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  
•       •       •

23644 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jan 2012 at 1:27 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-02 05:24:58 PM  
"(Although the Teabaggers would openly hate on negroes too, if they could get away with it)"

Yeah, because they'd have to actually climb or sit on them in order to hate on them, and a person is likely to notice if he has a Teabagger on him, since Teabaggers tend towards the corpulent.
 
2012-01-02 05:25:10 PM  

Bonecrusher: I'm buying some future coastal property in Arizona.

/suckers


Yeah but you're downwind from the Mammoth Lakes Caldera. Enjoy your rain of fire and brimstone.
 
2012-01-02 05:27:07 PM  

Digital Communist: SomeAmerican:
...

You can't argue that religion was used to transmit knowledge, and then say it impeded progress. There is no progress if you don't have a way to pass information on. Religion was our method for doing that. It was also our method for creating a caste of people who were supported for no other purpose than to vet, maintain, and pass on information.

Yes, it was difficult to get new information into their accepted dogma. But that served a purpose too. If you don't have a way to test information (we hadn't even invented the concept of doing so yet!), you have to be conservative until you have overwhelming proof. Such as starving or being conquered.

Recast your knowledge of human history, and think about priests as something other than parasites that society inexplicably exhalted. Instead, think of them as early forms of scientists, think of monestaries as primitive universities, and churches as ancient schools.

Again, keep Christianity out of it. It colors all our thinking. Instead focus on Rome, Greece, India, China, pretty much anybody except midevil Europe - which I maintain would have fallen to superior cultures had we not come up with an alternative to Christianity.

I think you'll find that history makes a lot more sense. We didn't carve off a huge chunk of global GDP for the bulk of our history for no ...


Here is another version of your argument: War has been an effective tool used by cultures to crush other cultures. It was these wars that allowed cultures like the romans to flourish and spread their stronger culture to others. Therefore, war is responsible for all the knowledge and art in the world and it gave birth to peace.


Except for that looting and burning of libraries and universities thingie, maybe.
But, then, I wonder how many Einsteins and Michaelangelos were killed off.
 
2012-01-02 05:27:57 PM  

Gyrfalcon: letrole: Atheism is a Religion

A truth.


Not sure if derping on purpose.
 
2012-01-02 05:30:27 PM  

Gunderson: No subby. They don't believe in your science


As much as the the rightnuts like to stamp their little feet and pout, their voodoo isn't science.
 
2012-01-02 05:31:15 PM  
If your religeon includes an all powerful, but bankrupt "God", you just might be a
 
2012-01-02 05:35:55 PM  
letrole: Atheism is a Religion

Gyrfalcon:
A truth.
You're a douchebag.
Another truth.



I reckon the problem here is that I'm simply expressing opinions that cannot be disputed without ad hominem and shout-downs and plain old histrionics. That does not make those opinions right. But, it certainly shows that they may not be wrong.
 
2012-01-02 05:36:28 PM  

whidbey: Bonecrusher: I'm buying some future coastal property in Arizona.

/suckers

Yeah but you're downwind from the Mammoth Lakes Caldera. Enjoy your rain of fire and brimstone.


Mmmmm, Mammoth. Still on my "must do" list for snowboarding.
 
2012-01-02 05:37:08 PM  

snocone: Digital Communist: SomeAmerican:
...

Except for that looting and burning of libraries and universities thingie, maybe.
But, then, I wonder how many Einsteins and Michaelangelos were killed off.


That was sort of the point of my post...

If you read back (or even the whole post you responded to) you will see that SomeAmerican was claiming that despite all the opposition and suppression of science that religion has done, it is responsible in large part as well as being the predecessor to science.

Religion, like war was an inevitability for a social animal capable of abstract thought. Just because religion was a dominating force for much of the history leading up to the enlightenment in no way makes it responsible for science. Hell, by SomeAmerican's logic, monarchies have as much claim to progress as religion does.

He even called priests the early scientists... what the fark?
 
2012-01-02 05:39:28 PM  

letrole: letrole: Atheism is a Religion

Gyrfalcon:
A truth.
You're a douchebag.
Another truth.


I reckon the problem here is that I'm simply expressing opinions that cannot be disputed without ad hominem and shout-downs and plain old histrionics. That does not make those opinions right. But, it certainly shows that they may not be wrong.


