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.

(Listverse)   Top 10 things you can't prove but people believe anyway   (listverse.com) divider line 237
    More: Interesting, empirical method  
•       •       •

16804 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2012 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-06 03:44:59 PM

vactech: I see what your doing there.


if it's too loud

farm8.staticflickr.com

you're too old
 
2012-11-06 03:52:14 PM

I drunk what: yeah we already covered that part skippy, keep up


Your arguments are getting more circular in your old age:

- you say faith is "believing in stuff without evidence" (faith being the core of religion)
- I explain that science uses the "weight of evidence"
- you ask "and how is religion different than this?"
- I respond "the evidence part"

And now you are suggesting that I am the one having trouble keeping up.

You used to be coherent. But in the last few threads you have been truly scattered. Random responses, unrelated photos, no direction or even a point.

In all seriousness ... have you changed or otherwise adjusted your meds? If so, I would suggest that the experiment is not going well and you should return to the previous state.

A focused zealot is better than this.
 
2012-11-06 04:04:30 PM

Farking Canuck: A focused zealot is better than this


sorry dude you're right

dumbwire.com

we need FoCuS

/power overwhelming

Farking Canuck: - you say faith is "believing in stuff without evidence" (faith being the core of religion)


hoping that you would pick up on that obvious mistake, and just in case you hadn't figured it out yet i'm not a big edward current fan either, because he is totally IB, and we don't like them

if you can guess what the actual proper definition of Faith is, we will continue this discussion

otherwise...

www.ezeedictionary.com

/for adun

and for a sign of good faith, i'll srs up:

Farking Canuck: I explain that science uses the "weight of evidence"


does religion do this?
 
2012-11-06 04:29:00 PM

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: I explain that science uses the "weight of evidence"

does religion do this?


Religious people often believe that they are doing this. But their standard for evidence is severely lacking in rigor. They use circular logic (god is real because bible; bible is real because god), confirmation bias (the eye is complicated so that is a sign of a creator), and good old common sense "logic" (how can the universe exist without a creator?!? (completely ignoring that their supposed creator then exists without a creator)).

tldr: They try to apply it but their standards for "evidence" are far to low for them to draw any reasonable conclusions. 


I drunk what:
/power overwhelming


I never liked the Archons ... too expensive and never seemed powerful enough to justify the cost.

For sound bites I preferred the Terran Drop Ship ... shamelessly stolen from Aliens.
 
2012-11-06 05:55:47 PM

Farking Canuck: They try to apply it but their standards for "evidence" are far to low for them to draw any reasonable conclusions.


so then Jesus was a myth?

Farking Canuck: Religious people often believe that they are doing this


not the ones i talk to, most of 'em hadn't ever bothered to ponder such things

Farking Canuck: But their standard for evidence is severely lacking in rigor.


perhaps they should put more effort into it, eh?

Farking Canuck: They use circular logic (god is real because bible; bible is real because god)


you'd think they would wise up by now, but i still have to correct them on a daily basis

Farking Canuck: confirmation bias (the eye is complicated so that is a sign of a creator)


perhaps you ought to focus on that 2x4 stuck in your eye before you spend too much time worrying about the splinter in theirs...

Farking Canuck: and good old common sense "logic" (how can the universe exist without a creator?!? (completely ignoring that their supposed creator then exists without a creator)).


you would be amazed at how many people fail at even the most basic forms of logic...

[cardgame.jpg] *oblig*

so then what do you suppose will happen when they are faced with the more advanced puzzles?

Farking Canuck: I preferred the Terran Drop Ship


we're in for some chop
 
2012-11-06 07:20:38 PM

I drunk what: so then Jesus was a myth?


NO.
Jesus IS a myth.
 
2012-11-06 07:27:13 PM

I drunk what: so then Jesus was a myth?


Not enough evidence to say anything for sure. It is not unreasonable from the available evidence to suggest that there was one or more figures alive at the time who caused enough of a splash to be memorable.

Going into any more details gets extremely sketchy. Many theories postulate that the Jesus figure was one of many street preacher types ... or that he didn't exist himself but represents an amalgamation of the figures of the day.

Attributing magic powers to him falls completely into the realm of speculation.
 
