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.

(Some Guy)   This is the thread where you defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes bollocks. Now with a Venn diagram for easy navigation   (crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk) divider line 531
    More: Cool, Venn diagram, critical thinking  
•       •       •

16604 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 3:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-26 10:10:21 AM
I was promised a Venn diagram in thread.
 
2013-03-26 10:13:00 AM
So THATS why Scientology manages to stomp on my nerves every time it's mentioned. It's the culmination of all aspects of bollocks!

Thank's OP, today I have learned something :D
 
2013-03-26 10:14:14 AM
Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]
 
2013-03-26 10:34:49 AM
It's like a regular day at Fark.
 
2013-03-26 10:37:32 AM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


*shakes tiny fist*

Thanks for posting that though, exactly what I came here for.
 
2013-03-26 10:38:01 AM
God is a concept, by which we measure our pain.
 
2013-03-26 10:52:02 AM
I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.
 
2013-03-26 10:54:24 AM
I like turtles
 
2013-03-26 11:01:12 AM
ROLFing?  is that like ROTFLMAO?
 
2013-03-26 11:18:12 AM
shiatsu massage feels awesome. Why isn't swedish massage on there too?
 
2013-03-26 11:42:02 AM
I believe in grammar.
 
2013-03-26 11:45:13 AM

Nogrhi: I believe in grammar.


wat does you mean?
 
2013-03-26 11:56:53 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Nogrhi: I believe in grammar.

wat does you mean?


caught sayof the whole thing.

/memeblender!
 
2013-03-26 11:58:04 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: shiatsu massage feels awesome. Why isn't swedish massage on there too?


With happy ending?
 
2013-03-26 12:07:24 PM

kvinesknows: I was promised a Venn diagram in thread.


s24.postimg.org
 
2013-03-26 12:32:40 PM
i1057.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 12:41:08 PM
Bollocks is a fun word.
 
2013-03-26 12:41:21 PM
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 02:23:04 PM

UberDave: kvinesknows: I was promised a Venn diagram in thread.

[s24.postimg.org image 400x300]


ahhhhh... that hits the spot
 
2013-03-26 03:05:14 PM
I believe subby needs to go back and learn proper grammar.
 
2013-03-26 03:09:32 PM
I believe in miracles.  Where you from?
 
2013-03-26 03:12:55 PM

SlothB77: ROLFing?  is that like ROTFLMAO?


Does this turn you on? If so, you might be a ROWLFer.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-26 03:13:52 PM
I don't believe in Venn diagrams!


Where's your god now?
 
2013-03-26 03:14:16 PM
There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.
 
2013-03-26 03:16:45 PM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


Damnit, I was going to post this other quote from that fine movie:

Skip: Eight... and sixteen. How'd we ever win eight?
Larry: It's a miracle.
Skip: It's a miracle.
 
2013-03-26 03:18:58 PM
Psychic Surgery sounds totally legit and I'm looking forward to getting my appendicitis fixed that way.
 
2013-03-26 03:23:36 PM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-03-26 03:29:07 PM

hinten: Psychic Surgery sounds totally legit and I'm looking forward to getting my appendicitis fixed that way.


What psychic surgery might look like:
gatherer.wizards.com
 
2013-03-26 03:29:41 PM
Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 03:31:17 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: shiatsu massage feels awesome. Why isn't swedish massage on there too?


What about Fipina massage?  That feels REALLY awesome!
 
2013-03-26 03:35:27 PM
Why is detox in quackery/psuedoscience? Doesn't drug rehab show a lot of real efficacy?
 
2013-03-26 03:35:30 PM
Well, after a quick detour over to Youtube, I now know what ear candling is.  Looks like the most useless practice ever invented.
 
2013-03-26 03:39:47 PM

Jubeebee: Why is detox in quackery/psuedoscience? Doesn't drug rehab show a lot of real efficacy?


Nevermind; apparently the weird diet bullshiat my mom does all of the time is called detox also.
 
2013-03-26 03:42:26 PM

hinten: Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.

Defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes bollocks.


".., defend your beliefs and call everyone else's beliefs bollocks."
 
2013-03-26 03:43:33 PM
Nick Saban is loyal to Alabama and would NEVER leave for more money.
 
2013-03-26 03:43:34 PM

Jubeebee: Why is detox in quackery/psuedoscience? Doesn't drug rehab show a lot of real efficacy?


The detox that this diagram includes is not the drug rehab kind (which does show a lot of real efficacy). It's the kind of detox in which people try to rid their bodies of mysterious unnamed "toxins" by dubious methods, usually by buying a blatantly bullshiat product. The product I've heard the most about is a type of pad that you stick on your feet. After you've left the pad on for a while, it turns brown and smelly, and when you remove it the damn thing looks just awful because it "sucked the toxins of of your body" through your feet. Chemical analysis of these pads shows that they are actually simple adhesive pads laced with chemicals that react with oils and bacteria commonly found on feet to cause the brown color and bad smell, which is just for show.
 
2013-03-26 03:44:19 PM

Speaker2Animals: hinten: Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.

Defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes bollocks.

".., defend your beliefs and call everyone else's beliefs bollocks."


Those are spelling errors not grammar mistakes but I see what you mean.
 
2013-03-26 03:46:52 PM

TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.


Rolfing is a form of massage that is supposed to "balance" the body and "optimize" muscle use (those terms are not explicitly defined).


Jubeebee: Why is detox in quackery/psuedoscience? Doesn't drug rehab show a lot of real efficacy?


Drug and alcohol withdrawal can definitely be medically beneficial and are not pseudoscience/quackery at all.

So called  "Alternative medicine" detox, such as water fasting and Gerson therapy, is both pseudoscience and quackery at the same time.
 
2013-03-26 03:53:43 PM
Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.
 
2013-03-26 03:55:11 PM
Hey, now. I believe in tarot cards. I mean obviously they exist. You can go right to the store and get a deck. Fudge, they even have them in the dollar store.

I don't believe they can tell you the future, but they totally exist and they make great props.
 
2013-03-26 03:55:15 PM
The funny thing is that people involved in these really won't care that anyone else thinks its bollocks. For instance, I don't care what your "evaluation" of acupuncture and chiropractic are, I've had enough experience with both to know that they've really worked well for me in handling certain issues than before I had experience with them. As a practical guy, that's all the evidence I really want or need. YMMV.
 
2013-03-26 03:55:57 PM

Krymson Tyde: Nick Saban is loyal to Alabama and would NEVER leave for more money.


NOW who sounds delusional?  :-)
 
2013-03-26 03:57:07 PM

hinten: Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.


I believes that subby is a semi-literate monkey who somehow got access to the internet.
 
2013-03-26 03:57:15 PM

GiantRex: Jubeebee: Why is detox in quackery/psuedoscience? Doesn't drug rehab show a lot of real efficacy?

The detox that this diagram includes is not the drug rehab kind (which does show a lot of real efficacy). It's the kind of detox in which people try to rid their bodies of mysterious unnamed "toxins" by dubious methods, usually by buying a blatantly bullshiat product. The product I've heard the most about is a type of pad that you stick on your feet. After you've left the pad on for a while, it turns brown and smelly, and when you remove it the damn thing looks just awful because it "sucked the toxins of of your body" through your feet. Chemical analysis of these pads shows that they are actually simple adhesive pads laced with chemicals that react with oils and bacteria commonly found on feet to cause the brown color and bad smell, which is just for show.


Yeah, my mom does shiat like that on a fairly regular basis. Except with her it's usually a combination of fasting and a closet full of "supplements" or a week-long juice diet or something. She's got the gene for the same arthritic condition I have, but refuses to believe that she has the same condition. Flat refusal of any anti-inflammatory medication because she doesn't trust doctors, but will spend $100s of dollars a month on alternative medicine from internet quacks.
 
2013-03-26 03:57:17 PM
I hate Blacks, Mexicans and Chinese people!
 
2013-03-26 03:58:01 PM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


If it has a steady paycheck, I'll believe anything you say
 
2013-03-26 03:58:22 PM

FloydA: Rolfing is a form of massage that is supposed to "balance" the body and "optimize" muscle use (those terms are not explicitly defined).


Oh, now I'm actually kind of disappointed. I was imagining some sort of therapeutic purging. Something to do with balancing humors or vapors. Like blood letting, but with vomit.
 
2013-03-26 03:58:52 PM
Why are out of body experiences there? They're nothing more than misunderstood lucid dreams. People swear to be damned they're real, but to them (and their minds) they are. The mind behaves as if it is fully awake during sleep, and lucid dreams are just as real as me typing this right now.
 
2013-03-26 03:58:56 PM
I believe we know a lot about physics and engineering. This is how we are able to shoot photons one at a time to build ICs and are able to fly across oceans.
 
2013-03-26 04:02:28 PM

hinten: Psychic Surgery sounds totally legit and I'm looking forward to getting my appendicitis fixed that way.


I thought about trying psychic liposuction, but I decided not to once I realized that even if it worked, it was going to suck.

/not even fat
 
2013-03-26 04:02:44 PM
img854.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-26 04:03:08 PM

DesertDemonWY: [i1057.photobucket.com image 700x537]


Hey, I one-up Jimmy and just put certain people on ignore.
 
2013-03-26 04:03:30 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I believes that subby is a semi-literate monkey who somehow got access to the internet.


I believe this is not bollocks.
 
2013-03-26 04:03:58 PM
I know most chiropractors are quacks, but dammit, mine has saved my life repeatedly.

/slight exaggeration
//slight
 
2013-03-26 04:04:06 PM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


I kind of love you.
 
2013-03-26 04:04:09 PM
The diagram in the link needs to include governement and business before it is complete.
 
2013-03-26 04:04:24 PM
Rolfing ?

img69.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-26 04:04:34 PM
I don't believe in any of that stuff.

What do I win?
 
2013-03-26 04:05:34 PM
Never mind the bollocks.
memeboss.com
Here's the Sex Pistols.
 
2013-03-26 04:05:43 PM
'what do you believe in?'

i believe i'll have another....
 
2013-03-26 04:06:07 PM

hinten: Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.


Should be:

Fark: where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.
 
2013-03-26 04:06:27 PM
I believe in nothing.

/yes it is exhausting
 
2013-03-26 04:06:43 PM

hinten: Speaker2Animals: hinten: Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.

Defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes bollocks.

".., defend your beliefs and call everyone else's beliefs bollocks."

Those are spelling errors not grammar mistakes but I see what you mean.


"believes" is not spelled wrong, it's just the wrong word.  So yes, it's a grammar mistake.
 
2013-03-26 04:06:55 PM

meat0918: I don't believe in any of that stuff.

What do I win?


Nothing. That's the point, right?
 
2013-03-26 04:07:54 PM
Hitting you right in the believes.
 
2013-03-26 04:08:07 PM
If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"
 
2013-03-26 04:08:25 PM

PumpkinCake: meat0918: I don't believe in any of that stuff.

What do I win?

Nothing. That's the point, right?


I can live with that.
 
2013-03-26 04:08:26 PM

Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.


One has an unknown beginning point and the other has an unknown ending point.
 
2013-03-26 04:08:40 PM
I like big bollocks and I cannot lie
 
2013-03-26 04:08:51 PM

MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.


That's an amazingly unscientific viewpoint.
 
2013-03-26 04:09:25 PM
!Science
 
2013-03-26 04:09:57 PM

Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"


We do, it's called Pareidolia
 
2013-03-26 04:11:07 PM

TheOmni: FloydA: Rolfing is a form of massage that is supposed to "balance" the body and "optimize" muscle use (those terms are not explicitly defined).

Oh, now I'm actually kind of disappointed. I was imagining some sort of therapeutic purging. Something to do with balancing humors or vapors. Like blood letting, but with vomit.


Nope, just massage.  For therapeutic vomiting, you want the "Master Cleanse  Detox Purging Diet."  It removes unnamed "toxins" when you drink enough salt water to puke, and then you replace those toxins with lemonade to nourish the body.

(I've looked at a lot of "alternative medicine" techniques.  I'm not sure it's possible to imagine one that's crazier than the things people actually believe.)
 
2013-03-26 04:11:09 PM
Whoooa hey hey hey stop! I'm willing to believe that everything on that list is complete bollocks, but you honestly going to look me in the face and tell me that Ouija boards don't work?!? Whaaa?!?
 
2013-03-26 04:11:32 PM
Pfft.  I don't defend in what I believe in.  I don't believe in nothing no more.

I'm going to law school.
 
2013-03-26 04:12:04 PM

TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.


Glad I'm not the only one:)  I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?
 
2013-03-26 04:12:08 PM

TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.


It isn't.

And I'm not sure it deserves to be on the list.
 
2013-03-26 04:12:28 PM
I believe that Fark and Reddit will one day become an unholy behemoth that will cause the end of Internet news media as we know it.

Don't say you weren't warned!
 
2013-03-26 04:13:10 PM
This completely misunderstands Scientology.  They are a dangerous nutjob cult, but the author of this diagram isn't familiar with the details.  He's working from a pop Internet retelling of them.

/Scientology neighbor
 
2013-03-26 04:13:32 PM

ParagonComplex: Why are out of body experiences there? They're nothing more than misunderstood lucid dreams. People swear to be damned they're real, but to them (and their minds) they are. The mind behaves as if it is fully awake during sleep, and lucid dreams are just as real as me typing this right now.


Came here to say this because I've had and OOB.
/Way different than a dream
//Awesome
 
2013-03-26 04:13:32 PM

meanmutton: MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.

That's an amazingly unscientific viewpoint.


In case you're wondering, the scientific viewpoint is: No credible evidence has been put forth to lead to a reasonable conclusion that gods exist; thus, we do not accept their existence but are willing to review this conclusion should new evidence be presented.
 
2013-03-26 04:13:42 PM

meanmutton: MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.

That's an amazingly unscientific viewpoint.


No kidding.

Mythology is how people explained what they could not explain before the advent of science.  A myth might say "A goddess gave us willow bark to ease pain".  Science can then be utilized to investigate whether or not willow bark does ease pain.

Now a lot of times, these myths (especially regarding herbs) don't pan out and are better explained as a placebo effect, but we can still take a look at these things through the lens of science.
 
2013-03-26 04:13:55 PM
What is cupping?
 
2013-03-26 04:14:13 PM
Karma is on that chart? Karma just means cause and effect. There's nothing particularly mystical about it, despite what I read on Facebook.
 
2013-03-26 04:14:14 PM

Somacandra: The funny thing is that people involved in these really won't care that anyone else thinks its bollocks. For instance, I don't care what your "evaluation" of acupuncture and chiropractic are, I've had enough experience with both to know that they've really worked well for me in handling certain issues than before I had experience with them. As a practical guy, that's all the evidence I really want or need. YMMV.



Chiropractic for treating musculoskeletal back pain by spinal manipulation = legitimate.
Chiropractic for treating anything and everything by restoring the body's "innate intelligence" = quackery.
 
2013-03-26 04:14:39 PM
Tarot also belongs in the religion circle. Our church when I was a kid told us that tarot decks were possessed by demons and using them invited the demon into you. The deck I got as a teenager never did anything exciting, so I am dissappoint.
 
2013-03-26 04:15:13 PM

ACunningPlan: TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.

Glad I'm not the only one:)  I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?


Alternative medicine hickies.
 
2013-03-26 04:15:44 PM
Did I somehow miss the link to the English one?
 
2013-03-26 04:15:48 PM
I miss 'Christian Science'. They could easily check all the boxes.
 
2013-03-26 04:16:09 PM
Everything is bollocks. However, some bollocks is true. (For a given value of "truth".)
 
2013-03-26 04:16:28 PM

GiantRex: Jubeebee: Why is detox in quackery/psuedoscience? Doesn't drug rehab show a lot of real efficacy?

The detox that this diagram includes is not the drug rehab kind (which does show a lot of real efficacy). It's the kind of detox in which people try to rid their bodies of mysterious unnamed "toxins" by dubious methods, usually by buying a blatantly bullshiat product. The product I've heard the most about is a type of pad that you stick on your feet. After you've left the pad on for a while, it turns brown and smelly, and when you remove it the damn thing looks just awful because it "sucked the toxins of of your body" through your feet. Chemical analysis of these pads shows that they are actually simple adhesive pads laced with chemicals that react with oils and bacteria commonly found on feet to cause the brown color and bad smell, which is just for show.


I thought those were just called socks.
Those commercials are funny. I like how the guy says they work to remove toxins from your body the same way a tree does. By taking in energy from the sun and dispensing the toxins out of the roots. Not only is that not how your body works, that's not even how a farking tree works.
 
2013-03-26 04:16:45 PM

ACunningPlan: TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.

Glad I'm not the only one:)  I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?


They rid the body of illness by placing a cup on the skin, usually with a candle under it that creates suction. It often leaves bruises and then cps shows up to arrest well-meaning immigrant parents because they think they are beating their kids.
 
2013-03-26 04:16:47 PM

Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"


No, because sciencism says it's bollocks, and we are all sciencists now.
 
2013-03-26 04:17:17 PM
indubitably
 
2013-03-26 04:17:34 PM
It's all true. Especially the part about how Tom Cruise isn't gay.
 
2013-03-26 04:17:42 PM

ACunningPlan: TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.

Glad I'm not the only one:)  I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?


i105.photobucket.com

The "therapist" heats up some cups (usually glass) and places them on the skin.  The heated air inside the cups creates a partial vacuum, which is believed to suck unnamed "toxins" out of the body.
 
2013-03-26 04:17:54 PM

Uncle Pim: Karma is on that chart? Karma just means cause and effect. There's nothing particularly mystical about it, despite what I read on Facebook.


Most people who use it, use it in the form of "If you do something good/bad, the universe will do something good/bad to or for you in turn", which is outside of cause and effect, and is bullshiat. Lots of people who do evil shiat live very pampered lives, and lots of good people live very harsh destitute lives.
 
2013-03-26 04:18:43 PM

Ebenator: What is cupping?


The only cupping I've heard of is a BDSM practice, which I've seen, but not tried, so I can't attest to the experience, but the practitioners were definitely enjoying it, so it does work.  Somehow I don't think that's what the venn diagram is referring to.
 
2013-03-26 04:19:15 PM

Moonfisher: Tarot also belongs in the religion circle. Our church when I was a kid told us that tarot decks were possessed by demons and using them invited the demon into you. The deck I got as a teenager never did anything exciting, so I am dissappoint.


I once played poker with a tarot deck.  I got a full house and my neighbor died.
 
2013-03-26 04:19:43 PM
I was the biggest disbeliever in chiropractic,
that is. until the doctor gave me Valium for my back pain.
There are a few things I cannot abide by in my life, but taking narcotics to sleep at night is one of them.
I absolutely detest narcotics.
I like having a clear head.
I didn't want to go to see a chiropractor, but I was sweeping the floor in terrible pain, at my old job, and had to bend over to pick up a blow in ad that fell out of a stack of newspapers.
I flipped it over and it was a full page ad for this new chiro in town. So I made an appointment and gave it a chance. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have done this, but I was delirious from lack of sleep, pain, and drugs.
I was so out of it the day of the visit, I could barely dress, and went to the office for the visit with my frikkin fly down. I didn't care. I was in pain. Guy gave me an X-Ray, asked if I had been a a car wreck. (I had) and gave me a themo-graphic reading on the back to narrow down where the pain was, with out asking me.
Mind you, when I went to the REAL doctor, I told him it felt like I had an Ice Pick in my back. He didn't ask me to remove my shirt. The guy didn't even turn me around to see if I actually had an ice pick in my back. He just wrote me a scrip for Valium.
The chiropractor had me sit down, and tapped my back in one spot, and said is this where it hurts most?
BINGO. He knew where it was through his diagnostic check up.
He gave me one adjustment and it was like the ice pick was taken out. I flushed the pulls right down the john. never took one again. I still go in for adjustments, but I'm not drooling on my keyboard.

So ymmv, but call be a believer.
a convert.
 
2013-03-26 04:20:00 PM
Bullocks
www.hilaryshepherd.com
 
2013-03-26 04:22:40 PM

Ebenator: What is cupping?


The "magic lightbulbs" in the new Karate Kid movie.
 
2013-03-26 04:22:50 PM

rkiller1: Bullocks
[www.hilaryshepherd.com image 350x475]


I think my married neighbor is gay.
He says, "they always put her in moves playing the hot girl, but she isn't hot. "
 
2013-03-26 04:23:11 PM
 
2013-03-26 04:23:47 PM

vudukungfu: I was the biggest disbeliever in chiropractic,
that is. until the doctor gave me Valium for my back pain.
There are a few things I cannot abide by in my life, but taking narcotics to sleep at night is one of them.
I absolutely detest narcotics.
I like having a clear head.
I didn't want to go to see a chiropractor, but I was sweeping the floor in terrible pain, at my old job, and had to bend over to pick up a blow in ad that fell out of a stack of newspapers.
I flipped it over and it was a full page ad for this new chiro in town. So I made an appointment and gave it a chance. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have done this, but I was delirious from lack of sleep, pain, and drugs.
I was so out of it the day of the visit, I could barely dress, and went to the office for the visit with my frikkin fly down. I didn't care. I was in pain. Guy gave me an X-Ray, asked if I had been a a car wreck. (I had) and gave me a themo-graphic reading on the back to narrow down where the pain was, with out asking me.
Mind you, when I went to the REAL doctor, I told him it felt like I had an Ice Pick in my back. He didn't ask me to remove my shirt. The guy didn't even turn me around to see if I actually had an ice pick in my back. He just wrote me a scrip for Valium.
The chiropractor had me sit down, and tapped my back in one spot, and said is this where it hurts most?
BINGO. He knew where it was through his diagnostic check up.
He gave me one adjustment and it was like the ice pick was taken out. I flushed the pulls right down the john. never took one again. I still go in for adjustments, but I'm not drooling on my keyboard.

So ymmv, but call be a believer.
a convert.


Of course now all the fish are Valium addicts, and I can't have a Friday night fry up without getting high.  Thanks a pant-load, buddy.
 
2013-03-26 04:23:50 PM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


You have it wrong.  The truth is that BOTH Lee Harvey Oswald's acted alone (and independantly).
 
2013-03-26 04:24:19 PM
crujonessociety.com
I want to believe.
 
2013-03-26 04:24:20 PM

rkiller1: Bullocks
[www.hilaryshepherd.com image 350x475]


I would and so would you.
 
2013-03-26 04:24:29 PM
People still believe in lei lines?

www.airportleigreeting.com
 
2013-03-26 04:24:29 PM
en.wikifur.com

I LOVE GOOGLE!
 
2013-03-26 04:25:00 PM
I believe the children are our future.
Teach them well and let them lead the way.
 
2013-03-26 04:25:43 PM

vudukungfu: rkiller1: Bullocks
[www.hilaryshepherd.com image 350x475]

I think my married neighbor is gay.
He says, "they always put her in moves playing the hot girl, but she isn't hot. "


She's certainly hot from the right camera angle, but she did marry Jesse James...
/She was invited to JJ's Malibu wedding last week and declined,
 
2013-03-26 04:26:07 PM

Rixel: [en.wikifur.com image 500x300]

I LOVE GOOGLE rule 34!

 
2013-03-26 04:26:33 PM

FloydA: ACunningPlan: TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.

Glad I'm not the only one:)  I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?

[i105.photobucket.com image 459x320]

The "therapist" heats up some cups (usually glass) and places them on the skin.  The heated air inside the cups creates a partial vacuum, which is believed to suck unnamed "toxins" out of the body.


That's hawt.
 
2013-03-26 04:27:14 PM

meat0918: Rixel: [en.wikifur.com image 500x300]

I LOVE GOOGLE rule 34!


Which has me thinking...

Are there rule 34 Venn Diagrams out there.

//Not going to search for that at work.
///Speaking of which, lunch is over...
 
2013-03-26 04:28:00 PM

kvinesknows: I was promised a Venn diagram in thread.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-26 04:28:22 PM
I believe everything that we fight over exists as it is regardless of our fighting.  Whether we're right or wrong doesn't matter.  This leads me to believe that the only thing we are fighting about is our perception.  If we can stop with the adjectives and flowery speech and simply focus on what is, then, and only then, can we truly grow and enlighten ourselves.

/Reader's Digest version...
 
2013-03-26 04:28:47 PM

Rixel: [en.wikifur.com image 500x300]

I LOVE GOOGLE!


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 04:29:13 PM

WhoGAS: I believe everything that we fight over exists as it is regardless of our fighting.  Whether we're right or wrong doesn't matter.  This leads me to believe that the only thing we are fighting about is our perception.  If we can stop with the adjectives and flowery speech and simply focus on what is, then, and only then, can we truly grow and enlighten ourselves.

/Reader's Digest version...


Shut Up!
 
2013-03-26 04:29:25 PM
Geomancy isn't bollocks.

I pull that shiat off all the time:
i78.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 04:30:25 PM

ACunningPlan: Glad I'm not the only one:) I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?


Light BDSM play masked under the cloak of psudeoscience, much like acupuncture and most other home cures.  Of course hitting my testicles with a hammer will distract me from that toothache. Why didn't I think of that?
 
2013-03-26 04:30:35 PM

Speaker2Animals: God is a concept, by which we measure our pain.


A comma is a punctuation mark, which is often overused.
 
2013-03-26 04:30:56 PM

vudukungfu: I was the biggest disbeliever in chiropractic,
that is. until the doctor gave me Valium for my back pain.
There are a few things I cannot abide by in my life, but taking narcotics to sleep at night is one of them.
I absolutely detest narcotics.
I like having a clear head.
I didn't want to go to see a chiropractor, but I was sweeping the floor in terrible pain, at my old job, and had to bend over to pick up a blow in ad that fell out of a stack of newspapers.
I flipped it over and it was a full page ad for this new chiro in town. So I made an appointment and gave it a chance. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have done this, but I was delirious from lack of sleep, pain, and drugs.
I was so out of it the day of the visit, I could barely dress, and went to the office for the visit with my frikkin fly down. I didn't care. I was in pain. Guy gave me an X-Ray, asked if I had been a a car wreck. (I had) and gave me a themo-graphic reading on the back to narrow down where the pain was, with out asking me.
Mind you, when I went to the REAL doctor, I told him it felt like I had an Ice Pick in my back. He didn't ask me to remove my shirt. The guy didn't even turn me around to see if I actually had an ice pick in my back. He just wrote me a scrip for Valium.
The chiropractor had me sit down, and tapped my back in one spot, and said is this where it hurts most?
BINGO. He knew where it was through his diagnostic check up.
He gave me one adjustment and it was like the ice pick was taken out. I flushed the pulls right down the john. never took one again. I still go in for adjustments, but I'm not drooling on my keyboard.

