What is Digg?351 Comments
- Skishy101, on 09/03/2008, -6/+346You know, if this wasn't an onion article, I would have actually believed some crazed evangelical scientists were serious.
- brstilson, on 09/04/2008, -2/+98Poe's Law. Fundamentalist Christianity is impossible to distinguish from parodies of it.
- vankho, on 09/04/2008, -2/+76Oh It's just The Onion. I was really genuinely scared for a second...
// NOT SARCASM - GregFD3S, on 09/04/2008, -2/+54I know it's satire, but sadly, people are really this ***** stupid.
- Shaggy3, on 09/04/2008, -4/+52Evangelical Scientists = Onion story
- s0l0s0ul, on 09/03/2008, -17/+60"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down"
Here is the fundamental problem with a statement like this: God, is NOT science. God can not be proven or disproven. The "hypothesis" of God is not one that can be scientifically tested, thus a "higher intelligence" pushing us down, is not something that can be scientifically tested. It is something that would have to be "believed" in and would require "faith"; 2 elements that are in no way a part of science. Thus this hypothesis is a scientific failure without even being tested, because there are no means by which to test it.
Why does religion feel that advancements in science, or that even science in general is "anti-religion" and is something that must be fought? Religion needs to realize that both science, and religion can exist in harmony, because they are completely unrelated, religion has no business in science, just as science has no place in religion. Only when religion realizes that it has no place in science, and that science can, in a way, serve to describe the beauty and intricacy of the world we live in (the world that some would believe God created), only then will religion begin to show some shred of intelligence. - D3koy, on 09/04/2008, -2/+43New Rule, any Onion article must have [Onion] in it's title, I about had a heart attack
- c0mputar, on 09/04/2008, -3/+43Fortunately, evangelical scientists are about as common as secular fundamentalists.
- s0l0s0ul, on 09/03/2008, -5/+43addendum:
I know that this is the onion, and this article is a joke, but its really a sad situation when the story doesnt seem too far fetched, considering that while Evolution has just as much credibility as gravity, fundamentalists still see the need to argue it away, because it contradicts their religious world view.
It is the broader issue, that I was attempting to comment on, not so much the satirical issue that the article has addressed. - Shanks08, on 09/03/2008, -5/+40Oh dear :/
- zephyear, on 09/04/2008, -9/+42this is what creationists actually believe
- RoroCo, on 09/04/2008, -3/+36The Onion does a good job at spoofing reality, but what is sad is that - without the Onion banner - this is actually believable.
- inactive, on 09/04/2008, -2/+35O thank God its only an Onion story....
- kerosion, on 09/03/2008, -1/+33It's all so clear!
- s0l0s0ul, on 09/03/2008, -3/+34"Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars, and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian…talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
-Augustine - AetherWind, on 09/04/2008, -0/+23This article is as old as it is relevant and funny.
Dugg. - inactive, on 09/03/2008, -0/+21The reasoning behind the so called intelligent physics, reminds me of an article I once read about the tragic fate of Islamic science, which was flourishing until a certain scholar named Abu Hamid al-Ghazali came along in around the 10th century. From then after, the physical laws of nature themselves, which are descriptive laws of course, became in insult to Allah. The new philosophy was that everything happens only by the grace and will of God and the angels, and only to these supreme beings goes our gratitude. Islamic science suffered a deadly blow and haven't recovered since.
- sockpuppets, on 09/04/2008, -2/+22Scientifically speaking it is a real article.
- sk11, on 09/04/2008, -1/+21It's sad when you realise that evangelicals aren't really that far off from being this insane. Even more so when you realise that they have a strong influence on who gets elected in the US.
- palehorse864, on 09/04/2008, -3/+24Or you wrote a debate without reading the headline and then got embarassed when you realized you were debating a fictional evangelist and came back to make a broad generalization to look like you were actually debating an idea and cover the flub. :) Considering how close you got to the top of the page within a short length of the first posters time wise, that seems likely.
