Why logic defies a Christian God (1784 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 1.29 on 81 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Adam™ (View user info) at 2007-07-25 16:26:21 EDT
Science FTW
User Reviews
Submitted by shmack92 (user info) at 2007-08-20 11:37:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:10:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly why not poke fun at religion.
Religion is the greatest evil in our society today. As the population grows, transportation increases and borders shrink; racial divides are quickly diminishing. Compare them to a century ago. Not to mention religions historic predisposition to oppressing information that they find contradictory to thier own means (insert 2.3 billion referneces)
However, religion has and will continue to be the great divider of mankind. Pakistan v. India, Sunni v. Shiite, Serb v. Croat. etc. These are all conflicts precipitated by reliegious differneces.
--------------------------
Religion isn't really evil itself, but irrational and intolerant people are what ruin it. You can take religion away, but the intolerance of different beliefs will still exist. The phrase: "believe what i believe or i will hurt you" doesn't just apply to religion, but any situation where people won't tolerate a different lifestyle or belief.
Submitted by shmack92 (user info) at 2007-08-20 11:25:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:32:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You do realize that humans have existed on this planet for millions of fucking years, right?
What makes you think we would be extinct without scientific advancement? That's a very idiotic thing to say
-------------------------
Wrong again, humans have existed for only 200,000 years, but "millions of fucking years" isn't that bad an estimate for a person with 47 chromosomes.
Although we necessarily would not be extinct without scientific/technological advancement, we definitely wouldn't ever have reached the population we have today.
Submitted by shmack92 (user info) at 2007-08-20 11:11:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-07-27 04:05:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Science hates to admit when it's wrong. Absolutely can't stand it.
--------------
wow...you must watch FOX news a lot in your mobile home.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:40:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-07-27 04:05:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Science hates to admit when it's wrong. Absolutely can't stand it.
~*~*~*~*
Science loves admitting it's wrong. If the old views are wrong, it means there has been a new breakthrough- which is generally very exciting.
Science is only as certain as its evidence. When evidnece of a new theory > evidence of old theory, new theory is accepted.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2007-07-27 11:58:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You people obviously have too much time on your hands.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-27 09:33:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-07-27 04:05:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Science hates to admit when it's wrong. Absolutely can't stand it.
===
you make it sound like science has a personality.
Submitted by Kale (user info) at 2007-07-27 09:22:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Isn't science the pursuit of how and not why?
Why compare?
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-07-27 04:05:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:43:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
While attacking specific religions may be petty, trying to attack science for trying to seem "arrogant" is simply ignorant. Religions take an idea and latch onto it, making it a core belief. However, science is proud to admit that it is wrong.
------
Science hates to admit when it's wrong. Absolutely can't stand it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 16:31:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and ETS thinks that humanity's survival is based solely on petroleum, that there aren't any alternatives now or in the futur, and that in its absence, we will all disappear.
how apocalyptic.
hold to your bibles people.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 16:17:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
science vs religion arguments are pointless and make little sense since they don't necessarily exclude each other. they're not even on the same level.
ets is just one of those cynical fools who spit on today's humanity. he's not questionning where we're going, he's clinging to a romanticized past . it's conservatism and nostalgia. "oh how life was beautiful when all we had to do is farm our crops and make babies *cuts self*"
oh yeah?
you don't have to go very far back in time to see that we have it MUCH better than our ancestors. maybe living like medieval time looks awesome from a distant point of view, but i'm not sure the day to day life was that fun. in fact, i'm pretty sure it wasn't. talk to your grandparents and ask them if life was so fucking great.
we have access to SO much information, transportation, technologies, leisure, ressources...etc, that we have time to be cynic.
Right now, I'm eating fresh exotic fruits while checking online every car rental agencies in my area so that saturday at 12h30 exactly i can pick a brand new car and drive 2 hours to a beach and come back later. All of this with a plastic card I'll pay later in two mouse-clicks.