2012-11-06 09:45:07 PM

Farking Canuck: Attributing magic powers to him falls completely into the realm of speculation.


why would they do such a thing?

how could they...?

"speculation"?? i don't follow

Farking Canuck: who caused enough of a splash to be memorable


just not able to be accurately remembered because .......??

Farking Canuck: Going into any more details gets extremely sketchy.


because they don't like where that story is going?

Farking Canuck: Many theories postulate that the Jesus figure was one of many street preacher types ... or that he didn't exist himself but represents an amalgamation of the figures of the day.


whew that sounds convenient, for a minute there i was worried that we might be held accountable for our actions

/wipes nervous sweat off of brow

so then it was all just some sort of elaborate hoax? over zealous cult followers creating fiction for their flavor of the week? political trouble makers attempting to undermine their oppressors? maybe it was aliens

vudukungfu: Jesus IS a myth.


yes, i've heard there are many theories

but don't worry if you can't prove them, you'll believe them anyway
 
2012-11-07 12:47:41 AM
How long does it take for a car tire to assemble itself into a car? Bout as long as it takes inorganic molecules to assemble themselves into organic ones.
 
2012-11-07 08:29:37 AM

vactech: I drunk what: and how is religion different than this?

True, I believe religion is quite natural, and I can prove it scientifically.


No man you're wrong.
 
2012-11-07 08:59:52 AM

I drunk what: just not able to be accurately remembered because .......??


In response to all your points: It is not that these things happened or didn't happen. It is that the evidence is:

- written down generations after events
- translated multiple times
- transcribed countless times
- intentionally altered multiple times with no way to track the alterations

Of the thousands of people involved, there is no way know any of their motives much less be sure that none of them were nefarious.

Religion has been used as a source of power and profit since its invention 10,000+ years ago ... there is plenty of motive to create, alter, manipulate this one.

As I have said many, many times: It is not about what happened ... it is about the evidence supporting any claims about what happened.

For all we know, Jesus could have really existed but was a mercenary leader who ruled with an iron fist. All the stories of his miracles could have been spread by himself as a part of his legend ... the victor writes the history.
 
2012-11-07 09:29:03 AM

Farking Canuck: the victor writes the history


www.oneil.com.au

thou speaketh the Truth
 
2012-11-07 09:36:11 AM

untaken_name: Bout as long as it takes inorganic molecules to assemble themselves into organic ones.


what if i gave you buhllions of years? would that increase your chances?

www.weirdasianews.com

*watches puddle of primordial soup*

/wait how did the soup get there?
//bruhzillions of years...
 
2012-11-07 10:09:39 AM

untaken_name: How long does it take for a car tire to assemble itself into a car? Bout as long as it takes inorganic molecules to assemble themselves into organic ones.


Do people actually believe this is a reasonable argument against abiogenisis? Sounds like something Bill O'Reilly would say.

/never go full O'Reilly
 
2012-11-07 11:36:23 AM

Farking Canuck: untaken_name: How long does it take for a car tire to assemble itself into a car? Bout as long as it takes inorganic molecules to assemble themselves into organic ones.

Do people actually believe this is a reasonable argument against abiogenisis? Sounds like something Bill O'Reilly would say.

/never go full O'Reilly


Easy way to silence them is tell them to go get a car tyre and watch it for as long as it took from the formation of the planet till the first organic molecules started goin' about bein' all organicky.
 
2012-11-07 12:30:34 PM

Slaxl: get a car tyre and watch it for as long as it took from the formation of the planet till the first organic molecules started goin' about bein' all organicky


Farking Canuck: Do people actually believe this is a reasonable argument for abiogenisis?


apparently so

of course they can't prove anything, but they will believe it anyway

that's why they have faith :3

/to believe stuff without evidence...?
//still waiting for a proper def.
 
2012-11-07 12:36:37 PM

I drunk what: Slaxl: get a car tyre and watch it for as long as it took from the formation of the planet till the first organic molecules started goin' about bein' all organicky

Farking Canuck: Do people actually believe this is a reasonable argument for abiogenisis?

apparently so

of course they can't prove anything, but they will believe it anyway

that's why they have faith :3

/to believe stuff without evidence...?
//still waiting for a proper def.


