digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at wired.com

Sad Explanations for Supernatural Phenomena

wired.com — People keep devising theories. Some, not content to come up with explanations for unexplained phenomena, instead go to great lengths to come up with bizarre takes on explained phenomena.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JimmySpaza, on 05/09/2008, -82/+9Case in point...the existence of life on this planet.

    Most people correctly view life as statistically impossible without some intelligent being interceding into the affairs of this planet. The accurately believe so after analyzing the science which reveals that there is no way that natural processes could have caused life (abiogenesis).

    Yet, there are some, particularly atheists, who will not accept anything other than a natural cause for our existence regardless of what science has revealed.

    Is life a supernatural phenomena? In its origin, yes. Does it use natural processes to propagate? Sure...but natural processes governing reproduction is a completely different system than life's creation from non-life.
    • Ramble, on 05/09/2008, -7/+64Bravo sir, what an amazing misunderstanding of statistics.
    • TheCatsPants, on 05/09/2008, -8/+45I see that you still find God in the gaps. The gaps will continue to get smaller and fewer. You seem to be claiming that science has revealed evidence of a supernatural genesis. Let's hear it then.
      • rauz, on 05/09/2008, -4/+15"I see that you still find God in the gaps."

        So, basically, God is a Crowd Demon?
        • MoofTheStoof, on 05/09/2008, -2/+16Actually, in a way, yes. Gods are what we see when our mind can't quite conceptualize the whys and wherefores reality. A bit like your visual cortex compensating for the blind spot of your eye. You can't actually see what's in that spot, but our brains fill in the gaps with what we think could be there. The human brain is an amazing pattern recognition engine - so much so that we see patterns even in random noise. We can't help it. That's how we see "crowd demons" and head-eating dinosaurs in JPEG compression artifacts and the blurriness of low-resolution imagery. It's easy to see how gods are born from perceived patterns when we don't quite yet grasp the data. Like the crowd demons, though, just because we perceive it doesn't make it real.
      • Nougat, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10Actually, when a solid piece of science drops right into the middle of a gap, there are now two gaps.
        • beckerist, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4HAHA, dropping solid pieces of science. Almost sounds like a South Park reference.
    • halobender, on 05/09/2008, -10/+38Let me ask you this why do you feel that your religion is right? There have been dozens or hundreds of religions and they can't all be right. Indians worshiped nature, Hindus have many gods (there are maybe a billion Hindus). What gives you any reason to think you are even close to right? Some books you read? A feeling you get.
      • jp12380, on 05/09/2008, -28/+8Jesus performed miracles in front of lots of other people and healed many people and the fact is there are other historical documents not created by the disciples that confirm this.
        • CA55IDY, on 05/09/2008, -5/+17They'll say the same about David Blane one day.
        • pazimzadeh, on 05/09/2008, -4/+9that's what YOU think
        • macweirdo42, on 05/09/2008, -4/+25*****, David Copperfield made the freakin' Statue of Liberty disappear. I mean, there's videotape evidence of that, and it still doesn't mean that he has magical powers. And yet, we're supposed to accept the claims about Jesus based on third-hand accounts written by people of unknown reliability nearly 2,000 years ago?
          • YoctoYotta, on 05/09/2008, -2/+11. . . written by people of unknown reliability nearly 2,000 years ago . . . a few hundred years after the events in the story. Solid!
        • scoetrain, on 05/09/2008, -4/+15What other historical documents are you referring to?
        • dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8Ironically, there is more evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster than Jesus.

          Actually, one of the main reasons I denounced my Christian faith is because I can't find one single shred of evidence for the Jesus of the Bible. Not one artifact or eyewitness account. Not even in the Bible.

          Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mentions him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

          After confronting a few Church members with this new knowledge for lack of evidence, it became painfully obvious that these people seems to have NO interest whatsoever in scientific debate. It seems all they care about is re-affirming their superstitious beliefs of disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering and ramming them down the throats of unsuspecting children.

          I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this. But so far I haven't been.
        • AniceAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5dildoojelly is right. Without the bible there are absolutely no other accounts for jesus. There is one account of "the Christ" a reference used for prophets (of which there were multitudes) and some dude in the second century who talked about a carpenter in Galilie in passing. other then that there is no reference even in passing in any other text.
      • revjustin2, on 05/09/2008, -9/+10I think the typical response to that line of questioning is that the Bible, having been penned by God himself and never once edited by a human being, says that there is a God and if God says there is a God, then goddammit, there IS a God (and all other gods/goddesses/etc do not exist). Oh yeah, that and a loose understanding of faith.
        • shmatt, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3So, some book you read and a feeling you get.
          • revjustin2, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4I was being sarcastic. Thought that was clear.
      • pazimzadeh, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1as if you knew...

      • Quintios, on 05/09/2008, -5/+1Dude, the OP didn't mention religion, or Indians, or Hindus, or anything like that. Sheesh.
    • Flamancot, on 05/09/2008, -12/+5Fail.
      • Encablossa, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3He may be wrong, but he certainly wasn't lazy when he wrote down those paragraphs.

        FLAIL
    • Lyph5, on 05/09/2008, -6/+7Considering how old the universe is, coupled with how many stars there are in the universe... It's almost like the infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of keyboards thing.
      • AniceAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3and a monkey on earth penned a jesus myth, based on sumerrian myths based on Egyptian myths. That damn monkey had to plagiarize
    • xaeon, on 05/09/2008, -7/+23You're wrong on so many counts.

