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.

(Snopes)   South Carolina church tells pupils the Earth is only thousands of years old, dinosaurs lived with man, and how to snap back at anyone who tells them different. Sorry, did I say church? Make that a fourth grade classroom   (snopes.com) divider line 464
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14960 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 04:11:23 PM  
 
2013-04-26 04:19:32 PM  

lordaction: dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.


Lordaction, you're my favorite troll of the thread. You almost had be believing you where real.

Next time, try being a bit subtle, don't post an obvious profile pic.

Teh Winnar is you!

farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-04-26 04:23:19 PM  

mephox: Better yet, ask them to point to the exact passage in the bible that says the earth was created on such and such date. They can't because its not there.


Actually, it's about a dozen or so passages all in all. The time spans given for separating various events can be added up to get to the time between creation and the return from Babylonian exile, which then dates to external chronologies.

Of course, measurement uncertainties leave about two decades of uncertainty (assuming conventional "significant figures" precision), and there's some internal inconsistencies -- but those are separate questions from there being at least one answer from the Bible.

I sound fat: Both theories are equally theories.


img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.


kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion.


It's the same as with any kind of science-religion incompatibility: it depends whether you're dealing with them as bodies of knowledge or abstract methodologies. While potentially compatible, in particular instance they can collide.

Ranger Rover: So what's the right answer? How do we balance these objectives?


Social but not legal sanction. Have religious "education" be legal, but publicly mocked whenever the civilized world hear about it.

grxymkjbn: But logic is not a creation of humans, it's merely an astute observation OF realty.


It's not limited to talking about reality; it's more a means for connecting ideas.

grxymkjbn: The first law of logic is called the law of identity and states that a thing IS what it IS: A=A.


I prefer starting with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction. (The reflexive property usually can get derived from other more necessary axioms.)
Try putting down the Ayn Rand and looking up the proof of the Robbins Conjecture.
 
2013-04-26 04:27:12 PM  
where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old?
 
2013-04-26 04:30:10 PM  

shortymac: lordaction: dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.

Lordaction, you're my favorite troll of the thread. You almost had be believing you where real.

Next time, try being a bit subtle, don't post an obvious profile pic.

Teh Winnar is you!

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 300x441]


Thanks.  I really destroyed those liberal bastards, didn't I?
 
2013-04-26 04:32:42 PM  

RobSeace: a_real_human_being: As Webster's suggests, an atheist is: "one who believes that there is no deity."

Yeah, but I prefer the OED definition instead: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods...

Again, due to the scientific method, I cannot categorically state that there is NO "diety", because: (a) that's an INSANELY vague statement. (b) there's no convincing evidence one way or the other.

It's not about stating categorically what the absolute reality of the situation is, but merely about stating your belief about what the situation is... I think most of us atheists are indeed agnostic as well... We don't claim absolute knowledge that there's no god... We just don't believe in one... Many of us may even actively disbelieve that there are any at all... But, you show us some evidence of one, and we might change our minds... Until then, we'll choose to believe there's probably not one... Just like we go on believing there's probably no bigfoot or Loch Ness Monster, even though there could possibly be...


Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"

In my experience, when people tell me they're an atheist, they are responding to definition (b). Indeed, with that definition, I am a firm atheist.

However, under the first definition, I am a firm agnostic, as I have no empirical evidence that points in one direction or the other. I have my own speculative opinion (as do you), of course, but in order to keep some sort of meaningful distinction between the terms agnostic and atheist, I believe that I should fall in the agnostic category.

Finally, I think the Loch Ness monster is perhaps not the best analogy. Yep, there definitely COULD be a Loch Ness monster, but I have significant empirical evidence that points to their not being one. This is in contrast to the issue of whether or not there is a "God or gods" (whatever that means), where I find such evidence lacking in either direction.
 
2013-04-26 04:34:15 PM  

IRQ12: a_real_human_being ....
Accordingly, in my opinion, those who are entrenched in the scientific method have only one scientifically reasonable position: Agnosticism. Of course, by taking this position, one is perfectly able to refute and disbelieve all man-made religious explanations for the origin of the universe. So that's the separation that I was making between "atheism" (relative atheism, actually agnostic) and "radical atheism" (absolute atheism)
Fanatical atheists (yes, there are) probably dislike agnostics more than theists because they think they are "on the fence".
I've had many people be like "Really? You're agnostic?  I thought you were smarter than that." without a hint of irony.


