What is Digg?614 Comments
- YME1280, on 12/19/2008, -21/+254Easy. Science!
- insllvn, on 12/19/2008, -21/+205Superstition or Observation?
- noPCtoday, on 12/20/2008, -5/+123i just want the world to know that I am eating bacon right now.
- Zervaman, on 12/20/2008, -5/+112Science. It works, bitches.
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -22/+127I'll take evidence over superstitious whims any day, but that's just me.
I also don't care about being buried, as it's fairly obvious digg has plenty of 14-year-olds. Eat it, bury brigade. - jscnet, on 12/20/2008, -6/+88If there is a God, Science will find it.
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -21/+100Imaginary beings are imaginary.
- crazyhorse13, on 12/20/2008, -4/+66You think a science-over-God comment will get you buried?
- Tyrghast, on 12/20/2008, -7/+63The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god and that he wishes to rob us of our free will by putting ridiculous moral impositions on us. Until there is irrefutable evidence of a god figure, I'm gonna stick with fact over fiction.
- Tyrghast, on 12/20/2008, -5/+60Dugg for bacon.
- WhoaABlueCar, on 12/20/2008, -11/+65youre raised to believe in a book and god from the day youre born, and thats why we have these crazyass suicide bombers and children believing in santa claus, although eventually for some reason its okay to lose faith in santa even though both santa and the bible are based on word of mouth
- infernal6, on 12/20/2008, -2/+50I disagree. I am certain that Odin created science; it was revealed to me.
- Vektuz, on 12/20/2008, -3/+42and will mass produce it to power our machines
- Renton, on 12/20/2008, -4/+40Protip: Read the article before you comment.
- Batfishy, on 12/20/2008, -3/+33That's the key right there "raised" Because we're born without any god belief.
- Garofoli, on 12/20/2008, -2/+32Captain Obvious is obvious.
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -13/+42Reason and ignorance are mutually exclusive concepts.
- infernal6, on 12/20/2008, -6/+35Naturalism FTW!
- crazyechidna83, on 12/20/2008, -4/+29hate to be a nazi but its their and asses
- norman619, on 12/20/2008, -3/+28Blind Faith or Empirical Reason?
- LoneWolf01, on 12/20/2008, -3/+26The 'enlightened' atheist assumes nothing and believes only what he sees.
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 12/19/2008, -13/+36Pantheism is still theism.. yuck!
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -3/+25Poseidon bitches, Poseidon.
- Batfishy, on 12/20/2008, -4/+26Belief is not the same argument, as I stated. We are born as utter and complete atheists. It takes indoctrination to make us believers in a God.
Are you kidding me? Born without "disbelief" - you're grasping at straws. We're also born without the ability to walk. Not the same, pal, at all. - inactive, on 12/20/2008, -1/+22For the millionth time, atheism means "without theism." It is not a positive assertion. It is the lack of a belief due to lack of evidence. You are atheist towards Xenu, aren't you? You believe in just one more god than atheists do and there are thousands to chose from.
- Aupajo, on 12/20/2008, -0/+20@Cagnazzo
Logical fallacy day! I'd like to clear out your points. You're asserting that:
1) Kronix is an atheist
2) Kronix is '100% sure of his beliefs'
3) Kronix is claiming that God is a 'worthless concept'
4) This claim shows that he is 'proving blind faith in Science'
5) Kronix's actions are determined by a belief in an afterlife - 'as though you'll live forever'
6) You're treating atheism in the fundamental sense, as opposed to Kronix's sense (defined in his last paragraph)
Points 1 and 2 are not proven, Kronix never says one way or the other what he believes. Point 3 is not only wrong, it's spiteful. Point 4 says that by "claiming that God is a 'worthless concept' you are in fact proving your blind faith in Science". How? You don't give any reasoning, you're just making a claim. Point 5 doesn't seem to tie in anywhere. Point 6 just seems plain flame-worthy.
