in at digg
- newbill123, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10It's not just language of sixth graders; "awesome" is a valid way to describe entities like the universe or a supreme being (though less so when talking about video games and fast food).
My only edit to the caption on the poster would be to add a word like...
Reality is sufficiently awesome.
or
Reality is awesome enough.
...just to tweak the theists a bit more.- xptoast, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Why does reality and this image make theists angry? Did God not create all matter in which we perceive beautiful or awesome? All glory to God in that he gave us the gift to exist and a reality to exist in so as to be able to create such things as computers and methods of taking photographs and being able to create pictures in photoshop on the computers. Reality cant create itself from nothing. You try imagining yourself into existence for that is the same. God must exist or you do not. Have fun imagining yourself into existence. You are children of God even if you hate your father.
- hillkiwi, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1"Reality can't create itself from nothing" You think within four dimensional limitations. I'm sorry, but your precious religion was written into existence by man.
- xptoast, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1I'm sorry you feel that way. You can burn your life away if you realy wish to for that is your decision.
- hillkiwi, on 12/06/2007, -1/+0Burn my life away? You believe I'm burning my life away by not being brain washed into worshipping an invisible creature? I live my life for ME, not to please some imaginary 'god'. One of the worst tragedies of religion is *some* religious people waste this life in hopes of making their next life better. The best thing they have going for them is they will never know they've been conned, when they die, their conciseness simply ceases to exist. It's not to late xptoast, you can come back to reality. You'll make new friends on this side.
- cstaylor89, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Hillkiwi. You must not be able to think abstractly for very long to draw logical conclusions. If you think the existence of a creator is so obviously absurd then you are thinking in 2 dimensions. It is just as absurd to say "science" created man as a god did. Take a damn philosophy class before you get on your high horse and start telling people how foolish they are.
- hillkiwi, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1cstaylor89 From looking at your profile I can see A: 90% of you comments are negative - says a lot about you (religion didn't make you happy after all?). B: You're an uneducated boy. When you become a man and get educated we'll talk, until then keep your comments to yourself (you're embarrassing yourself).
- hillkiwi, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1"Reality can't create itself from nothing" You think within four dimensional limitations. I'm sorry, but your precious religion was written into existence by man.
- xptoast, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Why does reality and this image make theists angry? Did God not create all matter in which we perceive beautiful or awesome? All glory to God in that he gave us the gift to exist and a reality to exist in so as to be able to create such things as computers and methods of taking photographs and being able to create pictures in photoshop on the computers. Reality cant create itself from nothing. You try imagining yourself into existence for that is the same. God must exist or you do not. Have fun imagining yourself into existence. You are children of God even if you hate your father.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2what the hell were you expecting?? what a lame insult. You fit right in at 7th grade.
- newbill123, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10It's not just language of sixth graders; "awesome" is a valid way to describe entities like the universe or a supreme being (though less so when talking about video games and fast food).
- airiox, on 12/06/2007, -43/+30Same photo could be used to say, "Faith, Isn't it awesome"
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -6/+39Not really. It's a photo of something that definitely exists in reality. Faith is not required to accept it's existence.
- DeadElephant, on 12/06/2007, -10/+1Uhm, actually it's all part of the matrix computer program. duh.
- Murdats, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7which would be the reality in which we exist.
- KungFuJesus, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5except how can a computer have infinite precision floating point?
- khellendros1984, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Computers in our universe can't, but since our universe is merely a simulation, perhaps computers in the "host" universe can. Physics could be completely different "outside" if we're in a computer program.
- DeadElephant, on 12/06/2007, -10/+1Uhm, actually it's all part of the matrix computer program. duh.
- takamalak, on 12/06/2007, -5/+6How about "Faith, Ain't I gay?"
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -6/+39Not really. It's a photo of something that definitely exists in reality. Faith is not required to accept it's existence.
- bradg2, on 12/06/2007, -18/+5Wow, it doesn't look like somebody stole that picture and tried to cover up the watermark or anything...
- capiCrimm, on 12/06/2007, -5/+5the black part is where God's hiding.
- whiteninja, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1"All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again."
- SquigglyP, on 12/06/2007, -0/+12this is a photo taken by Nasa. Goto their website and you can probably find a version of this image that - when printed out - is larger than your house. Or trailer or whatever.