So ymmv, but call be a believer.
a convert.


You aware orginally chiropractics believed that can heal ANY ailment through adjustments? Like including diseases and such., not just problem muscles and bad backs.  That's what they are referring to. They mostly have moved away from this.
 
2013-03-26 04:31:19 PM

WhippingBoy: I believe the children are our future.
Teach them well and let them lead the way.


You take that back right now, pervert.
 
2013-03-26 04:31:51 PM
I can't stand those who are intolerant of other cultures.
/And the Dutch.
 
2013-03-26 04:33:32 PM
My believes are simple: vodak.
 
2013-03-26 04:33:33 PM
I believe hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.


/or 1911a1 .45, as the case may be
 
2013-03-26 04:34:09 PM

MythDragon: Geomancy isn't bollocks.

I pull that shiat off all the time:
[i78.photobucket.com image 720x480]


Great. Now I want to play that again. Thanks, farker.
 
2013-03-26 04:34:12 PM

rkiller1: Bullocks
[www.hilaryshepherd.com image 350x475]


About time this thread got interesting!
 
2013-03-26 04:34:26 PM
I believe in the elixir of youth
And I believe in the absolute truth
Yes I believe in
I believe in

There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
 
2013-03-26 04:35:18 PM
I like sniffing pantyhose.
Wheres my parade?
 
2013-03-26 04:35:39 PM

vudukungfu: I was the biggest disbeliever in chiropractic,
that is. until the doctor gave me Valium for my back pain.
There are a few things I cannot abide by in my life, but taking narcotics to sleep at night is one of them.
I absolutely detest narcotics.
I like having a clear head.
I didn't want to go to see a chiropractor, but I was sweeping the floor in terrible pain, at my old job, and had to bend over to pick up a blow in ad that fell out of a stack of newspapers.
I flipped it over and it was a full page ad for this new chiro in town. So I made an appointment and gave it a chance. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have done this, but I was delirious from lack of sleep, pain, and drugs.
I was so out of it the day of the visit, I could barely dress, and went to the office for the visit with my frikkin fly down. I didn't care. I was in pain. Guy gave me an X-Ray, asked if I had been a a car wreck. (I had) and gave me a themo-graphic reading on the back to narrow down where the pain was, with out asking me.
Mind you, when I went to the REAL doctor, I told him it felt like I had an Ice Pick in my back. He didn't ask me to remove my shirt. The guy didn't even turn me around to see if I actually had an ice pick in my back. He just wrote me a scrip for Valium.
The chiropractor had me sit down, and tapped my back in one spot, and said is this where it hurts most?
BINGO. He knew where it was through his diagnostic check up.
He gave me one adjustment and it was like the ice pick was taken out. I flushed the pulls right down the john. never took one again. I still go in for adjustments, but I'm not drooling on my keyboard.

So ymmv, but call be a believer.
a convert.


I had a doctor like that once. Didn't bother with an exam and just prescribed me pills. I went to another doctor who promptly examined me and solved my problem with surgery. Just because you went to a bad doctor it does not mean anything one way or another.
 
2013-03-26 04:36:22 PM

DesertDemonWY: PassiveAggressiveAsshole.jpg


Glad you had the strength to rise above it, just like our hero Jimmy.
 
2013-03-26 04:37:17 PM

Rixel: [en.wikifur.com image 500x300]

I LOVE GOOGLE!


I don't get it, other than I imagine it has to do with furries.  In which case I need an explanation immediately so I know where I need to not be on that diagram.
 
2013-03-26 04:37:37 PM
I went to a doctor once and he spent the entire 45 minute exam with his finger up my ass.  I guess it was a doctor.  He only spoke Spanish and I paid him in paper tickets.  But I felt good knowing that I at least had some level of access to health care.
 
2013-03-26 04:37:45 PM
img208.imageshack.us
I still believe!!!
 
2013-03-26 04:38:23 PM
 
2013-03-26 04:38:51 PM

Glenford: kvinesknows: I was promised a Venn diagram in thread.


That's....that's awesome!
 
2013-03-26 04:39:19 PM

spentmiles: I went to a doctor once and he spent the entire 45 minute exam with his finger up my ass.  I guess it was a doctor.  He only spoke Spanish and I paid him in paper tickets.  But I felt good knowing that I at least had some level of access to health care.


I believes you owe me another keyboard.
 
2013-03-26 04:39:53 PM

thisisyourbrainonFark: This sums it up for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M


Relax, I have a septic tank and live in a county full of manure pits.
Open manure pits.
there aren't any fish in our rivers.
Too much ammonia in the water.
 
2013-03-26 04:40:41 PM
Bollocks.
s21.postimg.org
The bullocks bollocks.
 
2013-03-26 04:41:08 PM

js34603: I believe in nothing.

/yes it is exhausting


Farking Nihilists!
3.bp.blogspot.com
/hot like a nihilist's over-driven brain
 
2013-03-26 04:42:48 PM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul....


Pfft.

I believe in rainbows, and puppy dogs and fairy tales. And I believe
in the family: Mom, and Dad, and Grandma, and Uncle Todd, who waves
his penis.

And I believe in 8 of the Ten Commandments, and I believe in going to
church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.

And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome, and
natural things that money can buy.

And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs",
"jugs", "winnebagos", or "golden bozos". And you should only refer to
them as "hooters".

And I believe you should place a woman on a pedestal, high enough so
you can look up her dress.

And I believe in equality, equality for everyone, no matter how stupid
they are, or how much better I am than they are.

And people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots
are stealing my luggage.

And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story, one-bedroom
apartment.

And I believe that the "Battle of the Network Stars" should be fought
with guns.

And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once
was: an arctic region, covered with ice.

And I believe the United States should all foreigners in this country,
provided they can speak our native language: Apache.

And lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is
nothing worse than the music you are listening to right now.
 
2013-03-26 04:42:51 PM
Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?
 
2013-03-26 04:42:51 PM

DesertDemonWY: [i1057.photobucket.com image 700x537]


i.imgur.com
ftfy.
 
2013-03-26 04:43:19 PM
I thought we already had this thread.
 
2013-03-26 04:43:32 PM

gweilo8888: I believe this is not bollocks.


Never mind the bollocks, man.
 
2013-03-26 04:44:01 PM
Detox: call it bollocks if you want, if you drink a glass of green leaf juice 3x day for a week, you will have a moving experience.
 
2013-03-26 04:44:22 PM
I believe I'll have another beer.
 
2013-03-26 04:44:27 PM

Corvus: vudukungfu: I was the biggest disbeliever in chiropractic,
that is. until the doctor gave me Valium for my back pain.
There are a few things I cannot abide by in my life, but taking narcotics to sleep at night is one of them.
I absolutely detest narcotics.
I like having a clear head.
I didn't want to go to see a chiropractor, but I was sweeping the floor in terrible pain, at my old job, and had to bend over to pick up a blow in ad that fell out of a stack of newspapers.
I flipped it over and it was a full page ad for this new chiro in town. So I made an appointment and gave it a chance. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have done this, but I was delirious from lack of sleep, pain, and drugs.
I was so out of it the day of the visit, I could barely dress, and went to the office for the visit with my frikkin fly down. I didn't care. I was in pain. Guy gave me an X-Ray, asked if I had been a a car wreck. (I had) and gave me a themo-graphic reading on the back to narrow down where the pain was, with out asking me.
Mind you, when I went to the REAL doctor, I told him it felt like I had an Ice Pick in my back. He didn't ask me to remove my shirt. The guy didn't even turn me around to see if I actually had an ice pick in my back. He just wrote me a scrip for Valium.
The chiropractor had me sit down, and tapped my back in one spot, and said is this where it hurts most?
BINGO. He knew where it was through his diagnostic check up.
He gave me one adjustment and it was like the ice pick was taken out. I flushed the pulls right down the john. never took one again. I still go in for adjustments, but I'm not drooling on my keyboard.

So ymmv, but call be a believer.
a convert.

You aware orginally chiropractics believed that can heal ANY ailment through adjustments? Like including diseases and such., not just problem muscles and bad backs.  That's what they are referring to. They mostly have moved away from this.


Kind of. They downplay it publicly but they still make the claims. From the ACA website

Scope of Practice
Doctors of chiropractic frequently treat individuals with neuromusculoskeletal complaints, such as headaches, joint pain, neck pain, low back pain and sciatica. Chiropractors also treat patients with osteoarthritis, spinal disk conditions, carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, sprains, and strains. However, the scope of conditions that Doctors of chiropractic manage or provide care for is not limited to neuromusculoskeletal disorders. Chiropractors have the training to treat a variety of non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions such as: allergies, asthma, digestive disorders, otitis media (non-suppurative) and other disorders as new research is developed.
A variety of techniques, treatment and procedure are used to restore healing which will be the topic of future education releases.

"   The benefits of chiropractic care extend to general health issues, as well, since our body structure affects our overall function."
 
2013-03-26 04:45:18 PM

spentmiles: I went to a doctor once and he spent the entire 45 minute exam with his finger up my ass.  I guess it was a doctor.  He only spoke Spanish and I paid him in paper tickets.  But I felt good knowing that I at least had some level of access to health care.


Thanks a lot  El'Bama.
 
2013-03-26 04:46:34 PM

Barnstormer: I believe in the elixir of youth
And I believe in the absolute truth
Yes I believe in
I believe in

There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore


Think I'll play that on the jukebox tonight
 
2013-03-26 04:47:32 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-26 04:47:41 PM
That's a keeper.
 
2013-03-26 04:48:14 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Bollocks.
[s21.postimg.org image 375x500]
The bullocks bollocks.


No, that's cupping
 
2013-03-26 04:50:08 PM
I believe in life after love.
 
2013-03-26 04:51:08 PM

ParagonComplex: Why are out of body experiences there? They're nothing more than misunderstood lucid dreams. People swear to be damned they're real, but to them (and their minds) they are. The mind behaves as if it is fully awake during sleep, and lucid dreams are just as real as me typing this right now.


Lucid dreaming is lucid dreaming

Believing that your soul left your body and returned is an out of body experience (and bullocks).
 
2013-03-26 04:51:08 PM

rkiller1: ParagonComplex: Why are out of body experiences there? They're nothing more than misunderstood lucid dreams. People swear to be damned they're real, but to them (and their minds) they are. The mind behaves as if it is fully awake during sleep, and lucid dreams are just as real as me typing this right now.

Came here to say this because I've had and OOB.
/Way different than a dream
//Awesome


My OOB happened when I had a blood infection, fever, and nearly died. It was cool to be aware of what seemed to be duality in my physical self - yet singularity in my consciousness. I stood outside my window staring in at myself laid on my bed. I am aware there are things too dangerous to study, but I strongly  believe Out of Body, or Near Death Experiences, are more of an explainable phenomenon than some esoteric malarkey as people would want you and me to believe.
 
2013-03-26 04:51:14 PM

Earguy: Well...I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.


Bollocks.

/blue ones
 
2013-03-26 04:51:52 PM
I believe in coyotes and time as an abstract
Explain the change the difference between
What you want and what you need there's the key
Your adventure for today what do you do
Between the horns of the day?

I believe my shirt is wearing thin
And change is what I believe in
 
2013-03-26 04:52:24 PM
Boobies are good, boobies are healing, boobies sooth the soul and ease the mind. Boobies are like sports cars, meant to roam free and not be confined in cages where they are unhappy. Free the boobies!
 
2013-03-26 04:52:38 PM
So if Al Gore is the father of pseudo-science does that mean he is full of bollocks?
 
2013-03-26 04:54:05 PM

Tellingthem: Kind of. They downplay it publicly but they still make the claims. From the ACA website


My doc doesn't care.
I'm one of 50 -70 patients he has daily.
My copay with BC is $25 until I max out my visits, which I keep to once a fortnight.
He works 3 1/2 days with three day weekends every week. his wife is a professional ballet dancer.
He makes really good money and gets to attend free ballet shows.
Me, I'm not stung out and he knows I have high blood pressure and only meds will help that.
We get along, his nurse loves me, and it's on the way home from work.
At a dollar eighty a day, I'm not complaining. I can still do stage fighting, and dance, and I'm not in pain.
He's not going to cure my alcoholism, and he knows it.

But everyone in the relationship is happy. that is what matters.
 
2013-03-26 04:54:05 PM

MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?



Where's theism, the belief that magic bunnies lay chocolate eggs?
 
2013-03-26 04:54:25 PM

HallsOfMandos: No Fark thread is complete without an appropriate clip from Eddie Izzard.


I couldn't tell if that bit was the dog's bollocks or just complete bollocks.
 
2013-03-26 04:54:33 PM

Ennuipoet: I don't believe in Venn diagrams!


Where's your god now?


Let this circle represent the set of things you don't believe in. Are Venn diagrams contained in that circle?
 
2013-03-26 04:55:11 PM
There is literally no way to post in this thread without  XOR Poe/Trolling. It is a logical impossibility to not be either/or, or both.

that said, Acupuncture should most definitely be off this list, as there is a large canon(decades worth) of well-established, properly conducted double blind research that shows that it has a  definitive, beneficial effects.

So that's a major flaw with this diagram.
 
2013-03-26 04:55:41 PM
I can't really belief farkers would riducule everyone else's believes.
 
2013-03-26 04:55:59 PM
"It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion-you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary... But, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything any more if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch."

-Steve Martin
 
2013-03-26 04:56:50 PM

Sofa King Smart: HallsOfMandos: No Fark thread is complete without an appropriate clip from Eddie Izzard.

I couldn't tell if that bit was the dog's bollocks or just complete bollocks.


3 min mark... is the bollocks bit.
 
2013-03-26 04:58:39 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Bollocks.
[s21.postimg.org image 375x500]
The bullocks bollocks.


I thought that's what cupping was. Huh.
 
2013-03-26 04:59:53 PM

jaytkay: Day_Old_Dutchie: Bollocks.
[s21.postimg.org image 375x500]
The bullocks bollocks.

No, that's cupping


dammitall
 
2013-03-26 05:00:01 PM
Everytime I speak about my beliefs in a thread I get called a troll. Just because I come from a better class of people and have a higher education, people think that I am condescending. I merely want to help educate people in the error of their ways. People come on here with some kneejerk reaction to something menial and miss the point of an entire thread.
 
2013-03-26 05:00:42 PM
Good luck with that, I don't even believe in nothing!
 
2013-03-26 05:01:54 PM
Where's miraculous life extension technology?
 
2013-03-26 05:02:21 PM

special20: I am aware there are things too dangerous to study, but I strongly believe Out of Body, or Near Death Experiences, are more of an explainable phenomenon than some esoteric malarkey as people would want you and me to believe.


Some people have studied being dead in detail, since those who were dead and can talk about it are often revived in a hospital where doctors can quiz them. Here is a starter interview.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/21/172495667/resuscitation-experiences-an d- erasing-death
 
2013-03-26 05:02:55 PM

Farce-Side: I thought we already had this thread.


This topic is basically every single thread on Fark.
 
2013-03-26 05:03:42 PM

Gifted Many Few: Everytime I speak about my beliefs in a thread I get called a troll. Just because I come from a better class of people and have a higher education, people think that I am condescending. I merely want to help educate people in the error of their ways. People come on here with some kneejerk reaction to something menial and miss the point of an entire thread.


You don't mean "menial"; the word is "trivial," s**t for brains, and you should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot for misusing it, except that would be a waste of a bullet.

/this post closed captioned for the hard of sarcasm.
 
2013-03-26 05:04:28 PM
If only you believed like I believe, baby, we'd get by.

/Don't stop believin'.
 
2013-03-26 05:05:01 PM
I believe 97% of Farkers are clueless, emotionally-driven moron with no concept of anything they haven't been brainwashed to believe.

the other 3% are badgered and ridiculed for trying to have intelligent discussions without all the drama... which makes them the dumbest people on Fark for believing they can have such a thing.

PROVE ME WRONG!
 
2013-03-26 05:05:03 PM
I'm disappointed in the lack of Orbs ITT. Also why are Orbs not real?

/you will receive double points for Palmistry Orbs
 
2013-03-26 05:05:18 PM
WTF is wrong with cupping?  Everyone knows that to give a really good blowjob, you have to cup the balls...
 
m00
2013-03-26 05:06:03 PM
www.smbc-comics.com
 
2013-03-26 05:06:38 PM

MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?


static.prtst.net
 
2013-03-26 05:07:02 PM

diaphoresis: I believe 97% of Farkers are clueless, emotionally-driven moron with no concept of anything they haven't been brainwashed to believe.

the other 3% are badgered and ridiculed for trying to have intelligent discussions without all the drama... which makes them the dumbest people on Fark for believing they can have such a thing.

PROVE ME WRONG!


Well...that's just like, your opinion man...
 
2013-03-26 05:07:11 PM

CheekyMonkey: WTF is wrong with cupping?  Everyone knows that to give a really good blowjob, you have to cup the balls...


Your mom IS the expert, after all.
 
2013-03-26 05:07:46 PM
No one needs a picture to tell you that when "real" science is correct, no one cares because those people by and large are bigger assholes than anyone mentioned in the Venn.
 
2013-03-26 05:08:14 PM

SultanofSchwing: diaphoresis: I believe 97% of Farkers are clueless, emotionally-driven moron with no concept of anything they haven't been brainwashed to believe.

the other 3% are badgered and ridiculed for trying to have intelligent discussions without all the drama... which makes them the dumbest people on Fark for believing they can have such a thing.

PROVE ME WRONG!

Well...that's just like, your opinion man...


LOL.. damn you're good
 
2013-03-26 05:09:05 PM

The Pope of Manwich Village: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 510x505]


Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am?
Prisoner #4: And I don't drink!
Dr. Klahn: Guards! [to prisoner] Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.
 
2013-03-26 05:09:48 PM
I don't have a problem with people having beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone or attempting to shove it down anyone's throat, and that goes for atheists as well.  I'm in the "I don't know, and having the arrogance to assume I know the truth is unwise) camp.  When my mother prays to St. Jude for my hopeless soul, I just say "thank you."  I don't get upset about it.  Aome atheists will get downright pissed about that kind of stuff.  It's weird.  They get evangelical in their atheism, they feel the need to educate everyone about the lack of science in their beliefs; and frankly, I start viewing them like the fundies when they start that.
 
2013-03-26 05:11:26 PM

willfullyobscure: that said, Acupuncture should most definitely be off this list, as there is a large canon(decades worth) of well-established, properly conducted double blind research that shows that it has a  definitive, beneficial effects.


That turns out not to be the case.  Or rather, it does have "beneficial" effects, in the sense that placebos have beneficial effects:  it's purely psychological, not physiological.  You can get the same effect by inserting the needles in random places unrelated to accupuncture points or meridians, using fake accupuncture needles that don't actually puncture the skin, etc.
 
2013-03-26 05:11:42 PM

diaphoresis: I believe 97% of Farkers are clueless, emotionally-driven moron with no concept of anything they haven't been brainwashed to believe.

the other 3% are badgered and ridiculed for trying to have intelligent discussions without all the drama... which makes them the dumbest people on Fark for believing they can have such a thing.

PROVE ME WRONG!


I'm thinking the burden is on you, brah!
 
2013-03-26 05:12:55 PM
rainbowbridge.jpg
 
2013-03-26 05:13:01 PM
I believe the Cowboys will win the SuperBowl every year.

I don't judge anyone for the ridiculous things they believe.
 
2013-03-26 05:13:24 PM

tylerdurden217: diaphoresis: I believe 97% of Farkers are clueless, emotionally-driven moron with no concept of anything they haven't been brainwashed to believe.

the other 3% are badgered and ridiculed for trying to have intelligent discussions without all the drama... which makes them the dumbest people on Fark for believing they can have such a thing.

PROVE ME WRONG!

I'm thinking the burden is on you, brah!


Easy now... thinking isn't a Farkers strong suit.... sit down.. I'll get ya a few beers
 
2013-03-26 05:14:03 PM

jaytkay: Lucid dreaming is lucid dreaming

Believing that your soul left your body and returned is an out of body experience (and bullocks).


Oh, I get it now. The diagram is for people that think it actually happened instead of understanding it as a lucid dream. You can chalk up the vast majority of everything in that diagram to simple lack of education/understanding.
 
2013-03-26 05:14:41 PM

onyxruby: Boobies are good, boobies are healing, boobies sooth the soul and ease the mind. Boobies are like sports cars, meant to roam free and not be confined in cages where they are unhappy. Free the boobies!


Excuse me sir, do you have any pamphlets or perhaps a temple where I can worship?
 
2013-03-26 05:14:42 PM

meanmutton: meanmutton: MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.

That's an amazingly unscientific viewpoint.

In case you're wondering, the scientific viewpoint is: No credible evidence has been put forth to lead to a reasonable conclusion that gods exist; thus, we do not accept their existence but are willing to review this conclusion should new evidence be presented.


"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

God doesn't need your review to justify His existence.  That's why He's God, and you're not.
 
2013-03-26 05:14:51 PM

Caffandtranqs: I don't have a problem with people having beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone or attempting to shove it down anyone's throat, and that goes for atheists as well.  I'm in the "I don't know, and having the arrogance to assume I know the truth is unwise) camp.  When my mother prays to St. Jude for my hopeless soul, I just say "thank you."  I don't get upset about it.  Aome atheists will get downright pissed about that kind of stuff.  It's weird.  They get evangelical in their atheism, they feel the need to educate everyone about the lack of science in their beliefs; and frankly, I start viewing them like the fundies when they start that.


As an atheist, I too find those types of so called "Atheists" to be annoying as fark.  They usually have some other irritating character flaw driving it though.  Same goes for vegans and hippies.
 
2013-03-26 05:15:44 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Bollocks.
[s21.postimg.org image 375x500]
The bullocks bollocks.


I think I can follow that up with a Venn diagram:

www.smbc-comics.com
 
2013-03-26 05:15:50 PM
Joel Schumacher > Tim Burton

/suck it
 
2013-03-26 05:15:58 PM

Mouser: meanmutton: meanmutton: MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.

That's an amazingly unscientific viewpoint.

In case you're wondering, the scientific viewpoint is: No credible evidence has been put forth to lead to a reasonable conclusion that gods exist; thus, we do not accept their existence but are willing to review this conclusion should new evidence be presented.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

God doesn't need your review to justify His existence.  That's why He's God, and you're not.


How convenient.  Don't you think?
 
2013-03-26 05:16:11 PM
ParagonComplex:  You can chalk up the vast majority of everything in that diagram to simple lack of education/understanding.

and thus, Fark.com and Reddit.com were born
 
2013-03-26 05:16:46 PM

diaphoresis: Easy now... thinking isn't a Farkers strong suit.... sit down.. I'll get ya a few beers



Already sitting and drinking. You have some catching up to do apparently.
 
2013-03-26 05:16:52 PM

Ambitwistor: willfullyobscure: that said, Acupuncture should most definitely be off this list, as there is a large canon(decades worth) of well-established, properly conducted double blind research that shows that it has a  definitive, beneficial effects.

That turns out not to be the case.  Or rather, it does have "beneficial" effects, in the sense that placebos have beneficial effects:  it's purely psychological, not physiological.  You can get the same effect by inserting the needles in random places unrelated to accupuncture points or meridians, using fake accupuncture needles that don't actually puncture the skin, etc.


Dude, it works on horses and rabbits. There are dozens of studies that show it's not a placebo. The major thing we don't understand about acupuncture is how and why it works.
 
2013-03-26 05:18:12 PM

tylerdurden217: diaphoresis: Easy now... thinking isn't a Farkers strong suit.... sit down.. I'll get ya a few beers


Already sitting and drinking. You have some catching up to do apparently.


/sits down and orders 6 rounds of beer
 
2013-03-26 05:19:38 PM
Karnaugh maps are superior to venn diagrams!
 
2013-03-26 05:20:10 PM
In before "atheism is a religion".
 
2013-03-26 05:20:36 PM

meat0918: Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"

We do, it's called Pareidolia

 I'm not sure you know what the Shroud of Turin looks like.
 
2013-03-26 05:20:55 PM
images.laws.com

That chart looked like 'Brain Eating Amoeba' having group sex.


/And both have the same effect on humans
 
2013-03-26 05:22:17 PM
Chiropractor:  "So, Horse, are you still experiencing any neck pain?"

Horse:  "Neigh."

Chiropractor: "Excellent.  See you next week."

Horse:

Chiropractor:
 
2013-03-26 05:22:48 PM

Begoggle: In before "atheism is a religion".




Link
You're late.
 
2013-03-26 05:25:03 PM

Gifted Many Few: Everytime I speak about my beliefs in a thread I get called a troll. Just because I come from a better class of people and have a higher education, people think that I am condescending. I merely want to help educate people in the error of their ways. People come on here with some kneejerk reaction to something menial and miss the point of an entire thread.


Hell, I like you, you can come over to my house and fark my sister!
 
2013-03-26 05:27:59 PM
s21.postimg.org
 
2013-03-26 05:28:31 PM

SultanofSchwing: Caffandtranqs: I don't have a problem with people having beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone or attempting to shove it down anyone's throat, and that goes for atheists as well.  I'm in the "I don't know, and having the arrogance to assume I know the truth is unwise) camp.  When my mother prays to St. Jude for my hopeless soul, I just say "thank you."  I don't get upset about it.  Aome atheists will get downright pissed about that kind of stuff.  It's weird.  They get evangelical in their atheism, they feel the need to educate everyone about the lack of science in their beliefs; and frankly, I start viewing them like the fundies when they start that.

As an atheist, I too find those types of so called "Atheists" to be annoying as fark.  They usually have some other irritating character flaw driving it though.  Same goes for vegans and hippies.


Yeah, I have a friend who constantly posts things about atheism on Facebook.  I don't say anything to her, but I think to myself, "She's just as obssessive about this as ____ is about his Jesus posts."
 
