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.

(Daily Mail)   Soul Searching: Two quantum physics experts proclaim near-death experiences occur when the soul leaves the nervous system and enters the universe. Atheists, how you doing?   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 187
    More: Obvious, Roger Penrose, David Icke, quantum gravity, The Science Channel, deep structure, Heavy Rain, anesthesia, integral  
•       •       •

8814 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Oct 2012 at 8:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-30 10:12:06 AM  

Bad_Seed: The problem is that using the word "soul", (which the Mail probably does deliberately) throws some people into hissy fits. What TFA is calling "the soul" is merely the informational content of the brain, which I would think is a pretty uncontroversial entity. I'm pretty sure that any scientific theory of consciousness has to describe how the brain stores and processes information. The difference is that the "standard" hypothesis believes that this information is somehow encoded in the network of neurons, while Penrose and Hameroff are suggesting that the information is ultimately stored and processed at a far lower physical level. I don't think there's anything really mystical here, once you get passed the Daily Mail's cavalier use of the English language.


They also said that the information leaves and has an adventure during a near death experience. They aren't just putting out an idea about information storage using unfortunate nouns.
 
2012-10-30 10:12:15 AM  

doglover: The Billdozer: Epicedion: cman: I am not saying that. I am saying that there are people in this thread who are taking a big dump on these scientists because they believe in the concept of spirituality. They dont promote a religion at all, yet they are getting the royal "fark you" from Farks religious haters

No, they're scientists promoting pseudoscience. They deserve to be flogged by the ghost of Carl Sagan and Zombie Feynman.

Carl Sagan, atheism's Jesus/Buddah/St Francis all rolled into one.

Buddha was an atheist, brah.


Someone is missing the point, brah.
 
2012-10-30 10:18:24 AM  

The Billdozer: doglover: The Billdozer: Epicedion: cman: I am not saying that. I am saying that there are people in this thread who are taking a big dump on these scientists because they believe in the concept of spirituality. They dont promote a religion at all, yet they are getting the royal "fark you" from Farks religious haters

No, they're scientists promoting pseudoscience. They deserve to be flogged by the ghost of Carl Sagan and Zombie Feynman.

Carl Sagan, atheism's Jesus/Buddah/St Francis all rolled into one.

Buddha was an atheist, brah.

Someone is missing the point, brah.


That Sagan did a lot to get people curious about the universe, to give them a little taste of what sound reasoning can do, and to remind them that they can still marvel at the way the world works like they did when they were kids?

We don't revere him as God's chosen one or an enlightened guru. We admire that he was able to show people (including many of us) that we can begin to understand the universe around us by simply observing what's out there and describing it as accurately as possible. He is not the first or the last to have this idea.
 
2012-10-30 10:19:12 AM  
Now they're gonna say the soul has mass and they can measure it
 
2012-10-30 10:21:38 AM  

Bad_Seed: wademh: doublesecretprobation: so there is empirical evidence of the existence of the human soul now?

It's like this. Every feeling, every emotion, every memory, every thought, they can all be show to be derived from purely physical processes, ultimately with neurochemical processes.

FTFY. I don't believe in the soul or anything, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.


It's beyond correlation. Well beyond correlation. There's no excuse for a person educated in neuroscience to deny it.
 
2012-10-30 10:22:47 AM  

I May Be Crazy But...: They also said that the information leaves and has an adventure during a near death experience. They aren't just putting out an idea about information storage using unfortunate nouns.


This is where my fuzzy understanding of quantum theory comes in. If the information is essentially encoded in the physical fabric of the universe (in the fluctuations of the quantum field) then it isn't necessarily destroyed just because the neurons stop firing. Yeah, it's all very speculative at this stage, but it isn't non-scientific per se.
 
2012-10-30 10:23:56 AM  
These physicists are close. But in quantum terms they are waaaaay off!

God IS the soul.
 