      1. Can natural processes cause life? Yes. We've near enough proved it in the lab that given the correct conditions, the basic building blocks of life can occur naturally.
      2. "Statistically impossible with some intelligent being interceding"? Wrong, and displaying a complete lack of understanding for statistics.
      3. "there are some, particularly atheists, who will not accept anything other than a natural cause"? Wrong again. I simple accept fact. If I picked up a stone and it had "made by God" written on the bottom, then I'd be perfectly willing to change my mind. But until that day occurs (and, to be honest, I doubt it ever will) than I will only accept the facts, man!

      Life is only supernatural in a way that we don't FULLY understand how the basic building blocks of life turned into the more complex protien strands. But when we do work it out (and trust me on this, we will) it will enter the realm of the natural. The same as the sun moving in the sky, the tides rising and falling, etc, etc.
      • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4"If I picked up a stone and it had "made by God" written on the bottom, then I'd be perfectly willing to change my mind."

        Dude, don't bait him. This is JimmySpaza; he's liable to post a photo of a rock with a printer 'made by God' label stuck to the bottom and claim it as proof.
    • insanebrain, on 05/09/2008, -6/+6Why are you on Digg ?? You seem to have all the answers about the origin of life. You should be the richest man on earth.

      O. . .wait. . .
    • revjustin2, on 05/09/2008, -5/+5Statistics aside, there have been studies done (and NO, I don't know exactly which ones - I am a freaking systems analyst not a research scientist) that have shown that the chemical reactions that are needed to create life are indeed very possible when common materials interact in suspension in small pockets of ice over long periods of time. This has blown the doors off the "primordial soup" theories that we all hear about.
    • vvargoal, on 05/09/2008, -9/+7Every real scientist - "Natural forces made life, quit being a *****"
      you - "God did it because my brain is too tiny to understand otherwise"

      • Encablossa, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Buried for vulgarity that makes us look bad.
      • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Dugg up for needed rudeness.
    • sonoran, on 05/09/2008, -2/+22There's no "statistical analysis" that requires life to be started by an "intelligent being". You're invoking statistics to put a thin veil of credibility on your belief. It's true that abiogenisis is a theory that lacks suffiicient evidence to warrant high confidence. But that doesn't give you a free ride to default back to an intelligent being... no doubt *your* intelligent being, the one you were raised to believe controls the universe. If you want to invoke science and statisitics then give us the evidence, repeatable demonstrable evidence for your "being". Otherwise your just another religious crank trying to hitch your imaginings to science in order to make them sound more plausible.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6lol @ "statistically impossible." That doesn't even make sense! I'd tell you to stop talking out your ass, but I'm not so sure you'd be able to figure out which end that is.
    • Nougat, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Statistically speaking, with the number of worlds there must be in the universe, there's life on a billion of them.
    • nicksauce, on 05/09/2008, -2/+8Le'ts play spot the logical fallacy:

      "Most people correctly view life as statistically impossible without some intelligent being interceding into the affairs of this planet." Ad Populum, saying that it is correct because most people think it is (I'm assuming this is why you think it is true, as you offer no real evidence to support your claim)

      "The accurately believe so after analyzing the science which reveals that there is no way that natural processes could have caused life (abiogenesis)." Science says no such thing. Saying that because science hasn't figured it out, it can't have a natural explanation is employing the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. Furthermore the inconsistency fallacy is applied: An intelligent deity is required to create intelligent life, but said deity does not need a creator itself

      "Yet, there are some, particularly atheists, who will not accept anything other than a natural cause for our existence regardless of what science has revealed."
      Is life a supernatural phenomena? In its origin, yes. Does it use natural processes to propagate? Sure...but natural processes governing reproduction is a completely different system than life's creation from non-life."
      (Same old BS)

      So to summarize, three fallacies are used to establish the truth of an argument, and therefore atheists are stupid.
    • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2"[I] view life as statistically impossible without some intelligent being interceding into the affairs of this planet"

      Then you're an idiot; DNA is not a roll of dice. It's the end result of natural selection on randomly affected replicators. If Michael Behe took a single genetics class or black box engineering class, ID wouldn't have even gotten out of his tiny little mind.

      "[I] accurately believe so after analyzing the science which reveals that there is no way that natural processes could have caused life"

      There is no such science saying that. Unless, of course, you're quoting creation science, which has about as much to do with science as I have to do with pink gorrillas at sunday teatime.

      "Yet, there are some, particularly atheists, who will not accept anything other than a natural cause for our existence regardless of what science has revealed"

      Science, by its very nature, reveals nothing that is not a part of a natural process. In short: You are lying. Stop it, or you're going to 'hell'.

      "Is life a supernatural phenomena? In its origin, yes"

      There is no evidence pointing to such drivel.
  • MacEnvy, on 05/09/2008, -2/+12Lore Sjöberg is the man. I wish Brunching ***** was still around.
    • asskicker32, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Man, I tell your ass what. Brunching ***** and OldManMurray were how I survived hte late nineties.