That's a simple example, but do you realize how much effort and time it would've required to our ancestors, starting with our grand-parents, to do simple things like this?
We are the luckiest generation there has ever been in these parts of the world.
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2007-07-26 14:55:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
this post ruled, igniting good debate always a plus
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-26 13:02:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sadly, ETS wins the argument. However, you're arguing about the wrong things and he makes some (really) dumb assertions that noone has cared to attack.
Science is NOT a religion unto itself. There is a gulf between the two.
Science:
(1) Certainties are constrained by evidence
(2) Critics, skeptics, and naysayers are encouraged- in fact, they make up the entirety of the scientific community.
(3) New ideas are put forth in a free market of peer reviews articles. If you say something contrary to current beliefs and back it up with evidence, you are awarded high honors.
Religion (Christianity in this example, but easily extended to other religions):
(1) Certainties are constrained by scriptural texts
(2) Critics, skeptics, and naysayers are killed, maimed, tortured, excommunicated, damned, or just considered wet blankets / assholes. Which of these is used depends on time, location, and brand of faith
(3) New ideas are few and far between. The core of the faith is written in the Bible, which hasn't changed since the Bronze Age.
The core of the difference is intellectual honesty. Sure, noone knows where the cosmos came from, but science makes an honest and open effort to explore the world around us. Science can claim both a massive amount of advancement and an honest approach to its findings. Religion can claim neither.
On another topic, science may be good or bad, but it is inevitable. Human curiosity + human competition fuel a never ending cycle of game-theory. I'll get an atom bomb because you don't have one and that gives me influence / money / power. You get it to match me. It escalates upward in business, government, and military. To look down at science is to look down at human curiosity and the first law of nature: self-preservation.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:10:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Who can say with a straight face that scientific advancements haven't created more problems for humankind than they have solved? Who can say that our world is really better off? That the human race has a BETTER chance of survival long term with scientific advancements? If you can do that, then I submit is is YOU who are both arrogant AND ignorant.
=============
I will.
I'm glad that I haven't been killed off by one of dozens of diseases that used to shave huge percentages off the population. I'm glad that medical science is good enough that when I broke my arm in two places and had the bone poking through the skin that they were able to a.)prevent me from getting an infection and dying (because in the wild it would have been an eventually fatal injury), and allowing me to have 100% mobility and use of it.
I'm glad that my life expectancy is in th 80's instead of the paltry 25-30 range that our ancestors had. Shit, at 27 my life would have been all lived out.
Science has allowed us to develop civilizations. These civilizations have allowed us to create religion, art, literature, strip clubs and beer.
If ancient peoples hadn't systematically selected grain crops throughout centuries and methodically bred animals to grow faster, be slower, more docile and more tasty people would still be living out a very hard life. It's these advancements that allow us to live this great life of leisure.
I'm not sure what it is you do for a living or for fun, but I'm 99% sure that you wouldn't be afforded these opportunities if science hadn't helped you out a bit.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly why not poke fun at religion.
Religion is the greatest evil in our society today. As the population grows, transportation increases and borders shrink; racial divides are quickly diminishing. Compare them to a century ago. Not to mention religions historic predisposition to oppressing information that they find contradictory to thier own means (insert 2.3 billion referneces)
However, religion has and will continue to be the great divider of mankind. Pakistan v. India, Sunni v. Shiite, Serb v. Croat. etc. These are all conflicts precipitated by reliegious differneces.
Look at how this country is becoming increasingly christian, and by proxy creating a us v. them mentality against the muslim world. Look at the whole of europe and how arguably the biggets social issue is that of a burgeoning islamic population encroaching on the historic christian stronghold. Look at Turkey.
FUCK. For someone who claims to be so goddamed phiosophical and enlightend how is that you are completely blind to the clear divisions that religion makes. Can you argue that the inherent potential of mankind as a whole isn't being restrained by the continued division.
Also, I had no idea this post would spark an semi-intelligent debate. HOORAY ME!