2012-10-30 10:24:30 AM  

wademh: Bad_Seed: wademh: doublesecretprobation: so there is empirical evidence of the existence of the human soul now?

It's like this. Every feeling, every emotion, every memory, every thought, they can all be show to be derived from purely physical processes, ultimately with neurochemical processes.

FTFY. I don't believe in the soul or anything, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

It's beyond correlation. Well beyond correlation. There's no excuse for a person educated in neuroscience to deny it.


Do you have a good link explaining it then? I would be very interested to read.
 
2012-10-30 10:28:27 AM  

cman: Epicedion: cman: I am agnostic and I think many in this thread is acting like an idiot. The fact that these closed minded people couldnt even consider for one second that there is some energy force out there beyond our perceived world speaks volumes on their personality. The problem is is that we cannot prove nor disprove its existence, and keeping a closed mind will always ensure that we will never truly be able to solve this mystery.

Infinite other possibilities exist, and must be discounted as offering no evidence. Must they all be treated with kid gloves? Do they all get equal weight, or just the ones you happen to like?

I am not saying that. I am saying that there are people in this thread who are taking a big dump on these scientists because they believe in the concept of spirituality. They dont promote a religion at all, yet they are getting the royal "fark you" from Farks religious haters


They getting the royal fark you for shiatty pseudo science reported in a newspaper that is deliberately targeted at dumb old ladies.
 
2012-10-30 10:30:07 AM  

vactech: I had this called already:

Nature/God
1. A varience of constant states of (and moving properties) that define and create the shapes of binding precedents and objects observed in the conscious and unconscious:
a. Quantum mind
b Galaxy morphological sytem
c Infinit truth proposition (God Mind)
d Neural correlates
e Oscillation Matter/Synchronized Matter (both varieties)
f Quantum Electromagnetism (subset of Quantum Physics)
......(complete set available by request)
Notes:
Contextualism defines (completely) subsets and the whole sets (above) through which observation is restritive in allowance of the sets.

//Score +1 for my definition, -1 for IDW's


*blinkblink*

Once more with coherence?
 
2012-10-30 10:30:22 AM  
0/10.
 
2012-10-30 10:34:26 AM  

Bad_Seed: wademh: Bad_Seed: wademh: doublesecretprobation: so there is empirical evidence of the existence of the human soul now?

It's like this. Every feeling, every emotion, every memory, every thought, they can all be show to be derived from purely physical processes, ultimately with neurochemical processes.

FTFY. I don't believe in the soul or anything, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

It's beyond correlation. Well beyond correlation. There's no excuse for a person educated in neuroscience to deny it.

Do you have a good link explaining it then? I would be very interested to read.


Uh, you need to go beyond a web page. If you've covered the prerequisites, you might get a text on neurochemistry to take you further, and psychopharmacology to cover that angle, and then you need to start reading journals and other technical books. But it isn't a matter of casual interest. You could try to be autodidactic in your learning but typically that fails due to a series of bad teachers who can't get past their preconceptions.
 
2012-10-30 10:36:46 AM  
Didn't I read this somewhere in the Marvel Universe?
 
2012-10-30 10:36:59 AM  
Most scientists will immediately agree with the statement that there's still a lot out there we don't know. Just because we don't know it, doesn't mean you can make up something ridiculous and announce it as 'the truth'. But the existence of a life beyond death doesn't make religion right, it's just a new fact we'll have to fit in a new theory. If its existence can be proven, of course. It might be a load of shiat.
 
2012-10-30 10:38:08 AM  

alowishus: cman: citizenj: I'm about as ardent an atheist as you can get. But given that whole energy matter thing, it makes sense that when the physical shell expires, something is released. And if that something is a ball of low voltage electricity, then cool. Let me dissipate through the universe, mingling my atoms with those of stars and planets and comets, cascading through the soil, plants and grasses of our world and others. How am I doing as an atheist? Just fine, thank you subby. And I hope you're as at peace as I am with the joy and wonders that science shows us in this great thing we're all a part of.