- psperl, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5High resolution images of nebula and other celestial objects are usually pieced together from many smaller images. It is likely that the original source image (From NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc.) also contains the same "gap", as they just didn't have the time to point the telescope in that direction. It is very common to see high resolution images like this with irregular outlines, as scientists have to prioritize the telescope's time.
- schrankage, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3You guys are idiots.. you've never seen the other "inspirational posters" that have been on the internet for about 10 years now?
- ophello, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2people sure are dumb, as evidenced by your comment.
- capiCrimm, on 12/06/2007, -5/+5the black part is where God's hiding.
- withoutashovel, on 12/06/2007, -23/+17Reality is for anyone, with or without a belief in a religion. Anyone can be a rational thinker, people just generalize about how bad religions are when they hear about a few people calling for execution and violence under the name of God and what not. It's not the religion that's the problem, it's the immoral thinker who happens to believe in a religion that is.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -11/+24No, it's religion that's the problem because it teaches people to accept ridiculous, childish, irrational superstitions as truths.
If you'll believe that a magical invisible man lives in the sky, you'll believe anything... Which is what makes religion so useful to governments who need legions of people who believe whatever they're told without question.- pattink, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1You just got really close to the blame on bush ledge but thankfully you walked away. Thank you sir, thank you.
- str3ama, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1individual spirituality is fine..but it's when people start getting together and coming up with those superstitions that the '*****' hits the fan, and you end up with those superstitions.
- blinddonkey, on 12/06/2007, -9/+5So, obviously you can prove this assertion that religion causes this, not the selfish nature of mankind? Let's see the proof then, rather than the bitter opinionated rant.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9Religion itself is a product of the selfish nature of mankind.
If you believe in any particular religion, the burden of proof is yours, but hey... that's what faith is for, right? You just kind of have a funny feeling it must be true... right?
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9Religion itself is a product of the selfish nature of mankind.
- SemiSarcastic, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0Well by that same logic conspiracy theorists would fall into the same trap no? I think if the government really wanted to they could used conspiracy to sway public opinion as well.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4There was no intelligent logic in his comment.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5That rant was a complete fallacy. It was almost nothing but namecalling, which, as you should understand, is not a valid argument at all. What you said is no more reason to agree with your beliefs than the religions that you claim are so stupid.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3I wasn't making an argument... I was just namecalling. Sometimes it's fun to ridicule the ridiculous.
If you have any evidence that any of the hundreds of gods humans have worshipped over the last few thousand years actually exist, I'm all ears.... - Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2That isn't my point at all. There is no way I can convince you to accept God as real, and I am not so naive as to think I can. All you are doing is spouting off ridiculous facets of your ideology as though they are fact. Religion is not the problem. Atheism is not the problem. The only problem is the conflict between them. Atheism is based on skepticism and religion is based on faith. You can't claim that Atheism is a representation of rational thinking because what is rational is relative from one person to the next. While atheism is rational to you, faith is just as rational to a theist, and you are naive if you can't accept that. Someone whose brain accepts one of those as true is not going to understand why the other thinks the way they do. But to me it is perfectly easy to understand why a person could believe either way.
You need to stop assuming I am trying to convince you that God exists. Your hostility towards those with a perception of God is causing just as many problems as those believers who act the same towards atheists.- Quakes, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Atheism isn't based on skepticism as much as it's based on logic. It's not logical that an invisible man in the sky exists, therefore an atheist would reject him.
A theist is skeptic to the concept of logic as much as the atheist is skeptic to the concept of one or more gods. - bCabulon, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Life coming into existence is illogical whatever the explanation.
- Quakes, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Atheism isn't based on skepticism as much as it's based on logic. It's not logical that an invisible man in the sky exists, therefore an atheist would reject him.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3I wasn't making an argument... I was just namecalling. Sometimes it's fun to ridicule the ridiculous.
- pattink, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1You just got really close to the blame on bush ledge but thankfully you walked away. Thank you sir, thank you.
- ADrunkenMan, on 12/06/2007, -4/+4Reality does not include magical carpenters however, or gods who flood the earth as a "do-over"
- khellendros1984, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Or rather, I can't prove that they ever did, and you haven't found the evidence to conclusively prove that they didn't.