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-07-26 10:59:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
HAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHH!
Short, sweet, and rippingly vicious.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:18:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS is a close-minded fool with deep-seated opinons and no education.
he's what we call "dead wood". he serves no purpose whatsoever other than lower the collective IQ.
if humanity followed people like this, we'd still be stuck in the early paleolithic.
stfu mr. Linzey.
Submitted by CHR15 (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:11:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:50:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 21:40:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You people enjoy attacking religion for their hurtful past, the inquisition, etc. But have you ever really stopped and considered what science has actually done to the human race lately?
1: The Anthropic Principle.
There is no reason to assume that the human mind, which is subject to the laws of the universe in which it resides, has any interest in leading human beings to a true understanding of that selfsame universe. To try to discover the secrets to a universe of which we are part is like a fish in a fishbowl trying to ascertain his precise location on the earth from inside the fishbowl, or like trying to fix your only broken wrench using your only broken wrench. It's a fucking paradox! This should be fairly evident to everyone who has spent even a cursory amount of time on these questions. You know...everything is relative and all that. The very idea everyone who hates religion likes to espouse when it suits their purposes of hate, but reject when it turns against them.
2: Planck Time.
This is the point at which, if you go back far enough to when the Big Bang supposedly occurred (which all evidence thus far says did occur), the dimensions of space and time become indistinguishable from one another and the current laws of physics BREAK DOWN ENTIRELY. In short, there is no seeing beyond Planck Time. It is, at least in this limited human form, impossible. Until you can subvert or reconcile that, anything you believe about what happened before the Big Bang or what started this whole mess of a universe into motion is COMPLETE AND UTTER CONJECTURE and FAITH.
----------------------------------------
This is what happens when someone has read half way through a lot of books, but doesn't have the mental constitution to finish them.
First off, what has science done? Increased life expectancy and leisure time, the collective work of the world's literature, art and music which would be lost or never created without it, do I need to go on? Air conditioning, beer?
The Anthropic Principle? So in your fish bowl analogy we are better off just worshipping some guy walking arouns outside the fish bowl than trying to figure out what is out there?
You are right about planck time. The current theory points to a point in space and time where all laws of physics break down. But this is only the current one, and just because current tools don't allow us to see beyond this doesn't mean that there aren't models trying to do this, or that that theory is correct. A few thousand years ago people theorized that stars were pinholes in the curtain of the night and people thought the sun was a god riding a chariot across the night. Should we have given up then and accepted that as the truth or strived to learn more? I don't think anyone is saying science right now has all the answers but at least it is working towards greater understanding. Religion is giving up (at least chocking all your answers to questions about the universe to religion is). Argue all you want about how we can only learn so much, but if you take a second to look at how much more we have learned in the last 100, 10 even 5 years you will realize you are wrong. And while we will never know everything at least we will get closer.
Submitted by TheLightOfSpeed (user info) at 2007-07-26 06:21:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I couldn't get a heated post on my own, so I let other people so it for me. :P
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:11:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 08:00:16 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:42:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:32:42 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:50:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Without the uprise in technology that DOES harm our planet, we as a race would most likely (I say most likely, because it is physically possible to prove) be completely extinct.
--------------------
You do realize that humans have existed on this planet for millions of fucking years, right?
What makes you think we would be extinct without scientific advancement? That's a very idiotic thing to say.
------------
That is a pretty stupid thing to say actually. There would be a LOT less of us and life would be a shitload harder but saying we would certainly 100% be extinct is like saying Dodos would still be extant if we'd invented cheese-its 300 years ago and ate them instead.
-----------------
Wow, we agree on something?
----------
OMGWTFBBQ?!?!?!1one/?forward slash 1one1!?/?!
Looks it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:00:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:42:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:32:42 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:50:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Without the uprise in technology that DOES harm our planet, we as a race would most likely (I say most likely, because it is physically possible to prove) be completely extinct.
--------------------
You do realize that humans have existed on this planet for millions of fucking years, right?