I am agnostic and I think many in this thread is acting like an idiot. The fact that these closed minded people couldnt even consider for one second that there is some energy force out there beyond our perceived world speaks volumes on their personality. The problem is is that we cannot prove nor disprove its existence, and keeping a closed mind will always ensure that we will never truly be able to solve this mystery.


Everyone will...when they die.
 
2012-10-30 10:40:20 AM  

doublesecretprobation: so there is empirical evidence of the existence of the human soul now?


From the article:
MIT physicist Max Tegmark is just one of the many scientists to have challenged it, in a 2000 paper that is widely cited by opponents, the Huffington Post reports.
Nevertheless, Dr Hameroff believes that research in to quantum physics is beginning to validate Orch-Or, with quantum effects recently being shown to support many important biological processes, such as smell, bird navigation and photosynthesis.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2225190/Can-quantum-phy sics-explain-bizarre-experiences-patients-brought-brink-death.html#ixz z2AnEq0P6Q
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


In other words no.
 
2012-10-30 10:41:43 AM  

I May Be Crazy But...: The Billdozer: doglover: The Billdozer: Epicedion: cman: I am not saying that. I am saying that there are people in this thread who are taking a big dump on these scientists because they believe in the concept of spirituality. They dont promote a religion at all, yet they are getting the royal "fark you" from Farks religious haters

No, they're scientists promoting pseudoscience. They deserve to be flogged by the ghost of Carl Sagan and Zombie Feynman.

Carl Sagan, atheism's Jesus/Buddah/St Francis all rolled into one.

Buddha was an atheist, brah.

Someone is missing the point, brah.

That Sagan did a lot to get people curious about the universe, to give them a little taste of what sound reasoning can do, and to remind them that they can still marvel at the way the world works like they did when they were kids?

We don't revere him as God's chosen one or an enlightened guru. We admire that he was able to show people (including many of us) that we can begin to understand the universe around us by simply observing what's out there and describing it as accurately as possible. He is not the first or the last to have this idea.


I would think anyone has a problem with that. I think the issue comes from one group telling another group how insanely idiotic they are from believing what a book/preacher says will quote a human being or bring him up as if every thing the guy said believed or said was gospel. But that may be the Reddit exposure talking.
 
2012-10-30 10:42:37 AM  
It's four hundred years since that twat Descartes ballsed everyone up with the mind/body distinction and there are still people that fall for it.
 
2012-10-30 10:43:52 AM  
There's a lot of "existence of a soul does not mean that a God exists" type comments in this thread. But there's no denying that if souls exist there are religious implications.
 
2012-10-30 10:48:42 AM  

The Billdozer: I May Be Crazy But...: The Billdozer: doglover: The Billdozer: Epicedion: cman: I am not saying that. I am saying that there are people in this thread who are taking a big dump on these scientists because they believe in the concept of spirituality. They dont promote a religion at all, yet they are getting the royal "fark you" from Farks religious haters

No, they're scientists promoting pseudoscience. They deserve to be flogged by the ghost of Carl Sagan and Zombie Feynman.

Carl Sagan, atheism's Jesus/Buddah/St Francis all rolled into one.

Buddha was an atheist, brah.

Someone is missing the point, brah.

That Sagan did a lot to get people curious about the universe, to give them a little taste of what sound reasoning can do, and to remind them that they can still marvel at the way the world works like they did when they were kids?

We don't revere him as God's chosen one or an enlightened guru. We admire that he was able to show people (including many of us) that we can begin to understand the universe around us by simply observing what's out there and describing it as accurately as possible. He is not the first or the last to have this idea.

I would think anyone has a problem with that. I think the issue comes from one group telling another group how insanely idiotic they are from believing what a book/preacher says will quote a human being or bring him up as if every thing the guy said believed or said was gospel. But that may be the Reddit exposure talking.