In your defense, you're certainly not the only person here who like to post while high.
 
2012-01-02 05:39:44 PM  

MSFT: whidbey: Bonecrusher: I'm buying some future coastal property in Arizona.

/suckers

Yeah but you're downwind from the Mammoth Lakes Caldera. Enjoy your rain of fire and brimstone.

Mmmmm, Mammoth. Still on my "must do" list for snowboarding.


Only after you do Mt. Baker on a beautiful spring day.
 
2012-01-02 05:39:53 PM  

MSFT: halfof33:
Yes, because you anti-religionist trolls are too freaking dim to focus on anything but the negative.

You seem to be very level-headed and willing to look at issues from all sides. I applaud your ability to stay above the name calling and remain objective while obviously being a persecuted minority in this country.


Yes, I'm sure you say the same to the anti-religionists on Fark when they spin off into full torch and pitchfork mode. I mean right? Oh wait, you probably think that "sky wizard" is the very cuttting edge of keen debate.
 
2012-01-02 05:42:18 PM  

Digital Communist:
He even called priests the early scientists... what the fark?


Fairly common for lay people to confuse correlation with causation.
 
2012-01-02 05:51:37 PM  

Digital Communist: snocone: Digital Communist: SomeAmerican:
...

Except for that looting and burning of libraries and universities thingie, maybe.
But, then, I wonder how many Einsteins and Michaelangelos were killed off.

That was sort of the point of my post...

If you read back (or even the whole post you responded to) you will see that SomeAmerican was claiming that despite all the opposition and suppression of science that religion has done, it is responsible in large part as well as being the predecessor to science.

Religion, like war was an inevitability for a social animal capable of abstract thought. Just because religion was a dominating force for much of the history leading up to the enlightenment in no way makes it responsible for science. Hell, by SomeAmerican's logic, monarchies have as much claim to progress as religion does.

He even called priests the early scientists... what the fark?


That is easily misconstrued. The records kept by the priests survived. Mistake to assume any purity of purpose.
Random chance gives us suppression or advancement.
 
2012-01-02 05:52:53 PM  

Burn98: justGreg: /homeopathy is stupid

Ever hear of allergy shots. Allergy shots can drive allergic reactions into long term remission by injecting very small amounts of the allergen.

Medical science has been using homeopathy for at least 50 years. They just don't like to call it that.

Granted that homeopathy has been misused, and double blind tests have proven that the most popular forms of homeopathy do not work. But the concept should not be rejected because quacks are misusing it.


are you farking retarded ?????

there is a DIFFERENCE between allergy shot which use a measurable amount to cause a histamine reaction, which is testable and science and homeopathic which is zero amounts and never reproducible in ANY controlled testing.

so you are either a troll
or
farking retarded

pick one please
 
2012-01-02 05:53:15 PM  

whidbey:
Only after you do Mt. Baker on a beautiful spring day.


Have and will again. That is a pure money, my friend, and will probably be the death of me at some point. Can't resist opening it up full throttle on those days, my bad shoulders be damned.

halfof33: MSFT: halfof33:
Yes, because you anti-religionist trolls are too freaking dim to focus on anything but the negative.

You seem to be very level-headed and willing to look at issues from all sides. I applaud your ability to stay above the name calling and remain objective while obviously being a persecuted minority in this country.

Yes, I'm sure you say the same to the anti-religionists on Fark when they spin off into full torch and pitchfork mode. I mean right? Oh wait, you probably think that "sky wizard" is the very cuttting edge of keen debate.


Nope. I rarely get emotionally involved in any discussions as it tends to be counter productive.

But your attempt here to deflect my point actually makes my point in that you accuse others of your own behavior, and when called out on it, simply continue to point the finger at others. You demonstrate little, if any, personal responsibility in these threads while trying to maintain some false sense of being on the moral high ground. Do you want to know the difference between a good christian and a good buddhist? You'll never hear someone tell you that they're a "good buddhist".
 
2012-01-02 06:09:20 PM  
Oh noes - we might have a religious President!

If memory serves, we:
- built an atom bomb under an Episcopalian
- went into space under a Catholic
- landed on the moon under a Quaker.

There might have been a few other impressive accomplishments along the way, I'm not sure.

