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.

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

16807 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2012 at 10:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-05 08:36:11 AM  
Aliens: Some sort of life existing somewhere other than this insignificant rock? Mathematically almost certain. Alien visitors here on Earth? Unlikely at best. (Though who, I ask you, planted all those streetlights?)
 
2012-11-05 08:42:19 AM  

Beaver1224: Aliens: Some sort of life existing somewhere other than this insignificant rock? Mathematically almost certain. Alien visitors here on Earth? Unlikely at best. (Though who, I ask you, planted all those streetlights?)


Came here to say this.

Also:

5) Karma? Let's insult a huge number of people who have faith in eastern religions, why don't we? To be even more politically incorrect, they might as well have added 11) Jesus.

(Cythraul keeps reading)

2) Religious Texts, 1) God. Hah! They did! Awesome.
 
2012-11-05 08:49:05 AM  
#11) - Global Warming

/obligatory
 
2012-11-05 09:23:48 AM  
I don't believe in Aliens but I believe it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
 
2012-11-05 09:35:32 AM  

slayer199: I don't believe in Aliens but I believe it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.


So... you do believe in aliens?
 
2012-11-05 10:04:01 AM  
Listverse. Every time I go to that website I spend more time there than I intended. Especially the strange ones.

And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical about most things but I've had far too many, uh, "sudden intense feelings" about something happening for me to just dismiss it.
 
2012-11-05 10:30:58 AM  

Slaxl: So... you do believe in aliens?


I guess I should clarify. I haven't seen any solid evidence of aliens visiting this planet. However, given the vastness of the universe, it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
 
2012-11-05 10:49:02 AM  
This is green... why exactly?
 
2012-11-05 10:49:54 AM  
Any subscription-based website is worth more than $4.99 / month.
 
2012-11-05 10:50:28 AM  
10) God
9) God
8) God
7) God
6) God
5) God
4) God
3) God
2) God
1) God

/ducks
 
2012-11-05 10:52:08 AM  

alwaysjaded: Listverse. Every time I go to that website I spend more time there than I intended. Especially the strange ones.

And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical about most things but I've had far too many, uh, "sudden intense feelings" about something happening for me to just dismiss it.


it's not necessarily mystical. it could be your mind's way of coming to a quick conclusion based on cursory phenomena without going through the trouble of wasting your time processing it in a normal, relaxed fashion. there are probably good reasons why you feel sudden uneasy feelings. though your brain doesn't take the time to explain it to you, there is a reason for the feeling.
 
2012-11-05 10:53:11 AM  

alwaysjaded: Listverse. Every time I go to that website I spend more time there than I intended. Especially the strange ones.

And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical about most things but I've had far too many, uh, "sudden intense feelings" about something happening for me to just dismiss it.


confirmation bias.
 
2012-11-05 10:53:22 AM  
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-05 10:54:28 AM  
11. [Politician from political party X, who has an annual income over $250k and assets well over several million] cares about and identifies with the lower and/or middle class.
 
2012-11-05 10:56:43 AM  
There's a difference between knowing, believing, and believing the possibility.

I don't KNOW aliens exist.
But I BELIEVE aliens exist (given the statistical probability).
And I BELIEVE it's possible for aliens to exist.

I don't KNOW god(s) exists.
I don't BELIEVE god(s) exist (given measurable evidence)
But I do BELIEVE it's possible for god(s) to exist (regardless of how improbable).

Very religious folks
KNOW god exists and BELIEVE god exists
 
2012-11-05 10:57:13 AM  
"While psychic mediums offer a less than 100% accuracy rate..."

Apparently zero percent can truthinessfully be described as less than 100%. Good to know.
 
2012-11-05 10:59:05 AM  

lordargent: But I do BELIEVE it's possible for god(s) to exist (regardless of how improbable).


That one depends on your definition of "god", I think. The classic omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent leads to internal contradictions. If you change the definition to non-omni, but sufficiently powerful, then you're simply rephrasing your definition of "alien". :)
 
2012-11-05 10:59:08 AM  
Meh,
God should have been #2, Democracy should have been #1.
 
2012-11-05 11:01:56 AM  
The female orgasm
 
2012-11-05 11:02:35 AM  
infowars.com?
 
2012-11-05 11:03:42 AM  
Crypids in general should not be on the list. There are quite a few new species that were once cryptids/
 
2012-11-05 11:06:55 AM  
Intuition is very real. It's just non-verbal modelling of likely events. Seriously some studies have managed to create measures that have quantified it.
 
2012-11-05 11:07:06 AM  

maxx2112: Any subscription-based website is worth more than $4.99 / month.


I love my Netflix, thank you much.
 
2012-11-05 11:07:16 AM  

wippit: Crypids in general should not be on the list. There are quite a few new species that were once cryptids/


Big foot and nessy not available for comment.
 
2012-11-05 11:07:46 AM  

meanmutton: maxx2112: Any subscription-based website is worth more than $4.99 / month.

I love my Netflix, thank you much.


And Spotify.
 
2012-11-05 11:12:36 AM  

pute kisses like a man: alwaysjaded: Listverse. Every time I go to that website I spend more time there than I intended. Especially the strange ones.

And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical about most things but I've had far too many, uh, "sudden intense feelings" about something happening for me to just dismiss it.

it's not necessarily mystical. it could be your mind's way of coming to a quick conclusion based on cursory phenomena without going through the trouble of wasting your time processing it in a normal, relaxed fashion. there are probably good reasons why you feel sudden uneasy feelings. though your brain doesn't take the time to explain it to you, there is a reason for the feeling.


Came here to say this. Intuition is most likely provable. It's just difficult because we have only made it so far into studying the human brain. Read Blink by Gladwell and he summarizes what we know so far in this area. (although skip the last 100 pages because he jabbers alot.)
 
2012-11-05 11:13:58 AM  

meanmutton: meanmutton: maxx2112: Any subscription-based website is worth more than $4.99 / month.

I love my Netflix, thank you much.

And Spotify.


Spotify is going to vanish if they don't start targeting ads accordingly and add in a working shuffle

I'm listening to country, I don't want ads for GhettoGoatRapper
 
2012-11-05 11:15:03 AM  
I prefer to combine #1 and #10 so that more advanced aliens are our gods. You can't prove that it's not true
 
2012-11-05 11:15:08 AM  
Wow. Most of this is trivial bs - Project Nutmeg - really? Wow, we bought some land for use as a testing ground. WHOA.

A couple of them would be interesting if they had followed them up beyond reading Fortean Times.

Number 3, that one had potential, for TWO reasons. There's two really interesting phenomena you get that way, not just plasmon stealth. And the Russians actually got the electron gun thing to work, it was just too clumsy and fragile. There are other ways to do it. Some really really...stupid.

And the last one, sorta, kinda, but not quite. Close though.
 
2012-11-05 11:15:27 AM  

Richard Saunders: #11) - Global Warming


12) The Clutch Hitter
 
2012-11-05 11:17:49 AM  
13) Hot farkettes
 
2012-11-05 11:19:23 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: 13) Hot farkettes


13a) BIE.

/EIP
 
2012-11-05 11:19:34 AM  
Karma's really not that hard to prove. If you treat it like some weird metaphysical force like the author seems more than happy to lump it in as, then yeah sure it is because you dragged metaphysics into it.

If you just think of it as being known for what you do or that what you give tends to reflect what you get back, then it isn't. I think of it more like simple economics.

/disclaimer: IANAE
//but I do listen to NPR's Planet Money
 
2012-11-05 11:23:36 AM  
Interesting that Free Will isn't on that list.

I worry, sometimes, that I'm not as different from Young Earth creationists as I'd like to be. Because I admit, on some level, I believe I have some control over my thoughts and actions (whether from a mystical soul, or just some sort of really really weird feedback loop). That I am not just either a puppet dancing on a divine string, or a completely, 100% predictable (with sufficient computation) meat-machine.

To me, free will is a bit of an axiom, that I build off of. That I have *some* control, at the very least, over my own thoughts, and how I think about things. That even if there is no inherent meaning to anything, we can *give* meaning to things by the choices we make, the lives that we lead.

And if there was every scientific evidence that proved free will was a complete myth, that we really just completely and utterly set on the course we are on (whether by fate or pure determinism), I think I'd have to reject it, if only to maintain my semblance of self.

So this makes me wonder if I'm really all that different from young earth creationists, which is a thought I find more than a little distressing.
 
2012-11-05 11:26:07 AM  
I believe in one of those 10 things- Intuition.

Intuition is most certainly real. It's based on subtle factors that we don't focus on directly and don't realize that we perceive. If a guy is swallows hard when you ask him if he killed his wife, you might not specifically notice it, but your subconscious certainly did. When enough of those things add up your subconscious indicates that it intuitively believes the guy to have killed his wife.