No, my point was that if you tell the fundies to watch the tyre for the required millions of years of observation required to prove or disprove the idea that a tyre will spontaneously become a car in the same time it took for life to originate then they'll be too preoccupied to bother us for the rest of their lives.
 
2012-11-07 12:36:48 PM

I drunk what: Slaxl: get a car tyre and watch it for as long as it took from the formation of the planet till the first organic molecules started goin' about bein' all organicky

Farking Canuck: Do people actually believe this is a reasonable argument for abiogenisis?

apparently so

of course they can't prove anything, but they will believe it anyway

that's why they have faith :3

/to believe stuff without evidence...?
//still waiting for a proper def.


You know that

Ignore evidence for evolution thus God = True is a fallacious argument, right? Of course you do. And yet you persist.
 
2012-11-07 12:55:30 PM

Fano: Ignore evidence for evolution thus God = True is a fallacious argument, right?


us9.memecdn.com

wat is this? i dont even

are you talking to someone in this thread?? this planet?

Slaxl: then they'll be too preoccupied to bother us for the rest of their lives


ha ha, that will show 'em

pwned
 
2012-11-07 01:38:38 PM

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: Do people actually believe this is a reasonable argument for abiogenisis?

apparently so


That is not what I said. It is customary to indicate with strike-out font or in your post when you make changes to someone's quote ... otherwise you are just blatantly mis-representing.

I must say that I do love when you constantly scientific theories with religion belief. You always ignore at least two critical differences: (1) religious belief is absolute vs. belief in scientific theories which is proportional to the amount of evidence provided. And (2): scientific theories have several qualities that religious beliefs do not ... including evidence and falsifiability.
 
2012-11-07 02:05:55 PM

Farking Canuck: (1) religious belief is absolute vs. belief in scientific theories which is proportional to the amount of evidence provided


False

both are proportional

Farking Canuck: (2): scientific theories have several qualities that religious beliefs do not ... including evidence and falsifiability


False

both include evidence and are-were falsifiable

the major differences between the two are:

1. One (religion) deals with SuperNatural-Physical matters and the other (science) deals with Natural-Physical matters.

2. Most religious evidence (miracles) cease to be available to us now, are not currently repeatable, and therefore must be handled mostly on a historical verification basis.

and because of 2, religion is known as "faith-based" beliefs and science as "evidence-based" since it requires little to no faith most of the time

Faith however does not mean nor did it ever mean, "believing in stuff withOUT evidence"

just because you don't have evidence today does not mean that the evidence that occurred yesterday does not exist

NOR does it even remotely indicate that your beliefs are based on the ABSENCE of evidence yesterday, today or tomorrow
 
2012-11-07 02:44:08 PM
Well you do seem to be back on your meds today. Far more coherent than yesterday.

I drunk what:
Faith however does not mean nor did it ever mean, "believing in stuff withOUT evidence"

just because you don't have evidence today does not mean that the evidence that occurred yesterday does not exist


Fair enough ... and if I was alive when there was evidence I could evaluate it and decide if it carries any weight. Don't ask me to accept a claim today based on yesterday's evidence.

I drunk what:
NOR does it even remotely indicate that your beliefs are based on the ABSENCE of evidence yesterday, today or tomorrow


I care not about yesterday's or tomorrow's evidence today. I am asked to accept the claim that god is real today and I will look at the evidence available today. I am not interested in the fact that some cave men thought the evidence was convincing 2000 years ago ... if I showed these same cave men my cell phone they would have concluded that I am a god.

Your definition of faith is far more lenient than most. For most religious people it is a shelter they retreat to when they are asked to provide evidence.

I would be interested in the documented falsification conditions that religions have built-in ... I have never heard of one. Scientific theories have them and not only are they there but scientists constantly challenge them.

You seem to be suggesting that religious belief can be studied in a scientific manner. I'm sure it can and, in my experience, most people who do so honestly and objectively end up as atheists (but that is just anecdotal).

But most religious people do not truly look at their beliefs. They do not question them for themselves and discourage it in others. They use the word faith as a replacement for evidence.