You can stop worrying your pointy little atheist pinheads that science and technology will grind to a halt with a man of faith in the oval office.
 
2012-01-02 06:19:30 PM  

cchris_39: Oh noes - we might have a religious President!

If memory serves, we:
- built an atom bomb under an Episcopalian
- went into space under a Catholic
- landed on the moon under a Quaker.

There might have been a few other impressive accomplishments along the way, I'm not sure.

You can stop worrying your pointy little atheist pinheads that science and technology will grind to a halt with a man of faith in the oval office.


So to be clear you would be ok with a Muslim president, right?
 
2012-01-02 06:20:17 PM  

cchris_39: Oh noes - we might have a religious President!

If memory serves, we:
- built an atom bomb under an Episcopalian
- went into space under a Catholic
- landed on the moon under a Quaker.

There might have been a few other impressive accomplishments along the way, I'm not sure.

You can stop worrying your pointy little atheist pinheads that science and technology will grind to a halt with a man of faith in the oval office.


Unfortunately, those men of faith placed a great value on science and science education. The current nutjobs profess an extreme antipathy for those two necessities. Apples and oranges, dude.
 
2012-01-02 06:20:51 PM  

MSFT: Nope. I rarely get emotionally involved in any discussions as it tends to be counter productive.

But your attempt here to deflect my point actually makes my point in that you accuse others of your own behavior, and when called out on it, simply continue to point the finger at others. You demonstrate little, if any, personal responsibility in these threads while trying to maintain some false sense of being on the moral high ground. Do you want to know the difference between a good christian and a good buddhist? You'll never hear someone tell you that they're a "good buddhist".


Your "point" was a sarcastic comment that wasn't worth replying to, but you knew that, didn't you?

It may surprise you but Fark does have anti-religion trolls, the one I was replying to posts in virtually every religion thread. Fark isn't well known for its warm and welcoming approach to the religious, so if I am getting under the anti-religionist majority's skin, you'll have to forgive me.

/Hey my next door neighbor is Buddhist, I'm going to go over there and high five his ass for letting me borrow his crock pot! Good Buddhist? Great Buddhist!
 
2012-01-02 06:22:16 PM  
derp
 
2012-01-02 06:22:24 PM  

cchris_39: Oh noes - we might have a religious President!


We have a religious president now and he's doing pretty good, thank you.

The problem with these conservatives isn't faith. The problem is being batshiat insane.

You don't put people like that in positions of power.
 
2012-01-02 06:23:30 PM  
Kumana prepares to administer a trout slapping
 
2012-01-02 06:24:49 PM  

cchris_39: Oh noes - we might have a religious President!

If memory serves, we:
- built an atom bomb under an Episcopalian
- went into space under a Catholic
- landed on the moon under a Quaker.

There might have been a few other impressive accomplishments along the way, I'm not sure.

You can stop worrying your pointy little atheist pinheads that science and technology will grind to a halt with a man of faith in the oval office.


other than the ANTI-science rhetoric out of this lot. Non of your above references were anti-science.
 
2012-01-02 06:25:52 PM  
Yeah Nixon was a total Quaker.

Loved that anti-war stance of his. Quite admirable.
 
2012-01-02 06:30:37 PM  

MSFT: So to be clear you would be ok with a Muslim president, right?


obama seems to be working out ok
 
2012-01-02 06:31:39 PM  

SomeAmerican: dericwater: Nope. Religion didn't know when to plant crops. Farmers learned by trial and error. Religion was a way to transmit that knowledge. But because the earth doesn't revolve around the sun once exactly 360 days, the religionist got their calendars all wrong and after a few years (10 years, 50 days off, that's more than half a season), they would plant when they're not supposed to. Again, then back to the actual farmers and workers who understood what to do. Because, ultimately, if the farmers can't grow, the church ain't gonna survive, the churches relented and made changes to their calendar. Again, it's the churches that were hindering progress.

You can't argue that religion was used to transmit knowledge, and then say it impeded progress. There is no progress if you don't have a way to pass information on. Religion was our method for doing that. It was also our method for creating a caste of people who were supported for no other purpose than to vet, maintain, and pass on information.