The other 9 are all batshiate crazy and people who believe those things are cognitively damaged. But intuition is certainly real- just don't read too much into it.
 
2012-11-05 11:26:53 AM  
Missed these:
-Gravity
-Evolution
-Relativity
-Global Warming
-Elvis is still alive
-JFK Assasination

\they are not called theories for shaits and giggles folks
 
2012-11-05 11:27:15 AM  

Richard Saunders: #11) - Global Warming

/obligatory


#12) Evolution
 
2012-11-05 11:27:20 AM  

Rev.Veggie.Spam: Karma's really not that hard to prove. If you treat it like some weird metaphysical force like the author seems more than happy to lump it in as, then yeah sure it is because you dragged metaphysics into it.

If you just think of it as being known for what you do or that what you give tends to reflect what you get back, then it isn't. I think of it more like simple economics.

/disclaimer: IANAE
//but I do listen to NPR's Planet Money


Well, you could even think of Karma as not a mystical thing, but, well-the simple fact that negative actions tend to multiply. Someone cuts you off in traffic or makes you wreck your car, so you're mean and nasty and grumpy towards people for a while, hurt thousands of other people in tiny little ways because of it, make *their* days worse, and... well, it spreads. Negative actions have a multiplicative effect. By performing negative actions, we simply increase the unhappiness and.. 'negativity' (not in a mystic sense!) in the world, and it will likely swing back around to us at some point.

I think a farker explained it to me that way once.

I kinda like this view, because it gives us, as individuals, an incredible amount of power. When something horrible happens to us, we have the ability to say "No. I will not let this change how I treat others." We can *stop* a tiny part of that negative spreading, bleed a bit of momentum off that wheel, simply by refusing to let something bad happening to us change how we react and treat other people.

and that's friggen awesome, I think.
 
2012-11-05 11:27:47 AM  
+50 points to the website for not being a slideshow or paginated.
 
2012-11-05 11:27:55 AM  
What no Global Warming?!
 
2012-11-05 11:28:01 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: The female orgasm


We gave you an X-Box so you wouldn't hear your mom having hers.
 
jvl
2012-11-05 11:31:08 AM  
No love for...

GMO food is dangerous
BSE in milk is dangerous
Alternative Medicine
 
2012-11-05 11:32:48 AM  
#15 That Obama is not a replicant sent by the Lizard Overlords from Outer space to enslave us and take our Skittles.
 
2012-11-05 11:36:15 AM  
I would accept that intuition is the subconscious noticing details that elude the conscious mind and giving an instinct-level signal to us to avoid or pursue a certain course of action.

Missing from the list: precognition/deja vu. Being able to see the future. I used to experience the deja vu sensation quite a bit as a teenager. I could never figure out a way to actually prove that it worked or a way to benefit from it. It seemed more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
2012-11-05 11:37:46 AM  
God+religious texts should be #2 and Free Will should be #1.
 
2012-11-05 11:39:48 AM  
There's proof of God! It's easy:

Step 1: Assume God.
Step 2: Therefore, God.

Duh.
 
2012-11-05 11:41:52 AM  

madgonad: God+religious texts should be #2 and Free Will should be #1.


"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
 
2012-11-05 11:42:03 AM  

Girion47: alwaysjaded: Listverse. Every time I go to that website I spend more time there than I intended. Especially the strange ones.

And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical about most things but I've had far too many, uh, "sudden intense feelings" about something happening for me to just dismiss it.

confirmation bias.


I knew someone would say that.
 
2012-11-05 11:43:15 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: I prefer to combine #1 and #10 so that more advanced aliens are our gods. You can't prove that it's not true

 

www.bluetonemedia.com
 
2012-11-05 11:46:05 AM  
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Phillip K. Dick
 
2012-11-05 11:47:01 AM  
I'm so glad that God was put onto that list at #1.

I love the fact that at this point in time, at this day and age, with the scientific knowledge at our fingertips that we can access at any computer connected to the internet, the belief in God is the biggest reason given to deny anything that the apparent word of God says. God said that he created man, so Evolution must be incorrect. The Bible says that God made the universe, sun, moon and Earth in six days, so the hell with science and it's 12 billion year old universe.

Believing anyone about what awaits them in the afterlife makes as much sense as believing a five year old explain about what it was like to live during the age of dinosaurs.
 
2012-11-05 11:47:39 AM  
ts3.mm.bing.net

#11
 
2012-11-05 11:49:28 AM  

Keyser_Soze_Death: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.


I've always found that to be about as useful as "I think, therefore I am."
 
2012-11-05 11:56:10 AM  

DarthBart: Girion47: alwaysjaded: Listverse. Every time I go to that website I spend more time there than I intended. Especially the strange ones.

And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical about most things but I've had far too many, uh, "sudden intense feelings" about something happening for me to just dismiss it.

confirmation bias.

I knew someone would say that.


and I had a feeling that someone would quote me.
 
2012-11-05 11:59:19 AM  

PsyLord: 10) God
9) God
8) God
7) God
6) God
5) God
4) God
3) God
2) God
1) God

/ducks


You can't disprove his/her existance either.
 
2012-11-05 11:59:49 AM  
oblig...
i4.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-05 12:00:54 PM  

Great Janitor: I'm so glad that God was put onto that list at #1.

I love the fact that at this point in time, at this day and age, with the scientific knowledge at our fingertips that we can access at any computer connected to the internet, the belief in God is the biggest reason given to deny anything that the apparent word of God says. God said that he created man, so Evolution must be incorrect. The Bible says that God made the universe, sun, moon and Earth in six days, so the hell with science and it's 12 billion year old universe.

Believing anyone about what awaits them in the afterlife makes as much sense as believing a five year old explain about what it was like to live during the age of dinosaurs.


The hebraic word for day is better translated "a period of time greater than in an instant but smaller than eternity".
 
2012-11-05 12:01:06 PM  
'Democrats are tolerant people open to others' political believes and they donate waaaaay more of their income to the poor(actually this has been proven false) and never make racist, sexist or homophobic comments and totally believe in 'live-and-let-live'' mysteriously absent.
 
2012-11-05 12:06:06 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Great Janitor: I'm so glad that God was put onto that list at #1.

I love the fact that at this point in time, at this day and age, with the scientific knowledge at our fingertips that we can access at any computer connected to the internet, the belief in God is the biggest reason given to deny anything that the apparent word of God says. God said that he created man, so Evolution must be incorrect. The Bible says that God made the universe, sun, moon and Earth in six days, so the hell with science and it's 12 billion year old universe.

Believing anyone about what awaits them in the afterlife makes as much sense as believing a five year old explain about what it was like to live during the age of dinosaurs.

The hebraic word for day is better translated "a period of time greater than in an instant but smaller than eternity".


That would never have happened in English back in the day.
 
2012-11-05 12:06:33 PM  

Great Janitor: I'm so glad that God was put onto that list at #1.

I love the fact that at this point in time, at this day and age, with the scientific knowledge at our fingertips that we can access at any computer connected to the internet, the belief in God is the biggest reason given to deny anything that the apparent word of God says. God said that he created man, so Evolution must be incorrect. The Bible says that God made the universe, sun, moon and Earth in six days, so the hell with science and it's 12 billion year old universe.

Believing anyone about what awaits them in the afterlife makes as much sense as believing a five year old explain about what it was like to live during the age of dinosaurs.


A brief in Evolution (all science) and a belief in God are not inherently incompatible. People choose to make them at odds by their interpretation of their specific religious doctrines.
 
2012-11-05 12:07:14 PM  
How fundies will see this list
Religious Texts is #2 & God #1 in America!
 
2012-11-05 12:10:21 PM  
No mention of gravity? Is it because more people believe in aliens than gravity?
 
2012-11-05 12:13:53 PM  

amoral: No mention of gravity? Is it because more people believe in aliens than gravity?


Um, we can prove the existence of gravity pretty easily.

/The MECHANISM behind gravity? Folks are still working on that.
 
2012-11-05 12:14:11 PM  

amoral: No mention of gravity? Is it because more people believe in aliens than gravity?


A you need to do is find a high gravity object of low mass and "gravity" (i.e. the current theory) is busted.
 
2012-11-05 12:15:26 PM  
If psychic mediums worked, there are so many practical uses beyond turning up at provincial theatres and talking to Sid and Doris Bonkers about grandad.

Mathematicians would have asked them to call Fermat to explain the proof of his last Theorem that he never bothered to write down. Historians would ask Glenn Miller what happened to him. We would now have the autobiographies of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. And most notably, the clear up rate for anonymous murders (like the Zodiac killer) would be much higher because victims would be able to give a name or description of their killer.
 
2012-11-05 12:15:40 PM  
11) Retarded political wharrgarbl
 
2012-11-05 12:17:52 PM  

Great Janitor: I'm so glad that God was put onto that list at #1.

