What is Digg?732 Comments
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -12/+245woah... this is BIG NEWS. DUGGMIRROR ACTUALLY CAUGHT THE PAGE!!! It's a miracle.
- heptahedron, on 10/12/2007, -22/+241Sad but true! I had a friend in college, a mechanical engineer no less, who preferred faith to science because he said "science was always changing the facts." Apparently keeping things the same was more important to him than getting things right.
- verifex, on 10/12/2007, -10/+182God needs to open source his code, it sucks we have to wait for all those scientists to reverse engineer his stuff.
- preved, on 10/12/2007, -46/+205In Faith diagram there should be an infinitive loop starting from "Keep Idea Forever" and going to "Ignore Contradicting Evidence".
- grifmcrenolds, on 10/12/2007, -50/+200@JK1150
Insulting? Excuse me but the cartoon simply illustrates how religion deals with ideas. If we were to hide the truth simply because it would hurt the feelings of a few religious zealots, then we might as well start calling terrorists freedom fighters, or child molesters child "lovers."
Let's stop mincing words here and face the fact that science has made religion obsolete. You're antiquated notions of faith in something that's so painfully untrue do nothing but hold back scientific advances in medicine, technology, and even breed hatred.
I'm sorry if this is too "insulting" but it's the truth. Wait, no, I'm not sorry. I'm right. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+122The Beta was Eden. Some hacker crashed it...
- verifex, on 10/12/2007, -21/+131Looks like God didn't run enough test cases before taking his creation out of beta.
- blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -10/+119Nobody is saying that science is perfect. That's why science has the "Discover new evidence -> Can the theory be modified to explain the new evidence" boxes while religion/faith does not.
- HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -29/+1371. Start.
2. Get an idea.
3. Ignore contradicting evidence.
4. Insist everyone else must believe it.
5. Kill off the non-believers.
6. Prophet!
7. End. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+84Albert Einstein was a pantheist not a theist.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-Albert Einstein
- archlich, on 10/12/2007, -7/+81alwaysmc2
That is the reason for peer review. Most any science experiment can be repeated. As such, fraud in science is very rare for fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. - 52tease, on 10/12/2007, -3/+75Instead of hosting mirrors you could try going to the site of the guy who actually made the drawing-- http://wellingtongrey.blogspot.com/ -- and see at least five or six other equally funny flowcharts.
(sorry about the comment abuse) - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -22/+90"It is to bad that most so called Scientist people disregard faith so blindly."
No, it's not. Faith is a bad thing. Faith is belief without (or in opposition of) the evidence. It is a scientist's job to find out the truth of things, not just believe something to be true.
"It is more and more coming to a point where Scientist are acting like Science is a religion of its own, and beginning to get more and more zealot about it too."
Science has no god. Science has no book to follow. Science has no inherent belief system, save for its reliance on the scientific method. Science, quite simply, is not a religion. Science provides proof and reason for saying whatever it does, and religion does not. Comparing the two is insulting.
"Faith is not a substitute for science and Science is not a substitute for Faith."
Faith doesn't try to be a substitute for science: it's quite happy to go on believing what it always has, regardless of the truth of the matter. Science does not try to be a substitute for faith, either: science never says something and then tells everybody to believe it "just because."
"Science ask how does the universe works. Faith says God controls the Universe but it doesn't completely say how."
Tell me something: which one is more productive and will lead to great knowledge of the truth? Research and thought? Or saying, "God did it," and leaving it at that?
"Science doesn't disprove Faith and Faith doesn't disprove science."
Faith, by definition, cannot disprove anything. It has no reason, no evidence, no logic, no proof: it quite simply does not have the means to disprove anything. Science, on the other hand, disproves faith time and time again. There was a time when the Church said that the earth was flat. Science proved that wrong. There was a time when they said that the earth was the center of the universe. What did science do with that belief? Religion says that a man walked on water and rose from the dead, along with performing some other magic tricks. What does science do with all of that nonsense? You guessed it. Science proves faith wrong in every single area where there is a conflict between the two, and I'm seriously confused as to how anybody couldn't see that.
"Just because some Zealot religions claim science is wrong because it contradicts what is said in a book that has been written over a thousand years ago from stories that have been passed on for thousands of years before that and converted from multiple languages, and gone threw revisions due to victory in war, and political motivations."
That's a sentence fragment. I'll try and get the meaning out of it by reading on.
"Doesn't represent the general populations of Faith Carrying members."
That doesn't make faith in itself any less incorrect.