Stop putting words into his mouth, define your ideas clearly so we can at least debate them.
I'd also like to bring up a point with your use of "limited rationale". Science is based on observable, empirical evidence that gives you the tools to *find out for yourself*. Science always shows it's working. If you deviate from proof, rationale ceases being reationale. - SisyphusFragmnt, on 12/20/2008, -3/+23That's nonsense! Everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster created science with a wobble of his noodly appendages!
- betocool, on 12/19/2008, -7/+26but an ***** and a moron
good thing he's not here? - nick111, on 12/20/2008, -0/+19*****.
Fundamentalist Atheist? That's just something that you made up to make it look as though there's some sort of balance.
There isn't. - Aupajo, on 12/20/2008, -0/+19@Cagnazzo (cont. from above)
Finally, I'd like to address the one good point you made:
"Why not simply allow 'believers' to chase after the proverbial wind?"
For me, it comes down to the way it affects peoples lives. It's deeply saddening when religion impedes someone else's life. Look at how gay marriage is being taken, right now in America. Are their marriages affecting anyone else? No. They just want to be happy. Instead, many people deem it "inappropriate" because of their religious beliefs. What right to they have to decide what right their religious beliefs hold sway over other people's lives?
But worse than any issue over rights or prejudice is the power it holds over our ability to question. To cast any doubt in the face of faith is wrong, blasphemous even. If you can't ask "why?" you never learn anything. If we all adopted a fundamental view of Christianity, for instance, we wouldn't be allowed to study evolution, simply because evolution is *incompatible*. Imagine how much about the world we wouldn't learn, simply because it's not "correct" to investigate it. Medical advances? A cure for cancer, even? The idea that a person's *sensibilites* come into play when we're talking about facts is ludicrous, and insulting to the people who devote their lives to learning about the world to make it a better place for you.
"Isn't it enough that the garden is beautiful, without having to believe there's fairies at the bottom of it?" - Fabbyfubz, on 12/20/2008, -1/+19In other words, religion is a lie created just to make us feel better.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." - George Bernard Shaw - inactive, on 12/20/2008, -1/+19Traitor.
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -0/+17Evidence for god? Please elaborate.
- infernal6, on 12/20/2008, -2/+19I think you are missing the point. If it doesn't have the classical qualities of God, then it isn't, by definition, God. It is just a creative force which you want to call God. Whatever this creative force was (and I don't necessarily use the term creative in a sentient manner) it was likely a completely natural occurrence.
Why is it you feel the need to call this force God? - Zarokima, on 12/20/2008, -2/+19Atheism is the default position -- a lack of any belief in a god. And belief in some god doesn't necessitate there being one: the concept of god got started when man came across then-unanswered (and likely then-unanswerable as well) and instead of searching for an answer just said "God/Zeus/Mercury/Thor/Shiva/other did it."
@archer104: that's retarded. Disbelief is a lack of belief, i.e. atheism -- literally "no god." - kronix2, on 12/20/2008, -5/+22Religion and science are mutually exclusive. A creator as defined by the major world religions exists outside the confines of the physical dimensions and natural laws, and is thus unfalsifiable, making it useless to science.
Religion and rational thought are mutually exclusive. Arbitrary belief in an unfalsifiable entity - one out of an infinite number of such entities - is irrational and downright stupid.
By the way, stating that God doesn't exist is as fundamentalist as saying dragons don't exist; both entities are unfalsifiable and have an equal, implausible - but not impossible - chance of existence. - inactive, on 12/20/2008, -2/+19There is not blind faith in science. Science is based on observable facts.
- Disgod, on 12/20/2008, -7/+23FTA:
"It seemed to me that both science and religion as systems were very good at explaining a lot, accounting for a lot of the information that we have in our environment,"
Really? religion can explain a lot about what we see in our environment? I'm pretty sure most religions do a terrible job accounting for what we have in our environments. I hope she was just being nice to religion. - Vektuz, on 12/20/2008, -4/+20Why is the sky blue?
