Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Jakarta Globe)   Right now, six people running for the job of the leader of the most powerful nation on earth are trying desperately to convince voters that they don't believe in science and won't govern based on it   (thejakartaglobe.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, White House, Republican, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Utah Governor  
•       •       •

23648 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jan 2012 at 1:27 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



511 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-01-02 06:56:01 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism is a faith-based doctrine


Living sensibly through reason is a "faith-based doctrine?"
 
2012-01-02 06:58:41 PM  

whidbey: common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism is a faith-based doctrine

Living sensibly through reason is a "faith-based doctrine?"


Atheists are just trying to teach the controversy.
 
2012-01-02 06:58:58 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron:
Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).



What is a god? What properties does a god have? How would I recognize one if I saw it?
 
2012-01-02 07:02:06 PM  

FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron:
Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).


What is a god? What properties does a god have? How would I recognize one if I saw it?


Let me try this one. okay. A god is an omnipotent supernatural controller of the universe who can't be seen or measured. A god can do all kinds of stuff. You will just know when you see a god.

Ergo, God is my girlfriend. She lives in Canada. You haven't met her. But she's totally real. I just love all of that making out and vagina contact.
 
2012-01-02 07:03:55 PM  

FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron:
Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).


What is a god? What properties does a god have? How would I recognize one if I saw it?


he looks a lot like you, or Issac Asimov, depends on the lighting....
 
2012-01-02 07:05:14 PM  
also, I hear he's looking for a starship....
 
2012-01-02 07:06:10 PM  

FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron:
Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).


What is a god? What properties does a god have? How would I recognize one if I saw it?


I thought Gary Gygax covered all that decades ago...
 
2012-01-02 07:07:47 PM  

Braindeath: hubiestubert: In the same way, that some folks are good with the amount of knowledge to plug in their computers and understand enough about electricity to not stick forks in the sockets. Some folks need to know a bit more than that. In the same way, some folks are good with X amount of awareness in spiritual matters. Can get by without it, be happy without even.

I agree that religion is something you do on your own, and should be on your own. But you're guessing! You don't know these things! Your comparison is not apt when I'm the one taking the damn computer apart to see inside it.


To be fair, part of the spiritual journey is likewise taking things apart. Primarily yourself, your preconceptions, your notions, challenging yourself to see truth where you've tarried a bit with notions for too long. It is likewise a journey of understanding. You might see that your own assumption is perhaps a bit dismissive, yes?

Mind you, the dabblers, the folks who go to Church or temple only on holy days, who only pray when someone's watching, who meditate only to be seen, they don't help. Then again, pseudo-science doesn't exactly help either. This is why it's important to look at the individual. Scientists who write papers for hire, to shore up political positions are just as culpable as clerics who support questionable political policy, even if it runs counter the tenets of their own faith.

In the end, it's not a matter of science OR faith being superior, it is about achieving balance, and having some measure of integrity, be that morally, ethically, or intellectually.

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-01-02 07:15:45 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Believing in science is much the same as believing in God. Either one takes some degree of "faith" to make the puzzle fit. Personally, I believe there can be a co-existance of both, but I find the universe and all that has taken place to be too miraculous to have "just happened".


No. They are not the same. You are an idiot.

You don't have "faith" in science. Faith is not the same thing as trust. With science, things are peer reviewed and everything is set up to disprove hypotheses. With religion, there is no such process.

I reiterate: If you think religious faith is remotely similar to trusting in evidence, you are a complete and utter moron.
 
2012-01-02 07:20:07 PM  

hubiestubert:
Mind you, the dabblers, the folks who go to Church or temple only on holy days, who only pray when someone's watching, who meditate only to be seen, they don't help. Then again, pseudo-science doesn't exactly help either. This is why it's important to look at the individual. Scientists who write papers for hire, to shore up political positions are just as culpable as clerics who support questionable political policy, even if it runs counter the tenets of their own faith.

In the end, it's not a matter of science OR faith being superior, it is about achieving balance, and having some measure of integrity, be that morally, ethically, or intellectually.


Not sure why I didn't have you favorited before now. Nice write-up, btw.
 
2012-01-02 07:20:59 PM  
Atheist: One who doesn't believe in a higher power.

Jesus - human, but simultaneously god.

God tells us there is no higher power than him.

Ergo, Jesus was an atheist.
 
2012-01-02 07:21:50 PM  

hubiestubert: [lh4.googleusercontent.com image 512x640] When I talk of belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?


