Skip to content
 
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.

(Abc.net.au)   Jesus Chainsaw Massacre now available with half the spatter   ( abc.net.au) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

21810 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2005 at 9:12 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1088 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest

 
2005-02-11 10:15:13 PM  
chaos

could be detrimental to your mind, but for others...it works just fine.

don't get me wrong, i'm no fan of religion. spirituality and faith...absolutely. organized religion tends to bastardize so much that the actual faith and spirituality get lost in the shuffle.

it's not going anywhere, tho. as far back as history goes, there's evidence of howling at the moon gods, or sun gods, or mountain gods, or...etc.

at least we've reached a point where the predominate mindset allows for differences of opinion on such matters. seems like societal shunning and preaching-from-the-pulpit-of-legislation bullshiat are about the worst coming from large organized groups.

sad to say, but the 'no witches burned in _____ years sign' is actually an accomplishment.
 
2005-02-11 10:15:58 PM  
chaoswolf
Religion is belief without basis, science is knowledge based in fact and observation.

That might be true. (Might), but it doesn't answer the question 'what evidence of science muct be ignored to believe in God'

heap

I was asking about belief in God, not a specific religions dogma.

both have their place, it's just typically not too pretty when the two combine.

See THAT is what I'm getting at. I have come to believe that the Science v. Religion thing is a big lie.

It needn't be true, it isn;t true (once you remove asshat zealots on both sides who BELIEVE the lie), and it wasn't true till about 150-200 years ago.

The more I study this, the more convinced of it I become. I'm of the opinion that all roads lead to Rome, but that the lie has been accepted that these two roads go to different places.
 
2005-02-11 10:17:09 PM  
heap

Oh, and Che' was an asshat.
 
2005-02-11 10:17:55 PM  
Bojangles,
You still aren't getting it man. walkingtall believes that which he spouts. He's a normal xian. If you find fault with him in that he makes the rest of the xians look like fools, tough. He's one of them, and they are legion.
 
2005-02-11 10:22:15 PM  
bojangles

can you give me a organized religious/'faith in god' structure that *isn't* littered with similar dogmatic items? be it fishes and loaves or zeus popping kids out of his forhead... it is possible to believe in god totally divorced of dogmatic particulars, but it isn't the standard.

I have come to believe that the Science v. Religion thing is a big lie.

to me at least...there really isn't a 'vs' relationship.

thing is, i don't look to the bible for scientific answers, and i don't pick up a geology book to get closer to god.

when people do these things, they typically end up with a result that is laughable.
 
2005-02-11 10:23:35 PM  
chaoswolf
soporific,
Yes, meant wrath. Are there christians out marching with the homosexuals? Are there christians that speak up when someone is harrassing a muslim? Yea, probably, but they are not the majority. As the last election has shown, the majority, at least in this country, is anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-peace.


This is true, and it pains me that more Christians didn't vote Kerry. My wife and I did. We think Bush is everything that Christianity isn't. We read the Bible and it's pretty clear on what people who call themselves Christian should and shouldn't do. My only hope is that more and more Christians wake up to the truth.

But I ask you, would the gay bashing stop if the christians all suddenly stopped saying that it was destroying the moral fabric of society?

No; gay bashing has less to do with Christianity and more to do with mental illness.
 
2005-02-11 10:24:01 PM  
Chaoswolf
religion doesn't find any supporting evidence and still demands that their answer is correct.

What makes you say that? Religions question themselves constantly and perpetually. They change. Even the Roman Catholic Church changed radically with Vatican II. They reversed themselves, changed direction, went backwards, went forwards.

In Christianity, the Apostles were CONSTANTLY questioning Jesus. Any guesses why they called one apostle 'Doubting' Thomas? And it is interesting that 'Doubting' Thomas was the only one to TOUCH Jesus after he was resurected. How's that for an analogy of questioning the faith?

Letters to the Romans, Gallatians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc. were ALL answers to questions being asked by Christians about the faith.

I could go on and on.
 
2005-02-11 10:25:57 PM  
heap,
i stick by this: all religious belief is necessarily detrimental to a mind's ability to rationally examine its surroundings due to it already tossing out rationality to accept the contradictions and downright stupidity of all the written catechisms.