      I miss all the random thing generators. And the letters... (Its called a plane flying backward against timezones!!!)
  • n8r0n, on 05/09/2008, -1/+19he "pictures" of the crowd demons are hilarious. I guess people will see what they want to see.
    • Borgcube636, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2Explanation for orbs: dust?? Come on guys, thats just ignorant, whoever was arrogant enough to write this article probably never saw REAL pictures of orbs, where dust just doesn't explain it at all.
      • freeth1nker, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Read _The Demon-Haunted World_ by Carl Sagan.
  • republicker, on 05/09/2008, -6/+2Lucifer knows where you live......................
  • Flamancot, on 05/09/2008, -20/+7Exhibit Four: God
    Naw, god's chill - but the idea that he created the universe, and life in general, is just whack.
    • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -5/+1So, there couldn't of been a higher power involved in the creation of the universe? What's really interesting, is that the creation allegory in Genesis follows the evolutionary time line. Maybe God USED evolution and the big bang to create this world and the rest of the universe. I realize I, nor anyone, will ever be able to prove the existence of God, but at the same time, to deny the existence simply because we don't have a lack of hard evidence might be just as erroneous.
      • Kontra8, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3As soon as i read couldn't of i stopped reading.
      • hmunkey, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Okay, then why did he cover it up in a way that no one would know?
        Oh, and why does everyone worship religions that do not support that idea/
        I say there is no god, because that is the only theory with any credibility. I may be wrong, but how would I know until God proves it to me?
      • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"So, there couldn't of been a higher power involved in the creation of the universe?"

        There could have been. There's no evidence to support or contradict that assertion. Meanwhile, that which can be submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, yeah. I don't care.

        "What's really interesting, is that the creation allegory in Genesis follows the evolutionary time line."
        .... with a margin of error in retarded orders of magnitude. And it ignores dinosaurs, neandertal man, every form of homo sapiens prior to homo sapiens sapiens, etc. If you want to postulate a God, that's fine. But the book that describes Abraham's God is on very shaky ground indeed.

        "I realize I, nor anyone, will ever be able to prove the existence of God, but at the same time, to deny the existence simply because we don't have a lack of hard evidence might be just as erroneous."

        Irrational fear is irrational.
        • edwartica, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1BTW Fordi, I want to thank you for not being an ass. You're debating my comments in an intelligent and respectful manner. which, considering that this is about religion and metaphysics, is exactly what needs to happen.
          • Fordi, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Really? I thought I was being rather snarky. I must be getting mellow in my old age.
  • s6t9eve, on 05/09/2008, -4/+7If we could explain supernatural phenomena, then they would be no fun.
  • protogenxl, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12Well, this is great. If the ionization-rate is constant for all ectoplasmic entities, we can really bust some heads... in a spiritual sense, of course. - Dr. Ray Stantz
  • tinkafoo, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Could someone tell Richard Hoagland? He obviously didn't get the memo:
    http://www.enterprisemission.com/
  • xtal3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10Wait... there isn't even a magazine CALLED Weird, is there?
  • houndeyex, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10"Crowd Demons". LOL.
    • stonebear, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Oh no, they are quite real; the most common manifestation is to sit on each others shoulders at concerts in order to block the view of the people behind them. They are also known to vomit on people's shoes and set them on fire with throwaway lighters.
  • aldigg, on 05/09/2008, -19/+5If the title were "Sad Explanations For Natural Phenomena," we could point to Al Gore and the man-made global warming types.
    • fredrated, on 05/09/2008, -4/+11Or if the title were "Sad Explanations For Stupid People," we could point to you.
      • Akufen, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah because there isn't any contradictory evidence right? The only stupid people around here are those who think they know.
  • theworldisflat, on 05/09/2008, -3/+13I'd love to prove the existence of the supernatural "ghosts". Not for any sort of religious reason, rather I want to harvest those bastards for power. You know how much energy would be required to sustain a cross-dimensional visual apparition, not to mention being able to *interact* with this dimension? Amazing power potential there.

    Now all I need to do is finish the reactor design...
    • thegator25, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5"Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on our backs"
    • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Nah; ghosts inevitably cool their environment. They should be trapped in a heat exchanger and harnessed as cheap air conditioning.
  • BingoPower, on 05/09/2008, -6/+15This is almost as bad as those *****'s that "See" Jesus in their toast. If I were Jesus and going to manifest myself; it wouldn't be on a slice of toast, it would be on one of Jenna Jameson's *****.
    • darthtrevino, on 05/09/2008, -7/+7That's actually a pretty interesting statement. The poignant thing about Jesus manifesting himself is that most of us would be big pimps, rolling in humvees and taking charge 'cause we could. Jesus didn't, he was born into quite humble circumstances. I guess it says something of the disconnect between what we value and what God does.
      • sindex, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5huh?
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -5/+4There is/was no such thing as God.
        • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2What is the meaning of life then?
          • TikiGawd, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3There isn't one. Grow up and deal with it.
          • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I won't accept that. If there isn't one, then why should I even care about anyone else? Why should I even care about society?
          • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2What does one question have to do with the other? If you fail to have purpose because life has no meaning, that's your own damned fault.

            It's like walking into a post-hurricane scene and saying, "Ok, ok, what's all this then? Who's responsible?!" It's moronic.
          • edwartica, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1But what does it all matter if we're nothing but a cosmic accident?
          • Fordi, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I'll apologize in advance, a lot of this is not directed at you, but mostly my weekly venting of ideas and frustration at fundies and insistent religious moderates in general. As such, it gets needlessly philosophical, and doesn't necessarily address your point.

            If you look at it from a scientific point of view, complex life is a cosmic inevitability, not an accident. As soon as self-replicating molecules are formed, they tend to concentrate complexity.

            So, if you need some universally ordained purpose, that's it: increase your knowledge and that of others; aid your progenitors in the fight against entropy. It's weak, I agree, but that's what generic purpose is like. Create your own instead.

            You don't have to matter cosmically; once you're dead, your stellar influence won't make a whit of difference.