Because you don't "believe" things that are testable, measurable and quantifiable. You don't "believe" that gravity holds you to the surface of the Earth. It just does it, regardless of how you feel.

It's only when you start talking about invisible, magical, and/or supernatural things that "belief" enters the picture at all. I suppose you could be talking about ghosts, or psychics or something else instead, but usually it's God (especially in a discussion thread about God)
 
2012-01-02 07:26:38 PM  

sno man:

he looks a lot like you, or Issac Asimov, depends on the lighting....


[Laughs] I actually shaved off my majestic, Asimovian sideburns just a few minutes ago.
 
2012-01-02 07:37:13 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion


Where's the damned "Dumb" button.
 
2012-01-02 07:37:21 PM  
Wow, what an incredibly misleading headline.
 
2012-01-02 07:41:51 PM  

ckotchey: Wow, what an incredibly misleading headline.


Why do you think it's misleading? How does it differ significantly from what's being described in TFA?
 
2012-01-02 07:43:47 PM  

Lordserb: discospinster: Lordserb: Not science, but the agressive forced interpretation of science that disallows God to exist.

It's hardly aggressive or forced.

If that were the case then schools shouldn't have a problem teaching creationism vs. evolutionism.


SCHOOLS SHOULDN'T BE TEACHING RELIGION. Did you get all of that? Do you still think it's "aggressive" and "forced"? Then please kill yourself, you have no potential to waste.
 
2012-01-02 07:44:46 PM  

BurnShrike: hubiestubert: [lh4.googleusercontent.com image 512x640] When I talk of belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?

Because you don't "believe" things that are testable, measurable and quantifiable. You don't "believe" that gravity holds you to the surface of the Earth. It just does it, regardless of how you feel.

It's only when you start talking about invisible, magical, and/or supernatural things that "belief" enters the picture at all. I suppose you could be talking about ghosts, or psychics or something else instead, but usually it's God (especially in a discussion thread about God)


You miss the point then of the spiritual journey. And the point.

Faith isn't about testable results. It isn't about answering those questions at all.

Science and faith aren't opposite ends of a spectrum. They are entirely different tool sets, to entirely different question sets. You can actually use science and have faith, and not be cognitively dissonant. If anything, knowledge of physics and astronomy reinforces my faith. It allows me to see a larger picture than before, and still marvel at it. The two can actually reinforce one another.

Part of the problem lies in folks who see science as a challenge to their beliefs because not every equation ends with "God did it." Small minded and narrow, these folks are just as spiritually stunted as they are intellectually. You see folks who claim that they want to bask in God's love, but can't extending loving kindness to their neighbors, and ignore the the foundational Commandments of their faith when it's expedient, yet scream at those who violate rules in Leviticus whose neighboring passages they violate with their polyblend clothing, shrimp boils, and cheeseburgers.

Science is a target, because they don't understand it, and figure that in order to combat that feeling on ineptitude, then they have to tear it down. It challenges them, and some folks don't see challenge as a good thing. Which is sad, considering that the journey is always about challenge. Then again, some folks fear change, and that is maybe more to the point, than the science. Science brings change. There are learned folks who make them feel inadequate, so the best thing to do is attack those who make them feel bad about themselves, as opposed to stepping up and actually learning a bit more about the world. It is a peculiar mind set, but not just Christian or Muslim in nature. It is a curious thing thing to value ignorance, because it violates so much of the traditions of the People of the Book, but some folks prefer easy to parse lessons over the harder journey, and woe betide anyone who forces them to think too much.

Be that about their gay neighbors. Be that about their own consumption habits. Be that about their own politics.
 
2012-01-02 07:45:29 PM  

JohnnyC: Religion is such a blight on the human species. I can't think any other single thing in all of human history that has inhibited our progress more.


Jersey Shore....
 
2012-01-02 07:47:04 PM  

whidbey: ckotchey: Wow, what an incredibly misleading headline.

Why do you think it's misleading? How does it differ significantly from what's being described in TFA?


Checked out your photos from your profile; what camera and lens do you tend to use?
Just picked up the Nikon D7000 recently and have been learning to take pictures myself. Right now I'm doing most of my stuff with a 100mm (mostly portrait work), although for Christmas I got a 35mm fixed lens that is tack sharp and just stupid easy to get great photos from.
 
2012-01-02 07:50:14 PM  

andyfromfl: clyph: Lordserb: Not science, but the agressive forced interpretation of science that disallows God to exist.

Present rigorous scientific evidence (IE quantifiable, reproducible, and falsifiable) confirming the existence of your God and the scientific community will accept it.