Bojang,
if ALL you are talking about is some nebulous being outside of this universe, one does not have to ignore science. It's easy to accept the possibility of anything that we have no way to study. Thus, if god exists, then so do purple unicorns, dragons and cave trolls.
 
2005-02-11 10:26:27 PM  
bojangles

guess another way to put it...i don't see science and faith as 'either/or'. it's 'both/and'.

don't know if it's obvious or not yet, but i do have quite a distinct line between faith and religion. that one has come down to 'either/or' in almost every instance i've come across.
 
2005-02-11 10:27:31 PM  
chaoswolf
Nah. He's a shill.

It IS a shame that we don't have a different name for the Roberts/Graham/Mormon/Jehovah's Witness set that would distinguish them from other... I would say 'apastolic' Churches, but most people don;t even know what that means.
 
2005-02-11 10:29:05 PM  
chaoswolf
Thus, if god exists, then so do purple unicorns, dragons and cave trolls.

Ok. So in your opinion, do ghosts, fairies, angels, and aliens exist? Why or why not?
 
2005-02-11 10:29:51 PM  
His 'God' is perfect and Jesus could not be tempted thing doesn't jive with anything I know about Christianity.

wait... so in xianity, god isn't perfect?
I never really understood the garden of Gethsemani thing. I thought Jesus was supposed to be God incarnate. To think that he would be asking his father/himself if he could forego the whole death thing seemed to go against the whole infallibility doctrine.
 
2005-02-11 10:30:35 PM  
and more importantly, how many angels can dance on the head of a zit without popping it.
 
2005-02-11 10:30:39 PM  
heap

YOU may not, but surely you can see that the vast majority accept the opposition of Science and Religion as a foundational assumption?

Ever wonder why that is? Historically, the two went hand in hand.
 
2005-02-11 10:30:57 PM  
[image from 12.22.230.41 too old to be available]

What are you people, on dope?!?!?
 
2005-02-11 10:33:44 PM  
crazy_gaijin

I covered the 'nature' of Christ thing briefly earlier. (just my .02 on it).

You bring up a good point, and the Garden scene was (for me at least) a key part in understanding the seeming contridiction between the God/Jesus nature of the Christos.

Do a search for 'Nicean' in this thread and that should get you there. It's up a bit.
 
2005-02-11 10:36:40 PM  
soporific,
"No; gay bashing has less to do with Christianity and more to do with mental illness."

Wrong, hate is a taught behavior. and in this case, nobody would give a flying rat's ass about homosexuality unless they are told to, which in this case, is by zealots in the xian faith.

BojanglesPaladin,
"Religions question themselves constantly and perpetually. They change."
riiight, hundreds of years after the facts have come out in the scientific community. Hundreds of years of the rational among us dragging the mindless kicking and screaming. how long before the catholic churched apologized for its treatment of Galileo?
Constantly changing and questioning itself? Only in the same way that marketing and sales questions themselves on how better to lie their way into your wallet.
 
2005-02-11 10:37:13 PM  
Bojangles
You should read "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels. She makes an interesting argument about the whole Doubting Thomas story being inserted by the writer of John to discredit the followers of Thomas. Does make you wonder why the Thomas story only appears in John...
 
2005-02-11 10:38:38 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

YOU may not, but surely you can see that the vast majority accept the opposition of Science and Religion as a foundational assumption?

Ever wonder why that is?


least within my lifetime, the contradictions between the two are what sets people's minds spinning. those dogmatic particulars mentioned earlier.

science says the earth wasn't created in the order, nor the time frame labeled in genesis. this dogmatic particular is an insult to some who cannot allow anything in their religious text to be parable.

look at it this way... would the scopes monkey trial have happened if that dogmatic particular wasn't being challenged? whether that was the goal or not, that's what the result was.

i could wax philosophically on the 'why' for hours, but in the interest of brevity 'lots of people are dumbasses' will have to suffice as an answer.
 
2005-02-11 10:40:02 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: It IS a shame that we don't have a different name for the Roberts/Graham/Mormon/Jehovah's Witness set that would distinguish them from other... I would say 'apastolic' Churches, but most people don;t even know what that means.

May I suggest "evangelical"? "Apostolic" (two "o"s and only one "a", not the other way around) means based on the teachings of the apostles, or claiming Apostolic Succession.