If you knew when you were debating, it would have been best to put the addendum at the bottom of your first post, and not come back 28 minutes later to add it. heh. - duggdowncatisad, on 09/04/2008, -2/+19Not a foot, a noodly appendage.
- Durtyorange, on 09/03/2008, -3/+20I love the Onion. They're hilarious.
- Lionhart, on 09/04/2008, -3/+18isn't that kind of like jumbo shrimp?
- zerries, on 09/04/2008, -1/+17I think you've missed the point of the Onion.
- Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -2/+17Science and Religion exist in harmony? Apparently you failed history. Every time there is a major scientific advancement religion follows a pattern, first is to try to discredit the finding using whatever means necessary, when that fails throw a tantrum and resort to violence if necessary, when that fails find a way to rationalize the church's position so that the new facts fit the old conclusion. After a while you just have to stop and use a little common sense. All the evidence you need to disprove religion is right there. All it takes is a little common sense and basic logic.
- MrWally, on 09/04/2008, -3/+16They give the rest of us Christians a bad name.
As if it wasn't already bad enough :/ - inactive, on 09/04/2008, -2/+15I did when I clicked over, before seeing that it's an onion article. The sad thing is, I really would not have been surprised if it was a "real" article, mankind's stupidity knows no bounds.
There is NOTHING "intelligent" about id. Keep fairy tales away from science. - inactive, on 09/04/2008, -6/+18I think gravity is just god foot holding us all down...
- NSoklofske, on 09/04/2008, -1/+14Wow, the headline got me. Nothing would surprise me coming from 'religious scientists' anymore.
- TheMoniker, on 09/04/2008, -0/+12It's an old one, but a good one.
After someone broaches the topic of evolution with me by explaining that "it's just a theory" I always respond that gravity is as well--so they should keep an open mind before jumping off of a cliff. - pintomp3, on 09/04/2008, -8/+19"gravitation is a theory and i don't accept it" ron paul.
- JaseFace, on 09/04/2008, -1/+12Not true. Over the last 50 years, scientists have watched as one species of Dung Beetle has diverged into four distinct, separate species.
- chaoswings, on 09/04/2008, -2/+13To be fair to both sides, religion is becoming more accepting of science as time goes on. There are less and less knee jerk reactions. You may see protests but you don't see people burning at the stake.
P.S. I made this comment knowing full well people are going to twist my words around. Diggers are like compilers if the comment is not perfect they completely lose all capacity to understand the language. - inactive, on 09/04/2008, -0/+10Thank Joe Pesci.
- inactive, on 09/04/2008, -0/+10I'm totally showing this to my physics professor tomorrow :)
- izackcarson, on 09/05/2008, -0/+9@ CrunchyDeluxe
You're right I didn't phrase that very well. Let me try to clarify the thought.
When someone asks that god be disproven they are asking for absolutely 100% proof that god does not exist. There is no way to do this.
I've been watching MonsterQuest lately. They obviously haven't been proving the existence of mythological beasts. However, can you think of any way to prove that bigfoot, nessie, or any of these types of creatures don't exist? We can say that the absence of x, y, and z make it highly unlikely that such creatures exist, but we can't say with 100% certainty they are myth. I would imaging that you would agree that for all practical intents and purposes bigfoot, nessie, etc. do not exist. We approach 100% certainty of their non-existence with such closeness that we say they do not exist even though we have not 100% proven this. So, while I cannot disprove the existence of bigfoot, I am rather confident in saying that bigfoot doesn't exist.
The evidence I have seen against the existence of the christian god is stronger than the evidence we have for saying bigfoot isn't real. Therefore, although I cannot disprove the existence of god with 100% certainty, for all practical intents and purposes I can confidently say god does not exist.
If a theist wants me to believe in a deity they better be able to show me why it is reasonable to conclude that a supernatural being exists. Outrageous claims require proof for acceptance as fact. - StaticThunder, on 09/05/2008, -0/+9When did I say you couldn't have an opinion?