- Locke2053, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Obviously you are right and the other religions were wrong. I mean, when the Bible says that God called for wars and genocides against rival tribes in his name... well the Bible has it wrong and YOU have it right, O Wise One.
- Versipellis42, on 12/06/2007, -1/+0How come religion gets to be the only organization exempt from keeping its members in line? You know what happens when someone belonging to any other organization tarnishes its reputation? They get kicked out.
I do blame bad people for being bad, but I expect them to be bad. What I don't expect is people of respectable religions doing nothing to protest the smearing of hatred and bigotry all over what should be a beacon of unity and hope, and I do blame the good people for failing to act.
The only requirement for evil is that good men do nothing.
- Groovemaster, on 12/06/2007, -11/+24No, it's religion that's the problem because it teaches people to accept ridiculous, childish, irrational superstitions as truths.
- solique, on 12/06/2007, -7/+8Might be interesting if it was bigger. :/
- D4r7h3v1l, on 12/06/2007, -0/+46That's what she said.
- ophello, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2i see what you did there
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -0/+20It's a nebula. It's ***** HUGE!
- Murdats, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2That's what she said.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1How would the message become more interesting if the image was bigger? Are you stupid? Yeah. Yeah, you are.
And that's what she said.- insllvn, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Don't you realize that he who yells loudest knows the truth?
- tmyprod, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Look outside.
- mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2I can't see. They'streetlights're too many.
- D4r7h3v1l, on 12/06/2007, -0/+46That's what she said.
- IanPatterson, on 12/06/2007, -16/+1***** you and "Title says it all"
DUrrrr - latrosicarius, on 12/06/2007, -18/+9Astronomy is neither atheist nor theist.
- theatheist, on 12/06/2007, -11/+15"Astronomy is neither atheist nor theist."
Last time i checked astronomy was objectively scientific and ASTROLOGY subjectively *****.
i do not need to argue for Science's Behalf, Science is immortal and pesky theologians are a merely wasting their oxygen to prove otherwise.- DiscoLando, on 12/06/2007, -2/+13Using science to prop up atheism is just as bad as using science to prop up theism. Science makes no claims about the supernatural because it can't. To do so is to stop being scientific and becoming a philosopher.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2You beat me to this one. Good show, guv'nor.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1umm i would read more on science before you make claims like that^^, Quantum psychics specifily says that you cant prodict the the future of anything, yet your all seeing all knowing god violates that with the nonsense that god is all knowing/seeing and has plan for us all. To have a PLAN he must know the future which as i said quantum psychics forbids!
- DiscoLando, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Uh, actually it doesn't say that. Thanks for playing, though!
- evodude, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6You know, I will never, ever trust the opinion or interpretation of someone who spells quantum physics as quantum psychics. Especially if they do it twice. You either actually meant quantum psychics, or you can't spell to save your life, which seems more likely given the rest of your post. Either way, it comes down to the same thing: you are an idiot.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I'm not claiming anything with this statement about what you should believe in, but: if God exists, the implication is that he is omnipotent, meaning that quantum physics is irrelevant and God can manipulate it however he sees fit. If he does not exist then your statement has no meaning at all. Either way, your post is completely useless.
- latrosicarius, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Oh... he should read up on "science", huh? Well, that's not overly-broad or ambiguous in the least...
- latrosicarius, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2So how did I get -10 diggs and you get +12 diggs for saying the exact same thing.
Theism is a BELIEF not supported by science.
Strictly speaking, Atheism is ALSO a BELIEF not supported by science.
There is no "proof" that god doesn't exist, so Atheists need to STFU that they have "science on their side". Science is on NEITHER side.
And BTW, I am NOT supporting theism... I am just stating fact. Astronomy is a science. It can be performed by anyone--Atheist or Theist. It has thus far lead to no scientific conclusion as to who is right and who is wrong.
- latrosicarius, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Yeah, because I'm sure all Atheists are astronomers and all Theists are astrologists. Wake up you moron.
- DiscoLando, on 12/06/2007, -2/+13Using science to prop up atheism is just as bad as using science to prop up theism. Science makes no claims about the supernatural because it can't. To do so is to stop being scientific and becoming a philosopher.