2013-03-26 05:28:33 PM

Gifted Many Few: Everytime I speak about my beliefs in a thread I get called a troll. Just because I come from a better class of people and have a higher education, people think that I am condescending. I merely want to help educate people in the error of their ways. People come on here with some kneejerk reaction to something menial and miss the point of an entire thread.


Happens to the best of us, even me.
 
2013-03-26 05:28:46 PM

Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

[static.prtst.net image 450x300]


Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.

athe·ism
Function: noun
: the belief that there is no God

/assuming you believe in the dictionary
 
2013-03-26 05:28:47 PM

Ambitwistor: willfullyobscure: that said, Acupuncture should most definitely be off this list, as there is a large canon(decades worth) of well-established, properly conducted double blind research that shows that it has a  definitive, beneficial effects.

That turns out not to be the case.  Or rather, it does have "beneficial" effects, in the sense that placebos have beneficial effects:  it's purely psychological, not physiological.  You can get the same effect by inserting the needles in random places unrelated to accupuncture points or meridians, using fake accupuncture needles that don't actually puncture the skin, etc.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 010/05/100530144021.htm
 
2013-03-26 05:30:23 PM
willfullyobscureIGNORANT: Dude, it works on horses and rabbits. There are dozens of studies that show it's not a placebo. The major thing we don't understand about acupuncture is how and why it works.

The two studies you linked were 1) a study of electroacupuncture, which is not acupunture, and 2) a study that showed that different regions seemed to block pain for different horses, for different sexes, for different amounts, when only 23 horses in total were used for the study.  Bottom line: You are looking for data to support the belief you already have instead of looking at the data to determine what conclusions you should draw from it.  From this I conclude that you are a gullible or willfully ignorant person, and no amount of evidence is going to sway you.

Here's what would convince ME that acupuncture works:  Demonstrating that it works in a controlled environment in a repeatable, scrutable, falsifiable way.  This has yet to be done, and it's been around for literally thousands of years.

Here's what would convince YOU that acupuncture works: Anything demonstrating that it could possibly work.

What would convince you that acupunture is no better than placebo? [INSERT ANSWER HERE]

There's your problem right there.
 
2013-03-26 05:31:29 PM
Hmm, palmistry and tarot should be in the pure psuedoscience group with astrology, they're closely related via effect-by-association belief systems. I don't think there's supposed to be anything paranormal about orgone energy, either, that should be in the psuedoscience+quackery group.
 
2013-03-26 05:33:13 PM
If I like you, I would strongly recommend you not fark my sisters.
 
2013-03-26 05:33:16 PM

Farce-Side: I thought we already had this thread.


If we had, deja vu would be on the Venn diagram.
 
2013-03-26 05:33:56 PM

special20: rkiller1: ParagonComplex: Why are out of body experiences there? They're nothing more than misunderstood lucid dreams. People swear to be damned they're real, but to them (and their minds) they are. The mind behaves as if it is fully awake during sleep, and lucid dreams are just as real as me typing this right now.

Came here to say this because I've had and OOB.
/Way different than a dream
//Awesome

My OOB happened when I had a blood infection, fever, and nearly died. It was cool to be aware of what seemed to be duality in my physical self - yet singularity in my consciousness. I stood outside my window staring in at myself laid on my bed. I am aware there are things too dangerous to study, but I strongly  believe Out of Body, or Near Death Experiences, are more of an explainable phenomenon than some esoteric malarkey as people would want you and me to believe.


I don't know you and couldn't find a convenient email link on your website, so if you wanna read further:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/130872485066  If not, then don't.  Peace.
 
2013-03-26 05:34:40 PM

technofiend: Excuse me sir, do you have any pamphlets or perhaps a temple where I can worship?


It's hard to argue with the south of France, Brazil or some of the nude pools in Las Vegas. If needed you can always use a pay temple like Deja Vu, Scores or one of the ones on this handy religious

http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2012/02/50-best-strip-clubs-in-ame ri ca/ pamphlet. However one of the great Meccas is held every year at Sturgis where they spiritual freedom is always easier to obtain. It's a bit late, however spring break in Miami is always going to satisfy.
 
2013-03-26 05:35:20 PM

diaphoresis: and thus, Fark.com and Reddit.com were born


Not sure I'd couple those Reddit faiulres of humanity with Fark, tho.

/lawn, off.
 
2013-03-26 05:36:41 PM
I believe in pretty girls.

// But in nothing listed on the chart
 
2013-03-26 05:37:01 PM
I believe "The Wire" is overrated.

/made through one and half seasons before I gave up out of boredom
 
2013-03-26 05:37:12 PM
 
2013-03-26 05:38:38 PM

MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.


Dude, that doesn't even rhyme.
 
2013-03-26 05:38:42 PM

technofiend: onyxruby: Boobies are good, boobies are healing, boobies sooth the soul and ease the mind. Boobies are like sports cars, meant to roam free and not be confined in cages where they are unhappy. Free the boobies!

Excuse me sir, do you have any pamphlets or perhaps a temple where I can worship?


They are around. I would check near major highways in bad parts of town and near military bases.
 
2013-03-26 05:40:09 PM

hinten:

Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.

From headline: "This is the thread where you defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes beliefs bollocks."  "Believes" is a verb.  "Belief" is a noun.  The object of a sentence cannot be a verb.  Stated succinctly enough for you?
 
2013-03-26 05:43:10 PM

WhippingBoy: I believe the children are our future.
Teach them well and let them lead the way.

Unless we stop them now.
 
2013-03-26 05:43:40 PM
Old McDonald had an alternative medicine practice.
E-I-E-I-O
And in his alternative medicine practice he had some Chiropractors.
E-I-E-I-O
With a Back Crack Quack here
and a Back Crack Quack there...
 
2013-03-26 05:43:49 PM

MaxxLarge:

No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.
And you would prove that statement....  How, exactly?
 
2013-03-26 05:44:15 PM
Lol bollocks. Thats rich
 
2013-03-26 05:45:14 PM
This diagram is missing a whole "conspiracy bollocks" blob. It can overlap the "psuedoscientific bollocks" blob for moon-denialists and chemtrail furries, but also give a good home for the birthers etc.

/Aromatherapy is actually kinda "effective" for problems that are in your head anyway, which thankfully most of mine are at the moment.
//But generally not half as much as a good meal and a bottle of wine
 
2013-03-26 05:45:16 PM

vudukungfu: thisisyourbrainonFark: This sums it up for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Relax, I have a septic tank and live in a county full of manure pits.
Open manure pits.
there aren't any fish in our rivers.
Too much ammonia in the water.


Is that a toxic haiku?
 
2013-03-26 05:45:47 PM

willfullyobscure: Dude, it works on horses and rabbits. There are dozens of studies that show it's not a placebo.


As I said, that turns out not to be the case.  You can find studies that show an effect.  You can find many more that don't.  That's why people conduct meta-analyses:  to see what the total weight of evidence across all the studies shows.  And the meta-analyses always show that there isn't any large consistent effect distinguishable from a placebo.

The major thing we don't understand about acupuncture is how and why it works.

The major thing we don't understand is why people believe it's not a placebo, despite all evidence to the contrary.  (Well, we do understand much of that:  selective cherry-picking of studies.)
 
2013-03-26 05:46:03 PM
saying "In God we trust" is exactly like saying "We don't trust anybody".
 
2013-03-26 05:46:20 PM
And....what about what that Albert Einstein guy said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" and "Science without religion is lame."  I wonder if the artist of the Venn diagram would tell Einstein about the bollocks he believes.
 
2013-03-26 05:47:26 PM

Smeggy Smurf:

If it has a steady paycheck, I'll believe anything you say


media.philly.com
 
2013-03-26 05:48:17 PM

BafflerMeal: Ambitwistor: willfullyobscure: that said, Acupuncture should most definitely be off this list, as there is a large canon(decades worth) of well-established, properly conducted double blind research that shows that it has a  definitive, beneficial effects.

That turns out not to be the case.  Or rather, it does have "beneficial" effects, in the sense that placebos have beneficial effects:  it's purely psychological, not physiological.  You can get the same effect by inserting the needles in random places unrelated to accupuncture points or meridians, using fake accupuncture needles that don't actually puncture the skin, etc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 010/05/100530144021.htm


As I said, you can get the same effect as acupuncture by inserting needles in random places, or not inserting needles at all.  The study you link to has nothing to do with acupuncture points.  Acupuncture isn't simply sticking needles in things.  There's a whole systematic method behind how you do it, which is bunk.
 
2013-03-26 05:48:26 PM

crazyeddie: 2) a study that showed that different regions seemed to block pain for different horses, for different sexes, for different amounts,


I originally read that as "different religions seemed to block pain for different horses".
 
2013-03-26 05:49:10 PM

BafflerMeal: Ambitwistor: willfullyobscure: that said, Acupuncture should most definitely be off this list, as there is a large canon(decades worth) of well-established, properly conducted double blind research that shows that it has a  definitive, beneficial effects.

That turns out not to be the case.  Or rather, it does have "beneficial" effects, in the sense that placebos have beneficial effects:  it's purely psychological, not physiological.  You can get the same effect by inserting the needles in random places unrelated to accupuncture points or meridians, using fake accupuncture needles that don't actually puncture the skin, etc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 010/05/100530144021.htm


BTW, more discussion of this study.
 
2013-03-26 05:49:24 PM

GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.And you would prove that statement....  How, exactly?


I don't need to. It's BEEN proven via history, biology, astronomy, physics, and a hundred other disciplines. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that gods are just as much fairy tales as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that superstitious people with an emotional need to cling to their imaginary friends will be predisposed to understand or accept it...But that's their problem, not mine.
 
2013-03-26 05:51:21 PM

MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.


In case you're not trolling, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief", whether those two statements are equivalent or distinct, and whether "belief that there God" is as epistemologically justifiable as "lacking a belief in God".
 
2013-03-26 05:53:11 PM
meanmutton: In case you're wondering, the scientific viewpoint is: No credible evidence has been put forth to lead to a reasonable conclusion that gods exist; thus, we do not accept their existence but are willing to review this conclusion should new evidence be presented.

Mouser: God doesn't need your review to justify His existence. That's why He's God, and you're not.


Prove it.

// See what I did there?
 
2013-03-26 05:54:06 PM

Ambitwistor: As I said, you can get the same effect as acupuncture by inserting needles in random places, or not inserting needles at all. The study you link to has nothing to do with acupuncture points. Acupuncture isn't simply sticking needles in things.


4.bp.blogspot.com

Would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-26 05:54:16 PM

Loadmaster: Dude, that doesn't even rhyme.


A myth is religion plus time
one hundred percent of the time
We've never had gods
just trolls and Fark mods
and dark rum with cola and lime
 
2013-03-26 05:54:34 PM

Chach:

If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"

It's simple...  It is the product of medieval forgers.  They used an ultraviolet laser to etch the image, and they used a Silicon Graphics computer to generate the 3-D imagery. Those are OLD computers, you know.
 
2013-03-26 05:55:03 PM

Ambitwistor: MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.

In case you're not trolling, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief", whether those two statements are equivalent or distinct, and whether "belief that there God" is as epistemologically justifiable as "lacking a belief in God".


There wolf?

Also, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief" -- or just look at every fifth Fark thread or so.
 
2013-03-26 05:56:10 PM
I love how he thinks he's making an impact.
Nobody who believes he can think critically would disagree, and nobody who actually does would care.
 
2013-03-26 05:58:49 PM

Nightie don't call me Wig: meat0918: Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"

We do, it's called Pareidolia
 I'm not sure you know what the Shroud of Turin looks like.


I'll admit I had this mixed up with something else.

I do however take offense to the idea that someone couldn't have figured out how to imprint that on a shroud as a hoax back in the day (like the 1200-1400 AD range).  Religious relics declared false by the heads of the particular religion in question are quite common, and outnumber those declared "true".

I truly find it insulting to human intellect that people have to fall back to the divine or the extraterrestrial or the other supernatural explanations because they cannot imagine ancient humans having the ingenuity and intelligence to do some of what they did.  We have examples of one off technologies like Hero's engine.  Humans built the Pyramids, the Great Wall, the Nazca Lines.

Even today, we are constantly amazed at the lengths people will go to in order to manufacture new hoaxes and scams.
 
2013-03-26 05:58:55 PM

meat0918:

Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"

We do, it's called Pareidolia

Wow.  Thanks for the wonderful example of bollocks.  You'll apparently believe anything to support your beliefs.  Tell me if you see a face in the following image:
www.shroudofturin.com
 
2013-03-26 05:59:56 PM

SlothB77: ROLFing?  is that like ROTFLMAO?


It's a form of deep tissue massage. I just learned the term the other day reading this:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-26 06:00:13 PM

meanmutton: DesertDemonWY: [i1057.photobucket.com image 700x537]

Hey, I one-up Jimmy and just put certain people on ignore.


Wouldn't want to be confronted with any of those pesky differing opinions would you.

Mouser: meanmutton: meanmutton: MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.

That's an amazingly unscientific viewpoint.

In case you're wondering, the scientific viewpoint is: No credible evidence has been put forth to lead to a reasonable conclusion that gods exist; thus, we do not accept their existence but are willing to review this conclusion should new evidence be presented.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)

God doesn't need your review to justify His existence.  That's why He's God, and you're not.


If only there were a way to test the existence of things...
 
2013-03-26 06:00:32 PM
rkiller1: I don't know you and couldn't find a convenient email link on your website, so if you wanna read further:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/130872485066  If not, then don't.  Peace.


Could you fill me in on why the eBay auction has some relevance? Suffice to say, I've experienced it, and still believe there is more of a scientific reason than any nonsense made up by a swami.

BTW, my website won't have any email links - as it's main purpose is to offer anonymity. I thought I had EIP going on... guess not. Cheers.
 
2013-03-26 06:02:09 PM

MaxxLarge: GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.And you would prove that statement.... How, exactly?

I don't need to. It's BEEN proven via history, biology, astronomy, physics, and a hundred other disciplines.


I proved it with tea leaves and phrenology.
 
2013-03-26 06:02:32 PM

fusillade762: SlothB77: ROLFing?  is that like ROTFLMAO?

It's a form of deep tissue massage. I just learned the term the other day reading this:


"Why People Believe Weird Things" is a good book.  I also really like Gilovich's "How We Know What Isn't So", although it's focused on cognitive biases more generally than just pseudoscience.
 
2013-03-26 06:03:53 PM

thrasherrr: special20: I am aware there are things too dangerous to study, but I strongly believe Out of Body, or Near Death Experiences, are more of an explainable phenomenon than some esoteric malarkey as people would want you and me to believe.

Some people have studied being dead in detail, since those who were dead and can talk about it are often revived in a hospital where doctors can quiz them. Here is a starter interview.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/21/172495667/resuscitation-experiences-an d- erasing-death


Outside of having details gathered through circumstance, the actual process of conducting a scientific study is likely too dangerous. Data is fine, but how it's derived outside of a controlled environment (inducing near death, or death and revival) there is no relevant study I am aware of - or rather - interested in at this time.
Thanks for the link I might have stumbled across myself... had I had any interest in the topic. You're cool.
 
2013-03-26 06:05:22 PM

Danger Avoid Death: Ambitwistor: As I said, you can get the same effect as acupuncture by inserting needles in random places, or not inserting needles at all. The study you link to has nothing to do with acupuncture points. Acupuncture isn't simply sticking needles in things.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 320x226]

Would like a word with you.


See, this just supports my point.  There's a whole theory behind acupuncture ... qi meridians ... Lament Configurations ...
 
2013-03-26 06:07:31 PM

ACunningPlan:

TheOmni: There's at least eight things on that diagram that I've never even heard of before. Rolfing? I'm really hoping that's not what I think it is.

Glad I'm not the only one:)  I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?

It's a TSA procedure.  Here's a training photo:

i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-26 06:08:08 PM

GeneralJim: meat0918: Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"

We do, it's called Pareidolia
Wow.  Thanks for the wonderful example of bollocks.  You'll apparently believe anything to support your beliefs.  Tell me if you see a face in the following image:
[www.shroudofturin.com image 282x298]


I see a lamp, sitting on a table, casting a faint light around it.
 
2013-03-26 06:08:27 PM

Ambitwistor: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 010/05/100530144021.htm


The citations are a playground of good information about adenosine production using deep brain stimulation.  Thanks for the links.

Acupuncture still falls under the "Sigh, ok so we haven't disproven it in the technical sense, because science doesn't work that way.  However, we can provisionally reject the claims it makes."

Read  The Believing Brain for a fun understanding of why people believe stupid shiat and won't listen to all the reasons they are full of bullocks.
 
2013-03-26 06:10:26 PM

meat0918: Even today, we are constantly amazed at the lengths people will go to in order to manufacture new hoaxes and scams.


Is congress in session again?
 
2013-03-26 06:14:20 PM

SithLord:

I once played poker with a tarot deck. I got a full house and my neighbor died.
"Last night I was playing poker with a tarot deck. I got a full house, and three people died." - Steven Wright
 
2013-03-26 06:16:25 PM

thisisyourbrainonFark: Also, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief" -- or just look at every fifth Fark thread or so.


hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com
I don't believe in atheism.
 
2013-03-26 06:19:51 PM

abfalter:

You have it wrong. The truth is that BOTH Lee Harvey Oswald's acted alone (and independantly).

They did it without the apostrophe, and neither one of them was dangling from anything.


mizzbree.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-26 06:20:18 PM
GeneralJim: Tell me if you see a face in the following image:
[www.shroudofturin.com image]


Rindred:
I see a lamp, sitting on a table, casting a faint light around it.

FSM. Evidence:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-26 06:20:54 PM

GiantRex: Jubeebee: Why is detox in quackery/psuedoscience? Doesn't drug rehab show a lot of real efficacy?

The detox that this diagram includes is not the drug rehab kind (which does show a lot of real efficacy). It's the kind of detox in which people try to rid their bodies of mysterious unnamed "toxins" by dubious methods, usually by buying a blatantly bullshiat product. The product I've heard the most about is a type of pad that you stick on your feet. After you've left the pad on for a while, it turns brown and smelly, and when you remove it the damn thing looks just awful because it "sucked the toxins of of your body" through your feet. Chemical analysis of these pads shows that they are actually simple adhesive pads laced with chemicals that react with oils and bacteria commonly found on feet to cause the brown color and bad smell, which is just for show.


Or is it?

Could be doing a ton of bad.
 
2013-03-26 06:21:29 PM

Danger Avoid Death: thisisyourbrainonFark: Also, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief" -- or just look at every fifth Fark thread or so.

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]
I don't believe in atheism.


So...you don't believe that someone can not believe in something?

HEY! You're trying to divide by zero again aren't you?!
 
2013-03-26 06:24:07 PM

Ambitwistor: willfullyobscure: Dude, it works on horses and rabbits. There are dozens of studies that show it's not a placebo.

As I said, that turns out not to be the case.  You can find studies that show an effect.  You can find many more that don't.  That's why people conduct meta-analyses:  to see what the total weight of evidence across all the studies shows.  And the meta-analyses always show that there isn't any large consistent effect distinguishable from a placebo.

The major thing we don't understand about acupuncture is how and why it works.

The major thing we don't understand is why people believe it's not a placebo, despite all evidence to the contrary.  (Well, we do understand much of that:  selective cherry-picking of studies.)


Well, here is a nice discussion of a recent metastudy that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt, that acunpuncture is more than just placebo. Amply illustrated and easy to understand. Give it a read, I think you'll see that you're beaten- its right there in black and white.
 
2013-03-26 06:25:03 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: Danger Avoid Death: thisisyourbrainonFark: Also, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief" -- or just look at every fifth Fark thread or so.

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]
I don't believe in atheism.

So...you don't believe that someone can not believe in something?

HEY! You're trying to divide by zero again aren't you?!


I don't believe so.
 
2013-03-26 06:26:21 PM

willfullyobscure: Give it a read, I think you'll see that you're beaten- its right there in black and white.


If someone were beaten, wouldn't it be right there in black and blue?
 
2013-03-26 06:27:36 PM
crazyeddie: willfullyobscureIGNORANT: Dude, it works on horses and rabbits. There are dozens of studies that show it's not a placebo. The major thing we don't understand about acupuncture is how and why it works.

The two studies you linked were 1) a study of electroacupuncture, which is not acupunture, and 2) a study that showed that different regions seemed to block pain for different horses, for different sexes, for different amounts, when only 23 horses in total were used for the study.  Bottom line: You are looking for data to support the belief you already have instead of looking at the data to determine what conclusions you should draw from it.  From this I conclude that you are a gullible or willfully ignorant person, and no amount of evidence is going to sway you.

Here's what would convince ME that acupuncture works:  Demonstrating that it works in a controlled environment in a repeatable, scrutable, falsifiable way.  This has yet to be done, and it's been around for literally thousands of years.

Here's what would convince YOU that acupuncture works: Anything demonstrating that it could possibly work.

What would convince you that acupunture is no better than placebo?
[Seeing that conjecture supported in the research.]

There's your problem right there.

Here, let me help
 
2013-03-26 06:33:02 PM

MaxxLarge: Mythology is just religion plus time. Forever and always, 100% of the time. No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess: you're a mess of a person.
 
2013-03-26 06:34:56 PM

hinten: Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.


Seems like it changes from third person to first person to me.

Who really cares though?  Entertaining diagram, workable title.
 
2013-03-26 06:37:09 PM

willfullyobscure: Well, here is a nice discussion of a recent metastudy that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt, that acunpuncture is more than just placebo.


Uh ...

That was the very same link that I cited in my original response to you, which shows that acupuncture is NOT more than just a placebo.  The estimated effect size is so small that, as the article points out, it "it falls below the minimally accepted threshold for a clinically noticeable reduction in pain. The authors even speculated that it was so low that it could not be distinguished from bias that might result from the difficulty in truly double-blinding acupuncture studies."
 
2013-03-26 06:45:08 PM

dabbletech: Speaker2Animals: God is a concept, by which we measure our pain.

A comma is a punctuation mark, which is often overused.


I don't believe in grammar...
I don't believe in spelling...
I don't believe in punctuation...

I just believe in me
Kate Upton and me...
 
2013-03-26 06:45:28 PM

Ambitwistor: willfullyobscure: Well, here is a nice discussion of a recent metastudy that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt, that acunpuncture is more than just placebo.

Uh ...

That was the very same link that I cited in my original response to you, which shows that acupuncture is NOT more than just a placebo.  The estimated effect size is so small that, as the article points out, it "it falls below the minimally accepted threshold for a clinically noticeable reduction in pain. The authors even speculated that it was so low that it could not be distinguished from bias that might result from the difficulty in truly double-blinding acupuncture studies."


Just to be clear on the difference between "statistical significance" and "effect size":

"Statistically significant" means that an effect was detected.  "Effect size smaller than a clinically noticeable reduction in pain" means that the effect is so small that a person isn't able to tell the difference between the pain they experience with or without the acupuncture.  Which means, in practice, that it's a placebo.

Perhaps the title of the article we both linked says it all, as the author himself noted:  "Can we finally just say that acupuncture is nothing more than an elaborate placebo?  Can we?"  I don't know why you didn't read it when I first linked to it.  I guess you were so fixated on cherry-picking irrelevant studies that you only bothered to Google "meta-analysis" when I brought it up.
 
2013-03-26 06:46:06 PM

Caffandtranqs: And....what about what that Albert Einstein guy said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" and "Science without religion is lame."  I wonder if the artist of the Venn diagram would tell Einstein about the bollocks he believes.


A simple appeal to authority. No doubt Einstein was a damned smart man with an incredible gift for theoretical physics. However, that doesn't give him any sort of privileged insight into the existence of God or gods, nor what any god might think or concern himself with.

Stephen Hawing is also pretty damned smart, but does that mean you should trust him to handle your taxes?
 
2013-03-26 06:46:20 PM
Q&D
i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-26 06:49:13 PM

Nightie don't call me Wig: meat0918: Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"

We do, it's called Pareidolia
 I'm not sure you know what the Shroud of Turin looks like.


How about "forgery"? Does that work for you? You know, like all those splinters of the True Cross they used to sell to pilgrims in the Holy Land.
 
2013-03-26 06:49:14 PM

miscreant: Uncle Pim: Karma is on that chart? Karma just means cause and effect. There's nothing particularly mystical about it, despite what I read on Facebook.

Most people who use it, use it in the form of "If you do something good/bad, the universe will do something good/bad to or for you in turn", which is outside of cause and effect, and is bullshiat. Lots of people who do evil shiat live very pampered lives, and lots of good people live very harsh destitute lives.


We should go with scientific laws, then.  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Thus, if you do good, it will result in the opposite.  That being evil.  That would explain why so many evil people live lives of luxery while so many good people live in the worst kind of poverty.

Hey, it's as valid as any other of those explanations.

/I'm working on producing more good in the world.
//My plan involves strippers
 
2013-03-26 06:49:33 PM

DeerNuts: Stephen Hawing is also pretty damned smart, but does that mean you should trust him to handle your taxes?


Not if he can't even spell his own name.
 
2013-03-26 06:51:32 PM

Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.


Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.
 
2013-03-26 06:52:12 PM

Danger Avoid Death: Agent Smiths Laugh: Danger Avoid Death: thisisyourbrainonFark: Also, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief" -- or just look at every fifth Fark thread or so.

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]
I don't believe in atheism.

So...you don't believe that someone can not believe in something?

HEY! You're trying to divide by zero again aren't you?!

I don't believe so.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-26 06:52:46 PM

RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.


be = have been
 
2013-03-26 06:53:54 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: Danger Avoid Death: Agent Smiths Laugh: Danger Avoid Death: thisisyourbrainonFark: Also, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief" -- or just look at every fifth Fark thread or so.

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]
I don't believe in atheism.

So...you don't believe that someone can not believe in something?

HEY! You're trying to divide by zero again aren't you?!

I don't believe so.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 252x200]


That's -0 * -0
 
2013-03-26 06:55:07 PM

Ambitwistor: That was the very same link that I cited in my original response to you, which shows that acupuncture is NOT more than just a placebo. The estimated effect size is so small that, as the article points out, it "it falls below the minimally accepted threshold for a clinically noticeable reduction in pain. The authors even speculated that it was so low that it could not be distinguished from bias that might result from the difficulty in truly double-blinding acupuncture studies."