            So do what matters to you. It's what you're doing anyway. Insistence that it's some grand purpose, while nice and feely goody and all, is little more than ego. Whatever I am, it's gotta be big! It's gotta be that I'm working for something bigger than myself, for God, even!

            Just no. If you're a 'soldier for God' or whatever, I see you as terribly selfish; you're invoking pack instinct to pump up your own self-worth. The universal love, the helping people out, that's all good, but once you go missionary, I don't want to talk to you. Once you've gone missionary, it's not about helping people - it's about helping people realize that you're right.

            If you're just the average run-of the-mill Christian, I've got no beef; but please don't argue what I say about the existence / non-existence of God without any evidence; I have things to do.

            In the end, you're only ever doing what matters to you - and what matters to you is all that matters in your universe. True morality, in that sense, comes out of empathy; if you seek to reduce suffering because it's important to you to reduce suffering, you're on the right track.

            You'll recognize the corollary to that mindset: it's "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". Enlightenment doesn't really come from self sacrifice; the desire to self sacrifice for the good of others comes from enlightenment. Enlightenment itself - well, maybe that's a goal. Maybe the goal of the enlightened should be to help others reach a similar state.

            The fallacy of enlightenment, of course, is that like individual personalities, individual enlightenment is not homogenous. There is no perfect state. There is not perfect truth. There are just the your interpretation of the laws of nature and your interpretation of the laws of society. We attempt to better society, but as we do so, we change the rules and make our own interpretation obsolete. Thus, as you age it's important to keep your mind flexible and accept nothing as perfect truth.

            Though, there are probabilities, likelihoods and such. God is unlikely. Terribly so. So unlikely that I feel comfortable in my complete apathy towards a higher being of any sort. There is no evidence and all analogue ideas to God (FSM, Zeus, etc) are obviously ludicrous to anyone who hears them. So why do people believe?
          • darthtrevino, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I appreciate your honesty Fordi. I understand your existentialist point of view; it's really the only way of living a meaningful life if there is no higher purpose. I disagree with your last paragraph. If probabilities are concerned, then they must be quantifiable. What you describe as probability sounds like "your gut instinct", which is something I'm usually accused of (being a person of faith and all).

            Why do I believe? I believe in Jesus because history centers around him, the new testament is the most verifiably accurate text of antiquity, and because his story is consistent with the messed up world we live in. I think when you say there's no evidence, you're not really being honest.
          • Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"I disagree with your last paragraph. If probabilities are concerned, then they must be quantifiable."

            Read 'The God Delusion' for quantification of the improbability of God. That book is what took me from apathist-type agnostic* to atheist.

            "The new testament is the most verifiably accurate text of antiquity"

            I'm going to have to ask you to cite your sources with that one. Not a letter of the new testament was written during Christ's life (in fact, the first was written 40 years after his death), and the only other written record (Josephus) was also written after Christ and is presently highly contested as a sectarian fraud. Meanwhile, I am aware of no anthropological or archaeological evidence supporting the New testament.

            So, yeah. I'm unaware of anything that would verify the New testament. Please cite your sources in order to quantify them.

            * An apathist is someone who really doesn't care about the origins of life, and is honest about that fact - as opposed to an agnostic, who can't, apparently, be asked to look into it hard enough to make a decision, but claims to care very deeply about the matter.
      • Enasni1212, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4God doesn't value things in the same way that the Tooth Fairy doesn't value things.
    • nicksauce, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080119.gif
  • burlster, on 05/09/2008, -13/+1Curious. Whilst I do agree that there are things we are yet to understand, in particular the power and control of the human mind (isn't it something silly like 80% of it we don't use or something?), nonetheless I would tend to agree that people are way too keen to believe the strangest of ideas. On the other hand, only the other day I saw a beauty product (fake sun tan I think) advertised on television and in the advert it said "Odorless, tasteless and leaves no visible signs". Having concluded the advert, there then was an even more ridiculous extra bit tacked on... "Now in our subtlest tone ever". If people are then convinced to go out and buy what effectively is being sold as a bottle of nothing, I'm just glad people are alert enough to 'think' they saw something strange in a crowd!
  • tufftugg, on 05/09/2008, -19/+3 I think all the kitchen table science types here who believe what they were 'told' about the facts of evolution, should contact these Scientist . I do have to warn you that they might scare you, why you ask, because they don't believe in evolution and have Doctorate degrees. And they are Scientist who teach at Universities, and have many different degrees. I am sure they would love to listen to your High School theory of Evolution.
    • scoetrain, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7Brush up on your English skills and get back to us later.
      • tufftugg, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2 Yes, English skills are important. And how many languages do you speak and write in?
    • shmatt, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9well I prefer the "kitchen table" science type over "church pew" science type any day.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Yes, I'm sure we all lie awake at night, dreading the footsteps of The Doctorates on the stair...
      So, which is it? Those who don't believe in evolution are kicked out of academia, or those who don't believe in evolution are running academia? Can you have it both ways?
    • muchachoburacho, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2How do you not realize that you blatantly defending beliefs that were thrust upon you as a kid. If your religion is right, then would you still worship that religion if you were born to a family of a different religion? Would you defend that as fervently as you defend your current religion? And by the way, I go to a university taught by scientists with doctorates, and I don't hear or see them yelling about how incorrect evolution is, only you.
    • whaleyboy, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Funniest thing I've read all day, tufflugg! Who writes your material?
    • nitsuj, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2"And they are Scientist who teach at Universities, and have many different degrees."