What makes you think we would be extinct without scientific advancement? That's a very idiotic thing to say.
------------
That is a pretty stupid thing to say actually. There would be a LOT less of us and life would be a shitload harder but saying we would certainly 100% be extinct is like saying Dodos would still be extant if we'd invented cheese-its 300 years ago and ate them instead.
-----------------
Wow, we agree on something?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:59:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:50:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I am honestly dumbfounded. You not only supported what I was saying to begin with, that it is CHILDISH to attack a religion, but you put your foot in your own mouth as you type on your keyboard. Without the uprise in technology that DOES harm our planet, we as a race would most likely (I say most likely, because it is physically possible to prove) be completely extinct. The atomic bomb may be a horrible by-product of science, yes, but with it we also have nuclear energy, which is powering the factories that produce your electricity, that wire your cities, and that make you capable to live in the comfortable style in which you now live. As far as our species goes, we may not be able to understand everything in our current state, but given the progression that we have been able to make in a relatively short amount of time (caves to penthouses is a million years, our planet to outer-space in the past 100), I would say that evolution of our species would be able to take care of that.
Yes: science is dangerous if used unwisely. It has nasty consequences, but in the favor of all relativity concerned, the nasty by-products serve as nothing more than population control. We've reached a level at which we cannot be harmed on a massive scale such as we were in our early ages. You don't have to worry about being eaten by an animal on the way to work now. We've invented ways to keep our numbers down, and such is the natural progression of any species.
The goldfish bowl analogy is a crock of shit, simply because we are fish that have the capability to leave our bowls, and thus, it gives us the ability to ascertain our positions in the cosmos. I challenge you, throw away your technology and try to survive with a group of friends, a tribe if you will. You will fail.
------------------------
This review is going to be all over the place. There is so much stupidity in this review I don't know where to begin. let's start here:
"You not only supported what I was saying to begin with, that it is CHILDISH to attack a religion,"
You said that? Really? Where? Show me.
"The goldfish bowl analogy is a crock of shit, simply because we are fish that have the capability to leave our bowls..."
Really? You can leave your body?
I think you missed the metaphor completely. I swear some of you don't have a philosophical bone in your fucking bodies.
And, you also failed to address Planck Time.
You say "we've reached a level where we cannot be harmed on a massive scale like in the past". BULLSHIT. We're harming ourselves. By living out of balance with nature our numbers are not "in control" as you assert. Quite the fucking opposite. By destroying everything around us, by killing and consuming and exploiting every other species on the face of this planet, we are disrupting the very ecological balance that gave rise to our evolution in the first fucking place.
You really think our population is "in control"?
But that's not even the dumbest thing you said in this rambling cretinous review of yours. That distinction goes to this gem:
"we may not be able to understand everything in our current state, but given the progression that we have been able to make in a relatively short amount of time (caves to penthouses is a million years, our planet to outer-space in the past 100), I would say that evolution of our species would be able to take care of that."
The evolution of our species is going to take care of what? Is it going to restore the damage we'll end up doing? Look, this isn't about living in a fucking penthouse and thinking that's somehow "better off", this is about sheer RESOURCES. The only reason we're able to maintain the levels of population we have now is through artificial agriculture...PETROLEUM DRIVEN agriculture. We have to pump so much anhydrous ammonia in the ground to get our crops to grow and feed the 7 billion hungry mouths on the surface of this planet. How is this chemical made? How are our combines driven that harvest this vast expanse of land? What's propping up this house of cards you're calling a "better life"?
Pull your head out of your fucking ass for a second, stop regurgitating shit you saw on the Discovery Channel and THINK for a second.
Again...
"We've reached a level at which we cannot be harmed on a massive scale such as we were in our early ages."
I can't get over how fucking naive this is. And if any of the rest of you believe this shit, you are just a naive as this guy. Good god, people, you are floating on a finite ball in a vast expanse of nothingness inside a system that took billions of years to evolve the creature that you are, and you're really going to sit here and convince yourselves that meddling with the forces of nature is ok? That it's ok because science will guide us through? That at this point the bad aspects of it will only result in "population control"?