They really need to be more careful where they stick those needles.
 
2013-03-26 06:58:41 PM

OgreMagi: /I'm working on producing more good in the world.
//My plan involves strippers


Newsletter?
 
2013-03-26 07:02:52 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Bollocks.

The bullocks bollocks.


And also cupping...
 
2013-03-26 07:04:21 PM

Danger Avoid Death: thisisyourbrainonFark: Also, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief" -- or just look at every fifth Fark thread or so.

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]
I don't believe in atheism.


"I don't believe you, you're a liar!"

forward.com
 
2013-03-26 07:05:12 PM
Acupuncture?

Yeah, the whole "realignment of your energy paths" may be bollucks, but it can demonstrably be used to reduce or stop pain when needles are put in the right place to block nerve signals.
 
2013-03-26 07:07:25 PM

Ambitwistor: willfullyobscure: Well, here is a nice discussion of a recent metastudy that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt, that acunpuncture is more than just placebo.

Uh ...

That was the very same link that I cited in my original response to you, which shows that acupuncture is NOT more than just a placebo.  The estimated effect size is so small that, as the article points out, it "it falls below the minimally accepted threshold for a clinically noticeable reduction in pain. The authors even speculated that it was so low that it could not be distinguished from bias that might result from the difficulty in truly double-blinding acupuncture studies."


i0.kym-cdn.com

you people argue EXACTLY like climate change deniers. "look! look! I found a way to add enough things together to make black into white! look!
 
2013-03-26 07:07:39 PM

GeneralJim: ACunningPlan: TheOmni: Meat0918: Moonfisher: FloydA:

Glad I'm not the only one:)  I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's cupping?
It's a TSA procedure.  Here's a training photo:

[i49.tinypic.com image 600x416]


Well, I must confess, that's exactly the region of the anatomy to which my mind went....


Thanks chaps, I've learned something new, and something to be avoided.
 
2013-03-26 07:08:20 PM

GreenAdder: Hey, now. I believe in tarot cards. I mean obviously they exist. You can go right to the store and get a deck. Fudge, they even have them in the dollar store.

I don't believe they can tell you the future, but they totally exist and they make great props.


I believe in them. They tell the future just as well as horoscopes, or runic stones, or lots of other mystical methods.

That is to say, they don't predict a damn thing. But as a tool for self evaluation, they can be interesting. And most of the decks are quite pretty.

Then again, I also believe in discordianism and chaos. If holding an absurd belief helps me get through the day then I shall believe something absurd for the day, and put it away tomorrow.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 07:08:22 PM

vudukungfu: I flushed the pulls right down the john


Soooo, do tell, VKF. On whut were ya pullin boy?

/i keed i keed
 
2013-03-26 07:10:25 PM

Pert: Acupuncture?

Yeah, the whole "realignment of your energy paths" may be bollucks, but it can demonstrably be used to reduce or stop pain when needles are put in the right place to block nerve signals.


Actually, it can be shown to block pain when needles are put in random places and the client is told they are the right ones. They don't even have to be real needles, they just have to poke a little and then stick up, so metal with a bit of glue on the end.
 
2013-03-26 07:21:03 PM

SithLord: Moonfisher: Tarot also belongs in the religion circle. Our church when I was a kid told us that tarot decks were possessed by demons and using them invited the demon into you. The deck I got as a teenager never did anything exciting, so I am dissappoint.

I once played poker with a tarot deck.  I got a full house and my neighbor died.


i pulled down between 3-400 bucks a day the summer after high school fleecing tourists for tarot readings.

it helped to have a cool deck.

it really helped to be really good at cold readings.
 
2013-03-26 07:22:05 PM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


Substitute bourbon for scotch and you've got my vote.
 
2013-03-26 07:24:01 PM

ariseatex:

I believe in life after love.
... and autotune.
 
2013-03-26 07:25:00 PM
DesertDemonWY:
i1057.photobucket.com

Have at you!

 www.atheistmemebase.com
i63.photobucket.com
/Set vs charge.
 
2013-03-26 07:25:42 PM
While I believe that there is plenty that humanity doesn't understand and won't understand for the foreseeable future, I also believe that 99% of what is classified as alien/supernatural/paranormal can be classified as a "brain bug".  There is no such thing as perfect hardware and there is no such thing as perfect software.  Our brains may not have circuits like the computers we now use or even quantum computers in the future but, they are still biological computers.  They are not perfect, they have bugs, they have kinks, they have problems that some times cannot be explained.  Our brains can easily fool us into seeing or hearing or thinking things that are not true.  Proof is everywhere in things as simple as optical illusions.

If you think you have ghosts or bigfoot or deja vu, rest assured it's just a glitch in the matrix of your brain.  We aren't perfect and we shouldn't expect our brains to be bug-less.  We're still in the beta testing era, as a species.
 
2013-03-26 07:25:56 PM

Somacandra: The funny thing is that people involved in these really won't care that anyone else thinks its bollocks. For instance, I don't care what your "evaluation" of acupuncture and chiropractic are, I've had enough experience with both to know that they've really worked well for me in handling certain issues than before I had experience with them. As a practical guy, that's all the evidence I really want or need. YMMV.


Never had acupuncture, but I will swear by Chiropractic. 25 years of regular headaches, at least once or twice a week. The Chiropractor I went to charged me $25 per session for 4 sessions and systematically adjusted my spine, starting at the neck. Hurt like hell. If the guy had been a serial killer he would have easily twisted my head off. His muscles had muscles. After the 2nd session I was walking slightly lopsided, with one leg 1/2 inch longer than the other. This went away after the 4th session. This was 8 years ago. I've never had those type of headaches since.
 
2013-03-26 07:27:17 PM

GeneralJim: ariseatex: I believe in life after love.... and autotune.


half of the "artists" in the recording industry today wouldn't have careers without autotune.  there is a reason they all lipsynch live shows.
 
2013-03-26 07:27:56 PM

onyxruby:

Boobies are good, boobies are healing, boobies sooth the soul and ease the mind. Boobies are like sports cars, meant to roam free and not be confined in cages where they are unhappy. Free the boobies!

www.supertopo.com
 
2013-03-26 07:31:06 PM
SquiggsIN:If you think you have ghosts or bigfoot or deja vu, rest assured it's just a glitch in the matrix of your brain.  We aren't perfect and we shouldn't expect our brains to be bug-less.  We're still in the beta testing era, as a species.

And it sucks that having a 'glitch' causes an anxiety attack.

/in my case, deja vu
 
2013-03-26 07:33:32 PM
I cannot believe crystals are lumped in there. Crystals of sodium chloride dissolved in water are very effective in staving off the effects of hyponatremia. The crystals of di-hydrogen monoxide, applied directly to injured tissue constrict blood vessels and ease pain. Finally, the isometric-hexoctahedral crystals of carbon are world renowned for their ability to relieve the pain of epididymal hypertension. Paradoxically, the relief is secured by the "gifting" of the crystal to another individual.
 
2013-03-26 07:36:19 PM
www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
 
2013-03-26 07:39:16 PM
I believe Natives/Indians/Aboriginals/Assiniboine, whatever we call ourselves, have the right to hunt and fish where the fark we used to. I also believe that the Government "giving" us land and rights on those lands, is B-S. Our rights were demolished in the conquering of our Peoples. Now that everyone has evolved sensibilities, we deserve to exercise those farking lost rights. We demand to become the migratory, husk-gripping, air-speed velocity... er wait... what was I saying? Fark it, go 49'ers!

/African Swallows?
//irony :-p
 
2013-03-26 07:42:22 PM
"everyone else's believes..."

"everyone else's believes..."

"everyone else's believes..."

"everyone else's believes..."

"everyone else's believes..."


"BELIEVES..."



2.bp.blogspot.com

American education detected.
 
2013-03-26 07:46:51 PM

WippitGuud: SquiggsIN:If you think you have ghosts or bigfoot or deja vu, rest assured it's just a glitch in the matrix of your brain.  We aren't perfect and we shouldn't expect our brains to be bug-less.  We're still in the beta testing era, as a species.

And it sucks that having a 'glitch' causes an anxiety attack.

/in my case, deja vu


I experience Deja Woo all the time. It's kung fuey-rific!
 
2013-03-26 07:48:26 PM

MaxxLarge:

GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.

And you would prove that statement....  How, exactly?

I don't need to. It's BEEN proven via history, biology, astronomy, physics, and a hundred other disciplines. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that gods are just as much fairy tales as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that superstitious people with an emotional need to cling to their imaginary friends will be predisposed to understand or accept it...But that's their problem, not mine.

I've read a lot of science papers...  and I've never yet seen a proof that God does not exist.  I imagine such would get rather wide publicity, should it exist.  In other words, I think YOU are as "victimized" by superstition as any of the theists you deride.  If you want to redeem a stupid, oversimplified statement, just point to a paper that disproves the existence of God.  Any one of the no-doubt-thousands will do.
 
2013-03-26 07:51:41 PM
m.cdn.blog.hu

I firmly believe in smashing two bricks together
 
2013-03-26 07:54:22 PM

TinyFist: Bollocks is a fun word.


It's the dog's bollocks in fact.
 
2013-03-26 07:59:38 PM

SultanofSchwing: I hate Blacks, Mexicans and Chinese people!


and bigots. don't forget the bigots.
 
2013-03-26 08:06:22 PM

miscreant: Uncle Pim: Karma is on that chart? Karma just means cause and effect. There's nothing particularly mystical about it, despite what I read on Facebook.

Most people who use it, use it in the form of "If you do something good/bad, the universe will do something good/bad to or for you in turn", which is outside of cause and effect, and is bullshiat. Lots of people who do evil shiat live very pampered lives, and lots of good people live very harsh destitute lives.


Uhm. Yes and No. The basic premise is that kharma is a universal moral law in the same sense that gravity is a universal physical law. The good or bad, right or wrong things you do in this life shape your dharma for the next life. By fulfilling your dharma, you reach a higher plane of existence; resistance to your dharma means that not only will this life suck but the next one as well.

Provable? Not hardly. Testable? Not hardly.

Either way, karma is not a "be bad today, get kicked in the nuts tomorrow" kind of deal.
 
2013-03-26 08:09:23 PM
I BELIEEEEEVE... that women I know and like who wear bikinis to the beach should not be afraid when I stumble into their room when they are only in their lingerie!
 
2013-03-26 08:10:58 PM
I believe in absolutely NOTHING listed on that diagram.
 
2013-03-26 08:18:01 PM
well, damn. I believe in none of that.
 
2013-03-26 08:33:01 PM

GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.
And you would prove that statement....  How, exactly?

I don't need to. It's BEEN proven via history, biology, astronomy, physics, and a hundred other disciplines. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that gods are just as much fairy tales as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that superstitious people with an emotional need to cling to their imaginary friends will be predisposed to understand or accept it...But that's their problem, not mine.I've read a lot of science papers...  and I've never yet seen a proof that God does not exist.  I imagine such would get rather wide publicity, should it exist.  In other words, I think YOU are as "victimized" by superstition as any of the theists you deride.  If you want to redeem a stupid, oversimplified statement, just point to a paper that disproves the existence of God.  Any one of the no-doubt-thousands will do.


I consider myself an antitheistic agnostic.  (not atheist)  My biggest problem is the vast arrogance spouted by both sides of the aisle on this, religious and atheist alike.  Insisting that your viewpoint is the correct one with no evidence is just silly and you see it every day.  I'm okay with not knowing and I wish the rest of you would stop insisting that you know something that you cannot possibly know for certain.

All things considered, if a deity were responsible for us, you'd think being omnipotent/omniscient/etc would've let to a better product.
 
2013-03-26 08:34:14 PM

meat0918:

I do however take offense to the idea that someone couldn't have figured out how to imprint that on a shroud as a hoax back in the day (like the 1200-1400 AD range). Religious relics declared false by the heads of the particular religion in question are quite common, and outnumber those declared "true".

There are a couple of problems with that hypothesis, as related in a Fark thread a while back.  The image on the shroud is formed by heat, and only appears on the OUTSIDE of the threads being blackened.  Using a piece of hot iron, for example, to "paint" the image, would char threads all the way through.  Additionally, with computer processing, the image on the shroud forms a 3-D image of a man.  When the image was examined in the 1960s, the computers of the time (or the software, more precisely) were unable to make an image that would "pop" in 3-D like the Shroud's image does.

Yes, there were a metric buttload of false relics from medieval times.  None of the forgers, to my knowledge, ever impregnated a cloth with first-century middle-eastern pollen, made a compressed 3-D image, or etched the false relic with a high-frequency laser.  Archaeology is not my field, however, so I may have missed the 14th century version of Pixar...

 
2013-03-26 08:34:43 PM

RelaximusPrime: I believe Natives/Indians/Aboriginals/Assiniboine, whatever we call ourselves, have the right to hunt and fish where the fark we used to. I also believe that the Government "giving" us land and rights on those lands, is B-S. Our rights were demolished in the conquering of our Peoples. Now that everyone has evolved sensibilities, we deserve to exercise those farking lost rights. We demand to become the migratory, husk-gripping, air-speed velocity... er wait... what was I saying? Fark it, go 49'ers!

/African Swallows?
//irony :-p


If the U.S. government started giving native tribes our land back, I'd gladly stand in line to receive the greater Cincinnati tri-state area.  My native ancestors were there long before my European ones got there.
 
2013-03-26 08:34:48 PM

Fecal Conservative: Q&D
[i45.tinypic.com image 600x397]


Dooshbaggery on the right is wrong!
 
2013-03-26 08:35:48 PM
I believe that the Lord, God, created the universe.
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins.
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America
I am a Mormon,
And a Mormon just believes.

I believe that God has a plan for all of us.
 I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet.
And I believe; that the current President of The Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God.
I am A Mormon,
And, dang it! a Mormon just believes!

I believe that Satan has a hold of you
 I believe that the Lord, God, has sent me here
And I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people!
You can be a Mormon..
A Mormon who just believes!

I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
 I believe that Jesus has his own planet as well.
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
If you believe, the Lord will reveal it.
 
2013-03-26 08:37:28 PM
I believe submitter has a tenuous grasp of the english language and probably didn't make it past 6th grade
 
2013-03-26 08:40:45 PM

Rindred:

I see a lamp, sitting on a table, casting a faint light around it.

Yes, very good call.  Apparently the NAZIs were not the first to make lamps out of Jews...



www.spidersweb.pl
 
2013-03-26 08:52:26 PM

dopirt:

I cannot believe crystals are lumped in there. Crystals of sodium chloride dissolved in water are very effective in staving off the effects of hyponatremia. The crystals of di-hydrogen monoxide, applied directly to injured tissue constrict blood vessels and ease pain. Finally, the isometric-hexoctahedral crystals of carbon are world renowned for their ability to relieve the pain of epididymal hypertension. Paradoxically, the relief is secured by the "gifting" of the crystal to another individual.

BRILLIANT!   A diamond in the rough, as it were.
 
2013-03-26 08:53:07 PM

GeneralJim: meat0918: I do however take offense to the idea that someone couldn't have figured out how to imprint that on a shroud as a hoax back in the day (like the 1200-1400 AD range). Religious relics declared false by the heads of the particular religion in question are quite common, and outnumber those declared "true".
There are a couple of problems with that hypothesis, as related in a Fark thread a while back.  The image on the shroud is formed by heat, and only appears on the OUTSIDE of the threads being blackened.  Using a piece of hot iron, for example, to "paint" the image, would char threads all the way through.  Additionally, with computer processing, the image on the shroud forms a 3-D image of a man.  When the image was examined in the 1960s, the computers of the time (or the software, more precisely) were unable to make an image that would "pop" in 3-D like the Shroud's image does.
Yes, there were a metric buttload of false relics from medieval times.  None of the forgers, to my knowledge, ever impregnated a cloth with first-century middle-eastern pollen, made a compressed 3-D image, or etched the false relic with a high-frequency laser.  Archaeology is not my field, however, so I may have missed the 14th century version of Pixar...


All of that means exactly dick. So you tell us, what do you believe? That the face of Jesus Christ the son of God is imprinted on a shroud passed down through the generations to make fools of the nonbelievers?

Or is it just another in a long list of things we can't explain so it must be God...or aliens...or Zeus? Until we can explain it and realize how stupid we were for thinking it was aliens or God.

I believe it is a rag with markings on it. That's my conclusion based on looking at it. Any significance beyond that is personal bias.
 
2013-03-26 08:54:07 PM
Just picture it: a world full of nutcases. On the streets, you'll see people flapping their arms and shouting they're airplanes. In the president's office, a moron will say: `I wonder what this button does' - and promptly start a nuclear war. Others will kill themselves, jumping from buildings to prove they can fly, shooting each other up for fun, or stepping in front of trains because they think they're Superman. Admit it. It would be a rather odd way of going out.


But actually, the nutcase scenario is not that idiotic. It got high marks on a dead-serious ranking of what can go wrong with the world, published once by the popular science magazine Discover. Indeed, there's some quite serious evidence we're heading for total insanity. We're a more mentally deranged species than ever. And we're going crazier all the time, the figures show. Depression, anxiety, eating disorders - they're all on the rise.
 
2013-03-26 08:57:31 PM
I notice the diagram doesn't content any 'scientific bollocks'.

Why is that?

Is science SOOOOOOOO perfect that there isn't any scientific bullshiate out there?

How about 'global warming' to start?
Or cloning a mammoth?
Or saying that blondes are gonna die out?
Or studying why lesbians drink?
 
2013-03-26 08:58:51 PM

hinten: Fark, where everyone biatches about bad grammar but nobody can state what is actually wrong.


Copypasta'd for you. Remember those pictures as a kid where the two frames would look the same but weren't and the question was, "What's wrong with this picture?" Well... go for it.


/"This is the thread where everyone defends their beliefs while calling everyone else's beliefs bollocks." would be proper written American English grammar for the first sentence.
//Faster to correct the sentence structure than to explain the problems with it.
///Fark, where fixing it is faster and we'd rather do that and get back to our beer.
 
2013-03-26 09:00:17 PM
Oh God dammit. Apparently, you can't copypasta the damn headline. Go read it for yourself by scrolling up. Damn you, Drew!
 
2013-03-26 09:03:52 PM
If you believe something and can't explain why, then you're a moron.
 
2013-03-26 09:05:51 PM

douchebag/hater: I notice the diagram doesn't content any 'scientific bollocks'.

Why is that?

Is science SOOOOOOOO perfect that there isn't any scientific bullshiate out there?

How about 'global warming' to start?
Or cloning a mammoth?
Or saying that blondes are gonna die out?
Or studying why lesbians drink?


way to live up to the name douchebag/hater.

global warming isn't a myth.  we conceivably could clone a mammoth. (DNA half-life is 521 years so it's conceivable that we'd eventually recover enough to work with)  If you understood simple genetics and how traits are inherited you'd see why as time approaches infinity that recessive traits like being blonde would effectively diminish to zero.

About lesbians drinking.... they have studies for everything, why not that.  personally, some of the most fun i've ever had was drinking with lesbians.
 
2013-03-26 09:06:50 PM

pippi longstocking: If you believe something and can't explain why, then you're a moron.


farking magnets. How do they work?
 
2013-03-26 09:07:17 PM

pippi longstocking: If you believe something and can't explain why, then you're a moron.


welcome to america.  where you don't even have to know what you're talking about to have an argument and tell someone else that they are wrong.
 
2013-03-26 09:08:06 PM

keypusher: I believe that the Lord, God, created the universe.
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins.
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America
I am a Mormon,
And a Mormon just believes.

I believe that God has a plan for all of us.
 I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet.
And I believe; that the current President of The Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God.
I am A Mormon,
And, dang it! a Mormon just believes!

I believe that Satan has a hold of you
 I believe that the Lord, God, has sent me here
And I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people!
You can be a Mormon..
A Mormon who just believes!

I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
 I believe that Jesus has his own planet as well.
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
If you believe, the Lord will reveal it.


all things considered, Mormons are hardly the nuttiest branch of christianity and christians are hardly the nuttiest religious group on this rock.
 
2013-03-26 09:09:19 PM

SquiggsIN:

GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.

And you would prove that statement....  How, exactly?

I don't need to. It's BEEN proven via history, biology, astronomy, physics, and a hundred other disciplines. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that gods are just as much fairy tales as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that superstitious people with an emotional need to cling to their imaginary friends will be predisposed to understand or accept it...But that's their problem, not mine.

I've read a lot of science papers...  and I've never yet seen a proof that God does not exist.  I imagine such would get rather wide publicity, should it exist.  In other words, I think YOU are as "victimized" by superstition as any of the theists you deride.  If you want to redeem a stupid, oversimplified statement, just point to a paper that disproves the existence of God.  Any one of the no-doubt-thousands will do.

I consider myself an antitheistic agnostic.  (not atheist)  My biggest problem is the vast arrogance spouted by both sides of the aisle on this, religious and atheist alike.  Insisting that your viewpoint is the correct one with no evidence is just silly and you see it every day.  I'm okay with not knowing and I wish the rest of you would stop insisting that you know something that you cannot possibly know for certain.

All things considered, if a deity were responsible for us, you'd think being omnipotent/omniscient/etc would've let to a better product.

Yes, a better product. One that might, perchance be able to state the past participle of the verb "to lead." But, you are assuming that, if there were a God, you would be able to read his mind, and know his intentions. I would say that is a tenuous position at best. As just one of a myriad of possible examples, what if the purpose of human beings is to provide as "low" a vehicle as God could possibly "ride," so that he could come along with us in order to gain the experience BECOMING perfect -- something he lacks, having always BEEN perfect. In that case, crappy prototypes such as ourselves would be just PERFECT for the intended function.

So, if I understand THIS blather in relation to the previous blather, you claim you were trolling before, being a douchebag to protest all the OTHER douchebags who overstate the certainty of their cases? If so, I'm not certain it was effective.
 
2013-03-26 09:11:25 PM

GeneralJim: SquiggsIN: GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: GeneralJim: MaxxLarge: No gods have ever been real, or will ever be real... Period.
And you would prove that statement....  How, exactly?

I don't need to. It's BEEN proven via history, biology, astronomy, physics, and a hundred other disciplines. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that gods are just as much fairy tales as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that superstitious people with an emotional need to cling to their imaginary friends will be predisposed to understand or accept it...But that's their problem, not mine.I've read a lot of science papers...  and I've never yet seen a proof that God does not exist.  I imagine such would get rather wide publicity, should it exist.  In other words, I think YOU are as "victimized" by superstition as any of the theists you deride.  If you want to redeem a stupid, oversimplified statement, just point to a paper that disproves the existence of God.  Any one of the no-doubt-thousands will do.

I consider myself an antitheistic agnostic.  (not atheist)  My biggest problem is the vast arrogance spouted by both sides of the aisle on this, religious and atheist alike.  Insisting that your viewpoint is the correct one with no evidence is just silly and you see it every day.  I'm okay with not knowing and I wish the rest of you would stop insisting that you know something that you cannot possibly know for certain.

All things considered, if a deity were responsible for us, you'd think being omnipotent/omniscient/etc would've let to a better product.Yes, a better product. One that might, perchance be able to state the past participle of the verb "to lead." But, you are assuming that, if there were a God, you would be able to read his mind, and know his intentions. I would say that is a tenuous position at best. As just one of a myriad of possible examples, what if the purpose of human beings is to provide as "low" a vehicle as ...


whatever helps you get your sheep brain to sleep at night pal.
 
2013-03-26 09:15:03 PM
I believe I can fly.

I believe I can touch the sky.
 
2013-03-26 09:16:01 PM
GeneralJim: One that might, perchance be able to state the past participle of the verb "to lead."

yes.I too make typos.
 
2013-03-26 09:16:04 PM
How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.
 
2013-03-26 09:19:57 PM
js34603:
So you tell us, what do you believe? That the face of Jesus Christ the son of God is imprinted on a shroud passed down through the generations to make fools of the nonbelievers?
I tend to believe that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Joshua bar Joseph.  It is not important to me whether it is, or is not that same cloth. However, I am certain that the point is not to make fools of anyone.  Relics are a useless business, at best.  If they are genuine, they lead to believers following a process of fetishization which will take away from anything spiritual which is "real" to them.  And, if the relic is a fake, as almost all of them are, it does the same, with the added problem that if the relic is proven fake at a later date, believers tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
2013-03-26 09:21:04 PM

whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.


The mackerel snappers have a perfectly cromulent definition, honed by centuries of rigourous thought:

The Nature of God

Proof of the Existence of God

well worth the read, if i do say so myself. It's not like nobody ever thought about this before, you know. Its sort of central to Western civilization and stuff.
 
2013-03-26 09:27:23 PM

willfullyobscure: whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.

The mackerel snappers have a perfectly cromulent definition, honed by centuries of rigourous thought:

The Nature of God

Proof of the Existence of God

well worth the read, if i do say so myself. It's not like nobody ever thought about this before, you know. Its sort of central to Western civilization and stuff.


Those aren't definitions. They're vague descriptions. You might even say they are willfully obscure.
 
2013-03-26 09:29:45 PM

SquiggsIN:

whatever helps you get your sheep brain to sleep at night pal.
You were making the argument that God does not exist because people are hugely imperfect.  I countered that argument with a scenario in which the imperfection of people was the GOAL of their creation.  I'd say that counters your "proof" adequately, plummeting or no plummeting.
 
2013-03-26 09:30:36 PM

whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.


i21.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-26 09:31:20 PM

Caffandtranqs: I don't have a problem with people having beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone or attempting to shove it down anyone's throat, and that goes for atheists as well.  I'm in the "I don't know, and having the arrogance to assume I know the truth is unwise) camp.  When my mother prays to St. Jude for my hopeless soul, I just say "thank you."  I don't get upset about it.  Aome atheists will get downright pissed about that kind of stuff.  It's weird.  They get evangelical in their atheism, they feel the need to educate everyone about the lack of science in their beliefs; and frankly, I start viewing them like the fundies when they start that.


Where most people go wrong is in assuming there is only one truth.