I said you were wrong. There is a difference.
This isn't about respect. Ideas don't get respect. They are either supportable or unsupportable.
Furthermore, I'm not looking to be respected as an atheist because clearly I never am. I'm looking to convince people to use reason because it works better. "The end result is just being able to say, "I was right, and you were wrong"
You accuse me of egoism, but then demand respect. Hah. - Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -0/+9@s0l0s0ul: I'd be happy to. First off you need to start with a definition of God. God is perfect and he cannot lie (Prov 30:5; Mal 3:6; Heb 6:18... I could go on, yes as a former Christian zealot myself I've read the bible extensively.) It is well established throughout the bible that the inability to lie is one of God's key attributes. Thus if we catch God in a lie then either he is a liar or he is a fictional character in a book.
I don't feel like listing the multitude of instances where the bible and subsequent christian revelation/teachings has been refuted by science. Here's a few though
- Heliocentrism
- Flat earth
- Age of the universe
- Evolution
- ...and so on.
So let's take evolution as an example. The bible explicitly states, and the interpretation of the bible going back to the day it was written has been, that God created the earth and everything on it including man. AFTER science learned that this was not the case, religion followed it's usual pattern. They protested, they fought violently over it and eventually rationalized a way for the evidence to fit preconceived beliefs (that's what you're about to give me when you present a counter argument). The fact is that God lied when he told his prophets to write about the creation, not just in Genesis but in Isaiah and other portions of the Bible that were written to solidify that without question GOD was the creator. We've learned conclusively that God didn't create life on this planet at all (going by the pre-rationalized biblical account) and we have mountains (literally) of factual proof to support the fact of evolution.
So going back to the logic, is it more logical to assume that God, a perfect deity who stated himself repeatedly in his book that he is perfect and cannot lie, lied to us about the creation and intentionally misled millions of people or that the story of the creation was made up in order to give people a sense of worth in a world of uncertainty?
Religion is an adaptive behavior by early man that was needed to cope with the stress of the uncertainty of life that came with our increased intelligence. Modern Christianity is simply a product of the evolution of various beliefs over a long period of time.
If I was a person completely unfamiliar with both sides of the argument, which would make more sense to me? You'll need to approach this as though you don't believe anything, completely unbiased if you can. The answer is very clear, so much so that I feel that I know God is a myth just as firmly as I know that Santa Clause is or Harry Potter. People say God can't be disproven, well neither can the easter bunny... - ApokalypseNow, on 09/05/2008, -1/+10"But consider that some strictly 'scientific' ideas don't sound any more plausible."
That is just an argument from incredulity, or an argument from ignorance, depending on how much or little the person in question knows about it.
The one thing to remember is that religion is inherently faith-based (faith being defined as belief without evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary), while science is evidence-based. In a scientific discussion, you can always say "where's your evidence?" and reasonably expect an answer that could be explained to you, demonstrated in some manner, etc. With religion, you can't really ask, "where's your god?" and get something useful, something demonstrable, back. - s0l0s0ul, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9lol agreed, but it is just a really horrible state of affairs, when it doesnt seem so far fetched that some fundamentalist might actually try to use an argument such as this.
- izackcarson, on 09/05/2008, -1/+10s0I0s0ul, I imagine I am one of those "fundamental atheists" you are referring to. I don't believe it is possible to disprove something that doesn't exist. Therefore, it is impossible to disprove the idea of god. That does not make me agnostic, maybe agnostic atheist, but certainly not agnostic. (For further explanation of this topic I would recommend reading http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or ... )
As long as fundamentalist christians try to legislate how I live my life and more secular theists give them a pass to do so, I will fervently speak out against theism. Now, if we get to a point where the theists no longer behave in this manner then I promise I will take a more live and let live attitude.