I don't know what it's like on Reddit, but it sounds like you're talking about people trolling with atheism, not atheists describing what they believe and why, or even atheists trying to convince people of the beauty in the simplicity of observing the universe.

/Also, do you mean you "wouldn't think that..."? Otherwise I'm not parsing your post well.
 
2012-10-30 10:50:41 AM  
They have argued that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules, a theory which they dubbed orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).


Has someone conflated Halloween with April Fool's?
 
2012-10-30 10:51:18 AM  
Me? I'm fine. I live at 1200' ASL in SE Pennsylvania, so, aside from rain-related traffic accidents on the way to work today, everything's OK here.

Thanks for asking, Subby. Oh, and: couldn't care less what anyone else wants to believe, as long as they don't try to force it on others.
 
2012-10-30 10:52:56 AM  

Bondith: vactech: I had this called already:

Nature/God
1. A varience of constant states of (and moving properties) that define and create the shapes of binding precedents and objects observed in the conscious and unconscious:
a. Quantum mind
b Galaxy morphological sytem
c Infinit truth proposition (God Mind)
d Neural correlates
e Oscillation Matter/Synchronized Matter (both varieties)
f Quantum Electromagnetism (subset of Quantum Physics)
......(complete set available by request)
Notes:
Contextualism defines (completely) subsets and the whole sets (above) through which observation is restritive in allowance of the sets.

//Score +1 for my definition, -1 for IDW's

*blinkblink*

Once more with coherence?


I don't have time to go through the whole definition (not in a Fark thread anyway we're not there yet). Which part are you having trouble with? Maybe we just have different terms for 'soul'. The part I was referencing was Quantum Electromagnetism. Basically, a single electron in an unexcited electron partical is pictured classically as a particle moving in a circular constant angle (See the rest of the definintion for more on that). My definition already predicted these conclusions, but did it in a way as to not contradict itself.

If you want an example of how my definition is rigid enough so as to not topple over like a NY construction crane, ask yourself this first using my definition, and then the more traditional one:

Is it natural for a house to be ransacked by thugs, your family tied up in the basement, with socks in their mouths! You try to open the door, but there's too much blood on the knob!!
 
2012-10-30 11:05:07 AM  

The Billdozer: I think the issue comes from one group telling another group how insanely idiotic they are from believing what a book/preacher says will quote a human being or bring him up as if every thing the guy said believed or said was gospel.


The above is, sadly, another case of idiots not understanding the difference between agreeing with a person because they said something intelligent, thoughtful, and correct, and discounting someone's rhetoric because they made a wide variety of unverifiable claims.

This is, I think, a backlash to the summary dismissal of idiot religious figures (such as your Kent Hovinds and whomever) for doing nothing but making specious and erroneous claims over and over again in the face of all evidence (and when thoroughly whipped, just repeating the same junk). Sort of a "if you won't listen to our guy we won't listen to your guy," completely ignoring the fact that the religious guy is being dismissed because he lacks information of any substance -- and repetitious religious arguments that lack substance are probably why the atheist has dismissed religious claims and become an atheist in the first place.
 
2012-10-30 11:08:08 AM  

wademh: Uh, you need to go beyond a web page. If you've covered the prerequisites, you might get a text on neurochemistry to take you further, and psychopharmacology to cover that angle, and then you need to start reading journals and other technical books. But it isn't a matter of casual interest. You could try to be autodidactic in your learning but typically that fails due to a series of bad teachers who can't get past their preconceptions.


Well, the stuff I've read tends to cover the biophysical processes within the neurons and at the synapses and then jumps to fairly large scale structures like sensory pathways and "this bit of the brain is responsible for this psychological process", but not much explanation on how the psychological stuff arises out of the physical stuff (beyond correlations). The above that I'm mainly finding philosophy of mind stuff, which is closer to what I would have done in uni.