/Which just happens to be what they believe.
 
2013-03-26 09:37:51 PM

whatshisname: willfullyobscure: whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.

The mackerel snappers have a perfectly cromulent definition, honed by centuries of rigourous thought:

The Nature of God

Proof of the Existence of God

well worth the read, if i do say so myself. It's not like nobody ever thought about this before, you know. Its sort of central to Western civilization and stuff.

Those aren't definitions. They're vague descriptions. You might even say they are willfully obscure.


You're arguing with the Catholic Church over God

www.myfacewhen.net
 
kab
2013-03-26 09:40:42 PM
Perfect chart.

After all, we're humans, and we have science.
 
2013-03-26 09:41:15 PM

willfullyobscure: You're arguing with the Catholic Church over God


Yeah, I forgot, they have a direct line to him...
 
2013-03-26 09:43:41 PM

GeneralJim: onyxruby: Boobies are good, boobies are healing, boobies sooth the soul and ease the mind. Boobies are like sports cars, meant to roam free and not be confined in cages where they are unhappy. Free the boobies!
[www.supertopo.com image 600x456]


Well, they are free boobies, so I can't argue with your picture.
 
2013-03-26 09:45:33 PM
I didn't see The Force on there. So that's cool right?
 
2013-03-26 09:56:35 PM
If we can neither prove or disprove the existence of god, wouldn't any idea concerning god's existence be a belief?

I believe in God
I don't believe in god.

2 beliefs

/agnostic
 
2013-03-26 09:59:21 PM

rcf1105: [img854.imageshack.us image 528x359]


I have a buddy from college who was a math major, is pretty smart, and now he is fighting bipolar disorder with some pretty extreme swings and some kind of delusional thing going on. This is the kind of thing he posts on Facebook all the time.
 
2013-03-26 10:06:22 PM
My political blog. Everything in it is obviously correct.
 
2013-03-26 10:11:40 PM

willfullyobscure: whatshisname: willfullyobscure: whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.

The mackerel snappers have a perfectly cromulent definition, honed by centuries of rigourous thought:

The Nature of God

Proof of the Existence of God

well worth the read, if i do say so myself. It's not like nobody ever thought about this before, you know. Its sort of central to Western civilization and stuff.

Those aren't definitions. They're vague descriptions. You might even say they are willfully obscure.

You're arguing with the Catholic Church over God

[www.myfacewhen.net image 192x191]


Why are you trolling and wasting people's time?
 
2013-03-26 10:24:14 PM

RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.


let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?
 
2013-03-26 10:50:59 PM

Acharne: willfullyobscure: whatshisname: willfullyobscure: whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.

The mackerel snappers have a perfectly cromulent definition, honed by centuries of rigourous thought:

The Nature of God

Proof of the Existence of God

well worth the read, if i do say so myself. It's not like nobody ever thought about this before, you know. Its sort of central to Western civilization and stuff.

Those aren't definitions. They're vague descriptions. You might even say they are willfully obscure.

You're arguing with the Catholic Church over God

[www.myfacewhen.net image 192x191]

Why are you trolling and wasting people's time?


willfullyobscure: There is literally no way to post in this thread without  XOR Poe/Trolling. It is a logical impossibility to not be either/or, or both.


Same reason erry1 else is postan ITT

media.onsugar.com

Or if you care to debate, by all means, refute the Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of God. I'll write back in good faith.

good faith AHAHAHAHAahhhahaaha I kill myslef hehehe
 
2013-03-26 10:52:41 PM

my herniated disc: If we can neither prove or disprove the existence of god, wouldn't any idea concerning god's existence be a belief?

I believe in God
I don't believe in god.

2 beliefs

/agnostic



Person A: "I have a thousand dollars worth of gold in my pocket!"

Person B: "Oh yeah?  Show me.  Let's see it."

Does person B have a "belief" or just a question?
 
2013-03-26 10:53:46 PM
This one is easy for me.  I don't believe in a single thing in that diagram.
 
2013-03-26 11:01:36 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Chiropractic for treating anything and everything by restoring the body's "innate intelligence"


wat

/That's a new one for me. Never heard of that.
 
2013-03-26 11:10:06 PM

pippi longstocking: If you believe something and can't explain why, then you're a moron.


I can't explain why your mother loves you, but I believe she does.
 
2013-03-26 11:12:51 PM

Jimmysolson: Fecal Conservative: Q&D
[i45.tinypic.com image 600x397]

Dooshbaggery on the right is wrong!


Yep.
 
2013-03-26 11:14:48 PM

Majick Thise: RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.

let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?


My point - and possibly his/hers - is that your belief system is incomplete unless you can also explain the concepts and workings of time.  You pose that there are two identical states.  One of those states has an ending, during which you are alive. The other has a beginning but no ending.  Therefore the states are not identical.  Or perhaps you mean that this is a loop.  Or maybe all states are simultaneous.  It's unclear in your model.

I'd further point out that awareness of pre-life or post-life, if it exists, is unlikely to occur in humans in a world governed by Darwinian evolution.  Advanced organisms that had such an awareness would not be motivated to flee and escape death.  By "death" I mean an apparent exhaustion of the ability to maintain continuity of sentience observed in its peers. They would not fear it, and those that lack the fear to avoid it would not survive to reproduce.  That doesn't prove anything, but you should ask yourself whether you are suffering from confirmation bias and are not truly objective, due to evolution.
 
2013-03-26 11:21:49 PM

willfullyobscure: Or if you care to debate, by all means, refute the Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of God. I'll write back in good faith.

good faith AHAHAHAHAahhhahaaha I kill myslef hehehe


I refute the Catholic Encylopedia and the nature of God.

I see you're off your meds, that explains it.
 
2013-03-26 11:56:06 PM
I believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.
 
2013-03-27 12:17:00 AM
I feel very sad for the individuals who cant find belief in at least a few of those.  What a boring person that would make.
 
2013-03-27 12:35:45 AM
People we need to come together, racism,prejudice,sexism, stereo typing all gotta go soon we are falling.

Quote "we are all in the same boat and it's sinking".
 
2013-03-27 12:35:53 AM

SquiggsIN: Insisting that your viewpoint is the correct one with no evidence is just silly and you see it every day.


This is not a correct summary of the position of the majority of atheists.

The position is that when there is no evidence to support a claim the only logical position is to reject the claim.

The religious claim that god exists but they offer no evidence. Therefore the claim is rejected just as if they claimed they can fly like superman or that Santa is real.

Rejecting an unsupported claim is basic logic and reason. We all do it all the time for countless subjects. Religious people want their claims to get a special "we don't need evidence" free pass and that's not going to happen. Their claims of god existing have the same amount of support as the claim that the easter bunny exists - the two claims get the same level of acceptance. There is no arrogance involved.
 
2013-03-27 12:42:32 AM

whatshisname: How can God exist? Nobody can even define it.


God is why fnord
 
2013-03-27 12:54:11 AM

spentshells: People we need to come together, racism,prejudice,sexism, stereo typing all gotta go soon we are falling.

Quote "we are all in the same boat and it's sinking".


We're only in the same boat and sinking because nobody wants to admit that the person next to them might have a better idea than themselves.  Some want to jump out and swim, others want to stop those because they think they might drown, some want to bail the water out and others get in the way trying to plug the hole.

Instead of trying to work the solution, they simply are continuing to argue over words and egos.
 
2013-03-27 12:58:55 AM
SquiggsIN:  If you understood simple genetics and how traits are inherited you'd see why as time approaches infinity that recessive traits like being blonde would effectively diminish to zero.

Unless being blonde increases ones chance of reproducing. In which case, even a double recessive or multiple site recessive trait like blonde hair will remain. Remember, the inheritablity isn't the only thing that has to be focused on.
 
2013-03-27 12:59:03 AM

my herniated disc: If we can neither prove or disprove the existence of god, wouldn't any idea concerning god's existence be a belief?

I believe in God
I don't believe in god.

2 beliefs

/agnostic


Because I'm bored...and on the off chance that you are legitimate.

Language is a bit of a barrier here.

It's clear to say what a "belief" is.  You believe in God.

I'm going to word the statements differently as it pertains to religion.

There is a God.
There is no God.

Your second example is missing.
I don't believe in a God.  I also don't disbelieve.

No matter how remote of a chance, a rational person cannot say there is not some otherwordly power that created earth when they take the time to sit down and logicly study the question.

That is the technical standing of proper theories.

HOWEVER...

For example, I say, "There is no God." for the sake of brevity.  As a common function of language, there is usually something understood there that follows.  But I could be wrong.  A VAST majority of people who say it like I do, but when/if they examine it, they will agree that it is possible.  Differentiating between that sort of agnostic and a true disbeliever is almost a futile effort, wasted time.  Either way, neither will gain belief withoutperceived evidence.(I sayperceived because hallucination/revelation/etc can be written off as not concrete share-able proof, but enough to sway an individual).

There's a thing about the argument that I find fascinating.  It is assumed that "belief" in a god is the default state, and therefore disbelief is anaberration.

What I posit, is(gets wordy here, feel free to scan, but I encourage anyone reading to actually try to grasp the concepts):
If religion is fiction(because, at root, it is no different than believing out of hand any tale you happen to be told, and it's very possible it is, a lie)....if it is a fiction, what other evidence is there?

If we write off hear-say evidence as not very reliable, where does that leave us?  If we discovered the christian bible was fake, or better, if it had never existed, the stories never spread, religious people would be a member of a different religion.  Regress it far enough back, and there is no religion.  It is all words passed down generation to generation as truth.

If that were possible in some bizzaro universe, what would make people come up with the idea of god in the first place.  Imagine that society went on much as it did, but with government instead of a church.  People were nice to eachother because they wanted people to be nice to them, civil rights, etc, all of that.

Here we sit, in modern times, now educated enough to where there's not a lot of mystery around us.  We have answers for things people never thought possible.  Thunder and lightning, weather, genetics, even human emotions, computers, hell, we can implant cameras into people's brains, sure, some of it is in early stages but as time goes on our collective intelligence rises.  What is the question where an educated man would have to leap to a conclusion of God being the only viable answer.

Whether it is by intent for power, or hallucination, I think that is the only way the very idea of God could have come about.  The same way a follower of Allah questions followers of Jesus and visa versa.

Most religious people alive today don't believe in other religions because they were never taught to believe in them.  Take one more religious education away from them and where do we sit?

Sure, there could be something out there, but as it stands now, only imagination could possibly think of anything, and only mental problems will convince it of absolute truth.  As we see now, most people with claims of such things now are viewed as ill people, be it pink elephants or fairies.  Why is God different?

Meh.  I have an absence of belief.  I may ponder and daydream, I even admit something is possible, but for all intents and purposes that matter outside of daydreams, there is no God.  There is no real-world application where the concept has any power except in manipulation of others, whether I believe or not.  It doesn't explain emotions, thunder, lightning, etc.

So why bother?

To comfort and baby regular old human insecurities.  Fear of death, succor to stop people from going absolutely crazy when they're suffering.

fark that, we've got drugs that can end suffering.  Fear of death, everyone has that.  People may pray to god while in foxholes, but it's desperation, and it rarely helps.  the types it does help, the tend to be suicide bombers that won't survive anyhow, but are still shiatting their pants in fear, it's just not quite crippling.

Love of family, and pride in community/country, etc, those things can serve the same psychological need to belay crippling fear in a moment of need.  Maybe if we concentrated on those things instead of fairytales, we'd be a bit better off.

See what happens when people get pedantic and fight when I say, "There is no God."?  A shiat ton of words and explanations come out, and even if you read this, it won't matter in 5 minutes.  Me, I had time to waste, but I don't always, so again, why bother?
 
2013-03-27 01:04:26 AM

Frederick: I feel very sad for the individuals who cant find belief in at least a few of those.  What a boring person that would make.


Frederick         

(favorite: I lick hand rails to remain robust.)

I view everything with skepticism to remain robust.

I find that belief leads to complacency, in addition to looking like a fool and missing good opportunities in life, either by demand of religion or by people avoiding me because I'm gullible/odd.

Well, I'm still odd, but that's for more social reasons. And sure, I'm dumb, but it's only because i can't possibly study everything, no one person can.
 
2013-03-27 01:23:33 AM

omeganuepsilon: What I posit, is(gets wordy here, feel free to scan, but I encourage anyone reading to actually try to grasp the concepts):
If religion is fiction(because, at root, it is no different than believing out of hand any tale you happen to be told, and it's very possible it is, a lie)....


ql;vi

/quite long, very interesting.
 
2013-03-27 01:46:52 AM

Acharne: omeganuepsilon: What I posit, is(gets wordy here, feel free to scan, but I encourage anyone reading to actually try to grasp the concepts):
If religion is fiction(because, at root, it is no different than believing out of hand any tale you happen to be told, and it's very possible it is, a lie)....

ql;vi

/quite long, very interesting.


Thanks
Over the period of maybe hundreds of similar topics, I've refined my view of the concepts if not the words/grammar. Big fan of concepts that are not readily explained, though I did borrow a bit here and there(specifically the classic "You disbelieve all other religions, I just disbelieve one more than you."(paraphrased) and re-worded them to fit my rambling stream.

Great time sink when you realize you're bored of all of your other hobbies.
/also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot
 
2013-03-27 02:14:40 AM

crazyeddie: Ambitwistor: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 010/05/100530144021.htm

The citations are a playground of good information about adenosine production using deep brain stimulation.  Thanks for the links.

Acupuncture still falls under the "Sigh, ok so we haven't disproven it in the technical sense, because science doesn't work that way.  However, we can provisionally reject the claims it makes."

Read  The Believing Brain for a fun understanding of why people believe stupid shiat and won't listen to all the reasons they are full of bullocks.


It looked to me like they proposed a viable mechanism by which acupuncture might have an effect. However, I couldn't find anything in there that would indicate how acupuncture would be more effective in stimulating adenosine and endorphin production than other methods. Striking yourself with a hammer, stubbing your toe, banging your head against a wall, that sort of thing.
 
2013-03-27 02:49:30 AM
Western medicine strangely absent from this diagram.
 
2013-03-27 02:49:52 AM

Farking Canuck: SquiggsIN: Insisting that your viewpoint is the correct one with no evidence is just silly and you see it every day.

This is not a correct summary of the position of the majority of atheists.

The position is that when there is no evidence to support a claim the only logical position is to reject the claim.

The religious claim that god exists but they offer no evidence. Therefore the claim is rejected just as if they claimed they can fly like superman or that Santa is real.

Rejecting an unsupported claim is basic logic and reason. We all do it all the time for countless subjects. Religious people want their claims to get a special "we don't need evidence" free pass and that's not going to happen. Their claims of god existing have the same amount of support as the claim that the easter bunny exists - the two claims get the same level of acceptance. There is no arrogance involved.


I'll play devil's advocate for a second here.... the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it?  Based on what you call basic logic and reason, there is no evidence proving that a god doesn't exist so that claim should also be outright rejected.

I probably agree with you, mostly.  But, atheists absolutely are arrogant to state that the lack of evidence of a deity disproves the existence of one.  With the complete lack of evidence for or against said existence, both atheism and theism must be categorically rejected, right?  Such logic leads to apathy, agnosticism, or insanity.  (or a healthy combination of the 3)
 
2013-03-27 03:02:15 AM

Chach: If we're going to call the Shroud of Turin "bollocks," shouldn't we first have a scientific explanation for it beyond "inconclusive?"


I remember a documentary from a few years back, where they found a room that could be used to set up a primitive camera that was capable of leaving a negative image on linen, kind of like the old trick of putting your hand on construction paper, leaving it there in the sunlight for five minutes, then removing your hand  and leaving a "print" of your hand's outline.

It turns out Leonardo DaVinci frequented the area; and there is evidence that he was interested in such a technique for use in art.

/Is Christian
//Still hates bullshiat
 
2013-03-27 03:03:57 AM

omeganuepsilon: Frederick: I feel very sad for the individuals who cant find belief in at least a few of those.  What a boring person that would make.

Frederick

(favorite: I lick hand rails to remain robust.)

I view everything with skepticism to remain robust.

I find that belief leads to complacency, in addition to looking like a fool and missing good opportunities in life, either by demand of religion or by people avoiding me because I'm gullible/odd.

Well, I'm still odd, but that's for more social reasons. And sure, I'm dumb, but it's only because i can't possibly study everything, no one person can.


I see what you did there; using my words.

Skepticism can be healthy.  Too much skepticism makes you a cynic.
One of the things I enjoy about getting to know someone is finding out if they have any ghost, UFO, Ouija board, ESP, prayer, Voodoo, reincarnation, etc. stories.  Almost everyone I've met has something -and I find it terribly interesting.
So come on, share -surely you've got something along those lines.

/I believe in a version of reincarnation, for example, and am agnostic about most in the diagram.
 
2013-03-27 03:06:42 AM

omeganuepsilon: also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot


Faction infighting?
 
2013-03-27 04:18:28 AM

HalfOffOffer: Western medicine strangely absent from this diagram.



Yes, what's up with that voodoo of aspirin, antibiotics, and mending a broken bone?
 
2013-03-27 04:33:11 AM

my herniated disc: If we can neither prove or disprove the existence of god, wouldn't any idea concerning god's existence be a belief?

I believe in God and also know he exists/believe his existence is knowable.
I believe in god, but I but I believe it is impossible to know if he exists.
I don't believe in god, but I believe it is impossible to know if he exists

.
I don't believe in god, and I also know he doesn't exist/believe his existence is knowable.

2 4 beliefs


Almost all atheists are #3.  Most theists are #1, but a significant portion are #2.  Almost no one is #4.  Gnosticism regarding the supernatural is incompatible with scientific principle based on the definition of the two concepts, and I would argue that it's probably inherently irrational also.

/agnostic

So, you think it's impossible to know if gods exist.  If you also hold a belief that they do, you're a theist.  If you don't hold that belief, you're an atheist.  Note that there is no "in between" position, any more than you can "have" and also "not have" an apple in your pocket.

common sense is an oxymoron: Somacandra: The funny thing is that people involved in these really won't care that anyone else thinks its bollocks. For instance, I don't care what your "evaluation" of acupuncture and chiropractic are, I've had enough experience with both to know that they've really worked well for me in handling certain issues than before I had experience with them. As a practical guy, that's all the evidence I really want or need. YMMV.


Chiropractic for treating musculoskeletal back pain by spinal manipulation = legitimate.
Chiropractic for treating anything and everything by restoring the body's "innate intelligence" = quackery.


Yes, thank you.  I went to a chiropractor once for a sports injury because someone recommended him, he was cheap, and I didn't have health insurance at the time.  My sciatic nerve had been killing me to the point that I could barely walk for almost a week.  He cracked my back, told me to go home and ice it, and I was completely better a day later.  I went back to thank him, and he got out a tentative "You know, the theory of chiropractic..." before I cut him off with a shake of my head, and he went "OK, never mind.  If you have any more problems, give me call."

SquiggsIN: I probably agree with you, mostly. But, atheists absolutely are arrogant to state that the lack of evidence of a deity disproves the existence of one. With the complete lack of evidence for or against said existence, both atheism and theism must be categorically rejected, right? Such logic leads to apathy, agnosticism, or insanity. (or a healthy combination of the 3)


Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive.  See above.  Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a theological one.  An overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic about gods.  "Strong atheism" is just a red herring that theists apply because they can't or won't admit that people can think the supernatural is bunk for rational reasons and not because they're "denying god because they're angry at him", or some nonsense.

SquiggsIN: the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it?


Onus Probandi
 
2013-03-27 04:46:38 AM

omeganuepsilon: If that were possible in some bizzaro universe, what would make people come up with the idea of god in the first place.


There is a fair bit of evidence that a significant proportion of us have brains that are naturally structured in such a way that facilitates religious thinking.  Faced with a general lack of knowledge about the natural world, it's reasonable to conclude that early cultures would almost inevitably invent religion in order to explain what they saw.

In short, religion is natural in the way that viruses are natural.  Sometimes harmless, sometimes destructive. Also, worth inoculating against, but always very difficult to eradicate completely.

The real "miracle" is that we were smart enough to eventually invent logic and the scientific process at all, IMO.
 
2013-03-27 05:23:18 AM
What I Believe or Not:
I do not believe a deity caused everything to exist nor that he/she brought everything into being.
I do not believe there was ever a beginning nor that there will ever be an end.
I do not believe that something can be created out of what is truly nothing (void).
I believe time is a measurement of motion and that everything is in motion in the eternal present.
I believe it is always now, always has been now and always will be now.
I believe that what exists now (matter), has always existed and will always exist.
I believe humans are nothing more than fancy animals.
I believe all mammals possess a sense of Spirit and possibly birds as well.
I believe reptiles, fish and insects do not.
I believe that if cattle were intelligent and had opposable udders their god would be:
The Great Creator Cow and the bulls would serve only one useful purpose.
That's some of the stuff I Believe or Not.
.
 
2013-03-27 05:23:35 AM

Z-clipped: Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive. See above. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a theological one.


Replace "theological" with "ontological" and you're dead on. And to keep in the theme of the thread:

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
=Smidge=
 
2013-03-27 05:30:11 AM

Z-clipped:

SquiggsIN: the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it?

Onus Probandi

It's always annoying when someone commits a fallacy while pointing one out.  The burden of proof only applies when it comes to a proof.  It does NOT mean that it has been proved to not exist.  You CAN say that, without proof, a compelling case was NOT made for the existence of God, or gods, but you cannot say that it has been proved that God does not exist.
 
2013-03-27 05:50:49 AM

Smidge204: Z-clipped: Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive. See above. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a theological one.

Replace "theological" with "ontological" and you're dead on. And to keep in the theme of the thread:


Yes, sorry, I was doing too many things at once when I typed that.  Thanks for the correction.  That's exactly what I meant to say.

GeneralJim: It's always annoying when someone commits a fallacy while pointing one out. The burden of proof only applies when it comes to a proof. It does NOT mean that it has been proved to not exist. You CAN say that, without proof, a compelling case was NOT made for the existence of God, or gods, but you cannot say that it has been proved that God does not exist.


I didn't.  I implied that, in the face of a complete lack of evidence for the positive claim, evidence of a negative claim is not required.  The positive claim can be reasonably dismissed without it.

In other words, absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. It's just not conclusive evidence.

At the risk of being snarky, I'll also note that in attempting to point out my committing a logical fallacy while pointing out a logical fallacy, you've committed a logical (straw man) fallacy.  I never implied that a proof of the absence of god exists; in fact, I personally believe such a proof is inherently impossible.  I just also believe that it's irrelevant, since all belief in gods can be reduced to wishful thinking.
 
2013-03-27 06:01:41 AM

GeneralJim: but you cannot say that it has been proved that God does not exist.


More to the point, specific Gods for which specific claims have been given can be shown to not exist by demonstrating the claims made about them to be false or logically inconsistent. At best you have retreated into amorphic deism at this point. Such claims are by their nature unfalsifiable since they lack testable claims, and they are also of no real consequence for that very same reason.

To quote the late Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
=Smidge=
 
2013-03-27 06:27:35 AM

Leet Jesus: Majick Thise: RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.

let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?

My point - and possibly his/hers - is that your belief system is incomplete unless you can also explain the concepts and workings of time.  You pose that there are two identical states.  One of those states has an ending, during which you are alive. The other has a beginning but no ending.  Therefore the states are not identical.  Or perhaps you mean that this is a loop.  Or maybe all states are simultaneous.  It's unclear in your model.

I'd further point out that awareness of pre-life or post-life, if it exists, is unlikely to occur in humans in a world governed by Darwinian evolution.  Advanced organisms that had such an awareness would not be motivated to flee and escape death.  By "death" I mean an apparent exhaustion of the ability to maintain continuity of sentience observed in its peers. They would not fear it, and those that lack the fear to avoid it would not survive to reproduce.  That doesn't prove anything, but you should ask yourself whether you are suffering from confirmation bias and are not truly objective, due to evolution.


I can't give this response the answer it deserves because of time... as in it's time to go to work. I couldn't answer anyway because people a lot more knowledgeable than I am only have theories as to how time really works. I don't believe in a soul/afterlife I don't believe that the conscious 'me' can experience anything when I am not alive. Not even able to experience the realization that I died nor that there is a whole lot of nothing afterward. Whether time is a product or byproduct, of the conscious mind or not is something I might give some thought to... but not now. The perception that my mind thinks of as 'the buttcrack of dawn' has come and I must be off to work.
 
2013-03-27 07:43:03 AM
So, where's Alcoholics Anonymous?
 
2013-03-27 07:43:47 AM

EyeballKid: So, where's Alcoholics Anonymous?


On the Venn diagram, I mean, not where's the nearest meeting.
 
2013-03-27 08:18:02 AM
farm3.static.flickr.com
Then you've got your nothing
Some folks believe in nothing
But if you believe in nothing
Then what's to keep the nothing
From coming for you?
 
2013-03-27 08:26:32 AM

Majick Thise: Leet Jesus: Majick Thise: RedVentrue: Majick Thise: I believe that prior to our birth we are not alive.

I believe that after our death we are also not alive.

I do not believe that these two instances (of being not alive) are any different. Both are the same... that is nothingness.

Prior to birth, you may not be sentient, but you were very much alive.

let me amend my statement to read conception instead of birth then, unless you think I was alive and in two places at once being both egg and sperm?

My point - and possibly his/hers - is that your belief system is incomplete unless you can also explain the concepts and workings of time.  You pose that there are two identical states.  One of those states has an ending, during which you are alive. The other has a beginning but no ending.  Therefore the states are not identical.  Or perhaps you mean that this is a loop.  Or maybe all states are simultaneous.  It's unclear in your model.

I'd further point out that awareness of pre-life or post-life, if it exists, is unlikely to occur in humans in a world governed by Darwinian evolution.  Advanced organisms that had such an awareness would not be motivated to flee and escape death.  By "death" I mean an apparent exhaustion of the ability to maintain continuity of sentience observed in its peers. They would not fear it, and those that lack the fear to avoid it would not survive to reproduce.  That doesn't prove anything, but you should ask yourself whether you are suffering from confirmation bias and are not truly objective, due to evolution.