But you can't. All you have are fairy tales.

[www.jamesrb.co.uk image 640x501]

Why does someone need to present scientific evidence that God exists, but someone doesn't need to produce metaphysical/religious evidence that science exists? Could it be that they cover two completely different areas, and you could no more prove one with the other than you could calculate the beauty of a painting? Each area answers questions the other doesn't bother trying to.


This may well be the single stupidest thing I've EVER read on Fark, and I've seen meow said the dog post in 9/11 threads. That's just...wow... please tell me you don't spread this stupid around to other people.
 
2012-01-02 07:56:27 PM  

MSFT: Checked out your photos from your profile; what camera and lens do you tend to use?


The stuff from the past two years is a Canon Digital Rebel. The lens that came with it sucks total ass (too soft for poster size), but lenses are expensive and I have been monetarily challenged the past few years. I would love to find a decent fixed 35 like yours (jelly).

I did get a fixed 50 last year and it's great, but I miss being able to get the wide angle stuff, so I put the crappy lens back on. I also use a small point and shoot for some newer pics, but it's also turned to be not so good for clear big hi-res shots like other cameras I've had in the past...
 
2012-01-02 08:09:52 PM  
Atheism is a religion to those who have trouble having faith in themselves.
 
2012-01-02 08:10:22 PM  
Relax everyone. Like anyone's going to vote Republican this year. They have very little to offer and people are tired of the same old bullshiat.
 
2012-01-02 08:10:22 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: dericwater: Everything the Church does has had a hampering effect. The Church is the near-sighted bumbling uncle who touches the TV set and causes it to blow the power converter. The one guy who can make an iMac reboot. The one guy who thinks he can drive a stick and shreds the transmission. The one guy who thinks he knows how to open a door and manages to rip it off the hinges. Every time the church muddles with something, that something strays off its perfectly nice path and gets stuck having to fix a world of F**K. Then the church leaves, wipes its error stained hands on some other person's shoulders and ventures off to another debacle, completely ignorant of what damage it has wreaked.

This is the one part where you're a bit off. Sometimes when the churches farked things up for science it's on purpose. Keeping the masses uneducated and ignorant is the best way to keep them in control. A scientist defies the claims of the church? Kill him and bury his work.


No doubt. I've never said that the Church was a constant and complete failure. Sometimes they succeed in exactly what they want to do: quash curiosity and inquiry and learning.
 
2012-01-02 08:10:30 PM  
Well that sure killed the forum...must have been all that sciency camera talk.
 
2012-01-02 08:16:01 PM  

Rob3Fan: I believe in evolution and science.

I don't believe in the exagerated claims of human induced climate change.

Climate science has been politicised, and hence corrupted by politics.


I think the debate regarding human-induced vs. naturally-occuring climate change has been framed as such by people who either cannot understand, or refuse to accept, the fact that human civilization is altering the biosphere and the planet's ability to sustain us. The real issue is pollution - of the land, the water, and the air we breathe. While we're sitting here splitting hairs over whether or not our actions are affecting the environment (they are), we continue to dump massive quantities of toxic substances into the very environment that supports our existence. The worst part is, we could drastically cut down on this just by rethinking some basic assumptions about material use, reuse, and disposal, but this would require actual thought and people are just too farking lazy.

On one hand, we're blithely pumping cancer-causing toxins into the environment, where those toxins ultimately end up in the food, water, and ultimately, our bodies. On the other hand, we're spending billions of dollars per year to "fight cancer"

farking amazing.
 
2012-01-02 08:19:05 PM  

FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron:
Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).

What is a god? What properties does a god have? How would I recognize one if I saw it?


It seems to depend on the religion of the person you're asking. This may be taken as circumstantial evidence against the existence of god(s), or it may be taken as a "blind men and the elephant" scenario in which god(s) are simply too big to describe in mortal terms.

Personally, I don't think the (non)existence of god(s) can be proven.* If the universe was created by some Entity, then said Entity must exist independently from the universe. Since all that we can observe is contained within the universe, anything "outside" is unprovable.

Even observations within the universe are limited in resolution (see Planck units [new window]), such that (at least based on our current understanding of physics) we can never make perfect observations, nor can we make any educated assumptions about the nature of the Big Bang itself.


*Unless it/they want to be discovered. And if this were the case, then the proof would be irrefutable.

www.inquisitr.com
ceci n'est pas un dieu
 
2012-01-02 08:19:49 PM  
That's alright though, because, when has a politician ever lived up to their promises?
 