Yeah, I'd guess that they were understanding atheism as definition (b) from my last post.
 
2013-04-26 05:04:51 PM  

a_real_human_being: Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"


Under (b), everyone is an "atheist"! Unless somehow you believe in all the deities of all religions ever...

Perhaps you mean "as envisioned by any of the religions throughout human history"? In which case, I'm not seeing how it's significantly different from (a)... If no human has ever conceived of the specific god before, surely that means you haven't either and therefore don't actually believe in this hypothetical god? However, you don't disbelieve in it, in that case, either! Because, of course, you've never thought about it or envisioned it in any way...

However, under the first definition, I am a firm agnostic, as I have no empirical evidence that points in one direction or the other.

When confronted with a claim ("some sort of deity exists") with no evidence for or against, is not the logical default the null hypothesis: it doesn't exist? Then, you try to disprove that by finding evidence that it in fact does exist... By accepting the null hypothesis, you're not claiming you have the final word on the subject, just that that's the most logical default belief in the face of total lack of evidence...

I have my own speculative opinion (as do you), of course, but in order to keep some sort of meaningful distinction between the terms agnostic and atheist, I believe that I should fall in the agnostic category.

Well, that speculative opinion is precisely "belief"! It may not be a very strong belief, but it's belief, nonetheless...

And, I don't see any need or desire to maintain a distinction between agnostic and atheist; the two are perfectly compatible and referring to completely separate ideas: knowledge vs. belief... You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist...

I think you're more arguing for weak/negative atheist vs. strong/postive atheist...

Finally, I think the Loch Ness monster is perhaps not the best analogy.

Probably not... How about ghosts or angels? Those are ephemeral enough and hard to get an evidentiary grip on to be similar in nature to gods...
 
2013-04-26 05:23:47 PM  
i was watching a pure science show recently... drilling ice cores in antarctica ...
then this young lady points at the core sample and says "this piece is about 2,000 years old. that's when jesus was on the earth."   just as serious as she could be, as if she was speaking to a child.

i thought... omg they are clever bastards aren't they!

/ science science science jesus! science
 
2013-04-26 05:27:52 PM  

mikefinch: Ahh -- Likely real.

I remember i went to a 7th day adventist private school for junior high... (wanted out of the public system -- bullying sucks -- when i came back to it 3 years later the problems were gone...) And the SDA schools do push this stuff.

We had a pretty good science text book -- it delved into genetics and evolution and all the usual crap quite well so that wasnt a problem for me. The textbook had a title page for each chapter with a little blurb relating the subject matter to god but other than that it left god out of science. I think part of that is they picked nonbiased books because the kids had to do well on provincial exams for them to keep getting a subsidy.

They would give tests like this to kids in the 3-6 grades. Yup. I have seen it.

More rambling:

The teacher and the school staff and board were not so cool. Let me stress -- i am NOT SDA. My two best friends growing up however were and i spent tons of time in their church. I however was a waaaay to geeky kid (as i said -- bullies) and anything involving natural science made my pants tingle... I remember the SDA pastor being at the school one day and he was talking to the students about evolution and i asked him some pointed questions regarding their 6000 year earth theory. He came back with some crap about how the flood would have changed the air pressure so even the dinosaurs on the ark would have died because their lung capacity was too small or something. Like he pulled it straight out of his ass. I knew damn well he was full of shiat. I remember at the age of 14 being completely disgusted with a grown mans capacity for rational thought.

They really honest to god believe the sharp dinosaur teeth on things like T-Rex or Albertosaurus were made to cut through plant matter. I challenged them on that when i heard it and they insisted the serrated blade like teeth were for munching tough plant matter.

They told me not to drink milk because Adam and Eve would have just had water and juice. Like milking a cow is somehow against gods plan. You know -- the same god that promised a land of milk and honey?

They believe that Jesus turned water into juice rather than wine (they are all teetotalers) -- despite tons of evidence in the surrounding text pointing to the fact that everyone was wasted.

They were convinced the catholic pope would one day rule the world and make observance of the Jewish holy day illegal and force everyone on earth to go to church on Sunday. Then Jesus would return and save those who went to church on Saturday instead of Sunday and kept up with Jewish food laws even though Jesus tell his disciples its not important...