CrunchyDeluxe, I'm not sure if you've studied calculus but in math if you have a line that is approaching 100 but can never actually touch 100 you can still use the concept of it ending at 100 for practical purposes. The idea of god can never be fully disproven with 100% accuracy. However, we can say that for all practical purposes the proof does steadily approach 100. Now, if you can give me some more variables that change the trajectory of my line, I will revise my point of view. Until then, it is reasonable to say that god does not exist in any form. - eir574, on 09/14/2008, -0/+9"It has been you and Static implying that you had the answers."
No, we've been questioning how you evaluate evidence when determining whether something is true or not, or whether it's likely enough that it's worth considering.
"I dismiss your stories because we already know there's nothing to them. "
Right. Which is why I dismiss religious beliefs. There's nothing to them but faith. Maybe you do get the analogy, but you don't like what it suggests.
"I'm trying NOT to allow you to state that said beliefs are rubbish, simply because they sound silly to you."
But if something sounds silly to you, like the teacup or elephant, you dismiss it. I've asked you to imagine how you'd approach those ideas if someone truly believed them, but you won't answer that question. Does truth really depend on whether anyone recognizes it as truth? That seems to be what you're saying. - Croaton, on 09/04/2008, -1/+9@Professr
The funny thing about gravity is that we don't know what causes mass to be affected by it. We have a quite strong and well put together hypothesis about the graviton but that has yet to be observed. We have a great understanding of gravity on the macro scale of thing via the theory of relativity but that same theory fails when going down to micro scale of things in particle physics.
We do, on the other hand, have a great understanding of how evolution works. Both on the macro scale of thing via population genetics etc. and on the micro scale of thing via genetic drift, natural selection and adaptation.
Both evolution and gravity happens and there is not arguing about it. But there is a quite strong argument that we really do understand how evolution happens better then we understand how gravity happens.
So gravity is no more (or less) a "scientific fact" then evolution is and saying that "[evolution] is still relatively low on proof" is false.
And on a side note: Saying that "everything evolved by chance" via evolution is misrepresenting the whole process. - s0l0s0ul, on 09/10/2008, -0/+8Hi Static,
You are correct, we could argue about how much evidence there is for Yahweh being real, except that, there isnt any solid evidence. There most definitely is not ANY scientific evidence. There is only personal belief, requiring faith.
So since we agree, i guess we dont have to argue anymore! (ha ha....) - Phyraxus, on 09/06/2008, -0/+8After a while, it really is hard to say which people deserve to be listened to and be given constructive criticism. The reason being is that it is FUNDAMENTALLY cognitive dissonance, no matter how sane a person may be, the lunatics and the moderates hold the same preconception.
The only difference between one persons own delusions and religion is that one is shared with the majority of the population. There is a self reinforcement and strength in these numbers. This is a problem because these people tend to believe that faith is a virtue; to believe things that are not based on evidence or even on the contrary, is a virtue. THAT is what we challenge; that faith is inherently wicked, but to even to suggest such a thing to a person, who bases their whole philosophical world view on, is considered rude or mean. The problem isn't necessarily what you believe, but why (on what evidence) you choose to believe it.
The reason we choose to pursue such an undertaking is because their beliefs have a very REAL affect on he world.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
I do not believe in god because there is no compelling evidence to believe otherwise. For me, my atheism is not a choice. Is it a choice to believe that 2+2=5? For me, it is not. However, I am always open to the possibility that 2+2=5, but I know that the odds are slim to none. - StaticThunder, on 09/10/2008, -0/+8I think the issue relates to whether it is acceptable to reject ideas without evidence and precisely what idea is being rejected and why. I don't think its close minded to reject hypotheses that have terrible prior probabilities and zero evidence. QD apparently thinks otherwise and that it is horribly insulting to even say that they have terrible priors.
I'm a weak atheist. I still can have my mind changed, but noone has offered a sufficient reason to do so, and the claim is that I shouldn't reject ANY belief out of hand regardless of how unlikely it is.