- newbill123, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Astronomy is neither atheist nor theist? Would Galileo agree with that statement?
Apparently the act of observing creation, in order to know the creator better, is perceived as threatening to many people. Astrology. Evolution. Even Geometry in some cases. I am very open to thoughts of living and meaning and worth that don't conflict with reality, but not all religious people are as tolerant.- ostracize, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2I have never advertised my own diggs before but rather than comment on your comment, you should just check this out:
http://digg.com/space/The_Mistake_the_Church_Never ...
Believe it or not, Galileo may have never intended to make the heliocentric universe a religious debate but did it anyway because it was a debate that had to be done. - Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2You should be able to gather from the posts in here that not all atheists are as tolerant either. But seriously, pointing fingers helps nothing. And I think you meant "astronomy" and not astrology.
- ostracize, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2I have never advertised my own diggs before but rather than comment on your comment, you should just check this out:
- theatheist, on 12/06/2007, -11/+15"Astronomy is neither atheist nor theist."
- SantaClauz, on 12/06/2007, -8/+45I'm all for atheism, but this picture was a letdown.
- Locke2053, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3So what picture fits "reality is awesome" better than an unfathomably huge cluster of stars and planets like our own?
- sumasshu, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Dude, did you miss that bunny with the pancake on its head?!
- 1town, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Here's some real inspiration for ya: http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007 ...
- rexblade, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1How is someone all for atheism? do you go to non church and have un prayer? The power of nothing compels you! the power of nothing compels you! im just kidding with ya just found it a funny image atheate on brother!
- SpykerSpeed, on 12/06/2007, -24/+9"Reality is awesome... and absolutely meaningless. Commit suicide now."
- csl110, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2You first.
- geoffg, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1"absolutely meaningless" assuming this is correct, lying to yourself is the superior path?
- sonicEd, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Why do you need "meaning"? Whatever that means. The ride alone can be awesome.
- ryan83189, on 12/06/2007, -15/+7*ignorance is bliss, although, that really applies to religious people more.
- mediaspree, on 12/06/2007, -15/+35Religion: If omnipotent beings in the sky is all it takes to motivate you, your job will be replaced soon. By Robots.
- blinddonkey, on 12/06/2007, -6/+6Plagiarism: If all it takes is for you to copy and paste something changing a few words is enough to convince you you are funny, you should be replaced soon. By anything.
- mediaspree, on 12/06/2007, -2/+7you are right, i am the *****.
- Jakerius, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Way to accomplish what you were criticizing, moron.
- blinddonkey, on 12/06/2007, -6/+6Plagiarism: If all it takes is for you to copy and paste something changing a few words is enough to convince you you are funny, you should be replaced soon. By anything.
- shadydentist, on 12/06/2007, -8/+1Reality is the opposite of unreality.
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Reality is everything that continues to exist when you stop believing in it.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Well Bloody put mate, i have never heard it put that way and i love it!
- echolyean, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1You can thank Phillip K. Dick, it's his quote.
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Sure is. Damn, I wish he was still around.
- echolyean, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1You can thank Phillip K. Dick, it's his quote.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Well Bloody put mate, i have never heard it put that way and i love it!
- Fracture98, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Reality is everything that continues to exist when you stop believing in it.
- d3sp, on 12/06/2007, -10/+39I'm an atheist, but I think reality sucks frankly.
- hellokittyownsu, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3That's we do drugs together.
- AustinMeoang, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Were you ON drugs when you typed that comment?
- xenuxenuts, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9You're obviously not tuned in properly, try turning the knob a few degrees counter-clockwise. Proper tuning into reality takes a lot of tweaking, but the effort is truly worth it.
- robberry, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7Reality is okay, I guess, but it's no substitute for video games.
- hellokittyownsu, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3That's we do drugs together.
- renoitibma, on 12/06/2007, -9/+4The only problem is reality is only awesome when in a state of limited awareness.
- Mageling, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I don't know why you're being dugg down... You have a good point. Concepts we are completely aware of are boring... I don't know if the people digging you down think we know everything in the world or what.
- saltinekracka20, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1This is an insightful post, and as expected, the Digg community is blasting you for making sense.