They don't dance. At all. Even at weddings. When i asked why i was informed dance was nothing but 'thinly veiled sex acts'. Weddings with no booze or dancing (just someones cousin playing pachbels canon in D over and over on the cello they ostensibly play other things on however i have never heard anything but canon in D come out of that guys cello) Well those get terrible fast. My sister almost walked out of my best friends wedding because the vows were nothing but misogyny and there was no booze or dance reward for it.

They wouldn't allow drums in their church because thats how indigenous (read coloured) people talk to satan. Im not kidding about that. My friend wanted to play some music for a skit he was doing for vacation bible school and an elder forbid it because it had drums and he cited that as a reason. I was there. I heard it. My buddy tried to object but was told he was trying to 'rationalize sinning' and when he complained to his parents that the church was f'ing crazy they told him to sit on it because the elder was a crazy old man and he was a church elder and the church followed and sometimes they might not agree with the rules but they had to follow them. Yeah -- Basically admitted he was wrong but they said they would obey his crazy because he was in charge.

I love this line -- they use it soooo often: Don't rationalize sin.

Think about that -- dont rationalize sin... Its like an automatic screw you to any reasoned though that opposes their dogma.  And yet their lord rationalized 'sinning' to pull a lamb from a well on the sabbath...

I dont have any real beef with christians, I do have a beef with the SDA church. It seems more like a cult than a church.


farked up cult? Yes
 
2013-04-26 05:36:32 PM  
I live a stone's throw from Greer (from whence somewhat northward this quiz came).  The amount of religious fundie derpitude is staggering and represents the bane of my daily life.  Between the power of Bob Jones University and a Baptist church on every corner, it often seems inescapable.  Hell, even my father (a relatively intelligent ex- chemical engineer) has been brainwashed into believing this ridiculousness.

I can't put into words how surreal it is to have such a concentrated mass of deluded individuals.
 
2013-04-26 05:38:47 PM  

RobSeace: a_real_human_being: Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"

Under (b), everyone is an "atheist"! Unless somehow you believe in all the deities of all religions ever...


Yes, that's correct. This is a particularly important point considering the evidence (i.e., faith) is the same for them all.

Perhaps you mean "as envisioned by any of the religions throughout human history"? In which case, I'm not seeing how it's significantly different from (a)... If no human has ever conceived of the specific god before, surely that means you haven't either and therefore don't actually believe in this hypothetical god? However, you don't disbelieve in it, in that case, either! Because, of course, you've never thought about it or envisioned it in any way...

Nope, that's not what I meant (as highlighted above). However, there is a big difference between "predominant religion" (what I said) and "[any] human ever" (what you said). Regardless, I don't think there's much benefit to further debating opinion vs. belief, knowledge vs. belief, or the subtle differentiations you draw between combinations of agnostic/atheist. I'll leave those endless semantic conversations and debates for the philosophers, I have science to do! :)
 
2013-04-26 05:44:49 PM  

RobSeace: a_real_human_being: Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"

Under (b), everyone is an "atheist"! Unless somehow you believe in all the deities of all religions ever...


Reminds me of a quote I saw long ago: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Sir Stephen Henry Roberts

/seemed appropriate
//enjoy the weekend!
 
2013-04-26 06:03:03 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Put another way, for some reason conservatives need the fear of eternal damnation constantly reiterated in order for them to not act like dicks. What sad, sorry, scary people. That is what he's saying right?


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/are-liberals-and -c onservatives-hard-wired-to-disagree/237075/

There is an abnormally high corelation within the population of self-identified conservatives with a hypertrophied amygdala, which hypersensitizes them to stimulus of images of sex, fear and repugnance.  There have been quite a few peer-reviewed studies which appear to support the observations.
 
2013-04-26 06:10:02 PM  

abb3w: Try putting down the Ayn Rand and looking up the proof of the Robbins Conjecture.


I've read much more about Ayn Rand than I've actually read her. I started Atlas Shrugged and before long felt confident enough that it was garbage to stop wasting time on it.  (shrug)

I'm sorry if it seems that I'm pretending to be a serious student of logic or philosophy or... well, anything, really.  I don't intend to; I just sometimes recall a few rudimentary phrases that stuck in my head from my brief studies many years ago, and try to apply them sometimes if I think it might be helpful.  :)
 
2013-04-26 06:27:10 PM  

abb3w: proof of the Robbins Conjecture


I did look it up, and I'm pretty certain that I did not understand much of what I read.  That nomenclature is unfamiliar (and a little frightening) to me, to be honest.

