What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
125 Comments
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -14/+92"The sciences will not teach mankind how to treat one-another."
Sadly, the religions of the world tend to ignore the "love your neighbor" bits and go straight to the parts about nasty things to do to unbelievers, even though the former usually outweighs the latter. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38Lifelong education is what science is all about, and thats what scientists and engineers seem to understand that others don't. There are things out there that we don't know, and we're willing to spend the rest of our lives trying to figure those things out. I'm willing to put all my stock in this, rather than just attributing the unexplainable to "god" and moving on to read about who Paris Hilton blew this week.
- Twoodge, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40"Religious scriptures are not intended to be science books. The sciences will not teach mankind how to treat one-another. It's best to find a balance."
Religious scriptures simply state basic human fundamentals required for civilised communities (do not kill etc.). People don't take their morals from the Bible or the Qu'ran, or in the sad case that they do, they cherry-pick to a huge extent. Furthermore, what they do usually pick out is usually the most backwards and discriminatory verses possible. That's why religion is such a mess today. - oscarwp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27The meaning of life is survival. Without survival life stops.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+41@flippinjeremy
he's right, you know.
Achalemoipas has managed to see straight through the *****. - manixrock, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26@the_wallbanger
the problem with your analogy is you used a clock as an example and to be a meaningfull example we should asume that neither the theologian nor the scientist know what a clock is.
Thus a scientist would look at the inner workings and at some point be able to explain fully how it works. He would then be able to asses that the clock's hands move because of an interior spring passing energy, and they make n full rotations every day, etc. After some theorising and analysis of proof, they will most probably deduce in the end the correct answer that it is some kind of time measuring device.
A theologian would look at the whole thing in ansemble and would see rotating things and the ticking noise, and they might come to a conclusion that it's the heart of the universe, for example. And then they would stick to that ideea, and maybe adapt it to suit what new discoveries are made by science, but always unwilling to depart from their original beliefs that's is a hart of some sort... - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Nietzsche had the right position on meaning of life. There is no provable or logical meaning of life. It is a meaningless concept, you may as well ask how big is infinity. What can exist is the meaning you choose to give yourself. Choice is vital and this is why fundamentalists are plainly wrong. Fundamentalists would be wrong even if they could and did proof their version of the god story is true.
- godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23flippinjeremy: the very concept of meaning is stupid to debate about. asking what is the meaning of life is like asking what The Opinion (no, no other qualifiers) is. If someone wants to define a meaning for their own life, it's up to them, but to talk about the meaning of life in a general sense is silly.
- CletusJones, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24All i know, is that the Clock was made by The Baby Jeeeezzzzzusssssah!
- geometry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@rosstizma
I truly hope you are being sarcastic. If not I feel deeply sorry for you and the crappy job your parents did raising you. This is the argument I hear so many conservatives using, fear from god is the only thing that keeps people civilized. If that is true in your life, somebody really screwed up when they were raising you. I don't fear nor believe in god, but I have stronger morals than most religious people I know.
Is it better to be a person who has strong morals because they know it's the right thing to do or is it better to do the right thing because you believe you'll go to hell if you don't? The way I see it is that sure, up to a certain point in my life I didn't do "bad" things because I was afraid my parents would find out and I would get in trouble. But at some point in my life I stopped fearing my parents and started doing the "right" thing because I knew it was right. - WeBuiltThisCity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Oh my,
That's an amazing example of why not to vote Republican. Uniting your platform and squelching dissent in the name of elections is the reason people like John McCain go from being a brave independent and free thinker to someone spouting ideological bull and pandering to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I'll take a fractured but honest platform any day. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12To say that Evolution shouldn't be debated is as utterly stupid as assuming god did it. GR is debated constantly in physics circles, in fact the entire last 60 or so years have all been about replacing/fixing GR. There are far fewer flaws in Einstein's theory than in Darwin's. This isn't a contest of course but everything is open to debate and always must be.
The goal of science is to find the best possible model based upon evidence not unquestionable truths. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@foxhaze
but the clock isn't the heart of the Universe. The theologian *is* wrong in this case.
Lets use a different example. A scientist and a theologian might look at the night sky without knowing what it is. The theologian would see everything going around us and deduce that Earth is the heart of the universe. The scientist would study the retrograde motion mathematically and he would look at the phases of Venus deducing that the Earth isn't the heart of the universe at all but that the Sun is indeed the heart of our local system. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@rosstizma
I'm trying to figure out if you are parodying fundies or not.