2012-01-02 08:19:55 PM  

Savage Belief: Relax everyone. Like anyone's going to vote Republican this year. They have very little to offer and people are tired of the same old bullshiat.


Remember that 50% of the population is below normal intelligence and conservatism seems to be back in fashion.
 
2012-01-02 08:21:30 PM  

Rich Cream: Atheism is a religion to those who have trouble having faith in themselves.


I dont think that any of those words mean anything that you think they mean
 
2012-01-02 08:28:51 PM  
getting back to the whole point of this thread, rather than the debate on the merits of religion in the modern world...
I still think that it's even more troubling that none of these fine candidates seem to believe in math let alone science...
 
2012-01-02 08:30:13 PM  

sno man: getting back to the whole point of this thread, rather than the debate on the merits of religion in the modern world...
I still think that it's even more troubling that none of these fine candidates seem to believe in math let alone science...


Do they understand any math and science? Or are they all ex-lawyers?
 
2012-01-02 08:32:52 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).


Technically yes, in the sense that all knowledge rests on a handful of assumptions/axioms which cannot be proved, but using the word faith there can be, and often is, misleading. More specifically about your point, it's odd to say that one has "faith" when one does not believe in something for which there is no evidence or proof. It's more akin to a null hypothesis.

You may be committing a common mistaken: assuming atheists are 100% certain about there being no God(s). Merely stating one remains unconvinced isn't a matter of faith.
 
2012-01-02 08:44:32 PM  

Baryogenesis: common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).

Technically yes, in the sense that all knowledge rests on a handful of assumptions/axioms which cannot be proved, but using the word faith there can be, and often is, misleading. More specifically about your point, it's odd to say that one has "faith" when one does not believe in something for which there is no evidence or proof. It's more akin to a null hypothesis.

You may be committing a common mistaken: assuming atheists are 100% certain about there being no God(s). Merely stating one remains unconvinced isn't a matter of faith.


Additionally, the use of the word "doctrine" does not apply to atheism.
 
2012-01-02 08:57:13 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron:
Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).

What is a god? What properties does a god have? How would I recognize one if I saw it?

It seems to depend on the religion of the person you're asking. This may be taken as circumstantial evidence against the existence of god(s), or it may be taken as a "blind men and the elephant" scenario in which god(s) are simply too big to describe in mortal terms.

Personally, I don't think the (non)existence of god(s) can be proven.* If the universe was created by some Entity, then said Entity must exist independently from the universe. Since all that we can observe is contained within the universe, anything "outside" is unprovable.

Even observations within the universe are limited in resolution (see Planck units [new window]), such that (at least based on our current understanding of physics) we can never make perfect observations, nor can we make any educated assumptions about the nature of the Big Bang itself.


*Unless it/they want to be discovered. And if this were the case, then the proof would be irrefutable.

[www.inquisitr.com image 271x400]
ceci n'est pas un dieu


Limited resolution is only inexact if you assume an analog universe, with infinitely divisible extents and durations. If it turns out that duration and extent are quantized, then that has implications that get to be downright philosophical. I've not seen any experiments to resolve the question, though.
 
2012-01-02 08:58:45 PM  
hubiestubert: Why I get up every damn day, is one. Why I extend compassion to those around me. Why I strive to be kind to those near me, who I may never see again.

You can't do any of those without believing in an invisible old man in the clouds?
 
2012-01-02 09:00:05 PM  

whidbey: FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron:
Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).


What is a god? What properties does a god have? How would I recognize one if I saw it?

I thought Gary Gygax covered all that decades ago...


WotC got it all mucked up again afterwards. Can't tell an avatar from a kobold under the new rules.
 
2012-01-02 09:01:06 PM  
Science and religion exist in different domains. The moment science supports the existence of God, the need for belief goes out the window. Faith is the foundation of most religions, and is definitely strong in Christianity. Removing the component of faith strips the most important bit out of it.

The more information we find about the universe, the more mixed signals we will find about God's existence. Nothing can ever point conclusively, or in conjunction with anything else, to an answer one way or another, that God exists or does not. There is no valid scientific theory which is going to both match observation and support a God.

The creationist people actually have a really great idea. Dinosaur bones were scattered through various strata to intentionally confuse and mislead people. Whether it is a test of faith as claimed doesn't matter. The science cannot support the Biblical description of creation, or it will eliminate the need to believe in a God.

This is where I draw the line. Anyone who tries to bring science in to religious discussion is actually an anti-theist. They are trying to minimize the role of faith, and are the misguided false prophet the Bible warns people about.