"I believe in God, the primary reason is Faith that God exists, Science hasn't been able to Prove that God Does or Doesn't Exist."
Science hasn't been able to prove to me that the Invisible Pink Unicorn who ***** cocaine and lives on Pluto (praised be His name) doesn't exist, either. I have faith that he does, which obviously means that my faith trumps science that that science must prove the IPUWSCALOP (Invisible Pink Unicorn who ***** cocaine and lives on Pluto [praised be His name]) wrong before I consider any opposing viewpoints.
"It is like the question if Intelligent life exists on other planets, Science has no proof that it does or doesn't exist. And Science right now doesn't have a clear set of rules to prove if God does or Doesn't exist."
Well, life on other planets is more likely than god: even if life only arose in 1 in 1,000,000,000 planets, there would still be life on 1,000,000,000 planets (and that's only considering the planets we know about). I digress, though. The fact that science can't prove something wrong is irrelevant, as I just pointed out. Science doesn't need to prove that god doesn't exist any more than they need to prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn who ***** cocaine and lives on Pluto doesn't exist.
"So what now Well Faith if God does exist or it Doesn't exist."
"So what now"? What are you, a fourth grader? I don't mean to bust out the ad hominem, but come on, you were just *asking* for it. Anyway, do you have "faith" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn who ***** cocaine and lives on Pluto isn't real? I mean, you can't disprove it, so you're going to have to have some faith that it does or doesn't exist. "So what now"?
"But being that I believe in God and the fact the Bible does contain literary (not literal) truth."
Tell me, please, how do you differentiate between the true stuff and the metaphorical stuff? I'd really like to know.
"Doesn't conflict that the evidence shows that we did Evolve from an earlier primate."
Yes, it does. The Bible says that the world was created in 6/7 days and that man and all animals were created in their current forms. That contradicts evolution on every level humanly possible. If you don't believe in the truth of what the Bible says there (ie: you take it metaphorically), why do you take that metaphorically? We all know that virgins can't have children. I don't see you disagreeing with that. We all know that there is no ship that could hold one of every animal, let alone two. We know that snakes trick people into eating "forbidden fruit." We know that people don't rise from the dead and that people walk on water. For you to claim that you take the genesis account metaphorically (presumably because it doesn't jive with what we know) is completely ridiculous, since your doing that completely destroys the basis of your entire religion.
"Or the Earth Revolves around the Sun. They are really very separate concepts, It is like saying Watching TV is in conflict of you waiting for a telephone call."
It's nothing like that at all. It's like saying that the telephone and the television both have the ability to fly and popped into existence without any technological development. Well, not really, but that's closer to the truth than your analogy.
"Yes if you get blindly focused on one or the other a conflict will exist but in most cases they are not in conflict."
Science and faith, by definition, do not mix. Grow up and get that through your head. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63LET"S FRICKIN CLEAR THIS UP!!! I'm tired of people who don't understand the proper scientific definition of theory:
A Hypothesis is: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
A Scientific Theory is: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
A Scientific Law is: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called [natural law]
Basically Law is a description of something while Theory is why something is occurring. - 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -10/+56*****, I must have missed the beta, it should have been longer though, I've noticed quite a few bugs
- wafflez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+55lol funny thing is..the first place i saw this image was on 4chan in a religion thread few months back...another funny religion pic i saw in that thread was this: http://imgred.com/http://img.4chan.org/b/src/1170670017412.png
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+53String Theory is based on mathematics and current physics models. It is based on evidence and mathematical theories and hypotheises. It is testable and falsifiable which makes it scientific.
However, the ongoing lack of evidence to support this theory could lead to this theory being discarded in the near future.
religion is based entirely on faith. Even if the body of Jesus was found, no true believers will believe the evidence. - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47"'Nobody is saying that science is perfect. That's why science has the "Discover new evidence -> Can the theory be modified to explain the new evidence" boxes while religion/faith does not.'
This is how I would do it if I were a professional scientist.
If what you say is the common creed of all (or just most) scientists, then why do scientists literally preach Global Warming, and treat Evolution as a law instead of what it is, a quite valid theory."
I can tell that you're at least somewhat religious: you capitalize things that have no place being capitalized. To the point, though: people like you often misunderstand the definition of the word "theory." We're not using it colloquially: we're using it in a scientific manner. In layman's terms, the (scientific) definition of a theory is this: "A hypothesis that has been tested multiple times and, after these tests, still stands as valid for lack of contradicting evidence." Gravity? That's a theory. Heliocentrism? That's a theory. You gain no credence by trying to differentiate between a "law" and a "theory," because, in all honesty, there really isn't a difference between the two.