Could you please share your understanding of it?  If possible, in layman's terms?
 
2013-04-26 07:14:56 PM  

Calipataa: Have you ready any Bart Ehrman? He's really interesting on the evolution of biblical manuscripts - how errors and interpolations come about, etc.


I don't think I have. Wiki thinks he knows his stuff, so I'll check him out,
 
2013-04-26 07:24:17 PM  

grxymkjbn: mikefinch: The whole idea behind a god is a creature that lives above and beyond reality.

1) You seem to have missed that I am limiting my discussion to the biblical god.  The biblical god is not a 'creature' because a 'creature' is something that was created.

2) Unless you can provide objective evidence that anything exists 'outside of reality', then the only rational course is to disregard that phrase as meaningless word salad.

3)  If the biblical god is not subject to the law A=A, then every statement made about that god is equally and simultaneously true AND false.

4)  I also noticed that you seem to have no interest in attempting to provide us with an operational definition of "existence" which could include the biblical god but exclude any other fictional entity.  (shrug)  Not surprising.


1: You pick a small minded and petty definition of something and expect me to back defend it? No. Thats why i stopped going to church in the first place you dick. Don't tell me i have to argue the validity of the god of the bible. I never accepted it in the first place.

2:  No. I'm just saying its possible that there is more to the universe than what we have the ability to comprehend, observe, or experience. Think about trying to explain to an ant in an ant farm what the internet was. Its not part of its reality. Its part of ours. To the ant its word salad. We get it because our frame of reference is different.

3: God is not bound to logic. Things are logical because god decided they were logical. If god is actually god then all concepts and ideas we have are inventions of said god.

4: Wtf are you talking about? Why would i try to define existence like that? Why would i want to? Are you trying to get me to declare the only things that really exist are physical manifestations? Its possible that all those things exist. Why would i be so proud to insist that it was possible for god to exist but impossible for magic and that crap to exist? Seems like a dick move to declare that something doesnt exist because i have no experience of it...

As i said -- your trying to tell god that he is cheating at a game without rules. I'mean -- it has rules for you -- if it had rules for god too though then he would cease to be god.

Its always a bit baffling when someone declares they don't believe in god because he wont fit into their tiny box of definitions and rules. Make your box larger rather than trying to shrink god into it. You will have a better time.
 
2013-04-26 07:47:41 PM  

PunGent: dickfreckle: PunGent: Just started watching Treme.  Interesting series, but kinda rough...how accurate is it?

It's extremely accurate. They even get the accents right, where every other film/tv portrays us as having a thick Southern drawl. In fact, the series is so rife with little details that only a local would catch, the series can be slow-moving for everyone else.

I visited New Orleans a couple times before Katrina, haven't made it back since...not sure how much I want to.


You were likely just in the wrong places. As the diatribe in my profile states, Bourbon St. is a farking joke. Even Treme routinely makes fun of it though hardly any scenes are filmed there. This goes back to the accuracy of the show - the only locals on Bourbon are the bartenders, strippers, and shot girls being forced by owners to rip you off while some lame "blues-rock" cover band plays the same tunes you can hear in your own town.

She's a wonderful city. If you don't believe me, wonder aloud why so many people came back to endure the lovely 2006-2008 years when nothing was going right, not even the stores being open. There's a reason why we love NOLA, and it can't be properly articulated to anyone who doesn't "get it." Granted, this probably what die-hard Cleveland Browns fans say about their team, but still.

If you do come back, try hitting uptown, Garden District, Magazine St., and all that. You'll find that not only is the city nice and piss-free up there (about a ten minute streetcar ride), but you'll also see how the locals live. Maybe catch some of that real music we're deservedly famous for. If you don't make it uptown, at leat hit Frenchmen St., which is where many (if not most) of the live scenes in Treme are filmed. The "strip" is only a few blocks long and somewhat humble, but it's the most realistic NOLA music you'll ever hear. About 70/30% local vs. tourist. Tourists don't like real jazz and funk, or the combination thereof (which we specialize in), and that's precisely the reason Bourbon St. is loaded with overgrown frat boys vomiting to the backing sounds of "Back in Black" being played for the 987,325th time.
 
2013-04-26 07:48:59 PM  

impaler: Since it's a private school, I feel more pity than outrage.