I fucking pity you if you truly believe this. I use that word without lightness. I really mean 'PITY'. No, fuck that...I pity the whole fucking species. I am sickened sometimes to have to count myself among you that think like this.
Some of you clearly need to go back and read some of the countless warnings about meddling with nature and trying to be on the level with God. Start with Icarus, then move on to Frankenstein, that should get you prepped.
I am convinced the world is populated by willing fools. Only a fool would stick around to watch this mess go down at this point, which makes me one of you...a fucking fool.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:42:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:32:42 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:50:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Without the uprise in technology that DOES harm our planet, we as a race would most likely (I say most likely, because it is physically possible to prove) be completely extinct.
--------------------
You do realize that humans have existed on this planet for millions of fucking years, right?
What makes you think we would be extinct without scientific advancement? That's a very idiotic thing to say.
------------
That is a pretty stupid thing to say actually. There would be a LOT less of us and life would be a shitload harder but saying we would certainly 100% be extinct is like saying Dodos would still be extant if we'd invented cheese-its 300 years ago and ate them instead.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:32:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:50:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Without the uprise in technology that DOES harm our planet, we as a race would most likely (I say most likely, because it is physically possible to prove) be completely extinct.
--------------------
You do realize that humans have existed on this planet for millions of fucking years, right?
What makes you think we would be extinct without scientific advancement? That's a very idiotic thing to say.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:24:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
that is fuc king great
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:08:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:40:53 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
Who can say with a straight face that scientific advancements haven't created more problems for humankind than they have solved?
-----------
Yo.
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:50:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I am honestly dumbfounded. You not only supported what I was saying to begin with, that it is CHILDISH to attack a religion, but you put your foot in your own mouth as you type on your keyboard. Without the uprise in technology that DOES harm our planet, we as a race would most likely (I say most likely, because it is physically possible to prove) be completely extinct. The atomic bomb may be a horrible by-product of science, yes, but with it we also have nuclear energy, which is powering the factories that produce your electricity, that wire your cities, and that make you capable to live in the comfortable style in which you now live. As far as our species goes, we may not be able to understand everything in our current state, but given the progression that we have been able to make in a relatively short amount of time (caves to penthouses is a million years, our planet to outer-space in the past 100), I would say that evolution of our species would be able to take care of that.
Yes: science is dangerous if used unwisely. It has nasty consequences, but in the favor of all relativity concerned, the nasty by-products serve as nothing more than population control. We've reached a level at which we cannot be harmed on a massive scale such as we were in our early ages. You don't have to worry about being eaten by an animal on the way to work now. We've invented ways to keep our numbers down, and such is the natural progression of any species.
The goldfish bowl analogy is a crock of shit, simply because we are fish that have the capability to leave our bowls, and thus, it gives us the ability to ascertain our positions in the cosmos. I challenge you, throw away your technology and try to survive with a group of friends, a tribe if you will. You will fail.
Submitted by particle_man58 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:21:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Total ownage!
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-07-26 00:44:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh shut up, ETS.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-07-26 00:33:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
SCIENCE KICKS ASS!
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2007-07-25 23:48:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My flatmate and I have been laughing at this for 5 minutes.
That, and ETS.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-07-25 23:04:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Why is "stia" underlined?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 21:40:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:43:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
While attacking specific religions may be petty, trying to attack science for trying to seem "arrogant" is simply ignorant. Religions take an idea and latch onto it, making it a core belief. However, science is proud to admit that it is wrong. If people like ETS ruled the planet, they would be more than content to admit that we will never fully understand everything about the universe, and that we should try to stop. The bad part about that, is the only because of the natural curiosity of scientists, and their ability to learn far beyond the expectations of critics, that we have reached the point that we have today. I'd rather be presumed as arrogant and smart, rather than humble and ignorant.