Science: (presents evidence for how light scattering and reflecting causes it, including repeatable experiements)
Religion: GOD DID IT
how did we come about?
Science: Presents a clear fossil record, genetic history, and repeatable experiments to show most likely linkage
Religion: GOD DID IT
Why is there night and day?
Science: Explains the formation of stars, the atomic reactions therein, predicts the energy and temperature, can be observed and experiemented with repeatably.
Religion: GOD DID IT SHUT UP ALREADY - anthropodeus, on 12/20/2008, -1/+16"All men are born with a nose and ten fingers, but no one was born with a knowledge of God." -Voltaire
- Rikkochet, on 12/20/2008, -1/+16There's no such thing as "belief in science" - that's just belief on its own and philosophically no different from believing in a religious entity that made everything and watches you masturbate.
Science is a collective of knowledge built from determining patterns of observable events. Period. You don't "believe" in gravity or air pressure - you perceive interactions in nature and a pattern forms. We call these theories and we retain them and build new theories on top of them as long as the theories all hold up.
The average person can't confirm nuclear fission is possible on their own - there isn't the means. But they can research all of the theories that allow for nuclear fission and understand the processes. That's where it is distinguished from religion.
In religion, if you want to know something, you ask someone who makes up a profound answer on the spot and you're expected to accept it without question.
Trusting in science and trusting in religion are very, very similar things for the majority of people. That's why there is animosity the devout and the scientific community. - Fabbyfubz, on 12/20/2008, -3/+18"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." - Frank Lloyd Wright
- kenhatesemos, on 12/20/2008, -2/+16the nazis were notorious for thier excellent grammar and punctuation.
- CoreyTamas, on 12/20/2008, -1/+14It's important to note that not all systems of belief teach that science and faith are at odds with each other.
Here's an example from the Baha'i teachings: "If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation." - mediaphile, on 12/20/2008, -0/+13@AVigorVermin: "to believe only what you see is in and of itself an assumption. Nothing can be proven ever 100%. You have just as much faith to believe in science as religions do in their faith. There is no difference."
Uh, yeah. This is a tenant of science. Nothing is proven, only disproved. The viewpoint of an atheist has nothing to do with what they've seen, only to do with questioning and what has been disproved. But to say that being an atheist takes "just as much faith to believe in science as religions do in their faith" is just ridiculous. Believing in science means believing in doubt. Believing in science means looking at the theories that modern minds have deduced, and saying "this is the best we can come up with today. It is better than theories that have come before, but it is likely inferior to theories that will come in the future." To believe that any idea is 100% true for all time is the very definition of ignorance.
In other words, I'm proud to not think anything has been 100% proven. To believe that would be incredibly naive. - crazyhorse13, on 12/20/2008, -1/+14Ah, ok. Well, the second comment may have done it.
- tattertech, on 12/20/2008, -1/+14Dude... what are you talking about?
- kawaiirobo, on 12/20/2008, -0/+12Yea, we also tell children that Santa brings them presents, and the Tooth Fairy gives them money for their lost teeth, that doesn't make either of those entities more real. Love is a human emotion, and is completely autonomous to the existence or lack of existence of God, Gods, or the flying spaghetti monster. I agree that love is a powerful feeling, so you are half right, but to suggest that "love is interwoven with a belief in an afterlife" is honestly a short sighted statement. If the belief in God is what makes you feel love then that's great, but I truly feel love from my friends and family, and I gave up on religion years ago.
- Zarokima, on 12/20/2008, -3/+15The Santa-Jesus comparison is actually a pretty good one. There's a general agreement that there was some Jesus dude, just like there was a Saint Nicholas who gave gifts in secret, and their stories just got greatly embellished.
- dasamps, on 12/20/2008, -1/+13I could use some bacon.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 621 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is