I can't give this response the answer it deserves because of time... as in it's time to go to work. I couldn't answer anyway because people a lot more knowledgeable than I am only have theories as to how time really works. I don't believe in a soul/afterlife I don't believe that the conscious 'me' can experience anything when I am not alive. Not even able to experience the realization that I died nor that there is a whole lot of ...


I just wrote a paper on this about a week ago.  Basically, the current agreement between scientists and philosophers is that time is "real" in the sense that it is a physical part of the fabric of the space (Einstein), but that our perception of time's flow is an illusion (Parmenides, FTW in 500 BC).  Our position on the fabric is not special, so the future is deterministic but the "many worlds" interpretation of QM illustrates that we have infinite possible "predetermined" futures.  Many of the most promising prospects for a TOE require time to either be quantized, or imply that time is essentially meaningless below the Planck length, which effectively quantizes both time and space for our purposes.

I don't see how this really affects the religious argument though, except for the whole "quantum immortality" idea.  Still, as silly as it is, I think quantum immortality is enormously more likely than the existence of a mystical "soul" that carries our consciousness forward.
 
2013-03-27 08:49:36 AM

Acharne: willfullyobscure: Or if you care to debate, by all means, refute the Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of God. I'll write back in good faith.

good faith AHAHAHAHAahhhahaaha I kill myslef hehehe

I refute the Catholic Encylopedia and the nature of God.

I see you're off your meds, that explains it.


"re·fute
/riˈfyoot/Verb

Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Prove that (someone) is wrong. "


Your refutin' needs to do some actual refutin', son. Let me help. We'll start with one of the several methods of Catholic proof of the existence of God. Please argue, without fallacy, against the following statement. Otherwise, admit that God exists and you have lost the debate:

"
A priori, or ontological, argument

This argument undertakes to deduce the existence of God from the idea of Him as the Infinite which is present to the human mind; but as already stated, theistic philosophers are not agreed as to the logical validity of this deduction.

As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thus: The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it."
 
2013-03-27 08:53:02 AM

SquiggsIN: I'll play devil's advocate for a second here.... the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it? Based on what you call basic logic and reason, there is no evidence proving that a god doesn't exist so that claim should also be outright rejected.


"the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is it " ... and if a claim was being put forward that "God does not exist" then this would be relevant. There would be a need to present evidence in support of a claim.

But atheists are not putting forth a claim ... we are deciding if we feel the claim put forth by religious people, that gods exist, holds any water. So we look at the evidence presented by the religious to support their claim and discover that there is none.

Now I can't speak for everyone but I personally feel that the principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is very valid. The claim that gods are real is quite extraordinary yet not only is no extraordinary evidence presented to support the claim but no evidence is presented.

By the basic rules of logic and reason the claim should be rejected until more evidence is presented ... then the claim can be re-evaluated.

Note that this is not actually saying that the claim is wrong ... it is saying that, without evidence, we cannot accept it as correct. It puts it in a state of limbo (along with an infinite number of other unsubstantiated claims).
 
2013-03-27 09:20:55 AM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


Someone's a baseball fan. ;)
 
2013-03-27 09:23:19 AM
Dang, my pic didn't go through. There we go.
0.media.sportspickle.cvcdn.com
 
2013-03-27 09:28:33 AM

EyeballKid: So, where's Alcoholics Anonymous?


Agreed. It should be under Pseudoscience on the chart at the bottom of the page, next to Facilitated Communication
 
2013-03-27 09:55:07 AM

Ambitwistor: MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.

In case you're not trolling, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief", .


Philosophical, or semantic?

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.  Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
 
2013-03-27 10:16:13 AM

Acharne: omeganuepsilon: also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot

Faction infighting?


Oppression from my fat ass, what upset the applecart and caused the revolt was slipping on the ice.

/was going to say something...occult as a word can mean "hidden"
 
2013-03-27 11:12:05 AM

Wangiss: sciencism


The fark?
 
2013-03-27 11:16:33 AM
i.imm.io

In a related theme, I got through watching an excellent TED talk on being WRONG.

/picture unrelated
 
2013-03-27 11:35:28 AM

Gifted Many Few: Everytime I speak about my beliefs in a thread I get called a troll. Just because I come from a better class of people and have a higher education, people think that I am condescending. I merely want to help educate people in the error of their ways. People come on here with some kneejerk reaction to something menial and miss the point of an entire thread.


If I had a nickel for every time I've felt that way...

And I think you meant 'trivial'.  It's okay, obviously English isn't your first language.
 
2013-03-27 12:22:44 PM

MBooda: Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.


Incorrect. Agnosticism is a rather broad philosophical topic, but in this context it refers to an epistemological position (i.e. whether knowledge of a divine being is inherently possible).  It has nothing to do with belief, and it is not a middle position between theism and atheism.  Atheism also comes in several flavors; not just the one you're espousing.  At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.

You're welcome to your opinion, but please get with the program on the terminology.

kemosabe: Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]

Someone's a baseball fan. ;)


How is it that you've never seen Bull Durham?  Were you raised by wolves, man?!
 
2013-03-27 12:31:23 PM

HalfOffOffer: Western medicine strangely absent from this diagram.


You know what they call "alternative medicine" when it actually works?   "Medicine."
 
2013-03-27 12:36:33 PM

MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.

In case you're not trolling, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief", .

Philosophical, or semantic?

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.  Atheism is the belief that there is no God.


In addition to Z-clipped's (very accurate) response, keep in mind that you are applying to us a definition that we do not believe describes us.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the positive claim that gods do not exist.

So the question is: do you want to argue semantics of the definitions of words or actually what our position is? Strawman or real?
 
2013-03-27 12:51:56 PM

willfullyobscure: As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thus


You're actually trotting out Anselm in a Fark thread? Really?  I mean... really?  Did you just pass Philo 101 or something?

This argument has numerous flaws, and has been taken apart by more people over the last thousand years than I could list.  It's main issues are,

1) it's a tautology, so while it may be logically valid, it's unsound, and useless as a proof
2) it attempts to prove existence (a fact) from a priori reasoning. (Try assuming its opposite is true, and get back to me when you run into a contradiction.)
3) it assumes a God that is small enough to fit within human conception, which defeats the argument's purpose in the first place.

I'm no philosopher, but I know enough to know that philosophy has come a long way since 1100 AD.  This is like trying to argue about the two body problem in General Relativity using Archimedes' method of exhaustion. You're in over your head.
 
2013-03-27 01:54:53 PM

Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thusYou're actually trotting out Anselm in a Fark thread? Really?  I mean... really?  Did you just pass Philo 101 or something?


Not me- The Catholic Church. Here's try one of the a posteriori proofs:

"St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:
Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself. "
 
2013-03-27 02:06:11 PM

Z-clipped: At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.


Then what would you call someone who actively denies the existence of deities?

Farking Canuck: keep in mind that you are applying to us a definition that we do not believe describes us.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the positive claim that gods do not exist.


Which begs the question(s): what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?  Do atheists concur on such a definition? If so, when was the vote? (Never was told about it myself).  And, does it really make any difference what definition atheists believe describes themselves, as opposed to what Webster or non-atheists define atheists as?

So the question is: do you want to argue semantics of the definitions of words or actually what our position is? Strawman or real?

I haven't the foggiest idea what your position is, or what the position of random atheist X is.  I suspect you don't, either.
 
2013-03-27 02:07:27 PM
Updated to add the 5th category "conspiracy" (via BoingBoing)

i.imgur.com

though acupuncture may be missing in this version.
 
2013-03-27 02:07:54 PM

willfullyobscure: else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.


I love this line. They are trying to prove the existence of god and the first thing they rule out is the inconceivable. Shouldn't it be assumed that a god would be inconceivable to man?

I realize that this assumption is necessary to proceed with their proof but the restriction makes either their proof worthless or what they are proving to be a pretty pathetic being to be granted the title of god.

/what do you expect from people working backwards from a conclusion.
 
2013-03-27 02:18:06 PM
MBooda: Which begs the question(s):

what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?


There is one thing (and only one thing) that is common to all atheists: the lack of a belief in deities. Therefore, IMO, this is the only truly useful definition.

Do atheists concur on such a definition? If so, when was the vote? (Never was told about it myself).

Opinions vary and there will never be a unified position. This is why I personally use the only definition that includes everyone (see previous answer).

But, as I pointed out in previous post, during an argument it is simple to ask the person you are arguing with where they stand instead of building a strawman of assumptions. The point of an argument should be to debate the ideas and not waste time fighting over terminology when the English language is far too flexible to actually nail down right and wrong definitions.

And, does it really make any difference what definition atheists believe describes themselves, as opposed to what Webster or non-atheists define atheists as?

Depends ... is your goal to discuss ideas or just make unfounded attacks?
 
2013-03-27 02:21:45 PM

MBooda: Z-clipped: At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.

Then what would you call someone who actively denies the existence of deities?

Farking Canuck: keep in mind that you are applying to us a definition that we do not believe describes us.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the positive claim that gods do not exist.

Which begs the question(s): what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?  Do atheists concur on such a definition?



The only characteristic that all atheists display is a lack of belief in god(s).

Someone who professes certainty that gods do not and/or cannot exist might be called an "anti-theist," but is sometimes referred to as a "gnostic atheist."   They lack belief in X and profess belief in Not-X.


The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists (do not claim certainty and/or do not think certainty is possible).   They lack belief in X, but do not profess belief in its opposite.


And, does it really make any difference what definition atheists believe describes themselves, as opposed to what Webster or non-atheists define atheists as?

If one wishes to be either objective about the topic, or polite to others, then yes, it does.  When one side of a "debate" consistently mischaracterizes the position of the other side, the debate will almost never result in furthering of anyone's understanding.  Increasing understanding is really the whole point of debate, so it's generally advisable to refrain from misrepresenting the position of one's opponents.
 
2013-03-27 02:27:29 PM

FloydA: If one wishes to be either objective about the topic, or polite to others, then yes, it does.


So far, what I've been hearing from the atheists in this thread sounds awfully subjective.

I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.
 
2013-03-27 02:34:37 PM

MBooda: I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.


I don't care much about politness either ... especially when that apparently translates to giving special protections to silly beliefs because a lot of people hold them.

But I do take issue with people not arguing against their opponents' actual position. It is easy to put up a strawman and assail that ... a little more difficult when you go up against a real argument.
 
2013-03-27 02:36:35 PM

omeganuepsilon: my herniated disc:  words


thats an interesting post!

in addition to fear of death and stuff I think people may look to religion or belief in god for comfort knowing there is some kind of cosmic justice. We feel so powerless at times with all the injustice we see around us that maybe it feels good to think maybe there is punishment awaiting those who burn children alive in Sudan for example. Or at the very least, there is somewhere free of suffering for them to go after death.  Ugh, or maybe it is a way for us to be complacent towards injustice because we defer the responsibility to god. Depends, do I feel cynical today, or magnanimous.

whether or not god does or does not exist, for all intents and purposes in living every day life there is no god. There is no tangible evidence of a divinity kicking around, doing things on Earth.   Arguments of belief and non-belief are often over semantics (is atheism a religion? is lack of belief in itself a belief? etc, which I was getting at with my overly simplistic declaration. Its arguments about the meanings of words over something we can't prove.  Its quite futile in the end but makes for facinating philosophical debate!

Atheism and theism don't seem like opposites. They seem like two ideas that both claim to have the absolute truth. There isn't much room for criticism or philosophical debate when someone believes in an absolute truth. This is why vehement atheism doesn't seem that different than a religion to me.

I may be way off on that though. Damn it, I'm a construction worker not a philosopher!

/prayin there's no hellraiser type afterlife
//hopin for Vorlons.
 
2013-03-27 02:38:10 PM

MBooda: Z-clipped: At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.

Then what would you call someone who actively denies the existence of deities?


A strong atheist, or a gnostic atheist.  You could also apply the term "explicit atheist", though this has a subtly different implication.  The person you describe might also be an anti-theist, depending upon his reasons for for making your statement, or the details of his reasoning.

Most importantly, since most self-professed atheists are free-thinking and generally rational about belief in gods (or the lack of it), you could call the person you're describing "rare".  Strong atheism is easy to argue against, so many religious people attempt to subvert the discussion by equivocation: they assume that all atheists hold this position, when in fact, hardly any actually do.  Most atheists are agnostic atheists whether or not they label themselves as such.  And actually, most people who label themselves as "agnostic, not atheist" are in fact atheists as well.

Farking Canuck: what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?

There is one thing (and only one thing) that is common to all atheists: the lack of a belief in deities. Therefore, IMO, this is the only truly useful definition.


This is well said.

willfullyobscure: Not me- The Catholic Church.


Ohhhh... that explains the thousand year old reasoning then.  I'm not going to get into this stuff, first because it's a waste of time rehashing all of modern philosophy when we have a perfectly serviceable discussion going on, and second because I'm sure there are actual philosophy majors floating around who would be better at it than I.
 
2013-03-27 02:42:06 PM

MBooda: So far, what I've been hearing from the atheists in this thread sounds awfully subjective.


I don't think you could possibly find two independent posts that agree more closely on the matter than what I just wrote, and what FloydA wrote.  If you have any doubt about whether people versed on this topic have a framework that they agree upon, that alone should lay them to rest.

MBooda: I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.


Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?
 
2013-03-27 02:44:02 PM

Farking Canuck: MBooda: I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.

I don't care much about politness either ... especially when that apparently translates to giving special protections to silly beliefs because a lot of people hold them.

But I do take issue with people not arguing against their opponents' actual position. It is easy to put up a strawman and assail that ... a little more difficult when you go up against a real argument.


I personally take issue with the dismissal of the importance of semantics.  What's the difference, for example, between denying the "knowledge" of a divine being and denying the "belief" in a divine being?

As for "opponents' actual positions", I still haven't found out what Z-clipped calls someone who actively denies the existence of deities.
 
2013-03-27 02:46:10 PM
Whoops, now I do.  Again, interesting semantics.
 
2013-03-27 02:50:05 PM
I like this discussion. But my big question remains unanswered. Are there atheists in FoxTrot?

gocomics.typepad.com
 
2013-03-27 02:51:30 PM

Z-clipped: Most atheists are agnostic atheists


Whoa.  We need a new Venn diagram.

Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?

No, nor do I hold the belief that a god doesn't exist.  Nor do I believe it's possible to prove it either way.
 
2013-03-27 03:01:23 PM

omeganuepsilon: Acharne: omeganuepsilon: also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot

Faction infighting?

Oppression from my fat ass, what upset the applecart and caused the revolt was slipping on the ice.

/was going to say something...occult as a word can mean "hidden"


Ya I know, I'm big into puns.
 
2013-03-27 03:04:40 PM

MBooda: FloydA: If one wishes to be either objective about the topic, or polite to others, then yes, it does.

So far, what I've been hearing from the atheists in this thread sounds awfully subjective.



You've been offered the same definition by at least three people.  As Z-clipped notes, that is a pretty good indication that there is a consensus about the meaning of the word. 

I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.

Nobody can stop you from being impolite, if that's what you choose to do.  It does not generally result in effective, useful, or informative discussions however.  If you want people to actually understand your points, being rude is often counter-productive.
 
2013-03-27 03:08:36 PM

HairBolus: Updated to add the 5th category "conspiracy" (via BoingBoing)

[i.imgur.com image 850x850]

though acupuncture may be missing in this version.


Denver Airport?
 
2013-03-27 03:11:19 PM

MBooda: Z-clipped: Most atheists are agnostic atheists

Whoa.  We need a new Venn diagram.

Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?

No, nor do I hold the belief that a god doesn't exist.  Nor do I believe it's possible to prove it either way.


Congratulations. You're an agnostic atheist, just like me.

Agnostic describes your third statement.
Atheist describes your first statement.
(Your second statement loosely means you're an "implicit" atheist as well, in case you care.)

MBooda: Whoa. We need a new Venn diagram.


We have one.  Smidge was kind enough to provide it just upthread. I'll repost it here to save your scrolling finger:

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
 
2013-03-27 03:23:59 PM

Sofa King Smart: HairBolus: Updated to add the 5th category "conspiracy" (via BoingBoing)

[i.imgur.com image 850x850]

though acupuncture may be missing in this version.

Denver Airport?


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denver_Airport_conspiracy_theory
 
2013-03-27 03:31:51 PM

MBooda: Whoops, now I do.  Again, interesting semantics.


I do not think he is trying to make a semantic argument. It is just that the English language is too variable to nail down so he is listing all the possible terms.

I use anti-theists, which is on his list, but I doubt many people I put in that category use that name for themselves.
 
2013-03-27 03:32:57 PM

my herniated disc: Its quite futile in the end but makes for facinating philosophical debate!


It's not entirely futile.  It's actually a good study in psychology, like fear of the unknown(death) and cosmic justice.  It illustrates human need nicely, and can, now that it's identified, be put to good use.

Or if not put to use, at least flesh out our layman construction workers sense of how people operate.  Education for education's sake is never a bad thing.(well, unless it eats into your production time/paycheck)

my herniated disc: This is why vehement atheism doesn't seem that different than a religion to me.


In places, even in the US, a lot of vehement atheists are the way they are, over principles.  Even atheists are entitled to a belief in what's right and wrong, speakign civicly.

Seperation of Church and state is a very important philosophy if equality is important to you, and worth some heavy debate.  Even in the US it can be in danger of not being upheld, and indeed, in places like Polk County, Florida, there is a very abusive christian force in power.(Polk Under Prayer). In that case, atheists can and do fall under a sort of persecution, to include arrests, after protesting local civic assets going to church on the civic dime, etc.
http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1458  It's not laid out well, scattered about, you've got to do a bit of reading, but it's there.
They also "blessed" a road by praying that people who do not follow god be restricted from town and or put in jail.  The local atheists made headlines for "un-blessing" it, and got painted as trolls, but when one looked at the facts, they're fighting against intolerance, prejudice, and oppression.  Of course, that bit never made the news stories.

Another example is when christian schools teach bunk science to kids, that's something to be concerned about.  Or when they get on a web forum like this and do the same, and call a banana proof of god.  Preaching ignorance is not healthy for society in any way shape or form.

I can't blame some of the more vitriolic atheists for being as they are.  It may seem like religious fervor, but it's justified more often than not, in my opinion.
 
2013-03-27 03:37:12 PM

meanmutton: DesertDemonWY: [i1057.photobucket.com image 700x537]

Hey, I one-up Jimmy and just put certain people on ignore.


I just favourite them as `irrational` and mark them with satanic red 666
 
2013-03-27 03:47:17 PM

MBooda: I still haven't found out what Z-clipped calls someone who actively denies the existence of deities.


You mean me?

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything being promoted by human beings with an agenda unless there is a large amount of verifiable proof to go along with the claim. There is a much larger amount of `things that could be but we cannot prove it` than there are `things that are that we can prove`. It seems as good a cut off point for saying `it is not real` as any other, being able to prove the existence. Naturally the burden of proof lies with the claimant. As such, until proven otherwise in a verifiable manner, I assert that deities do not exist.

Then again z-clipped seems to assert that I do not exist so it`s as broad as it is long. The evidence for me is only some printed words which isn`t really much proof at all...
 
2013-03-27 04:34:19 PM

dready zim: Then again z-clipped seems to assert that I do not exist


Not at all.  But you should recognize that dismissing the idea of a deity for lack of evidence is not the same as positively asserting that one does not or cannot exist.  To wit. if you consider the statement "No god exists" to be a positive claim, and you cannot provide some evidence for that position, your own initial premise requires you to dismiss it just as you dismissed its contradictory.

Please note, I'm not waffling here: I'm equally agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, and honest politicians, as I am about gods.  Do I think any of them exist?  Almost certainly not.  I dismiss the idea for the same reason you do.  But if I'm reading your post right, you yourself are placing gods in the category of `things that could be but we cannot prove it` which is essentially the definition of the agnostic position.  Basically, unless you're asserting that it's somehow possible to know whether all possible gods do or do not exist, you're in the same boat as the rest of us agnostic atheists.
 
2013-03-27 04:41:02 PM

Somacandra: common sense is an oxymoron: Chiropractic for treating anything and everything by restoring the body's "innate intelligence"

wat

/That's a new one for me. Never heard of that.



From the World Chiropractic Alliance:

Instructions from your Innate Intelligence are sent to every organ and cell in your body. If the instructions are received and followed properly, your body is able to reach and maintain its optimum level of health.

However, if there is any interference with the transmission of those instructions the result is less-than-optimum health. Your body can no longer function normally. It is said to be in a state of "dis-ease...."

A spinal bone which has lost its normal placement or alignment, is said to be "subluxated." The impulses traveling along the nerve past a subluxated bone can become distorted. This is what causes interference with the instructions sent by Innate Intelligence to a part of the body.
 
2013-03-27 04:53:51 PM
The vast majority of atheists just don't give a shiat about God. It's not a part of their lives and they really don't care to proclaim whether they believe in it or not.
 
2013-03-27 05:49:42 PM

Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: Not me- The Catholic Church.Ohhhh... that explains the thousand year old reasoning then.  I'm not going to get into this stuff, first because it's a waste of time rehashing all of modern philosophy when we have a perfectly serviceable discussion going on, and second because I'm sure there are actual philosophy majors floating around who would be better at it than I.


glad to see that neither you OR Kant can refute the First Mover argument. After all, it provides a rational religious framework for evolution, empirical observation and experimental science, Bing Bang theory and relativity, so you're in good company.
 
2013-03-27 05:58:27 PM

Farking Canuck: MBooda: Whoops, now I do.  Again, interesting semantics.

I do not think he is trying to make a semantic argument. It is just that the English language is too variable to nail down so he is listing all the possible terms.

I use anti-theists, which is on his list, but I doubt many people I put in that category use that name for themselves.


i'm an antitheist AND an agnostic AND a person sick of everyone trying to define other peoples' beliefs.
 
2013-03-27 05:58:37 PM
Z-clipped:

MBooda: Whoa. We need a new Venn diagram.

We have one.  Smidge was kind enough to provide it just upthread. I'll repost it here to save your scrolling finger:

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 394x589]


Man, that's not only subjective, it's downright selfish.  Theists and Atheists divide up all the Agnostics.  I feel like Poland in 1939.
 
2013-03-27 06:31:49 PM

SquiggsIN: i'm an antitheist AND an agnostic AND a person sick of everyone trying to define other peoples' beliefs.


Nobody is trying to define other people's beliefs. We are trying to reach a common language to be able to discuss the ideas.
 
2013-03-27 07:55:30 PM

Z-clipped: MBooda: Z-clipped: Most atheists are agnostic atheists

Whoa.  We need a new Venn diagram.

Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?

No, nor do I hold the belief that a god doesn't exist.  Nor do I believe it's possible to prove it either way.

Congratulations. You're an agnostic atheist, just like me.

Agnostic describes your third statement.
Atheist describes your first statement.
(Your second statement loosely means you're an "implicit" atheist as well, in case you care.)

MBooda: Whoa. We need a new Venn diagram.

We have one.  Smidge was kind enough to provide it just upthread. I'll repost it here to save your scrolling finger:

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 394x589]


I see it more like a Punnet square.
 
2013-03-27 07:59:35 PM

omeganuepsilon: my herniated disc:

my herniated disc: This is why vehement atheism doesn't seem that different than a religion to me.

In places, even in the US, a lot of vehement atheists are the way they are, over principles.  Even atheists are entitled to a belief in what's right and wrong, speakign civicly.

Seperation of Church and state is a very important philosophy if equality is important to you, and worth some heavy debate.  Even in the US it can be in danger of not being upheld, and indeed, in places like Polk County, Florida, there is a very abusive christian force in power.(Polk Under Prayer). In that case, atheists can and do fall under a sort of persecution, to include arrests, after protesting local civic assets going to church on the civic dime, etc.
http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1458  It's not laid out well, scattered about, you've got to do a bit of reading, but it's there.
They also "blessed" a road by praying that people who do not follow god be restricted from town and or put in jail.  The local atheists made headlines for "un-blessing" it, and got painted as trolls, but when one looked at the facts, they're fighting against intolerance, prejudice, and oppression.  Of course, that bit never made the news stories.


Fair enough. I am not from the States and rarely run into religious fundamentalists. I hear about them but I assumed (or hoped) they were fringe elements.

Most of the religious people I know are moderate Christians, unitarians, united church etc. Many of them support gay marriage, believe in evolution and see the bible more as a metaphor for creation. There are things in the bible that even the most fundamentalist christians don't practice so its not a huge stretch to believe in the overall message but not every single detail. When one starts considering the bible as man's interpretation of what was happening 2000 years ago then it is possible, I think to believe in the overall messages, yet not take the entire bible as absolute truth.

 In this sense, science and belief in god aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, if one suggests that god was around when the first cell separated millions of years ago and perhaps was he responsible of the first spark of life.  I personally have problems with that idea but thats the kind of christianity I seem to be exposed to. It seems to be a more open-minded kind of religion that does not exclude science.  Some people find solace or help through religion and I think maybe its good for many.  That's why I get irritated when people vehemently criticise other people's beliefs. Fierce criticism seems to cement people in their beliefs more than encourage healthy debate.


However, when fundamentalists start becoming mainstream and when there is a danger to the government remaining secular I can understand why atheists would become more vocal. I would want to as well. Its quite likely I have my head in the sand when it comes to religion since I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and see some of the positive aspects of it.  I may overlook the dangers of the application of religion to politics since to me it ceases being a religious issue at that point but a political issue. Islamic fundamentalists for instance may hate western civilsation but I see that as a political being relayed through religious concepts.  On the other hand, if people in power have strong religious views on gay marriage or abortion this could translate into their politics and actually force religious change onto an otherwise secular society.

blessing a road though? thats pretty whacky. Actually, now that I think of it,  I guess I have met a few nuttier specimens over the years. the nuttiest fundamentalists remind me of the pharisees from the bible.
 
2013-03-27 08:02:23 PM

Farking Canuck: SquiggsIN: i'm an antitheist AND an agnostic AND a person sick of everyone trying to define other peoples' beliefs.

Nobody is trying to define other people's beliefs. We are trying to reach a common language to be able to discuss the ideas.


Those who define the language frame the issues. Some people want to define "agnostic" within a framework that precisely distinguishes it from other concepts such as "atheist". However it does have one sense of not really caring about something and not thinking it is worth thinking deeply about. For example I am agnostic about professional wrestling - the little I know about it is enough to keep me from learning more.