I love the fact that at this point in time, at this day and age, with the scientific knowledge at our fingertips that we can access at any computer connected to the internet, the belief in God is the biggest reason given to deny anything that the apparent word of God says. God said that he created man, so Evolution must be incorrect. The Bible says that God made the universe, sun, moon and Earth in six days, so the hell with science and it's 12 billion year old universe.

Believing anyone about what awaits them in the afterlife makes as much sense as believing a five year old explain about what it was like to live during the age of dinosaurs.


But here's the thing people love to argue and not understand. Yes, we as Christians believe God created the universe and everything in it. The question is not yes He did or no he did not that we argue. It is how He did it. Some argue that He created them all in literal 7 days. Others believe that 7 days was a way we, as humans, can understand His power. There are concepts of how we think God sees our timeline. The one I like to think is that he sees our timeline as if He is viewing it from outside of time and sees it all at once. Every branch and every choice, the past, present and future. This allows Him to see and know everything. Giving that, which can explain His all knowing, all powerful, ever presents, we can also say that if science says evolution is true, why can we not say God himself guided life the way He saw fit.

It actually is more simple seeing that those who believe say for certain but those who don't say other wise. But there is a common ground we both can share and say it is possible that we are both correct then out right say that one is wrong, for lack of "proof" and the other is right cause man says so. To me, both origins have a lack of actual proof and both are taken on faith.
 
2012-11-05 12:22:25 PM  

alwaysjaded: Listverse. Every time I go to that website I spend more time there than I intended. Especially the strange ones.

And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical about most things but I've had far too many, uh, "sudden intense feelings" about something happening for me to just dismiss it.


Assume it's your hind brain and other less than consciousness levels of your brain acting. Like a thought equivalent of a reflex? That's always been my assumption.

Also: why does everyone always say the earth is 'an insignificant backwater'? I mean, what's that based on?
 
2012-11-05 12:23:50 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: PsyLord: 10) God
9) God
8) God
7) God
6) God
5) God
4) God
3) God
2) God
1) God

/ducks

You can't disprove his/her existance either.


And so it begins...
 
2012-11-05 12:24:58 PM  

Leeds: I believe in one of those 10 things- Intuition.

Intuition is most certainly real. It's based on subtle factors that we don't focus on directly and don't realize that we perceive. If a guy is swallows hard when you ask him if he killed his wife, you might not specifically notice it, but your subconscious certainly did. When enough of those things add up your subconscious indicates that it intuitively believes the guy to have killed his wife.

The other 9 are all batshiate crazy and people who believe those things are cognitively damaged. But intuition is certainly real- just don't read too much into it.


I liken it to catching a ball. If you were to do the calculus necessary to make a robotic hand catch a thrown ball, It wouldn't have time to catch it. But you can catch a ball with just a little bit of practice. You aren't actually doing the math, but your brain is doing a fair approximation.

I figure evolution has found a way to bypass the consciousness and make us react to a summation of input that we didn't directly pay attention to. A very soft twig snapping and the sudden silence of crickets coupled with an odd scent in the air may not register at first. But your subconscious put it all together and you suddenly fear an unseen predator.

I think they recently had a defense story on Fark where they put sensord on a military guys head as he scanned an area with a scope of some sort and they were able to electronically detect threats his brain ppicked up on but he was oblivious to.
 
2012-11-05 12:26:09 PM  

Pincy: FlyingLizardOfDoom: PsyLord: 10) God
9) God
8) God
7) God
6) God
5) God
4) God
3) God
2) God
1) God

/ducks

You can't disprove his/her existance either.

And so it begins...


"Begun, the Religion Wars have." -- The founder of the 2nd religion on Earth
 
2012-11-05 12:26:25 PM  

yves0010: Some argue that He created them all in literal 7 days. Others believe that 7 days was a way we, as humans, can understand His power. There are concepts of how we think God sees our timeline. The one I like to think is that he sees our timeline as if He is viewing it from outside of time and sees it all at once.


Or another scenario: Imagine the guy who first wrote about it. Do you think God was there in the room with him dictating everything word for word? Or is it more likely he was just kind of winging it based on his extremely ignorant views of the world at that time?
 
2012-11-05 12:26:26 PM  

yves0010: But here's the thing people love to argue and not understand. Yes, we as Christians believe God created the universe and everything in it. The question is not yes He did or no he did not that we argue. It is how He did it. Some argue that He created them all in literal 7 days. Others believe that 7 days was a way we, as humans, can understand His power. There are concepts of how we think God sees our timeline. The one I like to think is that he sees our timeline as if He is viewing it from outside of time and sees it all at once. Every branch and every choice, the past, present and future. This allows Him to see and know everything. Giving that, which can explain His all knowing, all powerful, ever presents, we can also say that if science says evolution is true, why can we not say God himself guided life the way He saw fit.


Sorry, but the mental contortions you have to go through to justify your belief are amazing. Why can't you just say "I want to believe in God because I like the idea of God" and be done with it?
 
2012-11-05 12:28:07 PM  

Richard Saunders: #11) - Global Warming

/obligatory


Something I was really surprised by recently. My family is from NJ, and this weekend I was visiting my dad. He's a super-duper, extremely religious Catholic, right wing Republican partisan. My old man actually told me once that Glen Beck was the closest thing we've had to a biblical prophet since Abraham Lincoln.

When I spoke to him about Hurricane Sandy - and the impacts our family members have been dealing with - he all of a sudden was talking like global warming was real, and the matter was now settled. The hurricane changed his mind, and if it can change my dad's mind it could change anyone's. I bet the opposition to climate change action is going to be weaker going forward in the post Sandy world.
 
2012-11-05 12:37:26 PM  

mongbiohazard: Richard Saunders: #11) - Global Warming

/obligatory

Something I was really surprised by recently. My family is from NJ, and this weekend I was visiting my dad. He's a super-duper, extremely religious Catholic, right wing Republican partisan. My old man actually told me once that Glen Beck was the closest thing we've had to a biblical prophet since Abraham Lincoln.

When I spoke to him about Hurricane Sandy - and the impacts our family members have been dealing with - he all of a sudden was talking like global warming was real, and the matter was now settled. The hurricane changed his mind, and if it can change my dad's mind it could change anyone's. I bet the opposition to climate change action is going to be weaker going forward in the post Sandy world.


I'm not going to say anything about global warming, but New York City sits on the bloody coast line bordering an ocean known for the creation of hurricanes. New York wasn't hit by a hurricane because of global warming, it was hit by a hurricane because it sits against the ocean which spawns the most hurricanes.

There is a radio call in show on my local NPR station that I like to listen to called "Anything You've Ever Wanted to Know" and years ago (almost 15 or so years ago) the question was asked "Why hasn't a tornado or hurricane hit a major city like New York?" and the answer was "Luck." followed with "And someday it's going to happen and it's going to be a huge disaster."
 
2012-11-05 12:37:52 PM  

browntimmy: yves0010: Some argue that He created them all in literal 7 days. Others believe that 7 days was a way we, as humans, can understand His power. There are concepts of how we think God sees our timeline. The one I like to think is that he sees our timeline as if He is viewing it from outside of time and sees it all at once.

Or another scenario: Imagine the guy who first wrote about it. Do you think God was there in the room with him dictating everything word for word? Or is it more likely he was just kind of winging it based on his extremely ignorant views of the world at that time?


It is my personal belief that it was inspired by God to be written by Moses but in a way we can grasp it in our heads at the same time. I do believe that God was writing through Moses, using him to write what we now see has the beginning of the Old Testament.

Pincy: yves0010: But here's the thing people love to argue and not understand. Yes, we as Christians believe God created the universe and everything in it. The question is not yes He did or no he did not that we argue. It is how He did it. Some argue that He created them all in literal 7 days. Others believe that 7 days was a way we, as humans, can understand His power. There are concepts of how we think God sees our timeline. The one I like to think is that he sees our timeline as if He is viewing it from outside of time and sees it all at once. Every branch and every choice, the past, present and future. This allows Him to see and know everything. Giving that, which can explain His all knowing, all powerful, ever presents, we can also say that if science says evolution is true, why can we not say God himself guided life the way He saw fit.

Sorry, but the mental contortions you have to go through to justify your belief are amazing. Why can't you just say "I want to believe in God because I like the idea of God" and be done with it?


It actually is a lot easier to say that but then you get called an idiot, among other things, because you have a belief. But to try and rationalize it for those who do not want to believe sometimes helps them to understand. It also shows that there are many things in our beliefs that can and actually help with science too.

I am among several that believe both science and Theology can easily go hand in hand with no issues. Just see that a small group on both sides make to much a fuss and cause all the problems.
 