You're right that it's a damn hard subject to get into yourself. It covers a huge area, a lot of the literature is very specialised, and there's a dearth of high quality popularisations. I'm basically trying to find high quality undergraduate level texts. Haven't looked at the neurochemical side of things much, but if you know of any good texts, it would be much appreciated. Also, is there something that gives a good general overview of the state of what the state of our knowledge is, more or less at the moment.
 
2012-10-30 11:12:42 AM  

Flogster: This is quantum physics, shouldn't there be some math?


There actually is math, trivial at that, and it shows that the rate of change for quantum state is too rapid to effect change in the brain.

...

Really what this all comes down to is what's been referred to as New Science (note the caps, it's not 'science').

Every decade, a new science comes along or an old one is reivigorated, and there's always a group that tries to attach supernatural mechanisms to difficult to understand or poorly understood phenomena. Not too long ago it was magnets, but we've also got acupuncture, chiropracty, holistic medicine, crystal healing, and so on. It used to be alchemy or the balance of humors, or the doctrine of signatures (that the shape/color/scent of a plant, for example, indicates it's medical usage). For a while, there were even medical masturbation devices, said to cure female woes.

Without constant, vigilant skepticism, the natural state of man is to find an answer to every unknown, regardless of how irrational or poorly suited the answer is. We all do it. Some just fail hard.
 
2012-10-30 11:16:04 AM  

vactech: Bondith: vactech: I had this called already:

Nature/God
1. A varience of constant states of (and moving properties) that define and create the shapes of binding precedents and objects observed in the conscious and unconscious:
a. Quantum mind
b Galaxy morphological sytem
c Infinit truth proposition (God Mind)
d Neural correlates
e Oscillation Matter/Synchronized Matter (both varieties)
f Quantum Electromagnetism (subset of Quantum Physics)
......(complete set available by request)
Notes:
Contextualism defines (completely) subsets and the whole sets (above) through which observation is restritive in allowance of the sets.

//Score +1 for my definition, -1 for IDW's

*blinkblink*

Once more with coherence?

I don't have time to go through the whole definition (not in a Fark thread anyway we're not there yet). Which part are you having trouble with?


The part where you posted a whole bunch of random jargon without any sort of context or logical flow, using Time Cube grammatical constructions.

Is it natural for a house to be ransacked by thugs, your family tied up in the basement, with socks in their mouths! You try to open the door, but there's too much blood on the knob!!

My question, sir, is about the budget.
 
2012-10-30 11:17:58 AM  
This sounds totally legit. So where can I get physical properties of a soul? I'm sure they have all that info, being legit scienticians and all.

Pseudo-science is not good for you if you see it as actual science. It's quite healthy if you see it as comedy or tragedy.
 
2012-10-30 11:26:37 AM  

Bondith: The part where you posted a whole bunch of random jargon without any sort of context or logical flow, using Time Cube grammatical constructions.


Sure, sure. Just because you don't understand it I'm a troll right?

Typical response from the fark squad of The Truth hating imbeciles or IS as I like to call it.
 
2012-10-30 11:28:01 AM  
What they have is not a theory by a long shot. Speculation, conjecture, a long series of what ifs, but not a theory.

Get back to me when you have a testable model and some evidence.
 
2012-10-30 11:30:28 AM  

wejash: The professor emeritus in anesthesiology in Arizona gets a gig on Science Channel as an expert on quantum physics? My dog would like to be an expert on mineralogy on their next show about volcanoes then.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-10-30 11:30:49 AM  

Heineken Skywalker: [hulshofschmidt.files.wordpress.com image 348x333]
TOLD YOU SO!!!


She was magnificent in Downton Abbey! The barbs between her & Maggie Smith were priceless!
 
2012-10-30 11:38:13 AM  

vactech: Bondith: The part where you posted a whole bunch of random jargon without any sort of context or logical flow, using Time Cube grammatical constructions.

Sure, sure. Just because you don't understand it I'm a troll right?

Typical response from the fark squad of The Truth hating imbeciles or IS as I like to call it.