- jgambleii, on 12/06/2007, -21/+15So I'm a little confused here... Those of us who are theists don't live in reality? Theists don't believe that star clusters and nebula exist throughout the universe? If that's the point the author is trying to get across, then he/she is just ignorant.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10Here in Texas it works the other way. Remember the whole "bill nye booed in waco" story awhile back? The theists who went to his lecture got mad at him for saying that the moon reflects sunlight (there's a clause in the bible somewhere saying that god created two great lights).
I know it's closed-minded, but whenever I think of theism and astronomy that story always pops up in my mind.- kmesp86, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1The church is God's greatest enemy because the church is plagued with ignorance and mediocrity.
- renoitibma, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4Really what you need to do is replace the nebula with golden gates, then I'm sure the picture would make more sense for you.
- airstrike, on 12/06/2007, -4/+6that is not the point. the point is that atheists need nothing -but- reality, therefore all they have is awesome.
- eminem213486, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3you guys need some zeitgeist. apparently theists dont read the threads.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10Here in Texas it works the other way. Remember the whole "bill nye booed in waco" story awhile back? The theists who went to his lecture got mad at him for saying that the moon reflects sunlight (there's a clause in the bible somewhere saying that god created two great lights).
- LowItalian, on 12/06/2007, -4/+10I am surprised that so many people here don't understand this picture. Apparently you haven't read up enough on Einstein.
The universe is incredible indeed!- renoitibma, on 12/06/2007, -7/+1If Einstein were smart I might be impressed.
- renoitibma, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0I needed to explain this better, but please digg up mmd643's comment.
- TimTheSloth, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1If by "read up enough on einstein" you mean "did a google search for 'funny Einstein quotes'"
- mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2That is what I do.
- illuminatiwatch, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1yeah. i don't get it
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2Einstein believed in God, though he was agnostic (he didn't follow a particular religion's perception of God). Fun Fact.
- mmd643, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5You have zero clue what you are talking about. Einstein was an atheist, and anytime "god" was mentioned in his writing it was used symbolically.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Spot on.
- madshgs, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2No. Einstein was a deeply religious person who did not believe in god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_vi ... - booshack, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Ugh. Agnostics are people who do not deny the possibility of there being a god. They are NOT the people who believe there is "something".
Agnosticism = weak atheism, get it right. - Rheic, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein (1954)
Myth busted.- brentinkc, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1well done
- kevlarbaboon, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Moreover...
From Wikipedia:
"...science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."
It appears he allows the possibility for God being able to exist in "domains in which scientific knowledge has not set yet been able to set foot but did not find any evidence in the current scientific world.
- mmd643, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5You have zero clue what you are talking about. Einstein was an atheist, and anytime "god" was mentioned in his writing it was used symbolically.
- rexblade, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Yes Einstein explained it as thought is energy and energy goes on forever. Something along those lines.
- renoitibma, on 12/06/2007, -7/+1If Einstein were smart I might be impressed.
- MetalLizard, on 12/06/2007, -22/+7This is ***** retarded. Even religious people would lawl at how lame this is.
- CircleFusion, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I think you mean "even atheists".
Obviously, religious people would think the poster was lame. - sgtbutterscotch, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4I'm religious and I thought it was clever.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -4/+0You are not that religious then :D
- sgtbutterscotch, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Yeah because I am not a prude who doesn't blindly insult everything that pokes fun at whatever I believe.
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Who are you to rate his level of belief? You must be very bold indeed. Or an idiot.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -4/+0You are not that religious then :D
- CircleFusion, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4I think you mean "even atheists".
- JunoRulz, on 12/06/2007, -10/+5You people have obviously never seen the Matrix.
- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2No thanks man, I'm taking the green pill. ***** the rabbit hole.
- insllvn, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2I remember a red and a blue pill. Is the green pill acid?
- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2No thanks man, I'm taking the green pill. ***** the rabbit hole.
- skin, on 12/06/2007, -15/+38I'm an atheist and I think this is retarded.
- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -10/+6Well I'm a Catholic and it makes perfect sense really. Apparently a lack of religion is equal to the belief in gaseous space clouds. Quite synonymous with each other when you stop to think about it.