And again, its all fine to hold these "personal" beliefs no matter their weakness. Its when they don't remain personal and are suddenly public. I think people should be informed of the way knowledge works, and knowledge works by ranking beliefs by how consistent they are with the rest of the knowledge base.
There's a very large amount of philosophy related to whether some things must be taken as given (foundationalism) or whether cyclic beliefs that reinforce each other are reasonable (coherency). I suppose that eventually gets to the role of science. Do I believe in your God, the spaghetti monster, or my lying eyes?
My contention is that personal experiences aren't sufficiently powerful that they should go unchallenged when they claim to address our shared reality. God is not real to me, no matter how much you or others wish it. I have no desire to live eternally. To me, even if it was possible, it seems a silly reward given for undeserved loyalty to a unremarkable deity. And the concept of a reward, or a punishment, for belief is merely coercive and doesn't merit serious consideration. No just God would want belief based on fear or selfishness or despite reason. - Murdats, on 09/04/2008, -0/+8it's both, there is the law of gravity and the theory of gravity.
the law is that bodies of mass will attract other bodies of mass.
the theory is how and why they do that. - StaticThunder, on 09/10/2008, -0/+8"this definition would be lacking and would not fully encompass how love is defined by an individual"
"The issue arises when people want science to be able to define something, whose only evidence is personal experience."
I'm afraid that looking at this from a dualistic perspective (that there are two correct definitions for love, one extrinsic and one intrinsic) does not work. Love is defined by what it is in the mind - firing of synapses and chemicals do not make the experience of love less real for the observer, and neither does the fact that God does not manifest extrinsically make the experience any less real for the religious. God however is supposedly extrinsic to the observer, according to you and others, while love certainly does not exist outside of minds to experience it, but you would claim that God does. *THIS* is problematic. If no believers were here to experience God, would God still exist for everyone else? I would argue we have no reason to think so.
I can certainly accept that religious experience is real, and if you wish to redefine God as an emotion that you personally experience that lacks any external influence, that's fine with me. Its accurate. Just don't expect me to believe that he's the creator of all things that will judge me after I die if I'm pro-choice. That can be perfectly understood as your emotional response and nothing more without something to give it extrinsic reality.
Ideas without evidence to support them are all equally unlikely. Singling out one of them for special merit is bad epistemology.
We could argue about how much evidence there is for Yahweh being real, but then we need to also talk about Buddha and Krishna and Zoroaster and what "historical" evidence exists for them as well.
- StaticThunder, on 09/06/2008, -0/+8Bologna. I have never criticized you personally. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I've seen great examples of cognitive dissonance, where people only hold certain beliefs without question and are perfectly rational the rest of the time. I'm more curious about WHY you hold those beliefs without question. And what beliefs you have in your head are no business of mine so long as they stay there. As soon as you start publishing them, well, thats another story. For all I know, if not for us strident atheists, s0l0s0ul's ideas might lay the groundwork for another religion that makes radical Islam look like a children's tea party. I mean, God is real right? Maybe thats what he wants. How could you tell otherwise?
How can I tell good beliefs from bad beliefs if nothing ever needs to be justified with reason? Even the most wacked out philosopher would still say that beliefs need to be critically evaluated for consistency and logic (which, by the way, is not science per se, as science is natural philosophy). I don't know why you keep creating this division between science and religion. Science isn't part of this fight. Nobody is doing experiments on God. Your problem is with epistemology and the way ideas are evaluated for veracity.
Its really up to you whether its pointless or not. You are the one who is being unreasonable, by definition. As long as we can't study and evaluate your ideas with reason, can't criticize them on their merits, well, there is no point. I'm not about to accept them, and I'm going to continue to try to steer other people away from them until such time as you can give a good reason for clinging to them and not some other set of equally irrational claims. - NJHiker, on 09/04/2008, -0/+8Did you notice the source, or read any of the comments above yours? Or are you arguing with the article just because it's fun?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 358 discussions
No big deal, vassever. Bruno is our latest guest for Digg Dialogg. 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is