Many people are agnostic about religion is this sense including many of the mildly religious. They say they don't care about fine distinctions but you say they must.
 
2013-03-27 08:25:42 PM

willfullyobscure: Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: Not me- The Catholic Church.Ohhhh... that explains the thousand year old reasoning then.  I'm not going to get into this stuff, first because it's a waste of time rehashing all of modern philosophy when we have a perfectly serviceable discussion going on, and second because I'm sure there are actual philosophy majors floating around who would be better at it than I.

glad to see that neither you OR Kant can refute the First Mover argument. After all, it provides a rational religious framework for evolution, empirical observation and experimental science, Bing Bang theory and relativity, so you're in good company.


You've forgotten your place sir. This thread, THIS one, is for all of us to call your believes bollocks.

all you're believes are belong to us! YOU'RE BOLLOCKS ARE OURS NOW!!!!

/Catholics, supporting the Devil since they tossed out the fourth commandment.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:46 PM

my herniated disc: Fair enough. I am not from the States and rarely run into religious fundamentalists. I hear about them but I assumed (or hoped) they were fringe elements.

Most of the religious people I know are moderate Christians, unitarians, united church etc. Many of them support gay marriage, believe in evolution and see the bible more as a metaphor for creation.


You sound pretty Canadian. That describes my experience too. I don't run into many of the 'bad kind' of Christians. Where I'm from, we get 'friendly to your face' Christians who then actively vote against women's rights and gay rights. The 'in your face' Christians are very readily dismissed as utter loons.
 
2013-03-27 08:52:40 PM

Z-clipped: I just wrote a paper on this about a week ago.  Basically, the current agreement between scientists and philosophers is that time is "real" in the sense that it is a physical part of the fabric of the space (Einstein), but that our perception of time's flow is an illusion (Parmenides, FTW in 500 BC).  Our position on the fabric is not special, so the future is deterministic but the "many worlds" interpretation of QM illustrates that we have infinite possible "predetermined" futures.  Many of the most promising prospects for a TOE require time to either be quantized, or imply that time is essentially meaningless below the Planck length, which effectively quantizes both time and space for our purposes.

I don't see how this really affects the religious argument though, except for the whole "quantum immortality" idea.  Still, as silly as it is, I think quantum immortality is enormously more likely than the existence of a mystical "soul" that carries our consciousness forward.


I'm ok with most of this and I especially agree that our perception of Time's flow to be BS. Parmenides, FTW indeed. I don't like using the word 'predetermined' because then you have to answer the ? of who or what did the determining. I have issues with the TOE.. not that there might not be one but my issue is that I don't think we humans at this point in our advancement could possibly ever get it right.

The Many Worlds theory for immortality is only immortality of an objective view. There may be many 'me's' in different worlds but in the subjective world if I die I don't believe I will 'wake up' in a different me that is still living. I think conscience's can and do die every day.

Also I am not ashamed to admit I had to look up 3 things you mentioned. So if my response is simple or crazy-talk it's only because I am not educated on this subject (and i'm crazy)
 
2013-03-27 09:43:21 PM

my herniated disc: However, when fundamentalists start becoming mainstream and when there is a danger to the government remaining secular I can understand why atheists would become more vocal.


Another couple very similar examples.  Native American law in the US, and Islamic Law in the UK.  Sure, both are small movements, but they are there.  They both want to go above and beyond the local law and have special powers and rights to prosecute and punish "offenders".

Some things, as in the Native american case, are already illegal, such as rape and domestic abuse from the white man.(Which, contrary to their poroposition, happens within the community and is more or less ignored)

As you may know, Sharia Law is much the same, but more extreme and varied in what it desires to establish.(that is one that is easily found on the google so I'll bypass an example).

my herniated disc: blessing a road though? thats pretty whacky


Blessing I have no problem with, I don't mind some ordinary rituals placed in good faith("god protect us from evil" and such, no harm in that).  This was different, it was a publicly displayed wish to keep out non-christians.

I had to retype it from a screenshot, but here's the exact quote from the ministry's website:
"If the will not submit to God's way of living, the the prayer is to have them incarcerated or removed from the county. "

Not just whacky but disturbing, much like the Westboro Baptists, which some people almost fear. Did you hear that there's a movement that wants to label them as a hate group?
Gods willing!

Yeah, these movements are localized and small in the grand scope of things, but without opposition there is a danger of them growing.  Certainly not fair to the local populace as it stands, and it should be fought on that principle alone.

We can fight overseas to liberate people, but let this go on at home by conveniently not knowing all the facts.  We'll hit a boiling point sooner or later and such things will have to be addressed, the media can downplay only so much.

*shrugs*

Anyhow, ranting aside...

my herniated disc: On the other hand, if people in power have strong religious views on gay marriage or abortion this could translate into their politics and actually force religious change onto an otherwise secular society.


IF?

I'll give you lenience here because you say you're not from the states.

I tried to describe it here, and figured it was a waste of space.  I'll sum it up, if I can, and be wary, it's likely to turn into a rant and a waste of space anyhow.

Our 2 party system is failing, because it's no longer about the issues, it's about toeing the line and not letting the other guy gain ground.  Christian conservatives do pretty much rule the republicans and push against civil rights for gays/women/etc.

On the other hand, christians and liberals alike, push against things like smoking to serving Coke in too large of a cup, etc.  No matter how you phrase it, it is an attempt to control what others do that you don't like, and results in, if not a loss of freedom, discouragement or inability to enjoy your freedom...for the people who happen to enjoy whatever hobby or substance it's popular to hate on.

It'll come around soon, it'll be alcohol(again, we didn't learn the first time apparently), or just having fun in sight of other human beings.

I think that's what it boils down to, people who just cannot abide by other people having fun and enjoying life. (angrychesskid.jpg)

We were the country that was comprised of all that was good(and well on our way to being better)...how the mighty have fallen.  Just more aggravation that will accelerate that boiling point I talked about.  People will only tolerate so much restriction and required self censor-ship(a liberal movement, have to speak in a politically correct fashion, "you don't speak(or think) like i do, so you're a lesser person")

You know the saying, "some people just want to watch the world burn".
I can understand it from a non-philosophical/poetic stand point.  It's getting the the point where we(as a whole) might just not deserve it anymore.
 
2013-03-27 10:06:50 PM

Farking Canuck:

But atheists are not putting forth a claim ... we are deciding if we feel the claim put forth by religious people, that gods exist, holds any water.

You may speak for yourself, but many people who call themselves atheists assert that THERE IS NO GOD.  And, yes, it often is in caps like that...
 
2013-03-27 10:11:03 PM

MBooda:

Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Indeed.   (God, I miss MXC)   However, lots of folk today are claiming to be atheist, and by that meaning only that nobody has proved it to them.  Then they deny God exists.   Personally, my belief is that they are chicken-shiat, and are trying to avoid being (accurately) labeled as a person of faith.
 
2013-03-27 10:15:21 PM

willfullyobscure: Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: Not me- The Catholic Church.Ohhhh... that explains the thousand year old reasoning then.  I'm not going to get into this stuff, first because it's a waste of time rehashing all of modern philosophy when we have a perfectly serviceable discussion going on, and second because I'm sure there are actual philosophy majors floating around who would be better at it than I.

glad to see that neither you OR Kant can refute the First Mover argument. After all, it provides a rational religious framework for evolution, empirical observation and experimental science, Bing Bang theory and relativity, so you're in good company.


Oh I CAN refute it, I'm just not going to. Let's see if YOU can figure out what's wrong with it.
 
2013-03-27 10:16:04 PM

Z-clipped:

How is it that you've never seen Bull Durham? Were you raised by wolves, man?!

Ha!    Wrong Kevin Costner movie: Dances with Bikers.
 
2013-03-27 10:22:04 PM

GeneralJim: MBooda: Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
Indeed.   (God, I miss MXC)   However, lots of folk today are claiming to be atheist, and by that meaning only that nobody has proved it to them.  Then they deny God exists.   Personally, my belief is that they are chicken-shiat, and are trying to avoid being (accurately) labeled as a person of faith.


Atheism is a hard thing to define, every one sees it in their personal definition.  At root, it means something akin to "non theist"

As such, be you agnostic, or disbeliever, or something like wiccan(?) or satanist, you fall under the category of Atheism.

As I entailed above, once you get on that side of the fence, the discussion is often just spliting of so many hairs, it's colloquially known as "non religious".  I can understand clarifying for religion like bodies that fall under the header of "non theist", but other than that, Atheist as itself really shouldn't be tied to hard to one of many definitions.

But when argued against people also implicitly tie it to "apathy".  As in people think we shouldn't care what's taught in schools or what laws are passed if we're not religious.

*shrugs*
 
2013-03-27 10:24:20 PM

MBooda: Z-clipped:

MBooda: Whoa. We need a new Venn diagram.

We have one.  Smidge was kind enough to provide it just upthread. I'll repost it here to save your scrolling finger:

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 394x589]

Man, that's not only subjective, it's downright selfish.  Theists and Atheists divide up all the Agnostics.  I feel like Poland in 1939.


Don't feel bad. You can be agnostic about a lot of things, not just gods... Its just that atheist/theist as its defined here is a binary position. You either have a belief, or you don't. So anyone who is agnostic about gods automatically falls into one of the two categories. And as long as you're willing to let go of the impulse to label all atheists as "strong" atheists, that's not really a big deal.
 
2013-03-27 10:26:46 PM
GeneralJim:
You may speak for yourself, but many people who call themselves atheists assert that THERE IS NO GOD.  And, yes, it often is in caps like that...

They exists. But the people who are actually make a claim are rare (as it is an unprovable and therefore illogical position). Of course the religious love to attack this position because they know they cannot be successful of attacking the position that the majority of us hold. It shows the weakness of your position that you insist on attacking the fringe group and pretend they represent the whole.

Indeed.   (God, I miss MXC)   However, lots of folk today are claiming to be atheist, and by that meaning only that nobody has proved it to them.  Then they deny God exists.   Personally, my belief is that they are chicken-shiat, and are trying to avoid being (accurately) labeled as a person of faith.

And here it is ... the foundation for your strawman. Is this a conspiracy too? What does the Urantia book have to say about this??

You are conflating the making of a claim of knowledge that god does not exist and simply evaluating the existing evidence and taking the position that it is unlikely that gods exist and therefore, until more evidence is provided, taking the position that god does not likely exist.

One is a claim made by very few people (again because it is impossible to prove) while the latter is standard deductive reasoning used by everyone every day on an infinite number of topics.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:05 PM

GeneralJim: MBooda: Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
Indeed.   (God, I miss MXC)   However, lots of folk today are claiming to be atheist, and by that meaning only that nobody has proved it to them.  Then they deny God exists.   Personally, my belief is that they are chicken-shiat, and are trying to avoid being (accurately) labeled as a person of faith.


I think it's cute how religious people need so badly to label atheists as "people of faith", because they just can't conceive of an existence without blind surrender to a higher authority. I'll admit that it used to annoy me, until I realized that it's not your fault- your brains are just wired that way.

It's not that we're chicken. It's actually the opposite: it's that we're brave enough to face our existence without believing in something silly simply because we want it to be true. I think death is probably the end of my consciousness, and that scares the crap out of me. But not so much that I need to invent some ridiculous daddy-figure up in the sky who's going to make it all better for me.
 
2013-03-27 11:11:14 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: But atheists are not putting forth a claim ... we are deciding if we feel the claim put forth by religious people, that gods exist, holds any water.
You may speak for yourself, but many people who call themselves atheists assert that THERE IS NO GOD.  And, yes, it often is in caps like that...


To elaborate on what FarkungCanuck said, the statement "there is no god" on its own has some inherent ambiguity.

I'll readily say that the Christian god is a silly idea, and that I'm confounded by adults who believe in such obviously fabricated nonsense- I've felt this way ever since I was 5 years old, and someone first proposed the idea of god to me. So it's fair to say that I think there's no such thing as gods.

However, just because I might say that in casual conversation doesn't mean that the belief isn't implicitly qualified by an agnostic position. Its just too cumbersome for most of us to always say, "I believe that god, while technically not completely impossible, is so unlikely and functionally indistinguishable from the Tooth Fairy that I deem the probability of his existence to be negligible."

As soon as theists stop misrepresenting my position as gnostic so that they can muster something akin to a rational argument against it, we can all just move on with our lives.
 
2013-03-27 11:13:09 PM

MBooda:

I feel like Poland in 1939.

You know who else felt like Poland in 1939, after a Czechoslovak appetiser?
 
2013-03-27 11:13:33 PM

Farking Canuck: GeneralJim:
You may speak for yourself, but many people who call themselves atheists assert that THERE IS NO GOD.  And, yes, it often is in caps like that...

They exists. But the people who are actually make a claim are rare (as it is an unprovable and therefore illogical position). Of course the religious love to attack this position because they know they cannot be successful of attacking the position that the majority of us hold. It shows the weakness of your position that you insist on attacking the fringe group and pretend they represent the whole.

Indeed.   (God, I miss MXC)   However, lots of folk today are claiming to be atheist, and by that meaning only that nobody has proved it to them.  Then they deny God exists.   Personally, my belief is that they are chicken-shiat, and are trying to avoid being (accurately) labeled as a person of faith.

And here it is ... the foundation for your strawman. Is this a conspiracy too? What does the Urantia book have to say about this??

You are conflating the making of a claim of knowledge that god does not exist and simply evaluating the existing evidence and taking the position that it is unlikely that gods exist and therefore, until more evidence is provided, taking the position that god does not likely exist.

One is a claim made by very few people (again because it is impossible to prove) while the latter is standard deductive reasoning used by everyone every day on an infinite number of topics.



It's like, someone took a global warming thread, and copy/pasted, but swapped the names.

Damn near word for word.

"Ignorant DEnier"

"Dude, I'm just skeptical!"

I'm not sure, but I would find it very humorous if GJ was playing you.
 
2013-03-27 11:21:27 PM

Z-clipped: To elaborate on what FarkungCanuck said, the statement "there is no god" on its own has some inherent ambiguity.


I went on at that at great length up thread, and have in several such threads.  Glad people grasp the concept and it's spreading.(not taking credit, just glad it's seeing the light of day).

Its a pedants argument.  Simple statements are meant to be taken with a grain of salt, as it were.

"There is no god" colloquially is not an absolute.  People should understand that, everyone does it, utter an offhand phrase in lieu of a multiparagraph diatribe.  It allows for efficiency, which allows for a better honing of intelligence, etc.
At this point in time, if someone says that, before accusations come out, clarification is needed. This is what is known as common courtesy.

"There is certainly no god" is an absolute. Flame away.
 
2013-03-27 11:34:14 PM

omeganuepsilon:

As such, be you agnostic, or disbeliever, or something like wiccan(?) or satanist, you fall under the category of Atheism.

Meh.  Wouldn't a Satanist be a theist?  On top of everything else, every (claimed) Satanist I have met DOES believe in God -- but works on the "other team."

And, from this and the rest of your post, it looks like you are claiming that "atheist" approximately equals "non-Christian."  Personally, I favor the "old names," in that a theist believed in gods or God, an agnostic did not have what they considered knowledge of God or gods' existence or lack thereof, and atheists believed that there was no real world analog of the "gods or God" idea.  With all these sliding definitions, we've lost the value of the words.  Now, rather than just saying "I'm an agnostic," it takes a paragraph or two to describe oneself.  I don't think that's an improvement.

 
2013-03-27 11:38:22 PM

GeneralJim: Meh.  Wouldn't a Satanist be a theist?


Sorry, when I say that I tend to think of a specific brand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

God and satan are symbolic only.  Prayers are mental practices for focus.  They "worship" themelves, etc.
 
2013-03-27 11:43:09 PM
Marilyn Manson was that kind of "satanist", typically when I hear about a "satanist" it's someone belonging to that group or just it's ideals.

Now the other satanists, the kids getting drunk in the graveyard, they're just dipshiats.

The other very few real worshipers of satan, most of them belong in an asylum of some sort, or at least therapy.
 
2013-03-27 11:45:51 PM

Farking Canuck:

And here it is ... the foundation for your strawman. Is this a conspiracy too? What does the Urantia book have to say about this??

We're having a nice, polite conversation here, and you have to start whipping religious hate around.  Fark you.  There is a BIG-ASSED difference between "I've never seen any proof of God, so I don't believe it" and "God does not exist." And I have seen a lot more anti-theists than atheists with a agnostic bent. But the process itself precludes having a good idea of proportional belief. An agnostic, or "soft atheist" is likely to go about their business, ignoring whatever other people might believe. It's the hard-core, arrogant prick in-your-face, Westboro Atheists, like you, who are easily identified. And since you jackasses are constantly braying about your superiority though disbelief in God, and your contempt for anyone with a differing opinion, it is trolls like you who identify atheism for most people. You're a poster child for You're-Not-Helping.
 
2013-03-27 11:49:09 PM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: As such, be you agnostic, or disbeliever, or something like wiccan(?) or satanist, you fall under the category of Atheism.
Meh.  Wouldn't a Satanist be a theist?  On top of everything else, every (claimed) Satanist I have met DOES believe in God -- but works on the "other team."
And, from this and the rest of your post, it looks like you are claiming that "atheist" approximately equals "non-Christian."  Personally, I favor the "old names," in that a theist believed in gods or God, an agnostic did not have what they considered knowledge of God or gods' existence or lack thereof, and atheists believed that there was no real world analog of the "gods or God" idea.  With all these sliding definitions, we've lost the value of the words.  Now, rather than just saying "I'm an agnostic," it takes a paragraph or two to describe oneself.  I don't think that's an improvement.


This is ironic since, in the 'old way', agnostic is not a noun. I will concede that modern use has created a meaning for it that is a noun describing a religious fence sitter ... but this meaning is fairly new.

The original use of the terms gnostic and agnostic are adjectives describing the surety of a person's position on a subject ... any subject - not just religion.

Personally I don't believe that a true fence sitter exists - but this is only my opinion. The way I see it, even if you are completely full of doubts of the existence of a god, in the end you either give deference to a divine being or not - you give 'holy men' some form of deference or not - you worry about 'taking the lord's name in vain or not' - you worry about judgement or not - etc.

If you fall on the 'not' sides of those equations then you are an atheist ... your doubts make you an agnostic atheist. Same if you worry about the above things "just in case" ... then you are an agnostic theist. Of course the true believers on both sides form the respective gnostics.

So you can take your new way of using the word agnostic and call it the 'old way'. I will stick to letting people tell me what their position is and then argue what they present. Strawmen are dishonest.
 
2013-03-28 12:02:49 AM

Z-clipped:

I think it's cute how religious people need so badly to label atheists as "people of faith", because they just can't conceive of an existence without blind surrender to a higher authority. I'll admit that it used to annoy me, until I realized that it's not your fault- your brains are just wired that way.

It's not that we're chicken. It's actually the opposite: it's that we're brave enough to face our existence without believing in something silly simply because we want it to be true. I think death is probably the end of my consciousness, and that scares the crap out of me. But not so much that I need to invent some ridiculous daddy-figure up in the sky who's going to make it all better for me.

Yes, yes, we all know atheists are God's special people.  Thanks for reminding me AGAIN of your superiority.  And, I AM speaking of the atheists who boldly claim that THERE IS NO GOD.  Unless you feel that there is conclusive proof of the lack of existence of God or gods, that is an irrational position of faith.

Now, I understand this position -- it used to be mine.  I was purest agnostic, and was sent to church (Sunday School) as a child, where a reaction against indoctrination made me quite unpopular.  The resistance to the indoctrination pushed me into disbelief, and cemented that idea firmly in my mind.  I was finally kicked out of Sunday School, which gave me a 2-day weekend.  My logic was the simple "There are hundreds of mutually-exclusive belief systems.  Most of them are easily shown to be ridiculous, so this is an obvious flaw in human thinking, and sufficient to provide cause for all religious belief, obviating first cause arguments for the existence of a primal cause."  I was a tireless campaigner against theism, and I knew the Bible word-for-word as the result of an eidetic memory.  And, as I found, there is no better way to deflate a religious argument from a Christian than to have the entire Bible at your fingertips.

So, I get it, and I was just as arrogant and loud-mouthed as any anti-theist.  I never passed up an opportunity to show my superiority over the fable-befuddled.  At least, that's the way it seemed to me at the time. And, yeah, I demanded respect for my position, while I denigrated the position of others. Any of this sound familiar?

 
2013-03-28 12:05:51 AM

omeganuepsilon:

I'm not sure, but I would find it very humorous if GJ was playing you

Hey, STFU -- I'm busy here.
 
2013-03-28 12:05:53 AM

GeneralJim: There is a BIG-ASSED difference between "I've never seen any proof of God, so I don't believe it" and "God does not exist." And I have seen a lot more anti-theists than atheists with a agnostic bent


This is because you insist that everyone who says "god does not exist" is actually making a claim of surety. This is wrong and, since it has been explained to you many times, you are being dishonest when you continue to intentionally misrepresent atheists this way. *profound sense of deja vu*

As Z-clipped explained above:
However, just because I might say that in casual conversation doesn't mean that the belief isn't implicitly qualified by an agnostic position. Its just too cumbersome for most of us to always say, "I believe that god, while technically not completely impossible, is so unlikely and functionally indistinguishable from the Tooth Fairy that I deem the probability of his existence to be negligible."

As soon as theists stop misrepresenting my position as gnostic so that they can muster something akin to a rational argument against it, we can all just move on with our lives


I have to admit that I do enjoy the irony in the fact that, in order to attack the common atheist position, religious people have to re-frame atheism as a religious belief. They are in effect admitting that there in an inherent flaw in religious belief which is assailable. It is especially entertaining that they are willing to resort to dishonesty to accomplish this undermining of their own positions ... an unethical tactic that their beliefs supposedly tells them not to do.
 
2013-03-28 12:09:38 AM

omeganuepsilon:

"There is no god" colloquially is not an absolute.

Actually, it is a simple declarative sentence.   I don't buy the waffling about how long other answers are.  How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."?   It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.
 
2013-03-28 12:14:18 AM

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: Meh.  Wouldn't a Satanist be a theist?

Sorry, when I say that I tend to think of a specific brand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

God and satan are symbolic only.  Prayers are mental practices for focus.  They "worship" themelves, etc.

No worries; normally I wouldn't mention it.  But this IS a thread very much about parsing the language... (LaVey is an orthodox egoist.)
 
2013-03-28 12:16:26 AM

omeganuepsilon:

Marilyn Manson was that kind of "satanist", typically when I hear about a "satanist" it's someone belonging to that group or just it's ideals.

Now the other satanists, the kids getting drunk in the graveyard, they're just dipshiats.

The other very few real worshipers of satan, most of them belong in an asylum of some sort, or at least therapy.

Yeah, I agree on all points you make here -- especially the "dipshiat" point.
 
2013-03-28 12:17:47 AM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: "There is no god" colloquially is not an absolute.
Actually, it is a simple declarative sentence.   I don't buy the waffling about how long other answers are.  How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."?   It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.


How hard is it to not assume that everyone matches the strawman you built? If you are unsure then ask ... people will usually happily give you a two sentence explanation as no terms are standardized nor will they ever completely apply to an individual.

Declaring that everyone must use your approved terminology is a cop-out. You are not interested in the truth [* more deja-vu *] ... you are interested in scoring argument points.
 
2013-03-28 12:23:46 AM

Farking Canuck:

This is ironic since, in the 'old way', agnostic is not a noun. I will concede that modern use has created a meaning for it that is a noun describing a religious fence sitter ... but this meaning is fairly new.

The original use of the terms gnostic and agnostic are adjectives describing the surety of a person's position on a subject ... any subject - not just religion.

Not true.  Thousands of years ago, there were Gnostics, meaning those who know.  Adding an "a" is not much of a stretch - those who DON'T know.
 
2013-03-28 12:27:04 AM

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: "There is no god" colloquially is not an absolute.
Actually, it is a simple declarative sentence.   I don't buy the waffling about how long other answers are.  How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."?   It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.


True, on a technicality, but wielded in that manner it's not typically done in these threads except by people trolling.  As I mentioned up thread, when you sit down and rationally talk to these people, they admit the possibility.  In normal conversation it is typically off-handed(lazy if nothing else), on fark it's usually stated with purpose. They typically word it exactly that way to incite a riot.

I agree in general, it is "you're not helping" as far as fark goes.

I don't think it's worth making a point out of at any rate.(specific instances in context maybe)

Your interactions with FC aside, of course.  Fun seeing him almost quote me verbatim from those other threads.
 
2013-03-28 12:28:04 AM

Farking Canuck:

This is because you insist that everyone who says "god does not exist" is actually making a claim of surety. This is wrong and, since it has been explained to you many times, you are being dishonest when you continue to intentionally misrepresent atheists this way. *profound sense of deja vu*

Nope.  I'm talking about people I have talked with, and I'm not basing this on any one-liner.  I would say that your mistake is that you fail to account how much LOUDER anti-theists are.  I factor this in, and realize that I really don't have a good idea how this "splits," as you don't hear from the agnostics much.  They don't have a point they are pushing.
 
2013-03-28 12:31:10 AM

Farking Canuck:

I have to admit that I do enjoy the irony in the fact that, in order to attack the common atheist position, religious people have to re-frame atheism as a religious belief. They are in effect admitting that there in an inherent flaw in religious belief which is assailable. It is especially entertaining that they are willing to resort to dishonesty to accomplish this undermining of their own positions ... an unethical tactic that their beliefs supposedly tells them not to do.

And I enjoy, in a thread where you have repeatedly biatched about people setting up a "straw man" and arguing against that, that you do the same to me.  Do you feel it is rational to expect better treatment than you give to others?
 
2013-03-28 12:45:20 AM

Farking Canuck:

How hard is it to not assume that everyone matches the strawman you built? If you are unsure then ask ... people will usually happily give you a two sentence explanation as no terms are standardized nor will they ever completely apply to an individual.

Declaring that everyone must use your approved terminology is a cop-out. You are not interested in the truth [* more deja-vu *] ... you are interested in scoring argument points.

Sorry...  This post apparently was supposed to be for you, and was mis-addressed.