On another point, how do you know that we cannot understand the fundamentals of the universe and life. We are products of elements, it is our natural progression to eventually understand from where we come. The only thing that hinders our development are nay-sayers and people determined to try and stop progress. For a person so "dedicated" to our "freedoms", ETS seems eerily content with not understanding the fundamentals of his freedom, which lies in which how we came to be. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
I think ETS works for the government.
-------------------
"I'd rather be presumed as arrogant and smart, rather than humble and ignorant."
This isn't a matter of people's perceptions about your intelligence. It's a matter of sheer practicality and consistency of thought. If you want to attack a religious dogma for being in your opinion "outdated" or "ignorant", then you have to apply that same criteria of judgment onto whatever is your alternative philosophy, which in modern times has been the great religion of "Science".
You people enjoy attacking religion for their hurtful past, the inquisition, etc. But have you ever really stopped and considered what science has actually done to the human race lately? To our planet? To ourselves? The atomic bomb comes to mind. The pollution and social disconnection associated with a life of material excess and disregard of environmental impact... The arrogant meddling with the very genetic code structures of plants and animals in the search for a "perfect" species...(a search that is already yielding dire consequences for indigenous species)... Killer bees, genetically engineered crops...I could go on and on and on... Do they make us better off?
How about controlling the weather? Is that going to make us better off? We have the technology to do it. Is it a good idea to start pummeling the upper ionosphere with radiation to create or steer storms to a desired path? To seed clouds?
How about creating what scientists think might end up being "tiny black holes", yes "tiny BLACK HOLES" on the surface of the earth? Does THIS sound like a great fucking idea to you? Well, it's happening.
Scientific advancement...knowledge...will eventually be our undoing, not because it's in some prophesy, or because science is inherently bad, but because people aren't wise enough to use it without destroying themselves. This should be evident to anyone who is able to see the world today as it is in comparison to the way humans have survived for millions of years.
Who can say with a straight face that scientific advancements haven't created more problems for humankind than they have solved? Who can say that our world is really better off? That the human race has a BETTER chance of survival long term with scientific advancements? If you can do that, then I submit is is YOU who are both arrogant AND ignorant.
As for this question: "On another point, how do you know that we cannot understand the fundamentals of the universe and life."
It's simple philosophy... Two things:
1: The Anthropic Principle.
There is no reason to assume that the human mind, which is subject to the laws of the universe in which it resides, has any interest in leading human beings to a true understanding of that selfsame universe. To try to discover the secrets to a universe of which we are part is like a fish in a fishbowl trying to ascertain his precise location on the earth from inside the fishbowl, or like trying to fix your only broken wrench using your only broken wrench. It's a fucking paradox! This should be fairly evident to everyone who has spent even a cursory amount of time on these questions. You know...everything is relative and all that. The very idea everyone who hates religion likes to espouse when it suits their purposes of hate, but reject when it turns against them.
2: Planck Time.
This is the point at which, if you go back far enough to when the Big Bang supposedly occurred (which all evidence thus far says did occur), the dimensions of space and time become indistinguishable from one another and the current laws of physics BREAK DOWN ENTIRELY. In short, there is no seeing beyond Planck Time. It is, at least in this limited human form, impossible. Until you can subvert or reconcile that, anything you believe about what happened before the Big Bang or what started this whole mess of a universe into motion is COMPLETE AND UTTER CONJECTURE and FAITH.
Anyone else want to wax philosophical about this...or are you just going to admit that you don't know jack fucking shit and shut up and perhaps stop judging while you're at it? If you want to be agnostics and still place your faith in science, at least admit the paradox in that, or you're not following your own philosophy to its logical end. If there's one thing I do admire about religious philosophies it's that in the face of such madness and chaos, they have the courage to create or discover something - however you want to look at it - that's concrete to them. And again, it's all based on FAITH.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:54:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Dude, that little analysis there is on the wrong fucking website. Nothing as well-reasoned and intelligent as that is going to last a minute without being copied and called gay or something.