Yes, it was difficult to get new information into their accepted dogma. But that served a purpose too. If you don't have a way to test information (we hadn't even invented the concept of doing so yet!), you have to be conservative until you have overwhelming proof. Such as starving or being conquered.

Recast your knowledge of human history, and think about priests as something other than parasites that society inexplicably exhalted. Instead, think of them as early forms of scientists, think of monestaries as primitive universities, and churches as ancient schools.

Again, keep Christianity out of it. It colors all our thinking. Instead focus on Rome, Greece, India, China, pretty much anybody except midevil Europe - which I maintain would have fallen to superior cultures had we not come up with an alternative to Christianity.

I think you'll find that history makes a lot more sense. We didn't carve off a huge chunk of global GDP for the bulk of our history for no ...


I'm not saying that religion stopped science, as it obviously did no such thing. I'm saying that religion impeded science and had no religion been around, it would have progressed quicker.

As another poster remarked below your post here, war also has a way of "cleansing" the cities it ruined and allowing for new cultures to flourish. But would I want wars to have that happen or would I rather have some saner process take place to allow that to happen?

Would information be passed on without religion? No doubt. Has some useful information been stymied by religion? No doubt. The net effect is that religion has been more of a hindrance than help in moving humanity forward. That's basically the bottom line however you want to dice it up.
 
2012-01-02 06:32:53 PM  

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.
 
2012-01-02 06:35:24 PM  

letrole: MSFT: So to be clear you would be ok with a Muslim president, right?

obama seems to be working out ok


I wonder when he's finally going to push the button that makes the ICBMs shoot out of the Kaaba...
 
2012-01-02 06:35:26 PM  

halfof33:
/Hey my next door neighbor is Buddhist, I'm going to go over there and high five his ass for letting me borrow his crock pot! Good Buddhist? Great Buddhist!


You won't catch me disagreeing about cooking with a crock pot. If anything you're insane for not already owning one.
And you're right about something else, I am one sarcastic SOB. In Buddhism this goes directly against "right speech", something I'm well aware of and not particularly proud.

I think, fundamentally, I just don't understand why people concern themselves so much with how their own religious views are perceived and criticized by others. When a christian tells me I'm going to hell for being a Buddhist, I don't get even remotely angry - I just smile and thank them for their concern.
 
2012-01-02 06:38:29 PM  

halfof33: It may surprise you but Fark does have anti-religion trolls


You do know that "troll" has a meaning, right? It has a definition. It's not just anyone who disagrees with you or says something you don't want to hear.

Pointing out the Catholic church has a history of sexually abusing children and a system set up to protect the guilty priests by moving them to another region isn't trolling. Just like telling you that there is no evidence in any way for your god isn't trolling.

Not even when you come in and start flinging shiat at anything to distract from the topic at hand is trolling.

Words have meanings.
 
2012-01-02 06:39:30 PM  
Speaking of trolls...
 
2012-01-02 06:40:08 PM  

SomeAmerican: You can't argue that religion was used to transmit knowledge, and then say it impeded progress.


Yes. Yes you can. The churches allowed it when it was convenient for them to do so (food growing, war, etc). They got in the way and held back progress when said progress would have been inconvenient for them (educating the masses, proving the church's claims incorrect, etc). It's not a black and white kind of thing.
 
2012-01-02 06:40:12 PM  
i109.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-02 06:40:22 PM  

letrole: MSFT: So to be clear you would be ok with a Muslim president, right?

obama seems to be working out ok


Going for the obvious joke shows a lack of creativity. Do you really want to grow up and write for Saturday Night Live?
You can do better than that, just make an effort.
 
2012-01-02 06:41:48 PM  

MSFT: letrole: MSFT: So to be clear you would be ok with a Muslim president, right?

obama seems to be working out ok

Going for the obvious joke shows a lack of creativity. Do you really want to grow up and write for Saturday Night Live?
You can do better than that, just make an effort.


Not all trolls can be as creative and funny as pocketninja or the like. This one definitely has a way to go.
 
2012-01-02 06:44:03 PM  

BurnShrike: MSFT: letrole: MSFT: So to be clear you would be ok with a Muslim president, right?

obama seems to be working out ok

Going for the obvious joke shows a lack of creativity. Do you really want to grow up and write for Saturday Night Live?
You can do better than that, just make an effort.