- heinousjay, on 12/06/2007, -5/+13That was almost clever. Make sure to donate to the church's "help us pay for all these child molesters we've been hiding" fund.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3lol's
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -5/+4And you're SO clever. Will you teach me humor?
- heinousjay, on 12/06/2007, -5/+13That was almost clever. Make sure to donate to the church's "help us pay for all these child molesters we've been hiding" fund.
- JamesTorrence, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Well yes, creating a "motivational" poster anthropomorphizing the universe and calling it reality is retarded. But that's what people do. They delude themselves to pass the time until the fathomless blackness of their interminable deaths.
- Chris_F, on 12/06/2007, -10/+6Well I'm a Catholic and it makes perfect sense really. Apparently a lack of religion is equal to the belief in gaseous space clouds. Quite synonymous with each other when you stop to think about it.
- D3koy, on 12/06/2007, -5/+3That thumbnail sure is a spoiler...but not big enough for me to see the text...damn...
- kaniz, on 12/06/2007, -11/+49You know, I do believe in some form of higher power, not really God - but something. However, I also have a strong belief that science at some point - will be able to explain almost everything. Even when we get to the point where our laws can explain just about everything - from the creation of the universe, to the evolution of life and everything in between, I don't think it disproves the existence of some form of higher "something".
Our reality is an amazing and beautiful place, and I do think that there will eventually be a "theory of everything" that can explain it all - but I dont think it disproves there being a higher power, just a damn brilliant higher-power that knew how to create one hell of a unique and beautiful reality. Now, when it comes to who created that / where did it come from? thats a bit of a stumper.
I just find that its a shame that so many people seem to jump to the conclusion that Science is simply trying to disprove the existence of a god. Hell, Newton wrote more on the Bible than he did on physics - many early scientists were very religious people and viewed their work as gaining a better understanding of gods creation - not trying to disprove god.- LowItalian, on 12/06/2007, -3/+12I respect your stance. However with that said, I have to disagree with you on one central point: The notion that there are sentient entities that "crafted" our Universe.
There is essentially no evidence to prove that any such 'thing' exists and yet so much more that suggests the contrary.- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4The only "evidence" that supports the "Big Bang" is background cosmic radiation and an expanding universe. That has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Big Bang itself, how it actually happened, or where the initial singularity came from to begin with.
Can I ask you personally why you find the concept of a higher being so threatening?- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Becuase what we know at this present time contradicts what religion say. Ie. God is all knowing, quantum psychics forbids this. Many more examples but just that is the one i like when i get into a debate
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2I'm not debating you, just having friendly conversation.
Why does quantum forbid that? Digg really makes me want to change my major from CS to Physics. - mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Why are paying to study tear gas?
- Kythas, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1You could also argue that quantum physics can prove the existence of God. If a quark can exist nowhere and everywhere at the same time, then how is that any different from God? It's just as difficult to get people to understand that as it is to understand God.
It's like saying the atoms and molecules which make up our bodies are constantly in motion, therefore they never collectively exist in the same physical space. You aren't really sitting in front of your computer - you're simply more likely to be sitting in front of your computer than you are not to be.
I posit that the existence of God is more likely than not. Or, if you'd rather, refer to Pascal's Wager:
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
In a nutshell, here's what he was saying:
You live as though God exists:
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist:
If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2I'm not debating you, just having friendly conversation.
- brentinkc, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3That higher being's followers keep forcing their beliefs on me
And forcing their penises on the assholes of little children
I find that threatening - LowItalian, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0First of all, your biggest mistake is assuming that anyone that doesn't believe in god, believes in the Big Bang. I don't find the concept of a higher being threatening to me personally at all, just totally implausible. It is evident that religion has been exploited to impose the will of those who dare wield it all throughout history. But in all honesty my main gripe is that religion interferes with education and science (ironically education is likely to be the very thing that ends the nearly ubiquitous belief in the "abrahamic" god. )
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Becuase what we know at this present time contradicts what religion say. Ie. God is all knowing, quantum psychics forbids this. Many more examples but just that is the one i like when i get into a debate
- saltinekracka20, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1He was simply stating what he believes. No need for you to crap on that.