2012-11-05 12:42:52 PM  
Regarding intuition: A few months ago, I listened to a panel discussion on artificial intelligence, and someone brought up a story about a brain-damage patient who could not experience emotions, and thus had to make all decisions using pure logic. As a result, even the simplest decisions, like what to have for breakfast, would take him hours to make.

The intent was to show that an artificial intelligence based on pure logic (e.g. HAL 9000, Commander Data) would likely be impractical given the necessary computational power, but it also hints at the possibility that emotion and intuition are shortcuts for logical reasoning, rather than some kind of flaw. Granted, those shortcuts don't always yield the desired result, but while we always remember the times we made a decision based on emotion that turned out to be wrong, we often forget the times when an emotional response turned out to be right.
 
2012-11-05 12:44:45 PM  
aliens and intuition is going a little far... i can say with certainty that life does exist beyond the earth, and i can also say with certainty intuition exists as a series of connections in our brains brought on by repetition and learning that can fire involuntarily via habit
 
2012-11-05 12:48:42 PM  
we want to believe that there is more to life than what is on our own planet even if it has yet to be scientifically proven as fact.

Actually, the fact that there is life on our planet is proof that life exists in the universe. Saying there's no proof that life exists elsewhere would be like seeing a spider in your garage and assuming that yours is the only garage with spiders, until you see a spider in another garage.
 
2012-11-05 12:50:05 PM  

mongbiohazard: Richard Saunders: **snip***
When I spoke to him about Hurricane Sandy - and the impacts our family members have been dealing with - he all of a sudden was talking like global warming was real, and the matter was now settled. The hurricane changed his mind, and if it can change my dad's mind it could change anyone's. I bet the opposition to climate change action is going to be weaker going forward in the post Sandy world.


You do realize that changing your mind given one additional, mundane piece of evidence is just as dumb as holding a belief based on incorrect assumptions? It would be one thing if he had a basic scientific understanding, then read some studies, then took Sandy into the context of his new found knowledge, and said, hey I think I get it now. Otherwise, he has simply exchanged one faith for another.

Belief = Recognizing the possibility that something exists
Faith = Knowing something exists without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary

Belief is fine, faith starts wars.
 
2012-11-05 12:50:26 PM  
Gee. Welcome to (scientific) skepticism. I'm skeptical that that list is THE TOP 10 because it leaves out angels and demons. Of the many things to be skeptical of the list just focuses mainly on the supernatural/religious and the preternatural entities (things that naturally could exist like aliens visiting earth or yetis) for which there is no evidence, leaving out snake oil (homeopathy, aroma therapy, etc.) and all sorts of other pseudo-science.

Intuition shouldn't have been in the list because in some sense it can mean jumping to a perception or conclusion with little conscious evidence or guessing likelyhood. Though sometimes people confuse or explain intuition as a form of extra sensory perception such as being able to read minds or being able to feel people looking at the back of your neck.
 
2012-11-05 12:56:20 PM  

kroonermanblack: Also: why does everyone always say the earth is 'an insignificant backwater'? I mean, what's that based on?


Presumably because it is a small planet in a solar system halfway out on an arm of a galaxy - fairly small/insignificant spacially; and its inhabitants are not yet capable of visiting other planets/solar systems/galaxies - unable to be significant sociopolitically on a universal scale.

Besides, it's funnier that way.
 
2012-11-05 12:59:34 PM  

Beaver1224: kroonermanblack: Also: why does everyone always say the earth is 'an insignificant backwater'? I mean, what's that based on?

Presumably because it is a small planet in a solar system halfway out on an arm of a galaxy - fairly small/insignificant spacially; and its inhabitants are not yet capable of visiting other planets/solar systems/galaxies - unable to be significant sociopolitically on a universal scale.

Besides, it's funnier that way.


And it's Mostly Harmless.
 
2012-11-05 01:01:18 PM  

yves0010: I am among several that believe both science and Theology can easily go hand in hand with no issues. Just see that a small group on both sides make to much a fuss and cause all the problems.


It can, but not comfortably. There are many things in life that can give rise to strong feelings, and opinions can be divided, yet those that hold opposing views can still be friends. So too can science and religion co-exist, but it requires both parties to be respectful of each other and not force their views upon the other. The problem is a very religious person believes news of a scientific discovery to be someone forcing their views upon them. They believe reading a comment on youtube expressing atheist opinion is forcing their views upon them. On the opposite side, atheists believe that religious people knocking on their doors trying to indoctrinate them is forcing their views upon them, they believe that having prayer in schools, courthouses, money and whatnot to be forcing their views upon them.

The loudest people get the most attention, so ol' Jimmy 2-teeth out of your least favourite town says anything other than "God's will", is an insult to God and we'll all die in his eternal loving and compassionate wrath, is the spokesman for religion, and the atheists have to put up with Richard Dawkins making intelligent and rational arguments. The firebrand!

So you need both sides to stop forcing their views on the other and then things will calm down. Never gonna happen.
 
2012-11-05 01:05:42 PM  
RE: INTUITION

DEFINE YOUR TERMS.
 
2012-11-05 01:10:00 PM  

nmemkha:
A brief in Evolution (all science) and a belief in God are not inherently incompatible. People choose to make them at odds by their interpretation of their specific religious doctrines.


Actually it kind of does. Here's why. What basically happens is that "we believe what's in the Bible until it's proven false, and then we re-interpret the Bible to fit with our new understanding of the universe" is really just a "God of the gaps" religious philosophy and no serious theologist would ever suggest that's how we should look at things. Either what the Bible says is true or it's not. It's not as if the people who wrote the Bible had a fundamental understanding of evolution, cosmology, etc. such that it could or should be re-interpreted based on our new knowledge. Once we figured out that we weren't the center of the universe and that evolution explains the global biological diversity it was pretty much all over.
 
2012-11-05 01:20:39 PM  
It would help if they used to correct definition of karma and not the white-washed, New-agey, American karma.
 
2012-11-05 01:26:07 PM  

Slaxl: yves0010: I am among several that believe both science and Theology can easily go hand in hand with no issues. Just see that a small group on both sides make to much a fuss and cause all the problems.

It can, but not comfortably. There are many things in life that can give rise to strong feelings, and opinions can be divided, yet those that hold opposing views can still be friends. So too can science and religion co-exist, but it requires both parties to be respectful of each other and not force their views upon the other. The problem is a very religious person believes news of a scientific discovery to be someone forcing their views upon them. They believe reading a comment on youtube expressing atheist opinion is forcing their views upon them. On the opposite side, atheists believe that religious people knocking on their doors trying to indoctrinate them is forcing their views upon them, they believe that having prayer in schools, courthouses, money and whatnot to be forcing their views upon them.

The loudest people get the most attention, so ol' Jimmy 2-teeth out of your least favourite town says anything other than "God's will", is an insult to God and we'll all die in his eternal loving and compassionate wrath, is the spokesman for religion, and the atheists have to put up with Richard Dawkins making intelligent and rational arguments. The firebrand!

So you need both sides to stop forcing their views on the other and then things will calm down. Never gonna happen.


I know it. And the majority of people on both sides are willing to work together. But once again, it is a small group that needs to be silenced that makes to much noise. It is some that are ignorant and some that perform attacks because they want to. Just as you said. I can work well with those who have different ideas. And it is always a good thing to challenge both sides. There is nothing wrong with a religious person challenging science and the same goes for science challenging religion. That is how we can both learn from each other and drive for a better understanding.

I actually enjoy when I get to have conversation like this where both sides are peaceful and actually can be rational.
 
2012-11-05 01:31:34 PM  

Theaetetus: 11. [Politician from political party X, who has an annual income over $250k and assets well over several million] cares about and identifies with the lower and/or middle class.


Replace that with honest politicians.

Slaves2Darkness: Meh,
God should have been #2,Democracy Communism should have been #1.

 
2012-11-05 01:40:21 PM  

slayer199: Slaxl: So... you do believe in aliens?

I guess I should clarify. I haven't seen any solid evidence of aliens visiting this planet. However, given the vastness of the universe, it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.


Agreed. Either now, in the past, or in the future life exists, existed, or will exist on a planet that is not Earth.
 
2012-11-05 01:42:06 PM  
Evolution conspicuously abbsent.
 
2012-11-05 01:42:24 PM  

pute kisses like a man:

it's not necessarily mystical. it could be your mind's way of coming to a quick conclusion based on cursory phenomena without going through the trouble of wasting your time processing it in a normal, relaxed fashion. there are probably good reasons why you feel sudden uneasy feelings. though your brain doesn't take the time to explain it to you, there is a reason for the feeling.


kroonermanblack:

Assume it's your hind brain and other less than consciousness levels of your brain acting. Like a thought equivalent of a reflex? That's always been my assumption.

Also: why does everyone always say the earth is 'an insignificant backwater'? I mean, what's that based on?