I didn't call you a troll, I called you incoherent. If I'd wanted to be a jackass I'd have asked if you'd gone off your medication.

In fairness, your persecution complex is a trait commonly found in the lunatic fringe.
 
2012-10-30 11:40:51 AM  

Epicedion: The Billdozer: I think the issue comes from one group telling another group how insanely idiotic they are from believing what a book/preacher says will quote a human being or bring him up as if every thing the guy said believed or said was gospel.

The above is, sadly, another case of idiots not understanding the difference between agreeing with a person because they said something intelligent, thoughtful, and correct, and discounting someone's rhetoric because they made a wide variety of unverifiable claims.

This is, I think, a backlash to the summary dismissal of idiot religious figures (such as your Kent Hovinds and whomever) for doing nothing but making specious and erroneous claims over and over again in the face of all evidence (and when thoroughly whipped, just repeating the same junk). Sort of a "if you won't listen to our guy we won't listen to your guy," completely ignoring the fact that the religious guy is being dismissed because he lacks information of any substance -- and repetitious religious arguments that lack substance are probably why the atheist has dismissed religious claims and become an atheist in the first place.


I dont disagree with this, but in my opinion i tend to find most "uneducated" atheists argue against the fundie concept of the Judeo-Christian God and dont use much reasoning behind that and vice versa (on a phone so typing out the other way would be annoying). Anytime there is anything outside of traditional science or religion, you get both those sidea going nuts about it. Its as if a balance cant be obtained... You either got to be a bible beating zealot who dares not to crack open a science book or a materialist that cant even fathom anything past your nose (ive lived with both types and it was infuriating).
 
2012-10-30 11:51:04 AM  

The Billdozer:
I dont disagree with this, but in my opinion i tend to find most "uneducated" atheists argue against the fundie concept of the Judeo-Christian God and dont use much reasoning behind that and vice versa (on a phone so typing out the other way would be annoying). Anytime there is anything outside of traditional science or religion, you get both those sidea going nuts about it. Its as if a balance cant be obtained... You either got to be a bible beating zealot who dares not to crack open a science book or a materialist that cant even fathom anything past your nose (ive lived with both types and it was infuriating).


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-10-30 11:54:16 AM  

Into the blue again: The Billdozer:
I dont disagree with this, but in my opinion i tend to find most "uneducated" atheists argue against the fundie concept of the Judeo-Christian God and dont use much reasoning behind that and vice versa (on a phone so typing out the other way would be annoying). Anytime there is anything outside of traditional science or religion, you get both those sidea going nuts about it. Its as if a balance cant be obtained... You either got to be a bible beating zealot who dares not to crack open a science book or a materialist that cant even fathom anything past your nose (ive lived with both types and it was infuriating).


Heh, figured that was coming...
 
2012-10-30 11:55:46 AM  

The Billdozer: Into the blue again: The Billdozer:
I dont disagree with this, but in my opinion i tend to find most "uneducated" atheists argue against the fundie concept of the Judeo-Christian God and dont use much reasoning behind that and vice versa (on a phone so typing out the other way would be annoying). Anytime there is anything outside of traditional science or religion, you get both those sidea going nuts about it. Its as if a balance cant be obtained... You either got to be a bible beating zealot who dares not to crack open a science book or a materialist that cant even fathom anything past your nose (ive lived with both types and it was infuriating).

Heh, figured that was coming...


:)
 
2012-10-30 12:04:36 PM  
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a farking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock." - Tim Minchin
 
2012-10-30 12:06:39 PM  
Not even going to entertain this article.
Go to hell, DM
 
2012-10-30 12:39:21 PM  

Bondith: vactech: Bondith: The part where you posted a whole bunch of random jargon without any sort of context or logical flow, using Time Cube grammatical constructions.

Sure, sure. Just because you don't understand it I'm a troll right?

Typical response from the fark squad of The Truth hating imbeciles or IS as I like to call it.