Not all trolls can be as creative and funny as pocketninja or the like. This one definitely has a way to go.


I can't understand why people still choose to talk to that guy. He's one of the most obvious trolls we have here. He even claims as much with his moniker.
 
2012-01-02 06:47:30 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: I can't understand why people still choose to talk to that guy. He's one of the most obvious trolls we have here. He even claims as much with his moniker.


Me neither. I generally just ignore him.

I do watch for people to bite his lure though. It's rather indicative of human gullibility that get manages to draw people in most times.
 
2012-01-02 06:48:23 PM  

BurnShrike: halfof33: It may surprise you but Fark does have anti-religion trolls

You do know that "troll" has a meaning, right? It has a definition. It's not just anyone who disagrees with you or says something you don't want to hear.

Pointing out the Catholic church has a history of sexually abusing children and a system set up to protect the guilty priests by moving them to another region isn't trolling. Just like telling you that there is no evidence in any way for your god isn't trolling.

Not even when you come in and start flinging shiat at anything to distract from the topic at hand is trolling.

Words have meanings.


and there he is! bringing up the Catholic Church and sexual abuse in a thread that has nothing at all to do with either.

Words do have meaning, and the meaning of burnshrike is "troll."
 
2012-01-02 06:49:10 PM  

whidbey: Speaking of trolls...


Yes?
 
2012-01-02 06:50:54 PM  

El Trolo: Yes?


Trolololol I am the Japanese Sandman, take 8....
 
2012-01-02 06:51:21 PM  

halfof33: BurnShrike: Words have meanings.

and there he is! bringing up the Catholic Church and sexual abuse in a thread that has nothing at all to do with either.

Words do have meaning, and the meaning of burnshrike is "troll."


And there he is, flinging poo anywhere he can to avoid actually having to counter an argument. Then reiterating his original flawed logic.
 
2012-01-02 06:51:37 PM  
Coming in a little late in the thread.

I believe in both God and Science. And, to be sure, if God exists (and I believe that He does), then the whole "God vs. Science" meme is a gross misnomer. God is the designer, science is the tool. The two have worked together to craft a place where we flourish. How God went about making humans is of little consequence to me. Whether He started with a single cell and worked from there to make all forms of life, or whether he hand-crafted every single manner of plant and animal individually, it really doesn't make that big of a difference (though I dare say we would be wise to investigate, if only for the sake of knowledge and diligence).

The manner in which He created this universe is the same, as well. I suspect that He instigated what science has called the "big bang". And maybe He's made other big bangs. And maybe He's made other life-bearing planets and other forms of life. And, if He thought we'd discover this for ourselves and needed to know about it ahead of time, He'd have told us.

I really detest that there is so much hatred and closed-mindedness on both sides of the argument. Angry, butt-hurt atheists who violently belittle anything and anyone that alludes to a supreme being, but also the other end of the spectrum where anything that contradicts a specific interpretation of the Bible (whether it claims to negate God's existence or not) is attacked with a level of critical and social damnation akin to McCarthyism.

People on both sides of the spectrum are there for their own reasons. Saying "You're wrong" is one thing. Saying "You're bad" is something else entirely, and is akin to pointing one finger at someone else, only to have three pointing back at yourself.
 
2012-01-02 06:51:50 PM  

Knara: urban.derelict: letrole: Atheism is a Religion

and bald is a hair color.
[Link][fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 640x345] --> to bigg4r
/my karma ran over your dogma

"Hard atheism" is a religion. "Soft atheism", that is, "I currently see no evidence for a supreme being but if some is offered I will consider it," is not.

Of course, like with any religion, the "hard atheism" folks, ie, "god does not exist. period." get the most press.

But "hard atheism" is not a rational position, it is a religious one.


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?).
 
2012-01-02 06:52:46 PM  

BurnShrike: CtrlAltDestroy: I can't understand why people still choose to talk to that guy. He's one of the most obvious trolls we have here. He even claims as much with his moniker.

Me neither. I generally just ignore him.

I do watch for people to bite his lure though. It's rather indicative of human gullibility that get manages to draw people in most times.


I'm always surprised when people don't understand CDP's posts and actually take them at face value as his own posting.
Dude even links to the crazy and people STILL don't get it.
 
2012-01-02 06:54:12 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 507 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






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