The LDS faith is the only one of that group that actually claims to have living apostles right now, that the office was intended to be ongoing, not just limited to the original twelve plus the other four mentioned in the New Testament (Paul is probably the most famous of those). And yet, Paul said that the office of apostles, as well as those of prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (note: not "reverends" or any of the variations thereof [right, most, most right, etc.]: the word "reverend" appears only once anywhere in the Bible, in any form, and then only in the Old Testament, and as a name or title of God! One form of the sin of blasphemy consists of taking upon onesself, or calling someone else, by a name or title reserved to God!), would remain "until we all come into the unity of the faith, unto a knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man, unto a measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."
 
2005-02-11 10:40:57 PM  
chaoswolf
all religious belief is necessarily detrimental to a mind's ability to rationally examine its surroundings due to it already tossing out rationality to accept the contradictions and downright stupidity of all the written catechisms.

I would hold that the rational attempt to understand these abstract contradictions is VITAL to man's ability to rationaly grasp the world around him. One can see this more clearly in Buhddist and Taoist systems, but the contemplation of the universe and it's inherant seeming contradictions is a very important thing.

Science has its own as well.

Schrodenger's cat being a good example. A cat is alive, gas the cat and it will die. What is the exact point where it 'transitions' from alive to dead? Is there a point however small where it is mostly alive and partly dead? or visa versa?

Or the Electron cloud. Do the electrons ACTUALLY move or do we simply plot the erea where they are most likely to actually exist at any given point in time?

Or subatomic particles that based on all the evidence, seem to simply blink in and out of existance. Are they traveling in 4th dimensional space? Traveling in Time?

Scientists are still questioning and theorizing. That is how you gain better understanding.
 
2005-02-11 10:41:23 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

What makes you say that? Religions question themselves constantly and perpetually.


Then why is it SO distressing to xtians when non-xtians question them, too?

I know why I gave up religion, rather than telling me to "go read the Book" (read lots of em, including that one several times), why don't they have the balls to admit "Hey, I don't understand where Cain's wife came from either, let's discuss."

If even Jesus told us to question, then why is scorn heaped upon those who do?

If xtianity has been questioning itself for 2000 years, why hasn't it come up with better answers?
 
2005-02-11 10:41:50 PM  
If he was God, then he could neither suffer nor die, as God is eternal, and without flaw.

and

He IS God. He was not created by God, but is concurrent and cosubstanative with God. He BECAME a man, that he might suffer and ultimately redeem man. He was not created by God, but is concurrent and cosubstanative with God. He was not perfect God in a man suit, he was God made fallible and human.


These two statements seem contradictory
 
2005-02-11 10:42:58 PM  
comaLite

lay that down next to matthew 23:9, and it gets just downright weird.
 
2005-02-11 10:44:28 PM  
Bojangles,
until ghosts, fairies, angels, and aliens are documented scientifically, they will only exist in the myths of humans. do they exist? No. There is nothing supernatural in the world.

And historically, science and religion did not go hand in hand. However, at one time, the search for understanding the world around us was tied by belief. When the scientific method finally kicked it, the split between the two emerged.
 
2005-02-11 10:44:37 PM  
COMALite J

If only the public at large would adopt those usages.

BTW, I understand the Apastolic Churches to be Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian/Anglican, and Greek Orthodox (there may one or two more).

Basically those churches whose priests were trained by priests who were trained by priests who were trained by priests who were trained by priests.... who were trained by the Apostles themselves.

Is that your understanding? I'm a bit fuzzy on this.
 
2005-02-11 10:45:42 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

Basically those churches whose priests were trained by priests who were trained by priests who were trained by priests who were trained by priests.... who were trained by the Apostles themselves.

i think kevin bacon is in there some where.
 
2005-02-11 10:46:46 PM  
chaoswolf
until ghosts, fairies, angels, and aliens are documented scientifically, they will only exist in the myths of humans. do they exist? No. There is nothing supernatural in the world.

Giant squids were mythical beasts throughout all of history. The stuff of imagination.

But then we have found some in the last few years or so. Did Giant Squid NOT exist before someone got a good photo and some tissue samples?
 
2005-02-11 10:49:19 PM  
crazy_gaijin
He IS God. He was not created by God, but is concurrent and cosubstanative with God. He BECAME a man, that he might suffer and ultimately redeem man

Does that help?