I didn't call you a troll, I called you incoherent. If I'd wanted to be a jackass I'd have asked if you'd gone off your medication.

In fairness, your persecution complex is a trait commonly found in the lunatic fringe.


Dude, he's obviously doing a (fairly spot-on) parody of I drunk what...
 
2012-10-30 12:40:18 PM  

Bondith: vactech: Bondith: The part where you posted a whole bunch of random jargon without any sort of context or logical flow, using Time Cube grammatical constructions.

Sure, sure. Just because you don't understand it I'm a troll right?

Typical response from the fark squad of The Truth hating imbeciles or IS as I like to call it.

I didn't call you a troll, I called you incoherent. If I'd wanted to be a jackass I'd have asked if you'd gone off your medication.

In fairness, your persecution complex is a trait commonly found in the lunatic fringe.


Complex?!!

You people are beating us Truth Preachers with electric guitars!!! (to death!)

Time to strap on your shiny new "axe", Bondith!!
 
2012-10-30 12:45:44 PM  

vactech: You people are beating us Truth Preachers with electric guitars!!! (to death!)


Dawkins would be proud!!!
 
2012-10-30 12:46:07 PM  
Oddly my own research shows that when one dies, your soul flits away and enters a can of Coors light -- which also explains why it tastes like ass.
 
2012-10-30 01:09:05 PM  

The Billdozer: Epicedion: The Billdozer: I think the issue comes from one group telling another group how insanely idiotic they are from believing what a book/preacher says will quote a human being or bring him up as if every thing the guy said believed or said was gospel.

The above is, sadly, another case of idiots not understanding the difference between agreeing with a person because they said something intelligent, thoughtful, and correct, and discounting someone's rhetoric because they made a wide variety of unverifiable claims.

This is, I think, a backlash to the summary dismissal of idiot religious figures (such as your Kent Hovinds and whomever) for doing nothing but making specious and erroneous claims over and over again in the face of all evidence (and when thoroughly whipped, just repeating the same junk). Sort of a "if you won't listen to our guy we won't listen to your guy," completely ignoring the fact that the religious guy is being dismissed because he lacks information of any substance -- and repetitious religious arguments that lack substance are probably why the atheist has dismissed religious claims and become an atheist in the first place.

I dont disagree with this, but in my opinion i tend to find most "uneducated" atheists argue against the fundie concept of the Judeo-Christian God and dont use much reasoning behind that and vice versa (on a phone so typing out the other way would be annoying). Anytime there is anything outside of traditional science or religion, you get both those sidea going nuts about it. Its as if a balance cant be obtained... You either got to be a bible beating zealot who dares not to crack open a science book or a materialist that cant even fathom anything past your nose (ive lived with both types and it was infuriating).


The thing is, atheists demand evidence. I have no problems believing in God, but you better have some good evidence, because ALL of the evidence I've piled up through my years of existence points against it. I'm not saying the supernatural is impossible, I'm saying it's got a big damn mountain of reality to climb over first.

I argue against the Judeo-Christian God because it's simply silly, and learning a bit about history you can see how much it was influenced by other myths in the area, as well as finding how strongly edited it was throughout the ages. Christianity now is nothing like it was even 500 years ago. And that leaves out the implicit assumption that the middle-eastern tale is correct. How many other god and world myths are there? How do you know they aren't true?

Most "uneducated" atheists may not be able to put that stuff into words, but there's a reason they feel like they do.
 
2012-10-30 01:32:52 PM  
waaah ... i'm afraid of dying!
 
2012-10-30 01:34:12 PM  

RobSeace: Bondith: vactech: Bondith: The part where you posted a whole bunch of random jargon without any sort of context or logical flow, using Time Cube grammatical constructions.

Sure, sure. Just because you don't understand it I'm a troll right?

Typical response from the fark squad of The Truth hating imbeciles or IS as I like to call it.