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4The only "evidence" that supports the "Big Bang" is background cosmic radiation and an expanding universe. That has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Big Bang itself, how it actually happened, or where the initial singularity came from to begin with.
- specs10, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9God is defined in such a way as to make him impossible to prove or disprove. There is no point in trying to attack the idea of a god through science--especially not a Judeo-Christian god. In my opinion, though, when someone accepts that science can attempt to explain everything in the universe using verifiable, observable evidence, it seems completely absurd that at the same time, it's necessary to believe that an invisible man in the sky that you can't see, hear, or perceive in any way had to get the whole thing going. It's a complete contradiction.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1If everyone didnt know about god/religion would it still exist?? NO! But i can say that about life the universe and Everything (42).
- mickcn, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Do you see specs? This guy, who doesn't know he is jesus, has just subtly given us the answer to everything.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1If everyone didnt know about god/religion would it still exist?? NO! But i can say that about life the universe and Everything (42).
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -4/+9I don't understand why more people can't be like you. Being religious does not imply a hatred of science. I go to a Tech School and love the natural sciences. I also love art, literature, music, loving others and generally life is a blessing for me. But just because I believe in God or have a reverance for the Bible doesn't mean I don't embrace science. I mean heck, if you read the Koran it says specifically that God created man through a drop of ejaculated semen and guided him along the evolutionary course. But I don't think it matters.
I embrace the expanding universe theory, I embrace natural selection and some aspects of evolution. I personally find it hard to believe in the Big Bang because in my finite comprehension I can't envision the entirety of the universe into an infinitely small point (then again I don't think many people can, hence the contempt for it).
I wish that Scientists and Theologists could come to a middle ground and understand that Science has provided some answers, but it cannot solve everything and will never be able to. Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, for example. And Theologists will admit that their religious texts are sometimes fallible, sometimes not meant to be taken literally, and they should embrace evidence and reason when it is present.
Can't we all just get along?- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1"Theologists will admit that their religious texts are sometimes fallible, sometimes not meant to be taken literally, and they should embrace evidence and reason when it is present."
Where and When??? comeon!!! i am a atheist but i do not bring it up in convosation like religious people do, when i have in the past i have had to listen to crap for hours and if i were to say piss of stop shoving your belifes on me i am anitreligious YES I AM but i dont put in peoples faces i dont Door knock like SOME!!
rant over- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3Neither do I, but I am religious. Thanks for categorizing me, because I'm sure you know all about me.
Not all religious people shove their beliefs in others' faces, and some atheists do. Just look at the Rational Response Squad.- ashmael, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Beliefs can be dangerous. If you don't see how religious beliefs can be dangerous you don't know much about human history. Could you at least agree that it would be beneficial for everyone to rid us of beliefs that lead to violent behavior? Then can you understand where the RRS is coming from?
- Shirt, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3Neither do I, but I am religious. Thanks for categorizing me, because I'm sure you know all about me.
- saltinekracka20, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Christians are called by Jesus to "shove their beliefs in your face." He said "go unto the world and make disciples", not "sit on your ass and let people believe whatever they want to believe."
- chewbacca77, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1But Jesus didn't specify how people should do that. A lot of Christians influence people simply by being nice when they're not expected to.
- saltinekracka20, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1That's good and all, but I wouldn't really consider that spreading the gospel.
- chewbacca77, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1But Jesus didn't specify how people should do that. A lot of Christians influence people simply by being nice when they're not expected to.
- LowItalian, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0You actually believe that at one point a few thousand years ago this "creator of everything" just decided to stop talking to his creations that have been around for billions of years, when he used to talk to them quite often. Conveniently long enough, so that they could write a book of his "word" to pass on for future generations, and so that he would never have to come around again?
And another glaring point: Prior to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) the entire world was convinced of several other "gods". None of them the god people speak of today. Did "God" shun all of the people before? Or what about innocent children born in non Christian Asia, are they damned to burn in Christian hell because they were born on the wrong continent? - Kythas, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1The Catholic Church in the '80s (I think) has stated that the Big Bang Theory is not inconsistent with Genesis. All the Bible says is God created the universe. It never states how this was accomplished. I'd say the Big Bang Theory is as good an answer to that as any other.