I'd be glad to try to shed what little light I have on it if you are interested. I'm kinda running three trains of thought right now, and running out of time till I have to go, so let me know.
 
2005-02-11 10:51:10 PM  
FarkMeBlind
Then why is it SO distressing to xtians when non-xtians question them, too?

Because those questions often come with a 'you are SOOO stupid to believe this crap' clause in them. Who wouldn't get riled?
 
2005-02-11 10:53:13 PM  
BojanglesPaladin,
I think you're misinterpreting science. In science, there are no contradictions. paradox is not contradiction. It is a SEEMING contradiction. The bible, however, is full of ACTUAL contradictions.
shroedinger's cat doesn't work the way you show: the question is: since we can't know when the radioactive isotope will release the proton that will set off the gas, we can not know whether the cat is dead or alive without opening the case. It's a metaphor for not being able to track the location AND speed of an electron in its shell and was just a thought experiment that eventually tied down the uncertainty principle.

Yes, science questions and theorizes BASED ON FACTUAL DATA, not on beliefs. Again, the 2 are completely separate and incompatible ways to view reality.
 
2005-02-11 10:55:54 PM  
heap
science says the earth wasn't created in the order, nor the time frame labeled in genesis.

You know the order is AWFULLY close for having been written thousands of years ago.

Ever read 'Inheret the Wind'? I thought the 'how long is a day before there was a Sun' argument pretty much cleared that up. At least for me. But yes, not for some people.

There is also a quote in the Bible about how ' a day is as an eternity' for God. I'll never understand American fundies who latch on to evolution over a 'day'.
 
2005-02-11 10:56:18 PM  
BojanglesPaladin,
giant squid have existed for as long as they have existed. And science adjusted itself to fit the finding. As soon as ghosts and dragons and gods have been PROVEN to exist, then they will have existed and can be studied. until then, they are myth
 
2005-02-11 10:58:13 PM  
bojangles

i think you may be kinda off base w/ the squids. giant squids jibblets have washed up on shore and pulled out of fishing nets for many moons. tracking down where the hell they live is a rather recent occurance.

besides, when you get into analogy, its best to at least try for apples and oranges. you aren't going to get apples and apples, or you wouldn't use analogy. what you are proposing is closer to apples and kumquats.

its not like squid don't exist. it's not as if we have proof of little ghosts, and we just need to find big ones.
 
2005-02-11 10:59:50 PM  
"There is also a quote in the Bible about how ' a day is as an eternity' for God. I'll never understand American fundies who latch on to evolution over a 'day'."

exactly the problem, ppl that take any holy book as literal truth. I just take it a step further, if the bible isn't literal truth, then discount it all, and if your're gonna do that, why bother with the belief in any creator at all?
 
2005-02-11 11:01:32 PM  
"Let they who are without sin cast the first stone."

That is the only thing I can think of when thinking of Christians.

/used to be Christian
 
2005-02-11 11:02:07 PM  
chaoswolf
It is a SEEMING contradiction. The bible, however, is full of ACTUAL contradictions.

Interesting distinction you make there. Can you explain the difference to me?

As soon as ghosts and dragons and gods have been PROVEN to exist, then they will have existed and can be studied.

But. Since as you say, they DON'T exist. How will you prove it? And who would try?

Can a thing only be studied AFTER it has been scientifically 'PROVEN' to exist?
 
2005-02-11 11:06:01 PM  
heap

I use the Giant Squid PRECISELY for that reason.

For millenia, everyone KNEW they existed.

But, as we came into the 'modern' age only crackpots and idiots actually BELIEVED in Giant Squids.

Then they starting finding PROOF. Then they found CONCLUSIVE proof.

Nowadays, everyone KNOWS they exist.
 
2005-02-11 11:06:47 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

You know the order is AWFULLY close for having been written thousands of years ago.

the discrepancies are still the source of the conflict. again, some folks are unwilling to allow part of their scripture to be parable. in some cases it is the majority opinion that it must be taken literally, and in some cases its the majority opinion that it can be taken with a grain of salt.

percentage of accuracy isn't really the jist of things here. there was a discrepancy between what a dogmatic particular item was, and the conclusion that science came to. that is the source of the conflict.


There is also a quote in the Bible about how ' a day is as an eternity' for God. I'll never understand American fundies who latch on to evolution over a 'day'.


i don't think i've ever understand fundies of any flavor. not sure i want to, actually.
 