      Degrees in biology? Nah, didn't think so.
    • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+390% of those with post-graduate educations are certain that evolution via natural selection and variation is the correct explanation for the variance of life on earth.
  • robcypher, on 05/09/2008, -1/+18Lame. There are only three things listed with virtually no explanation. Boring.
  • appletoapple, on 05/09/2008, -4/+19Demons at a republican rally. Do you mean...EVERYONE there?
    • asskicker32, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2damn, appletoapple, what WONT you say?
      Zing!
    • Cornfedhusker, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Hkhkkhkk No, no don't say that! hkhhkkkhk
  • ilikevag, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Not that I believe it, but he never really debunks the last one, he just laughs at it.
    • mistermaster, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4You mean that hair that mistically transmuted into a bald-eating dinosaur demon? Or the bunch of low-quality images without context?
    • sindex, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4I think the very idea of "crowd demons" pretty much debunks itself. No real thought involved.
      "Hey, check it out. My $3.99 disposable camera takes crappy photos! Of DEMONS!" Yeah... ok. Pardon me while I go stand over there....
    • Navicerts, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Nor did he attempt to debunk the second one. Matter of fact - he did a pretty ***** poor job of explaining the first one as well. "It's an insect" - well *****, I could have said that, do they research articles anymore?

      buried for being a crap article about crap.
  • futimazar, on 05/09/2008, -3/+15Dugg for seeing "crowd demons" at a Republican rally.
    • cdahlkvist, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2I saw Hippie Demons at a Dem. Convention. I also saw Hillary there...talk about demonic.
  • crapmatic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3About a year ago I used to live near Tyler, Texas, a city of nearly 100,000. At the time the biggest meetup group there by far was a paranormal experiences / ghost tracker group. WTF?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4What else are they going to do in a small town like that? Cow tipping?
  • MrNexus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I have afew pictures with rods in it. They are more than likely just flies though.
  • JointVenture, on 05/09/2008, -20/+2I still think we should dig up Obama's mothers grave and see if there is a Jackal in the coffin.
    • okokokok, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1You "Obama is the anti-christ" people are ***** up in the head. You are in the wrong part of digg you ***** idiot. You are living proof that evolution branches backwards on occasion. Congrats!
  • nastri83, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5That Rods site that he links to is so credible and professionally made.
  • jonmlm, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3it's sad you could only come up with 3
  • camaroz06, on 05/09/2008, -5/+14Oh God the ***** Rods...never, ever have I been so enraged at a show that has aired on the History Channel until I saw the ***** Monster Quest show on Rods...I was so ***** when those dumbass "experts" on Rods kept babbling their *****, I just kept yelling and yelling at the TV for almost an hour. I still feel the rage building when I think that people believe in that *****.
    • MrESaulved, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Find serenity in your self awareness, and calmness in your approaching others to educate.

      Anger is upside down humor, laugh at their folly and gently upright them.
    • stonebear, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Camaroz; you probably don't realize it, but your problem exceeds theirs tenfold. I'd have that looked at if I were you.
    • zer0hour, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3why did you keep yelling at a TV for an hour?
      thats weirder then ***** rods.
    • alienunknown, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Valium might help.
  • travitherabbi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Harry Dresden was unavailable for comment.
  • DestroyPoseurs, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10Humans have an instinctive need to believe there is some higher form of reality beyond what is visible to the real world. This is probably one of the better ways those instincts manifest themselves. Unlike say Christianity, which encourages hatred against homosexuals and the branding of just about anything that is enjoyable as sinful, looking for ghosts in photographs really doesn't hurt much.
    • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2For the record, true Christianity does not encourage hatred of anyone. True Christianity follows the teachings of Christ which were to love god, and to love others.
      • Jektal, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Catholics might disagree somewhat.
        Original Sin doesn't seem like a good place to start if you want to love everyone.
        • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The catholics are wrong then.
          • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2You can say that with certainty, can you?
          • edwartica, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1not really Fordi, but really, even Paul said that Christianity was about love over anything.
  • richduper, on 05/09/2008, -7/+5In spite of my background, I must agree that any stupid theory, unsupported by any kind of sensible scientific evidence is just bunk. I lived in a house (without pets) for 18 years in which most would be forced to label as "haunted". Things would move about "on their own", usually in the form of things falling over in the next room (never breaking though), footsteps walking around even in the same room as the observer. One time my mother and I saw this picnic cooler that was stored in the kitchen lift up and fly into the dining room with no apparent cause (no strings attached, no open windows, no high-voltage lines or equipment around). I could go on at great length with the many other odd things in the house. And in spite of my great desire to find some sort of physical evidence to prove that there really was something going on in that house, I refuse to take the "orbs", "crowd demons" or any other type of nonsensical evidence as an explanation for it. When you are desperate for an explanation for the "unexplained", one must avoid jumping at the first possible "evidence" by not finding patterns where none exist (also known as matrixing). So for now (and probably for my lifetime), people who hear my experiences there must either gaurdedly believe me, or consider me a kook, which they are obviously welcome to do since I cannot prove that I am not. I am forced by my experiences to believe that there definitely are some things that science has yet to be able to explain, but pointing to fuzzy face-like patterns in out-of-focus pixelated images isn't going to help me prove anything.
    • cdahlkvist, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4"I saw this picnic cooler that was stored in the kitchen lift up and fly into the dining room"

      No, no you didn't.

      And if you did you really need to ease up on the LSD.