Arrogant and intelligent for the win.
Submitted by Tubabuhst_01 (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:43:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
While attacking specific religions may be petty, trying to attack science for trying to seem "arrogant" is simply ignorant. Religions take an idea and latch onto it, making it a core belief. However, science is proud to admit that it is wrong. If people like ETS ruled the planet, they would be more than content to admit that we will never fully understand everything about the universe, and that we should try to stop. The bad part about that, is the only because of the natural curiosity of scientists, and their ability to learn far beyond the expectations of critics, that we have reached the point that we have today. I'd rather be presumed as arrogant and smart, rather than humble and ignorant.
On another point, how do you know that we cannot understand the fundamentals of the universe and life. We are products of elements, it is our natural progression to eventually understand from where we come. The only thing that hinders our development are nay-sayers and people determined to try and stop progress. For a person so "dedicated" to our "freedoms", ETS seems eerily content with not understanding the fundamentals of his freedom, which lies in which how we came to be. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
I think ETS works for the government.
Submitted by PhillipTheGreat (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:23:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:58:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:39:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
He wasn't a zombie. Zombie's eat brains. Jesus was more like Treat Williams' character in Dead Heat.
---
HAHA!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:56:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's fantasticly absurd that the most dogmatic, hateful, evangelical religious types will immediately go into relativist "certainty is impossible" mode as soon as a small drop of logic is brought up to rebut their bullshit.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:42:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by gravitas (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:24:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:10:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's the nature of the argument, if you can't deal, get out of it.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:09:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:06:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Making sense" is relative.
You have just made my point for me.
===
The "it's all relative" argument? THAT old chestnut?
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"Oh, I can't be wrong! It's all a matter of perspective!" You have NOTHING better than that?
You SUCK at this game.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:06:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Making sense" is relative.
You have just made my point for me.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:05:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:02:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Satire is satire because of the sarcasm element. The only "sarcasm" in this post is the last line "yea, that makes perfect sense", which is sarcasm that's so lazy and obvious it almost doesn't qualify anymore as sarcasm.
So sure, I'll concede, this is satire. It's not very good satire but I stand corrected. To be good it has to be shocking because people believe it to be taking the part of the very thing it is ridilculing. This is not effective to that end. This is just an attack on Christianity, something you obviously have a pathological problem with that I suggest you have a doctor take a look into.
But whether or not this is satire is not the issue I was addressing when you said *I* missed the point...
My first review still stands. It's absolutely absurd to attack any ideology for "making no sense" when every ideology of man makes no damned sense.
===
"Making no damned sense":
Also see: Ron Paul, support of
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:02:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Satire is satire because of the sarcasm element. The only "sarcasm" in this post is the last line "yea, that makes perfect sense", which is sarcasm that's so lazy and obvious it almost doesn't qualify anymore as sarcasm.
So sure, I'll concede, this is satire. It's not very good satire but I stand corrected. To be good it has to be shocking because people believe it to be taking the part of the very thing it is ridilculing. This is not effective to that end. This is just an attack on Christianity, something you obviously have a pathological problem with that I suggest you have a doctor take a look into.
But whether or not this is satire is not the issue I was addressing when you said *I* missed the point...
My first review still stands. It's absolutely absurd to attack any ideology for "making no sense" when every ideology of man makes no damned sense.
Submitted by PioneerBill (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:57:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How about a similar post about Mohammed ... if you dare ... and be truthful!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:53:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:39:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
He wasn't a zombie. Zombie's eat brains. Jesus was more like Treat Williams' character in Dead Heat.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:47:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
*sputters*
Do I need to READ this shit to you, also, Sped? I QUOTE:
"1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc."
IT'S THE FIRST FUCKING DEFINITION.
RIDICULE. Applied, in this case, toward the FOLLY, from a certain standpoint, of the popular Christian fucking mythology.