I personally don't have issues with your line of reasoning ... I just feel your standards for what you accept as evidence are far too low. Putting the word 'historical' in front of bad evidence does not improve its quality.
 
2012-11-07 02:52:58 PM

Farking Canuck: I would be interested in the documented falsification conditions that religions have built-in ... I have never heard of one.


www.johnpratt.com 

followers of Baal: 0
followers of God: 1

do you require God to do this every day in order to believe in Him?
 
2012-11-07 04:15:43 PM

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: I would be interested in the documented falsification conditions that religions have built-in ... I have never heard of one.

[www.johnpratt.com image 298x372] 

followers of Baal: 0
followers of God: 1

do you require God to do this every day in order to believe in Him?


By that logic - Jesus promised Peace on Earth while Odin promised the end of the Ice Giant.

Since we still have war but no Ice Giants, the Norse religions are clearly the way to go.
 
2012-11-07 05:25:13 PM

Farking Canuck: Since we still have war but no Ice Giants, the Norse religions are clearly the way to go.


liking the jib of that cut.
 
2012-11-07 08:12:40 PM

I drunk what:
do you require God to do this every day in order to believe in Him?


Every day? It never even happened once. Go back to drinking.
 
2012-11-08 08:15:32 AM

ReverendJasen: It never even happened once


and this^ guy would know, cuz he was there when it supposedly "happened"

it was really just an elaborate hoax perpetrated by aliens, and even that hoax isn't being accurately recorded because it was passed down through many generations and transcribed then edited and revised by jealous governments, the original story was actually about a guy named huck finn and his zaney adventures traveling down a river

and the miracles, prophets and morals were simply added later by drunken retards posting on the internet

FOR SCIENCE!!!1!

not once, not even a single time did anything ever happen, because i'm an asshole... which happens to also be the proof that God doesn't exist

ReverendJasen: Go back to drinking.


*sips on water*
 
2012-11-08 03:01:39 PM

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: I would be interested in the documented falsification conditions that religions have built-in ... I have never heard of one.

[www.johnpratt.com image 298x372] 

followers of Baal: 0
followers of God: 1

do you require God to do this every day in order to believe in Him?


Wrong again I drunk Waht!!!

Nature IS God

and....

Baal IS God**

**Chronicles 12:5 mentions the name Beʿaliah meaning "Yahweh is Baʿal."

You = Fail...again!
 
2012-11-08 03:39:43 PM

vactech: You = Fail...again!


curses!

*shakes diabolical fist*
 
2012-11-08 03:48:15 PM

vactech: Nature IS God


prove it, scientifically...

/dot
//dot
///dot
 
2012-11-08 04:16:01 PM

I drunk what: vactech: Nature IS God

prove it, scientifically...

/dot
//dot
///dot


I already did. I had citations for every one of my rationals. And you, being the typical ISer (imbecile squad), ignored it. Probably because it made you uncomfortable. But that's ok. God wants to challenge you.

I just can't seem to find the thread right now.

I'll just leave you with this for the time being.

'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.' - Revelations

If HE wants to be nature (or science for that matter, or matter for that antimatter), HE damn well will be. And there is nothing IDW can do to stop it.

so sorry idw....
 
2012-11-08 04:39:35 PM

vactech: so sorry idw


it's ok

you're ok, i'm ok
 
2012-11-08 05:00:58 PM

vactech: God wants to challenge you.


so then he buried the dinosaur bones?
 
2012-11-08 05:04:16 PM

vactech: 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.' - Revelations


Evolution is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep brainwaves out of their god. ~Sir Arthur of Camelot
 
2012-11-08 05:18:08 PM
This thread is going to keep going till the end of days. Which happily is tomorrow.
 
2012-11-08 05:43:01 PM

vactech: imbecile squad


analogmedium.com

??

wolfman's got nards
 
2012-11-08 08:59:20 PM

I drunk what: Evolution is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep brainwaves out of their god. ~Sir Arthur of Camelot


Oh please!

That was a metaphor. The fact that you are taking that literally just shows your ignorance.

Not to mention you are conveniently forgetting the historical context of the time he said that.
 
Displayed 37 of 237 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report