That the person believes there to be no meaning to life yet hasn't raped, pillaged and killed his way through his town shows that religion isn't needed for morality. - Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@vince916
Morons, They were morons - vince916, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Who were the three republicans who didnt believe in evolution?
- himey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@the_wallbanger....
The scientist will eventually discover the missing hands and find out the meaning of their existence and have a full understanding of the watch.
The theologian will never question anything and stare blankly at the pretty spinning arms thinking that they are powered by magic.
**EDIT** Wow....Now I get to the comment by manixrock right below mine and realize that I was REALLY late. :) - dotlizard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8i borrowed this from a wise fellow named RatBastard, who commented it on Slashdot awhile back. I believe it sums things (life, the universe, everything) up quite nicely:
However, do we really expect science to explain everything? Is there a scientific method that provides proof for the meaning of life?
Who says there's a meaning to life? We want there to be one. Doesn't mean there is one. The fundamental purpose in life can be summed up thusly: "Successfully reproduce before something eats you". Do that and you've done what you are here for. Now, we as human beings can add more to that. We can, because of our intelligence, give our lives a "greater" purpose. What that purpose is is up to each of us as individuals. If you want your life to be spent helping those less fortunate than yourself do it. If you want your life to be spent eating as many donuts as you can go for it. It's your life to fritter away im whatever way suits you best.
To me, the chances of everything being as they are now by cosmic chance seems just as plausible as a God in heaven. So in the meantime I am currently undecided, a fact for which my Christian friends tell me I am undoubtedly going to hell for.
The chances are better for random chance than for God. We have proof the universe exists. We can see it, smell it, measure it, predict its behavior, etc... We can do none of these things for God. Add to this the fact that all previous religions and gods in history are mere myths and the chances of God being real drops even lower. Why is the current myth any more real than the previous ones? Other than you were raised to believe in this one? - manixrock, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@foxhaze
You missunderstood my example. The clock is not a reprezentation of time, it is a simple clock. In the example the scientist and the theologian have never seen a clock before (imagine them living 5000 years ago). This object would apear at first to both of them to be strange, and somehow misterious as the clock's hands rotate by themselfs.
Please note that you and me, knowing a clock's mechanism, how it works, and it's purpose, we have the knowledge of the truth (much like the gods in theology, when the purpose of us, or the universe is at question). We can say which of them 2 is right. And it this example it is the scientist. Another conclusion we might draw is that in the vast majority of conceivable cases the scientist, trough logick, would have the higest chanches of finding out the truth. - mourne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8How do you figure? If god exists and there is an afterlife.. we'll all have the answer.. If these 2 statements are not true, we'll never have an answer, we'll cease to exist.
- luther70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There are lots of advantages to having a simplistic world view.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5there is no higher or universal 'meaning' to life as 'meaning' is a term that exists only in the human mind. therefore you can think up a meaning for your life, but to look for a higher meaning is stupid
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6the politicians don't debate evolution. the creationists have painted evolution as a line between the believers and the non-believers. if you want to court the growing evangelical voter block, you have to throw your hat into the "believers" ring. i was watching one of those political morning shows and one of the guests said "what does evolution have to do with forming policy?" and pat bucanan retorted sarcastically "what does believing in god have to do with anything?". the conservatives have been skillfully framing debate in such a manner that clouds the facts and creates more division. it's all divide and conquer.
- Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6so, good points... but please use reply!
- symplectic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Superstitious people attack the theory of evolution because they believe that they understand what it implies, and assume erroneously that it threatens their belief system. If people understood Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, they would attack it as well. If they understood Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the principle of Quantum Superposition, either Theory of Relativity (Special, General), or the various implications of Quantum Field Theory, then the same frightened, superstitious people who contend with the theory of evolution would be driven to murder, arson and riot. It has happened before. Look how the mathematician Hypatia was raped and murdered after being skinned alive by angry Christians for her books on number theory. Evolution is the current target because it can be explained (not always correctly) in simple language.
- BrewBeau, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Only if there IS an afterlife will "each and every one of us have an answer". More likely we will just die and having the answer will then be meaningless.
edit: Mourne beat me to it! - LBTS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5stonewaller, jerryflipper, et al, actually they were just trying to respond with logic to your illogical replies.
Their only mistake is to attempt to debate with you at all, because you're not really here to debate with logic and facts, are you? What you're really after is just being argumentative.