This, actually. I have absolutely no problem with private schools teaching kids whatever the hell they feel like - a private school can be as stupid as they like, as long as not one thin dime of my taxpayer money's going to them.

This should never, ever happen at a public school, or at any school funded by taxpayers. But, if morons want to teach their kids that the Earth is flat, that it's 6,000 years old, that Jesus hugged dinosaurs, and want to do it on their own dime, that's fine by me. Heck, give those morons a tax break for the money they're spending on private schooling (it's only fair - they probably don't want to pay taxes to fund a useful secular education.)

As for the debates on the existence of God, well, I'm ignostic. It's a pointless discussion.
 
2013-04-26 08:32:36 PM  
AGremlin:

 i.imgur.com

Came for Dinosaur Jesus...had to bring him myself.



here you go:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-26 08:33:19 PM  

IRQ12: Fanatical atheists (yes, there are) probably dislike agnostics more than theists because they think they are "on the fence".


The Altemeyer/Hunsberger data suggests that is somewhat unlikely, unless you're explicitly defining a subset of atheists as "fanatic" by the criterion of "disliking agnostics more than theists".

alfuso: where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old?


There's about half a dozen passages giving dates between events, which together give at least one time span from between the creation of the world and the Babylonian exile... which has external dating references.

grxymkjbn: I'm sorry if it seems that I'm pretending to be a serious student of logic or philosophy or... well, anything, really.


Quite all right. I'm hardly one either.

grxymkjbn: Could you please share your understanding of it? If possible, in layman's terms?


It's a starting point for getting to Boolean propositional logic. You can take the 10 Boolean axioms directly and work from there, or you can take the Commutativity and Associativity for OR, plus the Robbins Axiom which more or less states ((P NOR Q) NOR (P NOR (NOT Q))) is P, and derive the ten main Boolean axioms before going on.

There's other ways to get there as well. "Wolfram's Axiom" is sufficient in itself... but that approach and starting point are pretty incomprehensible.

mikefinch: I'm just saying its possible that there is more to the universe than what we have the ability to comprehend, observe, or experience.


...while trying to insinuate some options are probably the case, when the evidence suggests that they probably aren't.

Anyway, I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not. - Richard Feynman

mikefinch: God is not bound to logic.


Depends what you mean by "logic". Are you saying God is not subject to the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction -- that (P OR Q) is equivalent to (Q OR P) such that either disjunctive combination implies the other?
 
2013-04-26 09:23:31 PM  
These fundamentalist quacks are such hypocrites.  They want to teach bible based "science" in the classroom but still want modern medical science when they go to the emergency room.
 
2013-04-26 09:28:16 PM  

abb3w: IRQ12: Fanatical atheists (yes, there are) probably dislike agnostics more than theists because they think they are "on the fence".

The Altemeyer/Hunsberger data suggests that is somewhat unlikely, unless you're explicitly defining a subset of atheists as "fanatic" by the criterion of "disliking agnostics more than theists".


Yes the subset who think agnosticism is "on the fence"/  They are basically guilty of what they decry in theists;  belief without logic.
 
2013-04-26 09:33:52 PM  

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: Put another way, for some reason conservatives need the fear of eternal damnation constantly reiterated in order for them to not act like dicks. What sad, sorry, scary people. That is what he's saying right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/are-liberals-and -c onservatives-hard-wired-to-disagree/237075/

There is an abnormally high corelation within the population of self-identified conservatives with a hypertrophied amygdala, which hypersensitizes them to stimulus of images of sex, fear and repugnance.  There have been quite a few peer-reviewed studies which appear to support the observations.


I think it actually makes a lot of sense if you use the literal meaning of conservative, one who strives to  to ensure that everything remains constantduring a potential process of change. They are conservatives because they are resistant to any change, and they are resistant to change because they fear it. They may not be super happy, or hell! they may not be happy at all; but they prefer the shiat they know to a future of unknowns. I'm not sure I explained my ideas super well, I'm tired from riding home... does that make sense?
 
2013-04-26 09:35:11 PM  

grxymkjbn: (shrug)


lulz
 
2013-04-26 09:39:46 PM  

IRQ12: Yes the subset who think agnosticism is "on the fence"/ They are basically guilty of what they decry in theists; belief without logic.


You miss my point: if you're merely using one criterion to define the group you refer to, then claiming the group you refer to meets the one criterion is at best inane.

Now, if you're claiming the two criteria are associated, that's different -- but then you need to decide which one is definitive, and then further show the degree of association.
 