Do you see what I mean?  For example, since it's only this one thread, please show me where I say that everyone must use my terminology?  You are setting up a straw man as you complain about that behavior, of which I am not guilty.  And, if I am to deconstruct English so fully that "There is no God" might mean "There could be a God, I'm just not sure" what CAN I assume from what someone says?  Do you think you could communicate more clearly in French?  We can do that if you'd like, although I would imagine that your hypocrisy and straw-man problems would be present in any language you might use.

 
2013-03-28 02:37:48 AM

Farking Canuck: This is ironic since, in the 'old way', agnostic is not a noun. I will concede that modern use has created a meaning for it that is a noun describing a religious fence sitter ... but this meaning is fairly new.


It's worth noting in reference to all of GJ's "Westboro Atheist" claims that this terminology is "new" because it's only recently that anyone has bothered to explore and contemplate the atheist positions in depth and in a positive way, since doing so publicly in the past would get you universally ostracized, banished, tortured, or executed, depending on the location and social epoch.

American Christians seem to get really bent out of shape that atheists are finally able to be open about their beliefs and assert themselves in government.  I guess when someone has been meekly handing over their lunch money for 200 years, it comes as a bit of shock when decide they want to sit at the table too.

GeneralJim: Thanks for reminding me AGAIN of your superiority.


If it bothers you, you might refrain from implying that I'm a "chicken-shiat" in the first place.

This echoes the typical passive-aggressive religious bullshiat I'm talking about above:
"God says you're a bad person and you're going to hell if you don't shun gays and pray before the town meeting."
"I don't believe in your god, so I'm not going to do those things."
"Why are all of these ATHEISTS so MILITANT!?  Why can they just respect my beliefs?"

GeneralJim: How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."? It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.


If only.  And yet here we are discussing what the atheists you've invented in your head say, instead of what people are actually saying.

GeneralJim: Not true. Thousands of years ago, there were Gnostics, meaning those who know. Adding an "a" is not much of a stretch - those who DON'T know.


Philosophy evolves.  Terms are re-purposed.  It happens.  The use of gnostic in my posts is not related to the Gnostics you're referring to.

GeneralJim: And, if I am to deconstruct English so fully that "There is no God" might mean "There could be a God, I'm just not sure" what CAN I assume from what someone says?


So how do you feel about the phrase "There is no Santa Claus"?  Does it provoke you to argue?  What do you assume about the person who says it?

We're only parsing terms and debating the finer points of epistemology here because the number one immediate retort by theists to "There is no God" is to assume the claim is being made with gnosis, and invoke the burden of proof.  Any argument against Santa Claus can be leveled just as effectively against God.  The dismissal of God by atheists is no different from whatever reasoning you use to dismiss Santa (assuming you do, of course.)

If you just assumed that anyone who says "There is no God" or "God doesn't exist" without qualification really means, "For all intents, in all reasonable likelihood, allowing for the fact that a negative cannot be conclusively proven, I think that there's no God", you would probably avoid the problems you're having (pretending to have).  Sure, there are wackos out there who claim to know for certain, epistemologically that God doesn't exist, but I'm confident that their crazy will manifest noticeably outside of that one statement, just like I don't need to ask whack-job fundamentalists about their theological beliefs because it's obvious from the fact that they're bombing abortion clinics, pushing Intelligent Design in the classroom, or trying to get a prayer read before state government assemblies.
 
2013-03-28 02:48:30 AM

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: "There is no god" colloquially is not an absolute.

Actually, it is a simple declarative sentence.   I don't buy the waffling about how long other answers are.  How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."?   It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.

True, on a technicality, but wielded in that manner it's not typically done in these threads except by people trolling.  As I mentioned up thread, when you sit down and rationally talk to these people, they admit the possibility.  In normal conversation it is typically off-handed(lazy if nothing else), on fark it's usually stated with purpose. They typically word it exactly that way to incite a riot.

Well, yeah...  But, among other things, "I don't believe in God" is a statement about one's own mind, and only an idiot would argue with someone about what the other person is thinking -- not that it doesn't happen to me regularly on Fark, but, as I say, only by idiots.  Making such "I believe" statements should provide some measure of flame-retardation.  And, unless one is an arrogant prat, there really is no reason to imply that one has ultimate knowledge of the more important questions of life.

 
2013-03-28 02:50:42 AM

omeganuepsilon:

Your interactions with FC aside, of course. Fun seeing him almost quote me verbatim from those other threads.

I get the impression he doesn't have many thoughts of his own, and generally quotes SOMETHING.

/ (Don't tell him I said that...)

 
2013-03-28 02:53:13 AM

Z-clipped:

GeneralJim: Thanks for reminding me AGAIN of your superiority.

If it bothers you, you might refrain from implying that I'm a "chicken-shiat" in the first place.

Now THAT'S a fair cop.   Sorry.
 
2013-03-28 02:55:01 AM

GeneralJim: So, I get it, and I was just as arrogant and loud-mouthed as any anti-theist.


It is not arrogant to claim there is no God, in the sense that the vast majority of atheists make the claim.  It's completely rational to dismiss the notion of any (specific) given deity as irrelevant, vastly unlikely, and preposterous.  It is also not "disrespectful" to push for adherence to separation of Church and State.

The fact that Xians in the US (and Muslims in some other places.. i doubt Jews would really care) aren't used to having their overwhelming social dominance given anything but the widest berth is the only reason doing so is viewed any differently from the analogous theist behaviors that permeate society, from evangelism to open affirmation to what's printed on our money to common expressions used when we sneeze.

Also, I've never been forced to attend a church service, and I never had religious indoctrination pushed on me as a child.  As I said earlier, I decided god was "pretend for grownups" very early on.  I think your own experiences with religion and the reactions you had to them are coloring your view of others on this topic.  You should try to step back from them a bit, perhaps.
 
2013-03-28 02:58:23 AM

GeneralJim: Now THAT'S a fair cop. Sorry.


No sweat.  I'm here to help, not fight.  If I've become spiky at any point, you have my apologies as well.
 
2013-03-28 03:09:54 AM

GeneralJim: "I don't believe in God" is a statement about one's own mind, and only an idiot would argue with someone about what the other person is thinking


Agreed, a little honesty goes a long ways.

"There is no god" as an offhand comment.  Of course, I'll still say it.  It's an attention getter.  Not an attention whore, but in today's ADHD addled world, it can serve the purpose.  Lots of teachers employ the practice to great effect.  It can generate interest and create focus, sharpen the mind in general.

I think that may be why people mistake me for a troll on fark, they totally miss that concept of communication.  Serves another purpose in that regard.  Shows me who the reactionary contrarians are.
 
2013-03-28 03:16:17 AM

Z-clipped:


So how do you feel about the phrase "There is no Santa Claus"? Does it provoke you to argue? What do you assume about the person who says it?

How do I feel?  I would think that the person saying it doesn't believe that Santa Claus is real.  That would not surprise me.  As to arguing...  I just MIGHT be tempted to point out that SC is based upon a real person, but that lots of stories built up around this person.  Incidentally, I might say the same to someone who said "There is no Jesus."  Of course, some things are easier to prove than others...

www.nobodygoeshere.com
 
2013-03-28 03:21:57 AM

Z-clipped:

GeneralJim: So, I get it, and I was just as arrogant and loud-mouthed as any anti-theist.

It is not arrogant to claim there is no God, in the sense that the vast majority of atheists make the claim. It's completely rational to dismiss the notion of any (specific) given deity as irrelevant, vastly unlikely, and preposterous. It is also not "disrespectful" to push for adherence to separation of Church and State.

How about you take my word for it?  I was loud-mouthed and arrogant, as very many anti-theists are. The things you say CAN be done appropriately -- but often are not. For example, any argument that includes the phrase "Sky Wizard" is likely to be of the sort I am discussing.
 
2013-03-28 03:25:49 AM

Z-clipped:

GeneralJim: Now THAT'S a fair cop. Sorry.

No sweat.  I'm here to help, not fight.  If I've become spiky at any point, you have my apologies as well.

*SNIFF*  Now's when we go out for beers.... And, yeah, you have, but it's also no big deal; I expect it.
 
2013-03-28 03:35:31 AM

omeganuepsilon:

I think that may be why people mistake me for a troll on fark, they totally miss that concept of communication. Serves another purpose in that regard. Shows me who the reactionary contrarians are.

Har...  Good idea.  For myself, I tend to be outrageously literal.  If I am asserting that there is no God, I will say "There is no God."  If I'm not certain of it I'll say "I don't believe there is a God" which covers it nicely.  If I want to be more forthcoming, I'll say "I don't believe there's a God, but I wouldn't be shocked to find out I'm wrong about that.  The evidence so far sucks."  I've probably said close analogues of all of those statements at one time or another.

My theory is that communications between two human beings are so freaking noisy that it makes no sense to add any avoidable noise to the process.  I know -- I'm weird.  I worked at a world-class datacomm company... so nerdy that if someone was lost in thought and missed something someone said to them, the normal response was "NAK."  And I liked that. I'm a fan of all sorts of techniques, such as ideational encoding, or as most people know it, speaking in parables.

 
2013-03-28 03:53:20 AM

GeneralJim: How do I feel? I would think that the person saying it doesn't believe that Santa Claus is real. That would not surprise me


OK, so if "There is no Santa" == "I don't believe in Santa", why isn't "There is no God" == "I don't believe in God"?  Why does God require some special brand of epistemological hand-wringing qualification while Santa doesn't?  Why don't people come out with "Well, absence of evidence for Santa isn't evidence of Santa's absence"?

Why is it perfectly acceptable to dismiss Santa in polite conversation, but not God?

GeneralJim: How about you take my word for it? I was loud-mouthed and arrogant


Oh, I wasn't disputing that part... ; )

GeneralJim: as very many anti-theists are.


Can you point to any in this thread?

GeneralJim: The things you say CAN be done appropriately -- but often are not. For example, any argument that includes the phrase "Sky Wizard" is likely to be of the sort I am discussing.


I can't speak to the exact instances you're referring to, but in my experience, the "Invisible Sky Wizard" talk generally comes out in situations where some religious jerk has drawn first blood.  Like for example when TFA is a story about one of the seemingly daily instances of blatant Christian hypocrisy over town holiday displays, or the justification of insufferable bigotry or anti-feminism on religious grounds.  I can't really blame people for getting a little snarky when Christians complain that they aren't being allowed to trample someone else's rights, or aren't being given the special treatment under the law that they're used to enjoying.

I'm not out to to rub logic in the face of every Xian I meet and tell them they're stupid, but that doesn't mean I'm going to gently patronize their delicate belief-system while they act entitled and petulant either.  Respect is earned where respect is given, you dig?
 
2013-03-28 04:03:50 AM

omeganuepsilon: I think that may be why people mistake me for a troll on fark, they totally miss that concept of communication. Serves another purpose in that regard. Shows me who the reactionary contrarians are.


I'll admit, we've had serious communication issues in threads like these before, where I was only willing to drop the impression that you were trolling because you had the patience to hash things out in extended fashion.  I'm glad that we're seeing eye-to-eye these days.  The written word is not the most effective means of communication, and while I'm willing to debate politely with anyone who argues honestly, I have the unfortunate flaw of quickly becoming hostile when I suspect that someone isn't genuine.  And even though we've come to verbal blows in threads before, I have no doubt that we'd get along fine in person.
 
2013-03-28 09:20:40 AM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: I have to admit that I do enjoy the irony in the fact that, in order to attack the common atheist position, religious people have to re-frame atheism as a religious belief. They are in effect admitting that there in an inherent flaw in religious belief which is assailable. It is especially entertaining that they are willing to resort to dishonesty to accomplish this undermining of their own positions ... an unethical tactic that their beliefs supposedly tells them not to do.

And I enjoy, in a thread where you have repeatedly biatched about people setting up a "straw man" and arguing against that, that you do the same to me.  Do you feel it is rational to expect better treatment than you give to others?


You should note that this was an aside directed at "religious people" ... not everything is about you. But, when you insist that everyone who says "god is not real" is a gnostic atheist, you are doing it.

It is not a strawman. it is an extremely common occurrence in every religious thread including this one.
 
2013-03-28 09:32:28 AM

GeneralJim: Do you see what I mean? For example, since it's only this one thread, please show me where I say that everyone must use my terminology?


I don't buy the waffling about how long other answers are.  How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."?   It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.

This is what I was referring to. You are justifying your categorizing of people as gnostic atheists because they are not clarifying things well enough for you.

But, as Z-clipped pointed out in his Santa example, you don't insist on this level of clarity for other subjects. Apparently it is acceptable for me to say "GeneralJim can't fly like Superman" without it being labeled as a religious belief but if I say the same thing about gods it is.

Why the inconsistency?
 
2013-03-28 01:11:20 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: But atheists are not putting forth a claim ... we are deciding if we feel the claim put forth by religious people, that gods exist, holds any water.
You may speak for yourself, but many people who call themselves atheists assert that THERE IS NO GOD.  And, yes, it often is in caps like that...


Often Antitheists pose as Atheist in order to rant under their banner.

I'm an Agnostic Theist myself.
 
2013-03-28 01:51:51 PM

Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: I have to admit that I do enjoy the irony in the fact that, in order to attack the common atheist position, religious people have to re-frame atheism as a religious belief. They are in effect admitting that there in an inherent flaw in religious belief which is assailable. It is especially entertaining that they are willing to resort to dishonesty to accomplish this undermining of their own positions ... an unethical tactic that their beliefs supposedly tells them not to do.

And I enjoy, in a thread where you have repeatedly biatched about people setting up a "straw man" and arguing against that, that you do the same to me.  Do you feel it is rational to expect better treatment than you give to others?

You should note that this was an aside directed at "religious people" ... not everything is about you. But, when you insist that everyone who says "god is not real" is a gnostic atheist, you are doing it.

It is not a strawman. it is an extremely common occurrence in every religious thread including this one.


That's a Gnostic Atheist statement and there's no other interpetation I can think of. What the Hell do you think it means?
 
2013-03-28 02:01:07 PM

RedVentrue: That's a Gnostic Atheist statement and there's no other interpetation I can think of. What the Hell do you think it means?


I take it you haven't read the other posts.

When someone says "Santa is not real" are they accused of forming religious beliefs on the subject?

The statement certainly can be gnostic but it is commonly accepted that the preceding clause [see what I did there?] of "In my opinion," has been left off for brevity's sake.

But it seems that, when it comes to gods, religious people will not give you that leeway that is afforded everyone on every other subject. Why is that?
 
2013-03-28 02:09:23 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: That's a Gnostic Atheist statement and there's no other interpetation I can think of. What the Hell do you think it means?

I take it you haven't read the other posts.

When someone says "Santa is not real" are they accused of forming religious beliefs on the subject?

The statement certainly can be gnostic but it is commonly accepted that the preceding clause [see what I did there?] of "In my opinion," has been left off for brevity's sake.

But it seems that, when it comes to gods, religious people will not give you that leeway that is afforded everyone on every other subject. Why is that?


I read the posts. There is nothing unambiuous about "There is no God", and when there are no other qualifying statements to go along with it, then it is Gnostic Atheist. If you mean something else, then say something else.
 
2013-03-28 02:09:53 PM
Hey, here's a cool one. (Sorry for the size.)

i2.ytimg.com
All atheists and theists divided up between agnostics and gnostics!  Now it's your turn to be 1939 Poland.
 
2013-03-28 02:22:01 PM

RedVentrue: I read the posts. There is nothing unambiuous about "There is no God", and when there are no other qualifying statements to go along with it, then it is Gnostic Atheist. If you mean something else, then say something else.


I guess we all belong to thousands of religious then because we are not specific enough to please you.
 
2013-03-28 02:27:29 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: I read the posts. There is nothing unambiuous about "There is no God", and when there are no other qualifying statements to go along with it, then it is Gnostic Atheist. If you mean something else, then say something else.

I guess we all belong to thousands of religious then because we are not specific enough to please you.


Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.
 
2013-03-28 02:36:02 PM

RedVentrue: Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.


No problem. Who cares what a person's actual position is ... we'll label them based on semantic interpretations of their words (even though we don't do this on any other topic).

Got ya!
 
2013-03-28 02:51:31 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.

No problem. Who cares what a person's actual position is ... we'll label them based on semantic interpretations of their words (even though we don't do this on any other topic).

Got ya!


Of course we do. Ever been participated in a Fark Global Warming thead, or the Politics tab?
 
2013-03-28 02:51:53 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: Right, but don't get bent out of shape when someone interpets what you mean by what you say, and not what you meant in your head.

No problem. Who cares what a person's actual position is ... we'll label them based on semantic interpretations of their words (even though we don't do this on any other topic).

Got ya!


Meh, common tactic used as a last resort of the weaker argument. Pedant Power!

Like I said, it's a good measure for people to test who's going to kneejerk react to the phrase, and who's going to more simply and level headedly ask for clarification of a very very common phrase and in general be willing to discuss something rationally.

But, as I've seen your behavior in other threads, and directly at me, when it's employed by people who often spout kneejerk reactions themselves, it's no longer valid in that sense. It becomes a misleading trap.  Intent and implementation is key.
 
2013-03-28 03:02:27 PM

omeganuepsilon: But, as I've seen your behavior in other threads


Heh heh ... you should see the tag I have for you.
 
2013-03-28 03:08:17 PM

RedVentrue: Of course we do. Ever been participated in a Fark Global Warming thead, or the Politics tab?


I don't go into the politics tab.

As for GW threads - they are usually fought with links to scientific papers or partisan blogs (no need to go into who links to which).

Whereas, theism/religion/etc is entirely about people's opinions, beliefs, and positions. The two topics are not really similar.
 
2013-03-28 03:12:11 PM

Farking Canuck: The two topics are not really similar.


LOL

They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.

Ala:

Farking Canuck: omeganuepsilon: But, as I've seen your behavior in other threads

Heh heh ... you should see the tag I have for you.

 
2013-03-28 03:32:37 PM

omeganuepsilon: They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.


Yeah that's exactly what happens.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
- Isaac  Asimov
 
2013-03-28 03:45:21 PM

Farking Canuck: RedVentrue: Of course we do. Ever been participated in a Fark Global Warming thead, or the Politics tab?

I don't go into the politics tab.

As for GW threads - they are usually fought with links to scientific papers or partisan blogs (no need to go into who links to which).

Whereas, theism/religion/etc is entirely about people's opinions, beliefs, and positions. The two topics are not really similar.


I think the only real difference between the two subjects are the initials following the names of the papers'/ blogs' authors. Both are espousing beliefs and world veiws that are incompatable to the opponents view. One is a philososphical argument, the other an arguement about data interpetation and the implications of the data. Neither arguement currently has enough data for a conclusive determination, but we all still need to coninve each other we are "Right", don't we?
 
2013-03-28 03:45:51 PM
Yes, it's always everyone else who's an anti-intellectual, never you.

That's why you're finding yourself loathed by religious people as well as people like myself, and held in contempt for your behavior.

If multiple people from a wide variety of backgrounds consistently have problems with 1 specifiic other person, and over a wide variety of topics, that specific person tends to be the asshole.

You are That Guy.
 
2013-03-28 03:46:38 PM
coninve = convince
 
2013-03-28 03:50:34 PM

RedVentrue: coninve = convince


Funny, because I thought you might have meant connive or contrive as well, both oddly fitting.
 
2013-03-28 03:54:37 PM

omeganuepsilon: You are That Guy.


The guy who gets his science from scientists instead of politicians and oil execs. The guy who does not seek wisdom from books written by violent, sadistic cavemen or from men who claim to speak to god. They guy who asks that people argue against his position instead of the words he chooses to call his position.

The guy who is not remotely apologetic about any of the above.

Yes, I am that guy.

www.topofarmer.com
 
2013-03-28 04:22:07 PM

Farking Canuck: scientists instead of politicians


I like how you pretend those are two exclusive groups.

As to the rest of your post, mental masturbation.  Poor wittle FC got his feewings hurt when legitimately called out as an impotent douche and had to prove his virility by going on at length about his largely imagined strengths.  I can almost picture you doing daily affirmations in front of a mirror, and then crying yourself to sleep.

With you it's always a dick measuring contest, you take it, and make it, personal.   Address the arguments?  That's a flat out lie, same as your other self flattery.  You are a Fallacy Queen, ruler of the land of misdirection, deceit, and non sequiturs.

/look out, we have a badass over here . jpg
 
2013-03-28 05:05:03 PM

omeganuepsilon: RedVentrue: coninve = convince

Funny, because I thought you might have meant connive or contrive as well, both oddly fitting.


It could have been. :)
 
2013-03-28 08:16:25 PM

omeganuepsilon: Poor wittle FC got his feewings hurt when legitimately called out as an impotent douche and had to prove his virility by going on at length about his largely imagined strengths. I can almost picture you doing daily affirmations in front of a mirror, and then crying yourself to sleep.


Wow! Where did this come from?? I was legitimately enjoying our banter here.

Physician heal thyself.
 
2013-03-28 08:28:36 PM

Farking Canuck: I was legitimately enjoying our banter here.


"Our" banter?  You thought you were contributing in a positive manner?
lol

Farking Canuck: Wow! Where did this come from??


Dude, I quoted the farking post where all you do is attempt to talk yourself up with lies about how awesome you are.  It's only like 3 posts above this one.

You being a dick and several disparate people calling you on it is not "banter".  Deluding yourself into believing it only supports our argument.
 
2013-03-28 08:37:07 PM
Somebody missed their nap.

* backs away slowly *
 
2013-03-28 08:40:39 PM
About damned time.

/Try not to suck any dick on your way to the parking lot.
 
2013-03-28 10:45:54 PM

Farking Canuck: Somebody missed their nap.

* backs away slowly *


If you are going to speak in a rude or arrogant tone, then don't be suprised when you get it sent back to you.
 
2013-03-29 05:39:48 AM

Farking Canuck:

GeneralJim: Do you see what I mean? For example, since it's only this one thread, please show me where I say that everyone must use my terminology?

I don't buy the waffling about how long other answers are.  How hard is it to say "I don't believe in God."?   It's only one word longer, and it avoids ambiguity.

This is what I was referring to. You are justifying your categorizing of people as gnostic atheists because they are not clarifying things well enough for you.

So, you are saying that asking for further clarity is the same thing as demanding that everyone use my terminology, eh?  You're a very special kind of stupid, aren't you?

 
2013-03-29 05:54:29 AM

Farking Canuck:

omeganuepsilon: They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.

Yeah that's exactly what happens.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

- Isaac  Asimov

Yes, exactly.  It's like when I tell you (and others, of course) that I know the characteristics of feedback systems, and looking at the Vostok ice core records shows conclusively that carbon dioxide level change is NOT a major controller of temperature, and carbon dioxide level does NOT have a 2x positive feedback. Then, you argue that, despite fact that you do NOT know the characteristics of feedback systems, your ignorance is not only is as good as, it OVERRIDES my knowledge of the subject.

 
2013-03-29 05:59:47 AM

Farking Canuck:

As for GW threads - they are usually fought with links to scientific papers or partisan blogs (no need to go into who links to which).
I do find it amusing that the warmer alarmist crowd has gone from posting links to "peer-reviewed" papers, claiming practical infallibility for them through the magic of peer review, while ridiculing anyone who questioned either the paper itself, the data upon which it was based, or its applicability to the situation at hand as "deniers" -- to people who post links to the partisan blog "skepticalscience.com" and deny every single peer-reviewed paper brought in as evidence.
 
2013-03-29 06:02:03 AM

omeganuepsilon:

RedVentrue: coninve = convince

Funny, because I thought you might have meant connive or contrive as well, both oddly fitting.

Meh, just call it "the 'C' word," and be done with it.
 
2013-03-29 06:07:52 AM

Farking Canuck:

The guy who is not remotely apologetic about any of the above.

Yes, I am that guy.

www.topofarmer.com

i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-29 09:38:29 AM
Thread's over ... so here comes the green threadshiat.
 
2013-03-29 11:25:51 AM

Farking Canuck: Thread's over ... so here comes the green threadshiat.


Didn't mommy and daddy love you enough?  Is this why you seek out any attention, even negative? Seriously, if desperation were a cheap cologne, you could choke people to death with yours.
 
2013-03-29 04:57:09 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: omeganuepsilon: They are both based on taking the word of others for granted, certain parties in both threads simply do not allow for a skeptical view, they write them off as anti- with hardly any though or reason, more of an emotional judgement.
Yeah that's exactly what happens. "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac  AsimovYes, exactly.  It's like when I tell you (and others, of course) that I know the characteristics of feedback systems, and looking at the Vostok ice core records shows conclusively that carbon dioxide level change is NOT a major controller of temperature, and carbon dioxide level does NOT have a 2x positive feedback. Then, you argue that, despite fact that you do NOT know the characteristics of feedback systems, your ignorance is not only is as good as, it OVERRIDES my knowledge of the subject.


Knowledge is not a democracy, but a popularity contest. Miss Peer Review maybe?
 
2013-03-30 04:38:43 AM

RedVentrue:

Knowledge is not a democracy, but a popularity contest. Miss Peer Review maybe?

Peer review?  Of knowledge of feedback systems?   It doesn't work that way.  There might be a test that one could take.  On the other hand, I did spend time designing the suckers -- perhaps that will count?

/ Or, perhaps I missed your point?
 
2013-03-30 12:43:54 PM
 
2013-03-30 02:30:08 PM

GeneralJim: RedVentrue: Knowledge is not a democracy, but a popularity contest. Miss Peer Review maybe?
Peer review?  Of knowledge of feedback systems?   It doesn't work that way.  There might be a test that one could take.  On the other hand, I did spend time designing the suckers -- perhaps that will count?

/ Or, perhaps I missed your point?


Only that the unpopular opinion is usually considered the "wrong" opinion, and the popular opinion is considered "right", regardless of evidence or support (or lack thereof).  Usually a generation of scientists have to retire before the prevailing opinion changes. I hope you are a patient person.

Speaking of GW models. They predict what they are programmed to predict because of the way the model parameters are designed, and are not a reflection of the real Earth, yet are considered proof of the "DANGER" we are all in. We don't even know what we don't know.
 
Displayed 531 of 531 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report