Yea, I can get behind these lines of thought. Usually something you've been sensing for a while and then the timing feels right. I've just always been curious about how well that sense can be tuned. There have been times I was shaking hands with someone and I think "this is the last time I'm going to see them alive." And then they die days later. Its happened a few times and after hearing about others (Lincolns' last words to his guard, animals that get real attached to someone or another animal before they go, etc.) I'd like to hear more after we have a better understanding of the brain. Not saying it's anything mystical, just an intellectual curiosity is all.
 
2012-11-05 01:43:59 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Evolution conspicuously abbsent.


Because it's been proven
 
2012-11-05 01:44:55 PM  

Theaetetus: lordargent: But I do BELIEVE it's possible for god(s) to exist (regardless of how improbable).

That one depends on your definition of "god", I think. The classic omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent leads to internal contradictions. If you change the definition to non-omni, but sufficiently powerful, then you're simply rephrasing your definition of "alien". :)


www.treknologic.com

Representatives of God
 
2012-11-05 01:49:23 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: slayer199: Slaxl: So... you do believe in aliens?

I guess I should clarify. I haven't seen any solid evidence of aliens visiting this planet. However, given the vastness of the universe, it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

Agreed. Either now, in the past, or in the future life exists, existed, or will exist on a planet that is not Earth.


I thought Douglas Adams proved that all life in the universe was a figment of a deranged imagination.
 
2012-11-05 01:52:50 PM  

Cythraul: Beaver1224: Aliens: Some sort of life existing somewhere other than this insignificant rock? Mathematically almost certain. Alien visitors here on Earth? Unlikely at best. (Though who, I ask you, planted all those streetlights?)

Came here to say this.



HighZoolander: "While psychic mediums offer a less than 100% accuracy rate..."

Apparently zero percent can truthinessfully be described as less than 100%. Good to know.


Anything in my life that is untrue, I am now claiming "may be less than 100% accurate".
 
2012-11-05 01:54:15 PM  

the_geek: Either what the Bible says is true or it's not.


Forgive me while I play devil's advocate here, (lol) but what if I am religious, but I do not adhere or accept religious text?
 
2012-11-05 02:04:50 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: The female orgasm


*Shakes tiny fist*
 
2012-11-05 02:07:47 PM  

Slaxl: So you need both sides to stop forcing their views on the other and then things will calm down. Never gonna happen.

 
2012-11-05 02:13:08 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: we want to believe that there is more to life than what is on our own planet even if it has yet to be scientifically proven as fact.

Actually, the fact that there is life on our planet is proof that life exists in the universe. Saying there's no proof that life exists elsewhere would be like seeing a spider in your garage and assuming that yours is the only garage with spiders, until you see a spider in another garage.


What is this "other garage" you speak of? Do you reject the monogaragist teachings of the Great Architect?
 
2012-11-05 02:23:51 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Smeggy Smurf: The female orgasm

*Shakes tiny fist*


Work on that technique, and it will no longer be a myth.
 
2012-11-05 02:42:31 PM  
I believe I like bacon.
 
2012-11-05 02:44:37 PM  

Slaxl: slayer199: I don't believe in Aliens but I believe it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

So... you do believe in aliens?


No, it's capitalized. What he means is, he denies the existence of the movie franchise.
...or possibly just the 2nd film.
 
2012-11-05 02:52:29 PM  
Actually karma is very easy to prove, the word simply means "action". You do something, something happens. How hard is that?

Oh wait, that's different from all of the New Age BS. In that regard no, you can't prove it.
 
2012-11-05 02:57:26 PM  

nmemkha: amoral: No mention of gravity? Is it because more people believe in aliens than gravity?

A you need to do is find a high gravity object of low mass and "gravity" (i.e. the current theory) is busted.


I've always wondered if you got two center of masses to touch each other (therefore making an infinite denominator in the gravitational formula), could you ever pull them apart again?
 
2012-11-05 03:11:55 PM  

homarjr: nmemkha: amoral: No mention of gravity? Is it because more people believe in aliens than gravity?

A you need to do is find a high gravity object of low mass and "gravity" (i.e. the current theory) is busted.

I've always wondered if you got two center of masses to touch each other (therefore making an infinite denominator in the gravitational formula), could you ever pull them apart again?


Quantum Fusion?
 
2012-11-05 03:26:30 PM  
Try telling someone that the door they are next to has wet paint. NO ONE WILL BELIEVE YOU.....EVERY SINGLE PERSON WILL TOUCH THE DOOR TO SEE IF THE PAINT IS ACTUALL WET.

But that History Channel (WTF....History???) UFO dude with the funky Don King hair and only the one brown suit can say some aboriginal statue is "incontravertible proof" that aliens have visited the Earth.....ZOMFG.
 
2012-11-05 03:27:12 PM  

DVDave: No, it's capitalized. What he means is, he denies the existence of the movie franchise.
...or possibly just the 2nd film.


I deny the existence of Aliens after the 2nd film. Prometheus doesn't count because it's technically a prequel.
 
2012-11-05 03:32:05 PM  
that depends on what abbey means by "prove"
 
2012-11-05 03:34:33 PM  

Girion47: Beaver1224: kroonermanblack: Also: why does everyone always say the earth is 'an insignificant backwater'? I mean, what's that based on?

Presumably because it is a small planet in a solar system halfway out on an arm of a galaxy - fairly small/insignificant spacially; and its inhabitants are not yet capable of visiting other planets/solar systems/galaxies - unable to be significant sociopolitically on a universal scale.

Besides, it's funnier that way.

And it's Mostly Harmless.


I almost said "unfashionable arm."
 
2012-11-05 03:37:15 PM  

slayer199: DVDave: No, it's capitalized. What he means is, he denies the existence of the movie franchise.
...or possibly just the 2nd film.

I deny the existence of Aliens after the 2nd film. Prometheus doesn't count because it's technically a prequel.


Alien 3 is highly under-appreciated, if you ask me.
As for Alien Resurrection? Winona Ryder. That pretty much does it for me.
 
2012-11-05 03:38:19 PM  
Quite a few of those things are provable if they do in fact exist.
 
2012-11-05 03:49:03 PM  

HallsOfMandos: karma


Odd that the list includes "Karma" but not "Sin"...

...not so odd that they got karma all wrong. Probably the same people who think evolution has a goal.
 
2012-11-05 03:54:54 PM  
The big bang theory is surprisingly absent...

With that being said, life belongs to those who hold it. To each their own and such. You can think someone is stupid if you prefer, but the truth is: it's their life. And until they personally have an effect on yours, leave them alone. My point is, you have no right to tell anyone what they can and cannot believe in and you have no right to tell them they're wrong when your theories cannot be proved, though they may be more widely accepted.

As Trey Parker and Matt Stone so beautifully put it in South Park "Go God Go," we'll fight over any ideology -- it's what we do. We don't like people different than ourselves no matter what the basis.
 
2012-11-05 03:58:28 PM  

alwaysjaded: And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical


I've always viewed my intuition as linked to my scepticism. Dress a 'gut-feeling-about-something' however you want, we all get them.
 
2012-11-05 04:04:24 PM  

Meatybrain: HallsOfMandos: karma

Odd that the list includes "Karma" but not "Sin"...

...not so odd that they got karma all wrong. Probably the same people who think evolution has a goal.


sin exists without much of a doubt. it means to miss the mark. whenever you try and miss, you've sinned. it was often used in an archery context in old english. however, the analogy/metaphor works very well in chrisitianity. you may try to do well, but you miss. since anyone can create a mark to strive for, sin will necessarily exist everytime a person fails to reach that mark
 
2012-11-05 04:05:54 PM  
I look at karma more as just a label to place on the coincidental events that seem to lead to someone being rewarded or punished for their behavior. It's not a force itself.
 
2012-11-05 04:12:39 PM  

uttertosh: alwaysjaded: And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical

I've always viewed my intuition as linked to my scepticism. Dress a 'gut-feeling-about-something' however you want, we all get them.


in fact it'd be interesting to see if the same areas in a brainscan showed for OCD attacks. Just a... um.. hunch.
 
2012-11-05 04:14:20 PM  

uttertosh: uttertosh: alwaysjaded: And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical

I've always viewed my intuition as linked to my scepticism. Dress a 'gut-feeling-about-something' however you want, we all get them.

in fact it'd be interesting to see if the same areas in a brainscan showed for OCD attacks. Just a... um.. hunch.


Are you suggesting that an OCD attack is akin to having rapidly repeated "gut feelings" that the stove was left on?
 
2012-11-05 04:16:11 PM  

tuxq: The big bang theory is surprisingly absent...


The theory doesn't exist? huh....wha?
 
2012-11-05 04:17:32 PM  

Meatybrain: Sin


"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."

"It's a lot more complicated than that-"

"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they are getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."