I didn't call you a troll, I called you incoherent. If I'd wanted to be a jackass I'd have asked if you'd gone off your medication.

In fairness, your persecution complex is a trait commonly found in the lunatic fringe.

Dude, he's obviously doing a (fairly spot-on) parody of I drunk what...


Oh looksy here, another IS'er has come out of the closet. Congratulations here is your new battle axe. Bondith has already tuned it for you........FOR EVOLUTION!1!!!!

Perhaps we could settle this with a simple logic puzzle?

for the lulz

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-30 01:42:03 PM  
vactech
Oh looksy here, another IS'er has come out of the closet. Congratulations here is your new battle axe. Bondith has already tuned it for you........FOR EVOLUTION!1!!!!

Perhaps we could settle this with a simple logic puzzle?

for the lulz


Y'know, you're not really helping your case here...
 
2012-10-30 01:45:03 PM  

Pitabred: The Billdozer: Epicedion: The Billdozer: I think the issue comes from one group telling another group how insanely idiotic they are from believing what a book/preacher says will quote a human being or bring him up as if every thing the guy said believed or said was gospel.

The above is, sadly, another case of idiots not understanding the difference between agreeing with a person because they said something intelligent, thoughtful, and correct, and discounting someone's rhetoric because they made a wide variety of unverifiable claims.

This is, I think, a backlash to the summary dismissal of idiot religious figures (such as your Kent Hovinds and whomever) for doing nothing but making specious and erroneous claims over and over again in the face of all evidence (and when thoroughly whipped, just repeating the same junk). Sort of a "if you won't listen to our guy we won't listen to your guy," completely ignoring the fact that the religious guy is being dismissed because he lacks information of any substance -- and repetitious religious arguments that lack substance are probably why the atheist has dismissed religious claims and become an atheist in the first place.

I dont disagree with this, but in my opinion i tend to find most "uneducated" atheists argue against the fundie concept of the Judeo-Christian God and dont use much reasoning behind that and vice versa (on a phone so typing out the other way would be annoying). Anytime there is anything outside of traditional science or religion, you get both those sidea going nuts about it. Its as if a balance cant be obtained... You either got to be a bible beating zealot who dares not to crack open a science book or a materialist that cant even fathom anything past your nose (ive lived with both types and it was infuriating).

The thing is, atheists demand evidence. I have no problems believing in God, but you better have some good evidence, because ALL of the evidence I've piled up through my years of existence points against it. I'm not saying the supernatural is impossible, I'm saying it's got a big damn mountain of reality to climb over first.

I argue against the Judeo-Christian God because it's simply silly, and learning a bit about history you can see how much it was influenced by other myths in the area, as well as finding how strongly edited it was throughout the ages. Christianity now is nothing like it was even 500 years ago. And that leaves out the implicit assumption that the middle-eastern tale is correct. How many other god and world myths are there? How do you know they aren't true?

Most "uneducated" atheists may not be able to put that stuff into words, but there's a reason they feel like they do.


I believe that atheists do seek out evidence, but when you have evidence that may slightly disturb the apple cart or when you get into the high-level philosophical discussions of it, there tends to be a "stupid Xtian"-like defense mechanisms that come up. I think the whole "I hate Christians now im atheist lololpwned" attitude that seems to have creeped into the public square. A belief without a real reason to believe that was is stupid no matter what you believe.
 
2012-10-30 02:05:05 PM  

vactech: Perhaps we could settle this with a simple logic puzzle?


You really need to refer to yourself in the third person more often to truly pull off the parody...
 
2012-10-30 02:15:05 PM  

vactech: Bondith: The part where you posted a whole bunch of random jargon without any sort of context or logical flow, using Time Cube grammatical constructions.

Sure, sure. Just because you don't understand it I'm a troll right?

Typical response from the fark squad of The Truth hating imbeciles or IS as I like to call it.


Hilarious. You think that people who demand hard practical evidence to prove that fairytales are real to be imbeciles.

i42.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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