- kirbykia, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1"Theologists will admit that their religious texts are sometimes fallible, sometimes not meant to be taken literally, and they should embrace evidence and reason when it is present."
- JackHarkness, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1so if there is perfectly natural explanation for how the universe started, how life started, how anything else that is attributed to god(s) happens (remember thunder used to be an angry god), what does your Higher Power do?
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -4/+4i wasn't aware that the universe was fully explained yet
and even if it was, people would still most likely have faith. To deny faith would be to deny exactly what it is that makes us human- booshack, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2That is a deeply offensive statement, just so you know.
- ChoiceMad, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Consider--all assumptions are based on faith of said assumptions. Faith is undeniable in all conscious choices. We make a choice and have faith that it will end with our intended wants/desires. I have faith that this comment will post without error. BTW, is safari still giving problems?
- booshack, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2That is a deeply offensive statement, just so you know.
- silverlinkx2, on 12/06/2007, -4/+4i wasn't aware that the universe was fully explained yet
- renoitibma, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4You know, I do believe in some form of higher power, not really a Flying Spaghetti Monster - but something. However, I also have a strong belief that science at some point - will be able to explain almost everything. Even when we get to the point where our laws can explain just about everything - from the creation of the universe, to the evolution of life and everything in between, I don't think it disproves the existence of some form of higher "something".
Our reality is an amazing and beautiful place, and I do think that there will eventually be a "theory of everything" that can explain it all - but I dont think it disproves there being a Flying Spaghetti Monster, just a damn brilliant higher-power Flying Spaghetti Monster that knew how to create one hell of a unique and beautiful reality. Now, when it comes to who created that / where did it come from? thats a bit of a stumper.
I just find that its a shame that so many people seem to jump to the conclusion that Science is simply trying to disprove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hell, Newton wrote more on the Bible than he did on physics - many early scientists were very religious people and viewed their work as gaining a better understanding of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation - not trying to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. - Locke2053, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3If you were thinking scientifically, you would not say "I believe in" something unless you have evidence to support that claim. You could say "I suspect a higher power exists" but that's it. When you cheapen the word "believe" like that, you are only helping the superstitions of the world seem less illegitimate.
- graeh, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Newton - for all his brilliance - also wrote a hell of a lot on Alchemy. He was a bit of a nutter with his religious fundamentalism too. So he's probably not the best person to have championing your view of respectable scientists practising their science with a sensible religious view.
For someone championing science - he's an incredible example - before him we didn't have gravity. Things just floated around. Well, maybe not. But he did teach himself math, invent calculus, make massive improvements to telescopes, did crazy cosmology stuff, did the laws of thermodynamics and all. He was so prolific and important in so many fields of science that he sort of puts anyone else in history to shame. Even though he was a nutter.- ashmael, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Leibniz came out with calculus at the same time but no one ever brings him up in religious arguments.
- earthceltic, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3A lot of those old scientists wrote on the bible because if they hadn't they would have been stoned to death for their blasphemous studies. Many were atheist but couldn't "come out" due to heavy social pressure. Galileo was just like this, hence why the church basically ruined his life.
- overkilpro, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0but we already found the answer to everything 42
- JamesTorrence, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Just put the universe down and walk away.
- almansor, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0OK, you believe in a "higher power". That is OK. And since there is no EVIDENCE, it means you have FAITH.
But that higher power... do you think it is as described in bible, with a personality, a human jelousy, communicates with certain people, demands worship, makes laws, orders us into genocidal wars, sanctions slavery, treats women as chattle, impregnates virgins, hands down laws, etc. Do you think that it must create angels to reach us? And devils and demons and requires baptism in holy water by total immersion, or you go to hell? The more detail you pile on, the less believable it all is. I'm in no hurry to take a space ride to planet Kolob (google that one).
- LowItalian, on 12/06/2007, -3/+12I respect your stance. However with that said, I have to disagree with you on one central point: The notion that there are sentient entities that "crafted" our Universe.
- theatheist, on 12/06/2007, -8/+14"Astronomy is neither atheist nor theist."
Last time i checked astronomy was objectively scientific and ASTROLOGY subjectively *****.
i do not need to argue for Science's Behalf, Science is immortal and pesky theologians are merely wasting their oxygen to prove otherwise.- pattink, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7<