2013-04-26 09:49:21 PM  
mikefinch: Can we pick up where we left off?
I'm curious what you think about my interpretation of OT vs NT and the possibility of reconciling God ad science.
 
2013-04-26 09:51:28 PM  

RobSeace: When confronted with a claim ("some sort of deity exists") with no evidence for or against, is not the logical default the null hypothesis: it doesn't exist?


Actually, no, it isn't (as I was surprised to learn when studying philosophy). Firstly, the null hypothesis is for statistical evaluation (i.e., population A vs. population B -> NH says they are the same population). Secondly, according to formal logic, the formula of if p then q (logical implication) for:

If "I DIE" then "I GO TO HEAVEN"

Is evaluated as True until you can satisfy P as True, then you can evaluate whether or not Q is True, then you can fully evaluate the whole expression.

Accordingly, the statement:

If "YOU GO INTO MY GARAGE" then "YOU WILL SEE THE LOCH NESS MONSTER" defaults to True, until you go into my garage.

t.qkme.me

/god I hated philosophy
//could have been amazing
///wasn't
////PTSD flashback
 
2013-04-26 09:56:42 PM  

abb3w: IRQ12: Yes the subset who think agnosticism is "on the fence"/ They are basically guilty of what they decry in theists; belief without logic.

You miss my point: if you're merely using one criterion to define the group you refer to, then claiming the group you refer to meets the one criterion is at best inane.



I didn't miss your point.


Now, if you're claiming the two criteria are associated, that's different -- but then you need to decide which one is definitive, and then further show the degree of association.

Good point, let me go hire pew research to do an in depth study of atheist beliefs then throw together some ven diagrams and statistical analysis so we can continue this conversation.

or....

You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes because I'm not writing my thesis on fark.
 
2013-04-26 09:57:19 PM  

alfuso: where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old?


There isn't any one specific verse that states how old the Earth is.  But some people believe that you can calculate the time that "must have" passed between the creation of the world and the birth of Jesus.  The most famous example, and the one who most people are referring back to when they say "6000 years," was James Ussher.
 
2013-04-26 09:58:53 PM  
It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
media.tumblr.com
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.
 
2013-04-26 09:59:46 PM  
IRQ12:
You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes because I'm not writing my thesis on fark.

Someday, somehow, someone will... and it will be glorious.
 
2013-04-26 10:24:58 PM  

mikefinch: As i said -- your trying to tell god that he is cheating at a game without rules. I'mean -- it has rules for you -- if it had rules for god too though then he would cease to be god.


Do you think you have honestly considered this issue objectively?

You honestly think it's virtuous to worship a god whose only criteria for morals is His own whim?

You propose that if God wanted to torture and kill billions of people purely for his own amusement - that would be the morally correct thing to do - is that what you intended to say?

You reject that God must be subject to the first law of logic?

Are you aware that the preponderance of recognized theologians stipulate that God is indeed subject to A=A?

:)
 
2013-04-26 10:30:13 PM  
i wonder why new planets and stars are still being formed, then.
 
2013-04-26 10:30:17 PM  
If a mouthy fourth grader tells you the Creation of the World happened only a few thousand years ago answer them like this.

You are a child. I am an adult. What do you know about the Creation of the World? I WAS THERE, DAMMIT!

If they are gullible enough to believe Creationist clap trap, they might believe you. Problem solved, if and until they reach the age of reason.

When the royal astronomers explained the Ptolemaic system to King Alphonso X of Spain he remarked that if he had been present at the Creation, he would have advised God to try something simpler.
 
2013-04-26 10:36:19 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.


I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder
 
2013-04-26 10:39:26 PM  

a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder


Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes. I dropped cs170 (the class whose subject is all the big mathy words above) at Cal after 2 weeks.  So philosophy is a class with no content, huh? sounds hellish and awesome. Bizarre.
 
2013-04-26 10:46:53 PM  

Calipataa: PC LOAD LETTER: When we are able to move to the stars, "true" Christians will stay behind because they are tied to the Earth. Problem solved eventually.

I'm not a Christian, but I kind of like the earth - are you going to leave me alone here with these crazies?


Every one of those alien worlds will be inhabited -- by a Mormon and his wives and children (assuming he "seals" his wives rather than letting them go to Hell in favour of some new trophy wives. They will happily inbreed incestuously for all eternity. (Sounds like the way humanity got this world: Man, Woman, Apple, Incest for the next 6,000 years. And they wondered why their life expectancy dropped off from hundreds of years to a few decades.)