      But I'm still going with no, you didn't.
    • whaleyboy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3I agree with cdahlkvist...you didn't see that. You might remember seeing that but that's something entirely different.
    • richduper, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0Yeah, yeah, yeah... I'm sure you're right, my mother was right there doing LSD with me obviously, since she saw it too. You know, that's why its a pain in the butt when you see that kind of thing, and its why most people keep their mouths shut about it. I saw it, I was there, it was only one event (though one of the more spectacular) I witnessed in that house. My brothers and sisters also had many strange experiences in that house. But its easier for yaks like you two to assume it was some sort of hallucination. Believe me, its the last thing I ever wanted to see, I never wanted any of those weird experiences there since I am not religious and what I saw defies any common sense scientific explanation. Fortunately I have long learned to not take it personally. I saw what I saw, no matter how unbelievable, and since I don't have it on video, I can't prove it. Not that it would prove it anyway since everyone would cry "fake" and it would be pointless. I certainly don't hold it against you for not believing me, if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't believe it either.
      • cdahlkvist, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I think the typical Digg comment is applicable here:

        Photoshop job or it didn't happen.
  • bmusic, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6Occam's Razor anyone?
  • dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -6/+9Ironically, there is more evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster than Jesus.

    Actually, one of the main reasons I denounced my Christian faith is because I can't find one single shred of evidence for the Jesus of the Bible. Not one artifact or eyewitness account. Not even in the Bible.

    Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mentions him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

    After confronting a few Church members with this new knowledge for lack of evidence, it became painfully obvious that these people seems to have NO interest whatsoever in scientific debate. It seems all they care about is re-affirming their superstitious beliefs of disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering and ramming them down the throats of unsuspecting children.

    I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this. But so far I haven't been.
    • KRNpro, on 05/09/2008, -6/+7Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius - although they were after Jesus' supposed life.
      • Damietta, on 05/09/2008, -5/+3Thank you, you're totally right. Josephus was Jewish, Tacitus was Roman, they both talked about Jesus. That's how we do actually know he exists, because there are several sources outside the Bible that talk about him. Dugg for knowing your history.
        • dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7------------That's how we do actually know he exists-------------


          Why don't you present what you feel is the best piece of evidence for the biblical jesus?

          No more debates filled with fancy symantics, just back up your statments with actual scientific evidence.
          • Damietta, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4True, it could just be rumor and hearsay. I sure as hell wasn't there, so I can't know. But the closest thing we can get to scientific evidence of Jesus' existence short of digging up his body is multiple attestations in contemporary sources, which we do have. I'm not saying that evidence is infallible, as it is quite possible that the rumor just got around to all these different people.

            By the way, it's spelled "semantics" and the word means the study of meaning. So I don't really see how that word is relevant to your point.

            Personal note: I'm not Christian, but I do think Jesus actually existed, if only because it would ruin my faith in humanity even more to find out that all the ***** done in the name of Christianity was done in the name of yet another person who didn't even exist. You know, kinda like God.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Is something written down a generation afterwards on the basis of a rumor a contemporary source? "Psst. I heard he came back from the dead after Pilate crucified him."

            "I'm not Christian, but I do think Jesus actually existed, if only because it would ruin my faith in humanity even more to find out that all the ***** done in the name of Christianity was done in the name of yet another person who didn't even exist. You know, kinda like God."

            This is something called an appeal to consequences. I want to believe this because if I don't I will feel bad.

            There are two ways one can look at this. You can say, I don't think its likely that a myth with no basis in fact would get started like this, but I'll probably never know for sure. Or you can say, it doesn't matter if he was real or not, the allegory about him makes some good points about how to behave toward your fellow humans.

            I don't know if Siddhartha was real. But the story of his life makes some good points about the human condition.
          • Damietta, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4Replying to Static Thunder: Why can't you have both? Don't you think it's possible to believe that the strength of it does point to its reality though I can't know for sure, but that it doesn't really matter since the message is what counts in the end?

            And about the contemporary sources thing, you're right, they were a generation after. But then again, in a world where communication is so slow that it takes months for a letter to get from Jerusalem to Rome and more months to understand the impact of one event in another part of the Mediterranean, can we really expect there to be instantaneous attestation of happenings that contemporaries had no way of knowing whether they would be utterly insignificant in the long run? Without the luxury of printing or television, people couldn't afford to make a huge deal out of that cat stuck in a tree three counties over. But again, we can't know. It's the mystery and frustration of studying history. We can't know if someone 2000 years ago was just making ***** up for the hell of it. People do it know, no reason they couldn't do it then.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Yes, you can have both. But you can't necessarily claim he was "historical" unless you have actual contemporary sources.

            Not expecting things to happen quickly doesn't mean then that we can get away from the problem that we are talking about a game of telephone that happened 2000 years ago. Christ may have been real, but then he may well have been many people that were amalgamated into one, or a series of older myths about a messiah, that was being distorted.
          • Damietta, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Somewhat off topic, but perhaps related to the idea that Jesus could have been an amalgam or another person or something, but the whole John the Baptist thing is super interesting. Apparently, enough people thought that John was the messiah that Julian the Apostate exhumed and destroyed his corpse. Josephus has about three times as much material on John the Baptist than on Jesus. Doesn't have much to do with determining whether Jesus was real or not, but it does give credence to the idea that the definitions and information are so malleable that the possibilities are endless. It's a lot like the King Arthur legend in that way: was there a real person behind the legend, was it a bunch of people mashed together, or just fantasy? It's an interesting problem.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Yes, and its one I'm afraid I will never have an answer to, so I have to remain skeptical. There are a lot more ways to be wrong when you don't have a lot of information than there are to be correct.
      • dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6---------Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius ---------------


        Not one of those cites is based on an eyewitness account, so whats your point? I mean, Josephus was born after the supposed Christ death.