Science has to disagree with the Bible, this is necessary and should be expected. And at every step, every discovery, we should take a moment to "Stand still and consider the wondrous works of God." (Job 37:14) Or celebrate the marvels of a godless world.


If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to your
mountain, "MOVE!" and it WILL move...and NOTHING will be
impossible for YOU!
- Matthew 17:20

Blessed is the man who trustsin the Lord and has made the
Lord his hope and confidence.
- Jeremiah 17:7

Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and don't lean on your own understanding. In all things acknowledge him, and he shall direct your way. [Proverbs 3:5, 6]

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live (John 11:25).

28 When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?"

"Yes, Lord," they replied.

29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith let it be done to you"; 30 and their sight was restored. --Matthew 9



And of course I'll include the Biblical rickroll as long as I'm here.

I will never fail you or forsake you. - Hebrews 13:5
 
2012-01-02 09:05:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Why Yes I Am A Wizard: Mr.BobDobalita: Believing in science is much the same as believing in God. Either one takes some degree of "faith" to make the puzzle fit. Personally, I believe there can be a co-existance of both, but I find the universe and all that has taken place to be too miraculous to have "just happened".

QUIET! THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE!

We must destroy all believers in the name of Science. Only then will Atheismo place his blessing on our experiments!

Wow. You legitimately have no understanding of how science works, do you.


No, that wasn't a question.


Wow. You You legitimately have no understanding of how much like militant atheists are like the intolerant fundamentalist theologians they mock.

Same crazy zeal, other side of the coin.

You turned my snark into a troll and proved my point at the same time
 
2012-01-02 09:06:04 PM  

Xenu's Giant Pink Replicock: This is where I draw the line. Anyone who tries to bring science in to religious discussion is actually an anti-theist. They are trying to minimize the role of faith, and are the misguided false prophet the Bible warns people about.


Science can certainly comment on religion because religions make testable claims. I do agree with you that science can't address the metaphysical, in fact, science purposefully restricts itself to examining the natural universe.
 
2012-01-02 09:07:26 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: hubiestubert: Why I get up every damn day, is one. Why I extend compassion to those around me. Why I strive to be kind to those near me, who I may never see again.

You can't do any of those without believing in an invisible old man in the clouds?


Not the how of things. But the why. The intention of purpose. Why are we here? Why do we seek purpose? The whys are powerful questions, beyond just the hows and exactitude of being. Accepting what is, that is certainly something that we all do. Seeking a meaning to that being, that is something that some folks want a bit more on...
 
2012-01-02 09:10:56 PM  

hubiestubert: FuryOfFirestorm: hubiestubert: Why I get up every damn day, is one. Why I extend compassion to those around me. Why I strive to be kind to those near me, who I may never see again.

You can't do any of those without believing in an invisible old man in the clouds?

Not the how of things. But the why. The intention of purpose. Why are we here? Why do we seek purpose? The whys are powerful questions, beyond just the hows and exactitude of being. Accepting what is, that is certainly something that we all do. Seeking a meaning to that being, that is something that some folks want a bit more on...


But where in asking the "why" do you come up with "because the magic man wanted it that way". Asking why is a universal question; not one merely relegated to religion. It's just that religion jumps to the conclusion that there must be a willful entity behind everything to make it work, when this not only has no evidence to back it up, but the more we understand the natural laws of the universe, we realize there isn't any will behind it. The universe just does what the universe does.
 
2012-01-02 09:14:33 PM  

Baryogenesis: common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism is a faith-based doctrine (at least unless/until someone can offer proof that no supernatural beings of any description exist), but it is not a religion (who/what do atheists worship?).

Technically yes, in the sense that all knowledge rests on a handful of assumptions/axioms which cannot be proved, but using the word faith there can be, and often is, misleading. More specifically about your point, it's odd to say that one has "faith" when one does not believe in something for which there is no evidence or proof. It's more akin to a null hypothesis.

You may be committing a common mistaken: assuming atheists are 100% certain about there being no God(s). Merely stating one remains unconvinced isn't a matter of faith.


And you may be confusing atheism with agnosticism. Being unconvinced that there might be a god is not the same as denial of the existence of any gods. My point was that hard-core atheism (the flat statement, "There is no god") relies on facts and evidence just as much (or as little) as does devout belief (the flat statement, "There is a God [or gods]").