If there IS a God, He/She/It is laughing their omniscient ass at YOU, RIGHT NOW. The very heavens THUNDER at your expense.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:44:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know perfectly well what satire is, and this is not satire. Unless it's referencing something else I'm not aware of, this isn't even close to satirical.
So, why don't you explain it to me since you seem to know so much about why this is satire and why m comment "missed the point".
Be specific. I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand you.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:37:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
Also:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshat
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:34:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:32:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Leave it to the sped to MISS THE FUCKING POINT COMPLETELY.
---------------
Tell me what point I have missed?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:33:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Christian bashing is becoming extremely passe, by the way.
When are people going to figure this out? The truth is much more complex than simply attacking certain viewpoints because they have somehow offended you personally.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:32:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:31:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's boil this down a minute... What's the alternative? That the entire universe sprang from absolutely nothing?
This chicken and egg tunnel only leads to one conclusion as far as I'm concerned...that Truth is a matter of faith ultimately. There is no escaping this. No matter how much you'd like to think truth can be found through a systematic testing of the world around you - aka science - and that everything including the secret of all creation can somehow be decoded and expressed in an elegant little equasion is just as absurd as anything Christianity says.
In fact, I'd submit it's more absurd than Christianity because of the arrogance of thinking that the human mind can discover eternal truths about the origins of a universe which includes him. It's absolutely senseless and an endless paradox to do so, yet the vanity of scientific thought taken to its extreme looks very much like religious zealotry in its vanity and ceaseless arrogance.
------------------------------------------------------------
Leave it to the sped to MISS THE FUCKING POINT COMPLETELY.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:31:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's boil this down a minute... What's the alternative? That the entire universe sprang from absolutely nothing?
This chicken and egg tunnel only leads to one conclusion as far as I'm concerned...that Truth is a matter of faith ultimately. There is no escaping this. No matter how much you'd like to think truth can be found through a systematic testing of the world around you - aka science - and that everything including the secret of all creation can somehow be decoded and expressed in an elegant little equasion is just as absurd as anything Christianity says.
In fact, I'd submit it's more absurd than Christianity because of the arrogance of thinking that the human mind can discover eternal truths about the origins of a universe which includes him. It's absolutely senseless and an endless paradox to do so, yet the vanity of scientific thought taken to its extreme looks very much like religious zealotry in its vanity and ceaseless arrogance.
Submitted by YELLOW-MAN (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:30:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Zampano (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:27:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:26:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:38:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I HONEST TO GOD LOL'ED
===
Me too. Sorry, Jesus.
Submitted by icanbecool (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:25:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:43:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:23:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:21:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is now my desktop background.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:38:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Amen Brother. Preach on.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:23:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:21:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is now my desktop background.
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:21:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is now my desktop background.
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:20:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You, sir, are a King amoungst men.
Submitted by prettyvacant (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:14:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I've fallen in love.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:58:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:56:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle."
Submitted by Creepy_guy (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:54:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not a bad guy. I work hard and I love my kids. So why should I spend
half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to Hell?
-- Homer Simpson
Homer the Heretic
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:52:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh dear
(ducks from lightening strike)
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:51:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Shlongy is "anti Uber religion posts".
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:44:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by raebuf (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:42:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Adam here is a fucking prick but this WAS pretty funny.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:39:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
He wasn't a zombie. Zombie's eat brains. Jesus was more like Treat Williams' character in Dead Heat.
Submitted by Cyrus (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:39:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"wherever he laid his hat was his home, and when he died..."
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:38:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I HONEST TO GOD LOL'ED
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:35:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well played.
Submitted by experima (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:35:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
wow
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:34:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
well yeah, if your gonna take it all literal and stuff...
George Carlin did it better. sorry.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:32:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh SNAP!
Submitted by ghola (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:31:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:29:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Perfect.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:28:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Any kind of hate gets love from me.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:27:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
HAhahahahahahahahahahahahaHAAAAAAAAAAAA!