So it's really po-tay-toe, po-tat-oh.

The Roman Catholic Church has a contingency plan for just such an occurence. Since they burned Giovanno Bruno at the stake for (among other heresies) suggesting that there is life and intelligent beings on other worlds, they've been thinking his proposal over, and have come up with plans to convert the heathen aliens should they be discovered or discover us. Should they prove to be Roman Catholics already, there will be no need. Jesus will have ensured that they got the memo.

Many fundamentalists believe in UFOS but believe they are piloted by Satan's armies of demons. They will simply attempt to wage war on the aliens. Who will kill us all.

And this, Mr. Fermi, is why the neighbors do not call us. They don't want to disturb the Loonies any further, to borrow a happy turn of phrase from paraplegic cartoonist John Callahan. (Creator of Quads. Yaaaaay! A Canada-Australia Coproduction of one of America's greatest Gimp geniuses.)
 
2013-04-26 10:49:40 PM  
God creates existence out of love. God creates humans in his image out of love. God then puts the one thing he doesn't want humans touching right in the middle of the garden, then does a piss-poor job of keeping bad things from happening. When the serpent convinces the humans to eat the fruit of knowledge (which wasn't difficult at all since they knew nothing of right and wrong), God responds by cursing all of creation to punish all of humanity that would ever exist. He then spends the next few thousand years being a vicious, tyrannical, trolling hypocrite. Then he enacts a long, convoluted, and ultimately pointless way of "forgiving" humanity of the sins that God created and allowed to happen by sending a piece of himself down to "die" and then resurrects it to bring it up and make it part of himself again. Somehow this was supposed to allow us into heaven. But if we don't use the free will he gave us to kowtow to him 24/7/365 and swear our fealty to him, then we'll be condemned to eternal and unspeakable torture, and it doesn't matter how good we are in life, if we don't say the magic words then the kindest saint burns alongside the mass murderers and child rapists. Out of love.

Tell me again WHY I should follow a monster like this?
 
2013-04-26 10:53:36 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes.


Neither have I taken any  philosophy classes...  but I have read extensive synopsis of all the major  schools of philosophy... and when considered objectively, I can only conclude that they're all shiat.  (shrug)

Study epistemology, if you're truly interested.  The mind is a fascinating topic.
 
2013-04-26 10:57:41 PM  
brantgoose
 
2013-04-26 11:00:19 PM  
that' what I get for not previewing...
let's try it once more with feeling:
brantgoose
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-26 11:01:40 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder

Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes. I dropped cs170 (the class whose subject is all the big mathy words above) at Cal after 2 weeks.  So philosophy is a class with no content, huh? sounds hellish and awesome. Bizarre.


I was studying philosophy of cognitive science (combination of psychology and neuroscience) and "bizarre" is a very good word for it. It connected to some VERY interesting subjects, but dealt with them in the most infuriating and esoteric ways possible. I'm now studying integrative neuroscience, as I am interested in the mind/brain sciences, and I love it.

The best way I can explain the difference between "philosophy of psychology" and empirical psychology (for instance) is to make an analogy comparing the two disciplines on a more tangible subject, say: the problem of organized crime... bear with me:

- If science is trying to solve the problems related to organized crime (e.g., drugs, racketeering, corruption, legal maneuvering, prostitution, jail sentences, witness protection, etc.)
- Philosophy is a group of people arguing about which Hollywood movie best represents the "gangster film genre"

To discuss the "gangster film genre" you have to know SOMETHING about organized crime in real life. Just like to do "philosophy of psychology" you have to know SOMETHING about the mind/brain sciences. But, to be honest, that's where its connection to reality ends. They grab a few nuggets of reality and then go off on decade-long debates about abstract issues that just get more and more abstract with every published paper... and end up so far away from reality that you can hardly believe people get paid for it. Even if they all agreed on something, it wouldn't matter, because what they're debating has no connection to anything substantial. Here's an excellent introduction: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/
 
2013-04-26 11:02:48 PM  

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes.

Neither have I taken any  philosophy classes...  but I have read extensive synopsis of all the major  schools of philosophy... and when considered objectively, I can only conclude that they're all shiat.  (shrug)

Study epistemology, if you're truly interested.  The mind is a fascinating topic.