"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes-"

"But they starts with thinking about people as things . . ."
/From Carpe Juglum, by Terry Pratchett.
//Let it be noted the old woman talking about sin is *not* a worshiper of any of the Disc's gods. In her own words, "I already have my hot water bottle."
 
2012-11-05 04:17:50 PM  

tuxq: you have no right to tell them they're wrong


gah?! Who's "right"...dah?
 
2012-11-05 04:18:54 PM  

tuxq: The big bang theory is surprisingly absent...


Labrat407: Missed these:
-Gravity
-Evolution
-Relativity
-Global Warming
-Elvis is still alive
-JFK Assasination

\they are not called theories for shaits and giggles folks


The list was of things without evidence. While nothing in science is 100% proven, all of the above (except maybe Elvis) have evidence supporting them.

For some of them, like Evolution and AGW, there is massive amounts of evidence. For gravity there is massive amounts of evidence that the force exists ... the explanations on how it works get a bit thin.
 
2012-11-05 04:33:23 PM  

homarjr: nmemkha: amoral: No mention of gravity? Is it because more people believe in aliens than gravity?

A you need to do is find a high gravity object of low mass and "gravity" (i.e. the current theory) is busted.

I've always wondered if you got two center of masses to touch each other (therefore making an infinite denominator in the gravitational formula), could you ever pull them apart again?


Since the attraction of gravity at a center of mass is zero (the gravity of any non-singularity object cancels itself out there) they would drift apart by themselves in response to external perturbations.

/That's basically the reason the Ringworld is unstable in the plane of its rotation.
 
2012-11-05 04:33:49 PM  

DVDave: Alien 3 is highly under-appreciated, if you ask me.


Especially the director's cut. So much better imo.
 
2012-11-05 04:38:43 PM  

Hawnkee: DVDave: Alien 3 is highly under-appreciated, if you ask me.

Especially the director's cut. So much better imo.


Yes it is much better ... and yet still the worst in the series.
 
2012-11-05 04:44:31 PM  
I took the George Cralin route and shortened my list to one item:
Happy Horseshiat.
 
2012-11-05 04:45:18 PM  
Most of that list wasn't "things we don't know, but believe anyhow" as "things that have been proved conclusively not to be true, that people believe anyway".

Psychic mediums - Scientifically tested, all fake

Astrology - analyzed by statisticians (with too much time on their hands), doesn't work

Ghosts - tested. Nope. Entertainingly, the phenomena that cause people to imagine ghosts have been pinned down pretty well (infrasound and physiology, psychology)

Karma - statistical analysis applied. Again, no correlation to anything the philosophy claims correlated

Fate - counterexampled to hell and back. nope.

Religious texts - historical components analyzed and found fraudulent at best, entirely fabricated at worst. Essentially zero correlation with contemporary historical records, ever (even though contemporary historical records are usually consistent with each other), this showing most of the supernatural events didn't happen either.

The dodgy ones that fall in the "not proven" instead of the "actually disproven" category have some big caveats, too:

Cryptids - There are definitely some undiscovered species around, but due to know impact and behaviors of large land-dwelling mammals, it can be safely said that none of them are large land-dwelling mammals, unless we're missing them because they're indistinguishable from some other species, in which case we've seen them and just don't fully get them yet. So... no bigfoot or mothman.

Aliens - There are probably some... somewhere. On another planet. The realities of physics (most relevantly the cosmic speed limit c) means that visitors would have to _colonize_, though, just dropping by and abducting people without showing up on the rather extensive near-earth monitoring we do for asteroids and debris is a big "ha, ha, no".

Intuition - It certainly exists in the sense of the sum of your experience, training, and instinct, but it's not a 'sixth sense' and it's not any more reliable than your conscious decision-making.

God - The word is essentially meaningless at this point because it means whatever the speaker finds it politically or rhetorically expedient for it to mean. So you could define coffee to be god and claim god exists. Most of the specific gods claimed by religions, though, no, disproved or shown to be logically contradictory.
 
2012-11-05 04:46:13 PM  

Eats Kittens: wippit: Crypids in general should not be on the list. There are quite a few new species that were once cryptids/

Big foot and nessy not available for comment.


Dr. Lao proved Nessie beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And let me just add the alien one that sticks in my craw:

"Aliens exist, and they have the capability to visit us, they just don't because they have judged us as unworthy." I find that, especially when it comes from atheists, to be offensive, since all it does is put God back in through slight of hand. If they are vastly more powerful than us, it will be like us morally judging ants, rather than having better things to do.
 
2012-11-05 04:46:53 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop: I look at karma more as just a label to place on the coincidental events that seem to lead to someone being rewarded or punished for their behavior. It's not a force itself.


Another common misconception. They are by definition NOT merely coincidental, nor do they have anything at all to do with reward or punishment. Karma is more like the reeeeeally basic laws of physics - if there is action, there will be effects, which then generate more effects like ripples in a pond, etc. It is considered bad form to think you are able to decide what actions to take based on what will happen, as you really can't know what the ultimate effects will be, nor will you be able to control even what little you do know will happen. Fighting karma is pointless, as you would be fighting it with actions, which only generate more uncontrollable and unknowable karma.

Karma is an observed phenomenon, not an attempt to explain good or bad fortune. That got appended later by a superstitious and uneducated bunch of yahoos and twitbellies.
 
2012-11-05 04:50:36 PM  

slayer199: I don't believe in Aliens but I believe it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.


Elsewhere implies that intelligent life exists on Earth.
 
2012-11-05 04:52:04 PM  
"Can't prove? No.


"Have not proven?" Yes.
 
2012-11-05 04:53:03 PM  

Meatybrain: Karma is an observed phenomenon,



Do go on.
 
2012-11-05 04:53:53 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Smeggy Smurf: The female orgasm

*Shakes tiny fist*


Hopefully our tiny fist had nothing tiny in it....
 
2012-11-05 04:58:22 PM  
Whatever. Even if scientists claim they can prove or disprove anything, how credible is the source? If the mastermind of of our time, Stephen Hawking is really such a mastermind of masterminds, why can't he walk?
Get up and prove me wrong, veggie boy.
 
2012-11-05 05:09:17 PM  

bikerific: Meatybrain: Karma is an observed phenomenon,


Do go on.


Whether I go on or not is not up to me.
 
2012-11-05 05:10:11 PM  

Meatybrain: Karma is an observed phenomenon,


Thanks, asshole. Now all my labmates know I'm farking around on the internet instead of finishing the inspections because I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.
 
2012-11-05 05:19:57 PM  

bikerbob59: Elsewhere implies that intelligent life exists on Earth.


Good point.
 
2012-11-05 05:38:24 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Meatybrain: Karma is an observed phenomenon,

Thanks, asshole. Now all my labmates know I'm farking around on the internet instead of finishing the inspections because I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.


Eh, depends on how you define it.

I would certainly argue that you could make a sort of.. hrm. Philosophical arguement? Not in the sense of a cosmic balance sheet, but more of a:
"If you are a dick to people, it tends to ruin their day. They then are often dicks to other people, and this builds and multiplies. Eventually, it will probably come back around to you and fark you over."
(This, of course, gives us great power as individuals, too. 'Cause when something bad happens to us/someone is a dick to us, we can choose *not* to allow it to alter how we treat other people. And thus, in a small way, decrease the amount of dickishness in the world.)

/... I'm also dicking around on the internet instead of doing labwork.
 
2012-11-05 06:28:51 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Meatybrain: Karma is an observed phenomenon,

Thanks, asshole. Now all my labmates know I'm farking around on the internet instead of finishing the inspections because I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.


"Your karma ran over my dogma"
 
2012-11-05 06:29:53 PM  

Labrat407: Missed these:
-Gravity
-Evolution
-Relativity
-Global Warming
-Elvis is still alive
-JFK Assasination

\they are not called theories for shaits and giggles folks


Yeah, "gravity" and "Elvis is still alive" totally belong on the same list.
 
2012-11-05 06:34:43 PM  

Ambitwistor: Labrat407: Missed these:
-Gravity
-Evolution
-Relativity
-Global Warming
-Elvis is still alive
-JFK Assasination

\they are not called theories for shaits and giggles folks

Yeah, "gravity" and "Elvis is still alive" totally belong on the same list.


If Elvis was still alive, I'm sure he'd have his own gravitational field
 
2012-11-05 06:41:17 PM  
Religious texts?
I believe in them, I have seen several. I was given a free copy of the book of Mormon once, I touched it (I even read some of it) it was certainly real.

I also believe that the Torah is real, the Koran too. I believe that the Christian bible exists and the Tipitaka (and not just because I saw him on TV with a talking monkey). I believe in the existence of the Bhagavad Gita...
 