2005-02-11 11:07:22 PM  
Chaoswolf
just take it a step further, if the bible isn't literal truth, then discount it all, and if your're gonna do that, why bother with the belief in any creator at all?

Do you ever wonder if maybe, just maybe, you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
 
2005-02-11 11:07:24 PM  
Bojangles, depends on if you consider mere training to be enough, or if a chain of actual ordination is required.

The LDS claim apostolic succession because Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist (resurrected), and the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John (the first two resurrected, and John translated, meaning that he has never died but is in a glorified but still mortal [though undying until the actual resurrection] state similar to the way Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were at the Transfiguration). All other Priesthood holders to this very day trace their ordination chains to them.

But discounting such claims of miraculous visitations, then yes, only the ones you mention have a historically verifiable claim to apostolic succession. Some Baptists and similar Protestant denominations claim that they are the true descendants of a "faithful remnant" which is the true descendant of Christ's True Church, but that the historical records that would verify this claim were all destroyed by the Catholics.

It should be noted that the Papal claim to Apostolic Succession held by the Roman Catholics has a serious problem right from the start: Peter is said to be both the first Earthly Head of the Church and the first Bishop of Rome, thus establishing that the Bishop of Rome would always be the Earthly Head of the Church (Pope). Even if we grant that Peter was the Bishop of Rome (despite a lack of real historical evidence that he ever even so much as set foot in that city), there is a problem: the next Bishop of Rome after Peter was Cletus, followed by Linus, followed by Clement. So, supposedly, these were the next three Popes after Peter. They were Bishops of Rome, but did that make them Heads of the Church?

I find that hard to believe, since John the Apostle was known to be still alive well into the reign of Clement, and thus througout all of the reigns of Linus and Cletus as well!

That's John, mind you, who is not only one of the Original Twelve Apostles, but also one of the Big Three who were the only ones privileged to witness the Transfiguration, and who were also given the opportunity to witness the actual Atonement in Gethsamanee (though they fell asleep). Not only that, but John was the only Apostle to whom Jesus Christ gave His Own mother (last time I checked, the Catholics still think rather highly of her)!

So, are we to believe that this Apostle took orders from and was subordinate to the likes of Bishops Cletus, Linus, and Clement?

We don't have to speculate, though. General revelation from God to the whole world was still coming at that time, even according to the traditions of mainstream Christianity. Such revelation should come through the Head of the Church, right? So, whose name on Revelation? The Revelation of St. Cletus? Nope. The Revelation of St. Linus? Naah. The Revelation of St. Clement? Unh-unh. The Revelation of St. John? Bingo!

There's no evidence in the Bible that a Bishop of a large or important city had any more authority than the Bishop of a small town. A Bishop was a Bishop was a Bishop was a Bishop. No such thing as an Archbishop, let alone Cardinal or Pope. Bishop is a high office, but lesser than Apostle. No one can ordain another to authority that he himself does not possess. Not all of the Bishops that ever lived combined could ordain a single Apostle, but an Apostle could ordain Bishops.
 
2005-02-11 11:13:29 PM  
COMALite J

All good points, but putting papistry aside. Can't we assume that Linus, Clement and Cletus were ordained by an apostle or someone who was.

So even if John was too busy living in caves in the desert and having apocolyptic visions (which as I recall, he was supposed to have been) to run the day to day affairs of the church, that doesn't affect that the priesthood's apastolic succession does it?
 
2005-02-11 11:14:25 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: For millenia, everyone KNEW they existed.


..........and for millenia, they had washed up on shore. finding them alive is a relatively new concept. yes, crackpots believed in ginormous squid that lived at the edge of the earth right after the 'here there be monsters' portion of their map, and going any further would result in the squid eating your boat. giant squid have a tendancy of washing ashore after they die. do you not see the connect the dots portion of this one?

kinda like behemoth and leviathon. do you not think dinosaur bones might have led to those particular legends/parables?

btw, the random capitalization has already been copyrighted by mike_71. i don't think you want his crack team of paralegal midgets in gimp suits to serve you with a subpeona.
 
2005-02-11 11:18:31 PM  
heap

I did the Genesis = Birth of the Universe comparison a while back. Tempted to go do it again just to refresh.