I am plenty occupied with my work, the techniacl depths of which are frequently overwhelming. (comp Architecture is fascinating). And when it does come time to argue something I enjoy having to draw upon my knowledge and experiences and try to create an argument. Thanks though srsly.
 
2013-04-26 11:10:07 PM  

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes.

Neither have I taken any  philosophy classes...  but I have read extensive synopsis of all the major  schools of philosophy... and when considered objectively, I can only conclude that they're all shiat.  (shrug)

Study epistemology, if you're truly interested.  The mind is a fascinating topic.


img441.imageshack.us

Oh my god, no no no. Epistemology is the study of knowledge (i.e., what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for belief). Traditional epistemology has practically nothing to do with "the mind" at all. Here's an example, from a leading author in the field: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415552982

It's the kind of material that can be interesting to chat with your friends about for an hour or so, but trying to read academic papers in the subject makes me want to do what Uchiha_Cycliste's green cartoon guy was doing above.

If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy, then the only thing I can suggest is: http://www.amazon.com/dp/026253200X. And even then, I'd always recommend that people avoid philosophy... there's a gazillion awesome books in the disciplines of psychology and neuroscience.
 
2013-04-26 11:14:17 PM  

a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder

Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes. I dropped cs170 (the class whose subject is all the big mathy words above) at Cal after 2 weeks.  So philosophy is a class with no content, huh? sounds hellish and awesome. Bizarre.

I was studying philosophy of cognitive science (combination of psychology and neuroscience) and "bizarre" is a very good word for it. It connected to some VERY interesting subjects, but dealt with them in the most infuriating and esoteric ways possible. I'm now studying integrative neuroscience, as I am interested in the mind/brain sciences, and I love it.

The best way I can explain the difference between "philosophy of psychology" and empirical psychology (for instance) is to make an analogy comparing the two disciplines on a more tangible subject, say: the problem of organized crime... bear with me:

- If science is trying to solve the problems related to organized crime (e.g., drugs, racketeering, corruption, legal maneuvering, prostitution, jail sentences, witness protection, etc.)
- Philosophy is a group of people arguing about which Hollywood movie best represents the "gangster film genre"


To discuss the "gangster film genre" you have to know SOMETHING about organized crime in real life. Just like to do "philosophy of psychology" you have to know SOMETHING about the mind/brain sciences. But, to be honest, that's where its connection to reality ends. They grab a few nuggets of reality and then go off on decade-long debates about abstract issues that just get more and more abstract with every published paper... and end up so far away from reality that you can hardly believe people get paid for it. Even if they all agreed on something, it wouldn't matter, because what they're debating has no connection to anything substantial. Here's an excellent introduction:  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/ 
It sounds a lot like speech and debate without the rigor. And intentionally so, as if they are fearful of binding themselves to rules because then they can't bullshiat as completely. To draw an analogy (poorly) in HS I discovered and college reinforced that essays, whether English or Sociology (which I very nearly minored in) were all about bullshiatting. You have an idea and you are trying to convince someone that your idea has merit using whatever you have in your bag of tricks. Essentially you don't need knowledge as long as you can bullshiat around your lack there of. However, math and science and engineering there is a right answer and lots and lots of wrong answers and no amount of bullshiatting will turn the wrong answers into the right ones. There was no way to take question three of a physics final and argue why I think what I wrote should be accepted, it was right or wrong (some points) and I either got to that answer the right way or the wrong way (lots more points).
What I'm trying to say is that philosophy sounds like writing an essay and the real stuff sounds like the hard sciences where you can't bullshiat your way out of not knowing your shiat.
 
2013-04-26 11:30:06 PM  
Heh, philosophy is being sneaky and debate is being smart.
 
2013-04-26 11:54:40 PM  

grxymkjbn: You propose that if God wanted to torture and kill billions of people purely for his own amusement - that would be the morally correct thing to do - is that what you intended to say?


yes.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tell me again WHY I should follow a monster like this?


Because its god. And he demands it. Horrifying right? lol -- you dont have to follow him if you dont want -- i'm just saying if god was a monster he would still be god. You dont have to worship it if you don't feel thats appropriate.

grxymkjbn: You reject that God must be subject to the first law of logic?


yup. God is subject to nothing. To be subject to something would make it not god.
 
2013-04-27 12:15:01 AM  

a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy


Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.
 
I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)
 
Displayed 50 of 464 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report