However, your "null hypothesis" idea does sort of agree with my own mental model: If you consider religions to be analogous to natural numbers (monotheistic religions = 1, etc.), then atheism would equal zero. Zero isn't a natural number (religion), but it is a whole number (faith-based, in this analogy). Atheism may be the the faith that something does not exist, but in the absence of absolute evidence (either positive or negative) it is faith nonetheless.
 
2012-01-02 09:18:08 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: And you may be confusing atheism with agnosticism. Being unconvinced that there might be a god is not the same as denial of the existence of any gods. My point was that hard-core atheism (the flat statement, "There is no god") relies on facts and evidence just as much (or as little) as does devout belief (the flat statement, "There is a God [or gods]").

However, your "null hypothesis" idea does sort of agree with my own mental model: If you consider religions to be analogous to natural numbers (monotheistic religions = 1, etc.), then atheism would equal zero. Zero isn't a natural number (religion), but it is a whole number (faith-based, in this analogy). Atheism may be the the faith that something does not exist, but in the absence of absolute evidence (either positive or negative) it is faith nonetheless.



I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
-- Isaac Asimov
 
2012-01-02 09:22:22 PM  

Metraxis: Limited resolution is only inexact if you assume an analog universe, with infinitely divisible extents and durations. If it turns out that duration and extent are quantized, then that has implications that get to be downright philosophical. I've not seen any experiments to resolve the question, though.


Unless we can find a way around the Planck limits, there is, if not quantization of the universe, at least pixelation. And pixelation does set a limit on the fineness of observable detail.
 
2012-01-02 09:23:01 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: My point was that hard-core atheism (the flat statement, "There is no god") relies on facts and evidence just as much (or as little) as does devout belief (the flat statement, "There is a God [or gods]").


No it doesn't. Being an atheist means you live your life using reason and science as tools. No belief or evidence required. It's just life. No doctrine, no dogma, no statements that need to be proven.
 
2012-01-02 09:25:14 PM  

whidbey: MSFT: Checked out your photos from your profile; what camera and lens do you tend to use?

The stuff from the past two years is a Canon Digital Rebel. The lens that came with it sucks total ass (too soft for poster size), but lenses are expensive and I have been monetarily challenged the past few years. I would love to find a decent fixed 35 like yours (jelly).

I did get a fixed 50 last year and it's great, but I miss being able to get the wide angle stuff, so I put the crappy lens back on. I also use a small point and shoot for some newer pics, but it's also turned to be not so good for clear big hi-res shots like other cameras I've had in the past...


That's too bad, sorry to hear that. I had picked up a cheap 50mm fixed after I got the camera, but this 35mm really blows me away with how easy it is to capture sharp images with great color. I set it to auto and handed it to my best friend's wife on new years eve and even those were tack sharp.

For going wide I've got a Sigma 10-20mm that does the trick without having to steal my son's college money. My only complaint there is that it only stops down to 4, so going into low light situations can be a bit of a ball buster if you can't/ won't use a flash. I used it at a recent "ugly sweater" party and was having to make some real compromises with the ISO and speed settings to get away without having to use a flash.

Just checked Amazon and you're right - there doesn't seem to be a cheap 35mm available for the Canon, which seems really odd. Just out of curiosity, what kind of material do you have in mind for the wide angle lens (lower than 35mm)?

I really love this new hobby, but it would have been cheaper to get addicted to heroin and scientology.
 
2012-01-02 09:29:49 PM  

MSFT: Just out of curiosity, what kind of material do you have in mind for the wide angle lens (lower than 35mm)?


Landscapes, mainly. I notice that taking shots with the 50 is like cropping a picture taken with the 18-50. But I'm learning that any lens you can zoom with could compromise sharpness/focus.
 
2012-01-02 09:36:54 PM  
Baryogenesis 2012-01-02 09:06:04 PM
Xenu's Giant Pink Replicock: This is where I draw the line. Anyone who tries to bring science in to religious discussion is actually an anti-theist. They are trying to minimize the role of faith, and are the misguided false prophet the Bible warns people about.

Science can certainly comment on religion because religions make testable claims. I do agree with you that science can't address the metaphysical, in fact, science purposefully restricts itself to examining the natural universe.


One can bring religion in to scientific discussion under any circumstance. That would be where science can comment on religion. Keep in mind, many of the functions that quantum physics discusses would be seen as metaphysical in earlier years. You can try to prove God exists, or does not, or ghosts, or ESP, all you want, as long as you do it using the scientific method - repeatability, transparency, and an open mind.

It is bringing science in to religious discussion that is problematic. No scientific justification has any place in Christianity, to be specific.
 
Displayed 50 of 511 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report