        Do you understand what evidence is?

        Please point to the evidence.

        There is not one single first person account of Jesus. There are many who said, "I knew a guy who knew a guy who said he knew a guy who saw Jesus." But there is not one contemporary account of Jesus. Not even the writers of the Gospels actually knew the guy.

        So my conclusion is that he probably was a work of someone's overactive imagination.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Those accounts are hearsay: I Flavius Josephus know that a number of cultists claim to have seen a messiah named Jesus and claim Pilate crucified him. Its not an eyewitness account.

          "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
          (from Wikipedia)

          One might as well say anyone who reads the Bible and claims Jesus was real is evidence. Wikipedia says this text dates to the 11th century. So who knows how accurate it is.
    • cdahlkvist, on 05/09/2008, -4/+7I'm Agnostic. I feel the need to research the facts before debunking them. I wouldn't go so far as to claim Jesus didn't exist. There is historical evidence of his existence. There is just no evidence that he was the Messiah. He was a cult leader for the most part.

      Real historical documents that mention Jesus (as a man, not a Messiah)

      Annals and the Histories by Cornelius Tacitus mentions him.

      Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

      Suetonius mentions him in Life of Claudius. Mara Bar-Serapion wrote a letter to his son around 70 A.D. describing the execution of Jesus.

      Josephus mentions Jesus and his execution by Pilate in Jewish Antiquities.

      Most of these people were against Christianity but they still mentioned Jesus (even though it would have been to their benefit had they not) in historical documents.
      • Damietta, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Dugg for knowing your history also.
        • cdahlkvist, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Dugg for being a sexy Alpaca.
          • cdahlkvist, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2No one looked at your avatar...or they thought it was a llama.
          • TeagueSterling, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2They just have never experienced the joy of a sexy alpaca.
      • dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6------------------Real historical documents that mention Jesus---------------------

        Simply put, you're lying

        ANY local university historian for the evidence indicating jesus was anything other than a manufactured martyr of the late 1st century CE.

        He/she will tell you that no such evidence of a "historical" jesus exists. His existence MUST be taken on faith, just like those who believe in Zeus and/or many other mythical characters.

        Christians love to bring up the names of Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and others as testimonies to Jesus’ life, however, they couldn't have been eye-witnesses to him simply because they didn't live in his calculated supposed lifetime.

        How about historians who ~did~ live in that time? “Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

        If, indeed, such a well-known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

        Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mentions him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.
        • cdahlkvist, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3Better go back to school, kids. Have you read any of the above mentioned? Probably not. I can only guess you were told by some "professor" that it isn't true but the simple fact is, if you have taken the time to read the ancient text, it is true.

          Jesus has been mentioned in non biblical text many times. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          Again, I am an Agnostic. Why is it so hard for others to differentiate between the mention of a Biblical figure and martyrdom?

          Just because he was a real man doesn't make all the stories true.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4Why is it so hard to distinguish between eyewitness accounts and hearsay.

            There is no hard evidence that Jesus even existed. For all we know, He was a fiction made up 40 years after the fact when the supposed events were finally written down.

            But even if he did exist as a cult-leader, there's no evidence that he was divine. The fact that you assume the person you are debating is uninformed doesn't do much for you case. We don't care that you're an agnostic. You're factually wrong.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Let me add that its fine if you believe he was real, but there is a real dispute on the matter. This isn't like holocaust denial where one can go and look at the death camps. All we have are 4 shallow reports of a man named Jesus that were written down by people who heard somebody talk about him a generation after he supposedly lived. Plenty of time for the Christ-cult to spread their mythology. And if I recall correctly, only one really makes reference to him as a martyr.

            Sure, he might have been a real messianic martyred figure, but nobody unbiased really knows.
          • dildoolielly, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3----------------Jesus has been mentioned in non biblical text many times. Sorry to burst your bubble.------------------


            Why don't you present what you feel is the best piece of evidence for the biblical jesus?
          • cdahlkvist, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Static: If you read my original comment I clearly said "not the Messiah".

            Howver, you are correct in the case of the majority speaking a generation or 2 after his claimed existence.

            There is one actual example of someone that saw the crucifixion take place though. He lived when Jesus was executed (if you take into account that Jesus was actually executed around 32/34AD).

            Mara Bar-Serapion wrote a letter to his son describing what he saw. He also did not believe in Christianity but rather spoke about Jesus being executed and that is it. No magical events took place. A man who was followed by many was put to death.
          • StaticThunder, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2"If you read my original comment I clearly said "not the Messiah".