"If what you say is true, then scientists should have no problem with conflicting views, since they are simply other theories."
Again, you don't understand what a theory is. The only things that scientists are getting mad at is people like you pushing random viewpoints as theories when you clearly have no idea of what the word even means (as you're doing now).
"Example: 'I doubt have serious doubts about the extent of global warming, and I while I am quite sure about natural selection, I don't think that natural selection will ever result in a new species.'"
You see, the problem with that is that it goes against what all of our evidence and experiments say to be true (the latter, at least: I'm not too well-versed in the former). If one truly knows how natural selection works, one realizes that it is a beautiful solution and is indeed the only one that can work.
"If that statement makes you mad, then doesn't that prove my point?"
No, it doesn't. It wouldn't prove any more of a point if a scientist got mad at me for saying, "While I believe that gravity is certainly a valid theory, I don't think that it could ever work to explain the motion of large objects." (Which, by the way, is just as nonsensical. I can attack "theories," too!)
"Anyway, I love the idea."
...Yeah. - transeunte, on 10/12/2007, -16/+48Bible is bad documentation.
- metacoola, on 10/12/2007, -13/+44Ugh, it seems every few articles on digg now has to insult some idea that isn't the Digg norm. I'm an atheist and a democrat, its still annoying seeing people trying to show it off as if theyre somewhat better people than others. Digg is becoming less of a news source and more of a culturaly biased one.
- jamsea, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34He nerfed everything too :(
- Kratisto, on 10/12/2007, -14/+42Very true. I don't think it was quite sarcastic enough, though. As for the "live and let live" believers: You're wrong. Your teachers don't let you believe that 2 + 2 = 5, and I'm not going to sit idly by while you infest political issues with this evangelical crap when there's good old, logical, concrete evidence to support the things you're drowning out with your fairy tales.
/wait to be dugg down... - straxus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34"I am perfectly willing to listen and consider a world where God doesn't exist. I am also willing to consider a world where he does. That's science."
An untestable hypothesis has nothing to do with science.
"science doesn't tell you ***** about how to live your life, though."
That's what ethics are for. - thinksage, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41RayMetz100:
Thank you so much for believing Jesus and the Bible. I have learned a great deal from your comment, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. - Matri, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34And don't forget he dropped all support a couple millenia ago.
- arcooke, on 10/12/2007, -29/+55http://duggmirror.com/general_sciences/Science_Vs_Faith_A_simple_picture_says_it_all/sciencevsfaith.png
So true. - DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Yes I have some faith in String Theory, it can not yet be proved (and probably never will be "proved") but If another theory comes along that explains the evidence better I won't have a problem switching to that one. That's the problem with religion, you can't switch, every thing you believe in is based on it and you just have to ignore anything that contradicts it or your world view is shattered and you are left hopeless and you have a life without meaning. With science you can change your core beliefs and have your world view shattered but that's a good thing. It means you have beaten ignorance.
- chester1732, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Why is religion the only area of life that can't be subjected to open scrutiny and investigation into its' validity?
- Dainjah, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Nietzsche - 3zero3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29The side effect of atheism is arrogance, unfortunately. And it's unavoidable. But I'd rather be arrogant and reasonable, than modest and delusional.
- stepnet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Of course he had to kill everything with a flood to perform a system update....
/uptime - Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Having done research is how I became an atheist.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@Spectral: The scientific evidence continues to show that evolution and the big bang is the most valid of all the current theories. If one day it is proven wrong, we will move on to another theory. String Theory continues to be highly debatable and is still being researched just as the big bang theory continues to be refined and modified with ongoing research. There is no other theory that refutes evolution.
Your challenge is inconsequential. You can go to any day college course or pick up a book on those subjects and I do have the time to do so. However, your challenge against these theories is not based on any evidence or logical argument. If you have a valid argument, make it instead of ad hominem and attacks from ignorance.
As for the average joe issue, your argument is also inconsequential. Most lay people don;t know how a TV works or how a nuclear reaction does. If you want to call it faith, fine by me. - cosmicr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26"Bible is bad documentation."
thats because it was poorly translated from japanese... - l33tspam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25and you're not better than anyone for being a chirstian.
- kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@SpectralSounds dodges with "So let me get this straight. You believe that the entire universe came from an explosion of nothingness? What was here before the big bang?..."
Nice try. Let me diagram you vs science.
Why are we here.