2012-11-05 06:43:02 PM  
A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
 
2012-11-05 06:51:29 PM  
#11: Tax cuts for the rich stimulate economic growth
 
2012-11-05 07:00:11 PM  

Pincy: yves0010: But here's the thing people love to argue and not understand. Yes, we as Christians believe God created the universe and everything in it. The question is not yes He did or no he did not that we argue. It is how He did it. Some argue that He created them all in literal 7 days. Others believe that 7 days was a way we, as humans, can understand His power. There are concepts of how we think God sees our timeline. The one I like to think is that he sees our timeline as if He is viewing it from outside of time and sees it all at once. Every branch and every choice, the past, present and future. This allows Him to see and know everything. Giving that, which can explain His all knowing, all powerful, ever presents, we can also say that if science says evolution is true, why can we not say God himself guided life the way He saw fit.

Sorry, but the mental contortions you have to go through to justify your belief are amazing. Why can't you just say "I want to believe in God because I like the idea of God" and be done with it?


The real problem with the bible being taking literally, is that it is a book of parables and lessons, not history. When you look at it that way, there is no more mental gymnastics than most other things.
 
2012-11-05 08:24:34 PM  
religious beliefs are based on faith, you pinheads.
 
2012-11-05 08:26:16 PM  
Wait, equality wasn't on the list? Isn't that the most widespread myth in existence?
 
2012-11-05 08:27:00 PM  
X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.
 
2012-11-05 09:28:38 PM  

lordargent:
I don't KNOW god(s) exists.
I don't BELIEVE god(s) exist (given measurable evidence)
But I do BELIEVE it's possible for god(s) to exist (regardless of how improbable).


These are not separate, but each is dependent upon the next.
You must believe in the possibility, to believe in the existence of, and ergo "know" the answer to be true.
Each is just a stage to the next level.

Now, since I think I am a piece of god, and I know I exist, therefore I know god exists, thus obviating the rest. :)
 
2012-11-05 10:47:25 PM  

nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.


I want some Leprechaun detection glasses.

/aleprechaunist
 
2012-11-05 10:48:22 PM  
Theaetetus: That one depends on your definition of "god", I think. The classic omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent leads to internal contradictions.

I believe that regardless of the definition you use, there's some infinitesimal chance that it's legit.

God makes the rules, so can contradict him/her/itself if he/she/it wants to, right?

BUT, infinitesimal chances are not worth giving any real thought to, the phrase I use for this is (ridiculously improbable).
 
2012-11-05 10:54:18 PM  
ReverendJasen: Now, since I think I am a piece of god, and I know I exist, therefore I know god exists, thus obviating the rest. :)

I am part of the universe, and I know the universe is likely to exist given the measurable evidence (there's always the chance that we're all in a matrix like shared simulation, but that's ridiculously improbable).

And for me, the existence of the universe doesn't necessitate the existence of a creator.

With no no evidence of a creator (outside of the existence of the universe, which doesn't need a creator), the evidence for the existence of god(s) is ridiculously improbable to me.

// And even then, I would have to ponder, if god(s) created the universe, then what created god(s). And before you know it, you have 'turtles all the way down'.
 
2012-11-05 11:31:16 PM  

nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.


For a spirit cam to be possible, people would have to have souls. The concept of a soul comes from stone-age understandings of the mind. I wouldn't bet on it.
 
2012-11-05 11:46:38 PM  

HighZoolander: nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.

For a spirit cam to be possible, people would have to have souls. The concept of a soul comes from stone-age understandings of the mind. I wouldn't bet on it.


Are you a God?
 
2012-11-06 12:06:55 AM  
FTA-

Anyone who claims to have seen a ghost might say that there is proof of spirit life, but skeptics would argue that any ghostly sighting can be explained away by lighting tricks or other logical reasons. At the end of the day, there may never be indisputable, tangible proof of ghosts. While ghost hunters have electronic tools meant to measure ghost activity, results are open to interpretation. Yet, we believe in ghostly encounters and phenomenon - that when things go bump in the night or move suddenly, a ghost can be the cause.

So... you CAN prove it by seeing it, but skeptics will argue, so its not proof.

I see.

So you cant prove Global Warming, ever, because skeptics will argue. And you cant prove that the world actually exists, because skeptics will argue. And you cant prove that the sky is blue, because skeptics will argue.

skeptics will argue against anything. Its what makes Fark work.
 
2012-11-06 12:20:03 AM  
It seems to me that this "list" is simply a collection of untestable hypotheses that have not been validated; and, due to the nature of their claims, are not subject to invalidation.

The correct phrasing would be "Top 10 things for which all presentations of proof have failed, yet people still insist on investing time, money, and emotion in."

To say that they can't be proven is incorrect; there just simply has not been an occurance of it. And, since disproving is impossible, there will always be morans out there to buy into them. Cue Dinesh D'Souza arguing, "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense." D'Souza is a grade-A douche and pseudo-intellectual, but techincally correct.

And technically correct is the best kind of correct.
 
2012-11-06 01:14:43 AM  
I always felt that if you truly believed in (new age style) karma, you were an idiot. But if you were smart, you'd live your life as if you did.
 
2012-11-06 02:23:08 AM  

nmemkha: HighZoolander: nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.

For a spirit cam to be possible, people would have to have souls. The concept of a soul comes from stone-age understandings of the mind. I wouldn't bet on it.

Are you a God?


I'm a god. I'm not *the* God... I don't think.
 
2012-11-06 02:37:11 AM  

lordargent: And for me, the existence of the universe doesn't necessitate the existence of a creator.

With no no evidence of a creator (outside of the existence of the universe, which doesn't need a creator), the evidence for the existence of god(s) is ridiculously improbable to me.


I never said anything about a creator, so not sure why you quoted me. This is more along the lines of a monotheistic/Christian deity or something. I'm atheist.

I agree the existence of the universe is natural, and the rise and existence of life is as natural a function as the carbon cycle is, given the proper conditions (such as on Earth).
The "god" I speak of is consciousness. You and I are but small pinholes of it. It does not know right or wrong, it doesn't command you to do anything, nor ask for worship. You can pray if you want, but remember that you pray to yourself--and answer your own prayers. This consciousness is the opposite force of entropy. While all matter seeks to return to simplicity, consciousness seeks to create complexity.
We are all god, we can all create.

/do I sound crazy yet? :)
 
2012-11-06 03:04:01 AM  
#11 That "top 10 lists" have relevance or meaning.
#12 [redacted]
#13 That I'm wearing pants.
 
2012-11-06 03:58:33 AM  
Often in these threads I read people posting that its probable or statistically likely that aliens exist. I really don't think that's true at all. These calculations are always made off some variation of the Drake equation which at some point forces you to make up some figures that are actually pure guesses. Yet everyone seems so certain that probability is on their side. You can just as easily calculate that its probable that were alone in the universe.
 
2012-11-06 04:48:43 AM  
Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are
300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.
 
2012-11-06 05:02:08 AM  

Leeds: uttertosh: uttertosh: alwaysjaded: And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical

I've always viewed my intuition as linked to my scepticism. Dress a 'gut-feeling-about-something' however you want, we all get them.

in fact it'd be interesting to see if the same areas in a brainscan showed for OCD attacks. Just a... um.. hunch.

Are you suggesting that an OCD attack is akin to having rapidly repeated "gut feelings" that the stove was left on?


You don't think that the same part of the brain may be misfiring in OCD sufferes? Part of the reflex system?

I often get the feeling of falling crossed with a kind of 'electric shock' sensation when I've getgut-feelings - explain that
 
2012-11-06 05:20:39 AM  

lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.


Fair points. Especially about the universe being too large for us to observe in a practical manner (which may well skew the. But I still think that within current estimates - even an incredibly large sample size ( like 300 sextillion stars), the odds are still against life developing. Not saying impossible, just unlikely.
 
2012-11-06 08:07:09 AM  
11. There is an intelligent Farker
 
2012-11-06 08:09:23 AM  

lordargent: Very religious folks
KNOW god exists and BELIEVE god exists


do you believe lordargent exists?

do you KNOW this?
 
2012-11-06 08:15:42 AM  

Cythraul: 11) Jesus


WHAR birf certificate
WHAR?
\0/
|
/\
 
2012-11-06 08:44:53 AM  

Porous Horace: #11 That "top 10 lists" have relevance or meaning.
#12 [redacted]
#13 That I'm wearing pants.


Nobody believes that
 
2012-11-06 09:12:43 AM  

Jonny17: Fair points. Especially about the universe being too large for us to observe in a practical manner (which may well skew the. But I still think that within current estimates - even an incredibly large sample size ( like 300 sextillion stars), the odds are still against life developing. Not saying impossible, just unlikely.


Yeah ... that would just be because you can not comprehend 300 sextillion. Even the most infinitesimally small chance becomes likely with that many opportunities.
 