And seriously, are we suppose to digg up the ***** you guys write even though we don't agree with it; are you from another planet or what? - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@stonewall
I think he meant a general predetermined meaning for us all, which is what modern day Christianity tends to believe.
Have all the meaning you want, just don't enforce it on others. - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I was actually just being a grammar nazi because it beats listening to the women behind me talk about their kids and how their husbands suck all day. That is the whole point of having a digg up digg down button. Otherwise you'd be at some other forum where the rules were different. I say asinine things all the time and I get dugg down. It's the nature of the beast. Quit crying about it and grow some skin man. They're random people on the internet. Who really gives a *****?
- codemonkeysteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The sciences will not teach mankind how to treat one-another."
O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat - ohmar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Wow, I didnt know we had philosophers on Digg. Its refreshing to see coherent thought and arguement in the comments.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@obrysii
Actually I am correct. All you need do is look at the Evolution vs. Creationism debate and you can see how very correct I am on this point. We're talking about Christian fundamentalism here and not what the Catholic church claims. If Genesis is a metaphor, isn't that a lot like saying it's myth? And if Genesis is a mere creation myth then it is no better at explaining the beginning of the earth than creation myths of the Navajo, Aztecs, Mayans, or any other early civilization. The problem lies with the Christian fundamentalists who claim the bible is the actual word of God and is an accurate history of the earth. This, of course, is incorrect. - LBTS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thefaithful, you wrote "He/she holds religious, unscience based beliefs. He/she has to be crazy to think that way. We must lock them up for the safety of our society."
You can't go around locking anyone up in America for no reason or because you don't agree with their religious beliefs.
Oh wait, Bush; Patriot Act, maybe I'm wrong about that. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11"Scientists obsess on the cogs, gears, and springs in the hopes of understanding how the universe works."
Do you believe the internets you recieved in your email are a series of tubes as well? - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Your point is? So, this is a public forum, a sounding board, to do, exactly what you just did. Fire off our own personal view, and have a public discussion about it. DUH.
- ideapower, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6naturalism? i didn't realize this was about naked people... i'll read the article right now.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'd hardly consider the Catholic Church an authority on Christianity.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Who's the free-thinkers now diggers?"-----> Who is the free-thinkers now diggers?....not you
We can use the digg button in any fashion we see fit. People get dugg down for arguing a point that someone else wasn't trying to make. - ideapower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well that's an assumption on your part - i never said that. i'm just questioning your insistence that this is an absolute certainty. you were so quick to argue how very correct you are, and how obviously what you believe is fact (and anyone who believes otherwise is simply wrong, stupid, deserves pity, etc.). you've since changed your story a bit, being a little more open-minded in your last comment, though.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The "Theory" evolution has a lot MORE scientific backing behind it, than you "THEORY" of God. And yes, by definition at best, God is a theory, but in reality, God doesn't even meet that definition. God hasn't made it past the hypothesis stage.
- staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
"Sadly, the religions of the world tend to ignore the "love your neighbor" bits and go straight to the parts about nasty things to do to unbelievers, even though the former usually outweighs the latter."
Unless you take the love thy neighbor bits for their face value. During the time most of these religions were created their neighbors were most likely of the same religion. Right after moses came down the mountain with the stone tablets in which the love thy neighbor commandment is attributed to....
Exodus 32: 26-28
"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. "
there are many other verses which seem to indicate that if taken literally the bible was "not" ment for everyone and is a pretty faulty guide to use as your base for morals. - BrandonMills, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Evolution isn't a problem?
Well then :) These drugs that stop HIV in its current form should just stop HIV altogether :) AIDS CURED!
What? They EVOLVE past the drugs? Nuts. - DieGOPNazis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Future Republicans of America. The key is to get them to march to the beat of a single drummer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHEmWgW4qwg - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, I guess he could have worded that differently. Sometimes, I think people tend to go for the more abrupt shocking way of saying things. In certain moods, I can be guilty of that, as well. :)
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Now, I'm not sure if you gentlemen watch The View (ABC, Talkshow), but this morning, the ladies were discussing the GOP debate and the subject of evolution came up (not by Rosie). Almost all of the audience, and most of the hosts were very much in agreement that the President of the U.S. must believe in the doctrine of scientific evolution. So, I think this might be a big issue...
- Oldschoolhack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+342.
I believe that should suffice to any philosophical/religious debate. - Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2they are debating who is more worthy of the christian fundamentalist vote.
also, evolution obviously exists... - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'll ask the questions here....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is