            I don't see how my comments required you to.
    • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -7/+1But at the same time, there's more evidence to support the existence of Jesus than the existance of Socrates.
      • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5Socrates wrote his own *****. 40 years after Jesus' death, his 'apostles' started making ***** up. Big difference there.
        • edwartica, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Socrates himself did not write philosophical texts. Our knowledge of the man, his life, and his work is based on writings by his students and contemporaries.
          And that's a direct quote from wikipedia btw.
    • richduper, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, I really need to see that evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster before you're going to make a believer out of me. Pics or it didn't happen.
  • LoudMusic, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1Wow. Why waste time making fun of religious zealots when these people exist? Or is it just too easy?
  • diggopolous, on 05/09/2008, -7/+3Not one jewish writer? Ever heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John et al.?
    • cdahlkvist, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Historical documents outside of the Bible is what the OP was referring to.
    • dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4 ----------------- Not one jewish writer? Ever heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John et al.?-------------


      While it may come as a suprise to many, it has been known for centuries that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Instead, these are "traditional" names given to anonymously-written works over a hundred years after they were written. This much is not controversial among biblical scholars. What is controversial is the attempt to assign actual authorship to these anonymous works, and to place them in the proper historical, social, cultural, and theological context. The Gospels were not simply eyewitness accounts, or even second-hand accounts, of Jesus' time. Rather, they are products of complicated theological advocacy written generations after Jesus' time. Each Gospel is shown to reflect the author(s) own theological interests and agenda, as each sought to advance their own vision of the emerging religion.
  • Zarile3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The interesting thing is, the term Crowd Demons was created by the person that runs the ghoststudy site. This site is HORRIBLE. Almost every single picture on there is obviously photoshopped. And in the small case that it isn't photoshopped, then it is something overly explainable. Whoever it is that runs this site is some person who believes in "ghosts" and not paranormal activity.

    As much as those are similar, the term "ghost" is very rarely used in the paranormal research world. I have a deep belief that whoever runs ghoststudy is just a fan of ghosts in general, and doesn't know what to believe. Maybe he believes that the only evidence you need is that of an orb, which in turn is usually dust, or condensation in the air, or lens flare, or 100 other possible things that make orbs unreliable as evidence.

    For quick backround, I have been involved in the paranormal research world for about 5 years, and was an orb believer when I first started, but after being schooled about everything, I am much better at picking things out of the crowd.....never seen any crowd demons though. That's new to me!
    • richduper, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0I agree, the site sucks and it makes up its own evidence. I also was intrigued by the 'orb' thing at first, until I started experimenting with my own digital cameras and found I could reproduce them. Especially with cameras whose flash was very close to its main lens. If you can make them yourself, and they're indistinguishable from the ones presented as 'evidence', they're probably caused by the same effect, just like the 'plasma' cigarette smoke and the 'vortex' camera straps.
  • Hetman, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3That was a weak article. But if you click on the the two demon link and go to there page they are selling ghost detectors. And really isn't 100 dollars of your well earned money worth protecting your family from ghosts? Awesome it reminds me of those crappy mail order items you used to be able to get in the back of comic books.
  • MrESaulved, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2"Crowd Demons"

    I'm going to stuff that in the back of my head for safekeeping. And one of these days casually work it into a discussion with just the right person...oh how we will laugh and laugh!
  • debuffplx, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2These aren't really supernatural phenomena at all, just obvious photo and video anomalous byproducts. Rods? really? I'd like to see them explain some of the more audible EVP's like this one http://paranormalresearchgroup.com/evp/MantenoEVP. ...
    • richduper, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0I don't get it, I tried that link and listened over and over, but I don't hear anything after the narration.
    • DamnLogins, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Looks like a moth to me.
  • Damietta, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2YES! Finally, Lore makes it onto Digg's front page. I've been trying to get him there since a joined almost a year ago, he deserves it. Props to you, Lore!
    • asskicker32, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I always kind of felt he and his pieces deserved to be on MeFi as opposed to digg. You know, more of a crowd to appreciate it, as opposed to this glorified fark.
  • NaitYevrah, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Wow....this author sure sounds knowledgeable.... citing ALL those different sources to back up his own theories....

    At least he's an optimistic guy.... oh wait...
  • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I really wish he had gone into more debt in this article. If this were an essay written for a class, he would of gotten an F.
    • richduper, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1He probably should have gone more in depth instead of in debt. Then he could have afforded a decent school where he could learn to write better. Hmmm...
      • edwartica, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1damn my typo. I'm hopped up on cold medications here!
  • Zong, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1This doesn't explain much...
    He explains the Rods as insects, which is very reasonable and provable.
    As for orbs he just called people stupid for thinking it's a ghost and only goes as far as call them dust bunnies which doesn't make any sense if it only shows up on camera and people don't see him.
    The demons explanation just similar to the Orbs
    This is just poorly written and only ridicules people and only offers an answer to the rods.
    The question is if it's not a ghost or a demon, then what video, or light phenomena is causing the orbs and demon pictures. His explanation is just about as good as those who claim it's mystical and magical being.
  • darkciti2, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Here's one:
    A zombie comes back from the dead after a 3 day dirt nap, dies again, becomes invisible floats up to the clouds and leads a musical choir of harp players. He writes a book telling one how they too can fly like him. But, alas they didn't listen to the talking snake in the garden and they ***** themselves forever by an all knowing ever loving god (whom happens to be the dad of the zombie guy).

    I prefer to think that when you die, you're just dead. Game over. But that's just me. To each their own, I guess.
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3What's really sad is going through your whole life thinking you are just a normal person... then you stumble on a website with a picture of you in "crowd demon" form.

    How do you tell your spouse, parents, siblings, or children you are actually crowd demon? Should you even come out of the closet at all? What if someone catches you turning into a dinosaur to eat a balding man's head?

    This is why we need legislation protecting the civil rights of crowd demons and send a clear statement that this country was founded on the idea that ALL men are created equal. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, brown, red, yellow, green, or dinosaur crowd demon color. You are still an American!
  • AgmLauncher, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"Anyone else see da leprechaun say yaaaaaaaaaaaa"

    "To me it look like a leprachaun to me"

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

    Humans are fundamentally stupid. Each day that goes by I wonder how much longer we have left as a species before stupid infects all of us.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.