2012-11-06 10:48:07 AM  

lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.


Thus unicorns exist, somewhere, QED.
 
2012-11-06 10:53:48 AM  

Fano: lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.

Thus unicorns exist, somewhere, QED.


Thus life began through cosmic evolution and abiogenesis, QED.
 
2012-11-06 11:06:22 AM  

I drunk what: Fano: lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.

Thus unicorns exist, somewhere, QED.

Thus life began through cosmic evolution and abiogenesis, QED.


Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.
 
2012-11-06 11:27:14 AM  

Fano: Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.


you can't argue with math, 50% of the time it is 100% correct

scientific unicorns, with physical rainbows coming out of their arse

friendship is a chemical reaction
 
2012-11-06 11:28:22 AM  

I drunk what: Fano: Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.

you can't argue with math, 50% of the time it is 100% correct

scientific unicorns, with physical rainbows coming out of their arse

friendship is a chemical reaction


93% of statistics are made up on the spot!
 
2012-11-06 11:29:45 AM  

slayer199: I don't believe in Aliens but I believe it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.


It is statistically likely or it isn't.
It requires no belief on your part or anyone else's.
It isn't a belief issue. That would be called religion.
 
2012-11-06 11:34:06 AM  

ADHD Librarian: Religious texts?
I believe in them, I have seen several. I was given a free copy of the book of Mormon once, I touched it (I even read some of it) it was certainly real.

I also believe that the Torah is real, the Koran too. I believe that the Christian bible exists and the Tipitaka (and not just because I saw him on TV with a talking monkey). I believe in the existence of the Bhagavad Gita...


but what about the claims made within them texts, silly?

you can't prove that stuff, therefore it never happened
 
2012-11-06 11:36:38 AM  

I drunk what: Thus life began through cosmic evolution and abiogenesis, QED.


Nobody claims these theories are true. They are just scientific theories that propose possible explanations supported by evidence. Many feel that they are correct to some degree or another but holding that opinion is a far cry from claiming knowledge of truth.

Whereas magic believers do claim to know the truth.
 
2012-11-06 11:39:29 AM  

I drunk what: but what about the claims made within them texts, silly?

you can't prove that stuff, therefore it never happened



No. Nobody says this. Why do you need to misrepresent people who hold different opinions than yours?

If you cannot provide evidence then there is no reason to accept the claim that it happened. This is not saying it did not happen ... it is saying that we don't know what happened and your unsupported claim is not changing anything.
 
2012-11-06 11:47:59 AM  

yves0010: I drunk what: Fano: Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.

you can't argue with math, 50% of the time it is 100% correct

scientific unicorns, with physical rainbows coming out of their arse

friendship is a chemical reaction

93% of statistics are made up on the spot!


look, let me make this simple for you, that drake stuff is too advanced

using our solar system we see that 1 out of 8 planets has life, therefore there is a 12.5% chance that any given star system will produce life.

so then if we can find at least 8 more stars in the galaxy there will be 8 * 12.5% = 100% chance that we will find life outside of this system

because Scientifically speaking the origin of Life can easily be calculated, if you don't believe me just watch nothing for a while and *bamf* something will explode out of it, then if you wait 14-15 billion years you can observe matter forming itself up to and including Life... it happens all the time (~93%)

we have observed these experiments repeatedly and tested the data, before forming the hypothesis

you don't think we are just talking out of our arses do you? that's where the rainbows come from
 
2012-11-06 11:51:01 AM  

I drunk what: you don't think we are just talking out of our arses do you? that's where the rainbows come from


Who the hell is 'we'?? I don't know any rational person who would agree with the ridiculous crap you just spewed.

If you don't understand how statistics work then just admit it or don't comment on it. There is no reason to so clearly illustrate your ignorance.
 
2012-11-06 12:21:33 PM  

Farking Canuck: Many feel that they are correct to some degree or another


i like to simplify my terms so that all can keep up

gnostic x = the % you are sure about x > the % you are unsure about x

and likewise

agnostic x = the % you are sure about x < the % you are unsure about x

this can apply to both scientific and religious beliefs
 
2012-11-06 12:25:08 PM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: It is statistically likely or it isn't.
It requires no belief on your part or anyone else's.
It isn't a belief issue. That would be called religion.


Thanks for splitting hairs. I said believe because I hadn't had time to check the statistical likelihood of intelligent life (there's a formula somewhere that I couldn't recall). If I could remember the name of the formula and look at that stats again, I'd say it's statistically likely.

So in this case, my use of believe was accurate.
 
2012-11-06 12:27:34 PM  

Farking Canuck: If you don't understand how statistics work then just admit it or don't comment on it.


if you like i could interpolate how many husbands you will have by the end of the month..?

Farking Canuck: If you cannot provide evidence then there is no reason to accept the claim that it happened.


isn't that what faith is for? "believing in stuff without evidence..." ?

checkmate, theists
 
2012-11-06 12:43:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: Whereas magic believers do claim to know the truth.


invisibleskywizarddidit?

Farking Canuck: I don't know any rational person who would agree with the ridiculous crap you just spewed.


not enough coefficients? what if i threw in a ft fraction of solar systems that drive a toyota?

...now it looks more legit

/puffs on pipe
//blows bubbles
 
2012-11-06 12:56:53 PM  

lordargent: there's always the chance that we're all in a matrix like shared simulation, but that's ridiculously improbable


redpenofdoomdotcom.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-06 01:29:03 PM  

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: Many feel that they are correct to some degree or another

i like to simplify my terms so that all can keep up

gnostic x = the % you are sure about x > the % you are unsure about x

and likewise

agnostic x = the % you are sure about x < the % you are unsure about x

this can apply to both scientific and religious beliefs


Huh ... you are one of the few people using the correct, original, definitions of agnostic/gnostic. They are independent of the topic of religion.

That said, even if you are very confident (gnostic) that a scientific theory is correct, you are still not making a claim of knowledge of truth. You are simply expressing an opinion on the weight of evidence supporting a theory (i.e. you find the weight of evidence to be significant enough to be convincing).
 
2012-11-06 02:08:04 PM  

Farking Canuck: You are simply expressing an opinion on the weight of evidence supporting a theory (i.e. you find the weight of evidence to be significant enough to be convincing).


and how is religion different than this?

Farking Canuck: even if you are very confident (gnostic) that a scientific theory is correct, you are still not making a claim of knowledge of truth


you say po-ta-to, i say pah-tah-to
 
2012-11-06 02:11:26 PM  

Farking Canuck: you are one of the few people using the correct, original, definitions


can you imagine a world in which people's words have meaning?

...and they actually used their brains??
 
2012-11-06 02:35:54 PM  
See, the reason I oppose the "large number inevitability of intelligent life" is that it allows Creationists to come in and use the "tornado hits a junkyard, creates fully loaded and fuelled 747" objection they like so much.
 
2012-11-06 03:01:59 PM  

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: You are simply expressing an opinion on the weight of evidence supporting a theory (i.e. you find the weight of evidence to be significant enough to be convincing).

and how is religion different than this?



The evidence part.
 
2012-11-06 03:10:38 PM  

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


True, I believe religion is quite natural, and I can prove it scientifically.
 
2012-11-06 03:19:01 PM  

Farking Canuck: The evidence part.


*ahem*:

I drunk what: isn't that what faith is for? "believing in stuff without evidence..." ?

checkmate, theists


yeah we already covered that part skippy, keep up

so what beats checkmate again? i forget

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


you're mom
 
2012-11-06 03:21:32 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: True, I believe religion is quite natural, and I can prove it scientifically

you're mom


I am? How did you know?
 
2012-11-06 03:27:05 PM  

Fano: Creationists to come in and use the "tornado hits a junkyard, creates fully loaded and fuelled 747" objection they like so much


that would be silly of them to do

Life is far more complicated than that...

it would be just as silly trying to convince someone that the tornado created a fully functioning airport... maybe we could convince them that airplanes are self replicating and that buhllions of years have passed

then, it would sound more legit
 
2012-11-06 03:28:36 PM  

vactech: How did you know?


I have your eyes

*opens small case**
 
2012-11-06 03:32:38 PM  

Fano: See, the reason I oppose the "large number inevitability of intelligent life" is that it allows Creationists to come in and use the "tornado hits a junkyard, creates fully loaded and fuelled 747" objection they like so much.


"They" say the big bang was loud, but it could not big, or loud enough to create evolution like the imbeciles here would have you believe.
 
2012-11-06 03:39:01 PM  
what could big enough to create evolution?
 
2012-11-06 03:41:01 PM  

I drunk what: what could big enough to create evolution?


I see what your doing there.
 
2012-11-06 03:41:47 PM  

I drunk what: big enough


www.bluetonemedia.com

my hair is a big bang your argument is invalid
 
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 237 of 237 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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