SCIENCE:
We think tool use and language made us human
We think humans evolved from other primates
We think primates evolved from a tree climbing, rat like creature(ramapithicid, spelling is wrong.)
We think mammals evolved from ...etc... etc
We think multicellular creatures evolved from unicellular creatures.
We are not quite sure how unicellular organisms came about and this is a very interesting line of inquiry; there are many interesting theories.
We think some of the building blocks of unicellular organisms can easily form spontaneously given the right planetary conditions.
We think the heavy elements in planets formed from exploding stars.
We think planets form around stars.
We think stars form in galaxies
We think galaxies and their constituent stars formed out of a non-uniformly distributed gas of light elements.
We think this gas came from a super hot super dense soup of elementary particles as they expanded away from each other, cooled and "condensed" into matter as we typically know it.
We think this super hot dense mass of stuff came from a period in time where it was all compressed into either a really small volume or a singularity.
We think that the question of what came before and what is "outside" is very interesting and are forming ideas about what those conditions might be like. This also is a very interesting form of inquiry.
YOU:
NOTE: Religious leaders can use the following trump card any where in the chain of scientific thinking above.
We think GOD created (the monkeys, the planets, the galaxies, or whatever above step ) and that (so and so) is his prophet.
We choose to never ask what came before GOD, we refuse.
So you asking what came before the big bang is typical cheap crap. What came before god smartass? - Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26Eden was running Windows 95, clearly.
- Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Actually i think it is you theists that believe us atheists drink the blood of puppies and eat babies and are in fact the devil reincarnate.
- beatlenuttt, on 10/12/2007, -45/+59Science and Faith is like comparing apples and oranges. Seems like some people just don't understand that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@Almighty:"Explain to me how science disproves someone's faith in the imperceptible. Science can neither prove nor disprove God."
This is being researched by a neuroscientists and psychologist.
"Did everyone suddenly forget what the definition of "faith" is? If someone chooses to place their hope in something unproven and unseen and that causes them to live their life to a higher moral standard, then why question that?"
Faith leads to intellectual stagnation. If you follow Newton's career, no where in his scientific papers does he mention god...that is until he could no longer explain the orbits of the planets. He basically could not figure it out and say "god made it so." This is danger of blind faith. Why bother to find any answers if "god did it?"
@betterh: But are you truly open minded? Are you willing to question all you beliefs? The validity of the bible? I'm very open minded by I'm a skeptic as well. - BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17You can't say "I'm right, you're wrong" in any situation without seeming arrogant.
- adamal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I hope that was a joke.
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Why in God's name would anyone ever go to 4chan for any reason?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Spectral: From my limited understanding on the Big Bang Theory(I'm a medical researcher so I'll rely on several books and lectures), the Big Bang does not claim to come from nothing. No one knows for certain what happened prior to the Big Bang since it is when Time and Space first began. If you want to claim that god did it, fine. But there is no evidence of that fact. A scientist does not claim anything more than what can be observed or tested.
That's true. I don't know what's out there but I actually do read and go to lectures. I get educated. I do not go to a sermon and listen to some priest reading from a 2000 year old book claiming that the secrets of the universe is in his book.
PS: As the ex-high school debate champ, I never concede. Bwahahaha!!! - ogremidget, on 10/12/2007, -27/+40There should be a third chart for people who believe in God and Science.
- javip, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20god, please save us from your followers
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Spectral: I misspoke about Evolution. It is a Theory. However I hate it when people misuse the "Its just a theory" argument.
A Scientific Theory is: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
A Scientific Law is: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called [natural law]
Basically a law is a statement of how something acts/reacts while a theory is why it does so.
EVOLUTION: The most basic definition of evolution is: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
No where does evolution claim how, why etc. life occurs.
Evidence of evolution: Fossil Record, speciation, common structures, embyrological similarities and from my undergrad biology days the human genome project. DNA shows that humans and apes had a common ancestor from a)similar vitamin C genetic defect b)Viral RNA inclusions in similar areas of our genomes and some which I can't remember.
Try this site...I just googled it and haven't fully read it yet. http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html - Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"People who believe in absurdities commit atrocities" Voltaire
- 3zero3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Theists usually try to claim Einstein for themselves. But it's really not true.
"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religous then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
- Albert Einstein - Mylonite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Any day of the week I'd rather Joe Schmoe decide to 'believe' the millions of people who have actually made the attempt to understand the world over the folks who would rather limit us to the understandings that some subset of our ancestors came to. If you're gonna have people too ignorant to think for themselves, I'd at least like them to put their 'faith' in people with more sense.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 725 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 