I was struck by how closely it parralleded evrything from the Big Bang, formation of planets, water cooling on the earth, forming of the atmosphere, emergance of plants, emergance of life, order of evolution, etc.

It was as if you were explaing where the world came from to your child. Simple, to the point, easy to grasp, and correct in concept.

A bit of an eye opener when it occured to me.
 
2005-02-11 11:21:05 PM  
heap
btw, the random capitalization

yeah, I do that. Always have. I do it when writing by hand too. No idea where I picked it up. My teachers gave me a hard time about it. It helps facsimilate my own speaking syle into ASCI. That way at least I know that what I was emphasising is clear :)
 
2005-02-11 11:26:23 PM  
heap

But with giant squids, there was a period of time (the modern age) when the people who saw the squid corpses weren't believed. No one inland bought it, because there was no evidence. Squids rot fast, and were usually rotting already by the tme they hit shore. The fishermen who came back with tales of giant squid encounters were dismissed in the same way we dismiss say, the Loch Ness monster, Oki Fanoki, and that other one.
The first documented photo of a giant squid was often held to be a clever hoax.

But they DID exist. As any pre-scientific method person with half a brain could have told you :)
 
2005-02-11 11:34:26 PM  
chaoswolf
soporific,
"No; gay bashing has less to do with Christianity and more to do with mental illness."

Wrong, hate is a taught behavior. and in this case, nobody would give a flying rat's ass about homosexuality unless they are told to, which in this case, is by zealots in the xian faith.


Said zealots are often zealots because they are mentally deranged and need an outlet. And while you can try to teach hate, it doesn't really stick without someone mentally ill to receive it and really take it to the next level. Just ask well-adjusted children of racists who married outside their race.

Seriously, take a look at the "Christian" groups that make it their mission to be anti-gay. Fred Phelps and his ilk for instance. You can find some mania there pretty quickly. Without Christianity, they would base their hatred of gays on some other reason, or find something else to hate altogether.

And there are plenty of hate groups that have nothing to do with Christianity. Or even religion. Human beings have a great capacity to hate and tear down and scapegoat and blame. We can easily do evil things, with or without religion to back us up. We like to be evil, and I daresay that under the right circumstances, you or I could and would do vile and evil things that make these "xians" you speak of look like saints.
 
2005-02-11 11:38:48 PM  
Chaoswolf
Wrong, hate is a taught behavior. and in this case, nobody would give a flying rat's ass about homosexuality unless they are told to, which in this case, is by zealots in the xian faith

It's Christians huh? Here's a thought. List for us the major faiths in the world that DON'T frown on homosexuality.
Feel free to include non-religions, like say Communist countries, or Fascist Germany. Go ahead. Show me the uniqueness of Christianity in taking a dim view of homosexuality.

I'll wait, but not too long OK? Heading out shortly.
 
2005-02-11 11:40:58 PM  
bojangles

really, we're kinda driving right past the point here.


do you honestly believe that ghosts and giant squid are comparable? i guess i'm just looking for the 'little ghost' that is commonly accepted, and even the possibility of empirical evidence. its not like ghosts rot, they just ... well, they're friggin ghosts. poof, and all that.

nessie, big foot, honest politicians...that is a slightly different playing field. they at least claim these mythical beasts are corporeal, and something at least vaguely similar exists in the natural world.
 
2005-02-11 11:48:40 PM  
heap

I was using the squids to specifically illustrate two things:

1) Science tends toward arrogance with a 'if I can't test it, it doesn't exist' way. Jules Verne based his Squid on an actual encounter in the mid 1800s. That no one believed. Science for a time had us all believe that there was no such thing as a Giant Squid.

2) Without Science people can STILL BE RIGHT, no matter how illogical it might seem. Science is not the final arbiter of what is 'real'. Reality is.

Another analogy that I love is this:

"Science is a blind man, in a pitch black room, looking for a black cat"

"Religion is a blind man, in a pitch black room, who has found the cat"

Do ghosts and fairies and whatnot exist?

Dunno. Maybe. Bucause I find it awfully hard to overlook the fact that for all of recorded history, in all places, in all cultures, in all times including our own...

People keep saying they found 'giant squid gibblets' on the shore.

And I'm pretty sure my Grandmother's house had some 'squid gibblets'.
 
Displayed 50 of 1088 comments


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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