Muh Gravity. . III buildings; .. I don't like Dawkins not because I'm a christian (which I am) and not because I believe in the creation story (which I don't) but because he has such a VENDETTA Muh Gravity III buildings; I don't like Dawkins not because I'm a christian (which am) and believe in the creation story don't) but he has such VENDETTA
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (350)
[ 350 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
146 comments displayed.
#2 - traelos
Reply -26
(06/26/2013) [-]
Understand the levels of theories.

Gravity is a theory

Evolution is a theory

String Theory is a theory

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a theory

One of those is 99.99999999999999999999999% likely to be true, another one is 90% likely to be true, another is 50% likely to be true, one of them isn't true.

They are all theories.
#5 to #2 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/26/2013) [-]
Ok sounds like someone needs to learn the difference between a scientific theory, and a theory. The Flying spaghetti monster is a theory, Evolution, Gravity, and Super String are all SCIENTIFIC theories. There is a massive difference.
#88 to #5 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
a) No one said anything about any of those theories being scientific

b) FSM is actually a scientific theory, albeit a **** one

c) I don't have a C, but I like to use this format, so I'm just going to attach a picture of a cat to this comment
#355 to #88 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
the flying spaghetti monster is not a scientific theory, as it has not been confirmed repeatedly through experimentation, empirical evidence, observation, and cannot be used as an effective predictor of what will occur in experiment. Again, please learn the difference.
#365 to #355 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Theories aren't confirmed.

Laws are confirmed.

Theories are implied.

FSM is implied, albeit poorly.
#367 to #365 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Again, you fail to understand the difference between a scientific theory, and a theory.
#371 to #367 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
a) No one said anything about any of those theories being scientific

b) FSM is actually a scientific theory, albeit a **** one

c) I don't have a C, but I like to use this format, so I'm just going to attach a picture of a cat to this comment

d) I actually do have a c now, but I already used c before so now its a d. This is getting back to my original comment. There are a lot of things that are scientific theories, and they are not all on the same level of credibility. Perhaps it would help you understand if I mentioned that Phrenology was a scientific theory for a very long time, on par with evolution.
#374 to #371 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Once again, FSM is not a scientific theory as there is no experimentation, observation, or evidence for it's existence, and the FSM does not explain any natural phenomena, nor can it be used as a predictor for experimentation and invention. As such, it is simply an assertion, an idea, but it is NOT scientific.
#410 to #374 - anon
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
As ABBA SAY TAKE A CHANCE ***** D
#384 to #374 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Experimentation: Every other day I will pray to FSM that I have a good day. I will mark what days are good and what are bad. All the days that I prayed were good. Experiment.

Observation: I observed that pasta was invented, who would come up with that idea without his spaghettiness's influence?

Evidence: The world is here, obviously it was created by FSM

(There's also literally books of actual observation, experimentation and evidence since people have taken FSM to 11, but I'm too lazy to go grab any of that. Its something about pirates and Happy Holidays or something)

Also FSM explains literally every natural phenomenon, as he's a parody of God (notice the capital G) so there's that...

It can be used to predict global warming or something (refer to pirates)

You're really overestimating what it takes to be a scientific theory. The idea that the Large Hadron Collider would destroy existence is a scientific theory. There's a scientific theory that the universe's purpose in existence is to create a reality of infinite strangeness and if it were ever discovered it would be destroyed and replaced with an even stranger one (or something like that). There's a theory that there are an infinite amount of parallel universes featuring an infinite amount of yous making an infinite amount of different decisions so that you, or at least a parallel you will live forever and are at any given time having sex with Elton John, the Dalai Lama and Julius Caesar at the same time. These are all Scientific Theories.

Anyway I'm off for the time being. An infinite amount of you will read this and think I'm an idiot, while another, infinite amount of you will read this, change your mind, walk out of the room you're in and eat the hair off a purple orangutang, because hey, like OP says, or at least strongly implies, for it to be a scientific theory it totally has to be true.
#385 to #384 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
You're really overestimating what it takes to be a scientific theory. The idea that the Large Hadron Collider would destroy existence is a scientific theory. There's a scientific theory that the universe's purpose in existence is to create a reality of infinite strangeness and if it were ever discovered it would be destroyed and replaced with an even stranger one (or something like that). There's a theory that there are an infinite amount of parallel universes featuring an infinite amount of yous making an infinite amount of different decisions so that you, or at least a parallel you will live forever and are at any given time having sex with Elton John, the Dalai Lama and Julius Caesar at the same time. These are all Scientific Theories.

Incorrect, those are known as "Hypothesis" because they have not been confirmed through experimentation, observation, and evidence, and cannot be used 100% successfully as predictors for experiment and invention. Once again, incorrect as to the definition of a scientific theory. Please re-read the original picture.
#405 to #385 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
You're aware gravity has not been confirmed through experimentation, observation, and evidence, and cannot be used 100% successfully as predictor for experiment and invention right?

That's why it's a theory and not a law.
#407 to #405 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
Really? Look up why your GPS and cellphones work, look up how they devised a flight plan for the curiosity rover, look up how they directed the voyager spacecraft out of the solar system with limited fuel. Here's a hint, they used the theory of gravity as a predictor for all of those calculations. INNUMERABLE experiments and observations have taken place to confirm the various aspects of the theory of gravity, and the only point right now in which gravity imperfectly explains the natural law of gravitation is in the center of a black hole, and at the quantum level. Also, remember that the SCIENTIFIC THEORY of gravity is actually there to explain 3 seperate laws, and how they interact with each other.
#408 to #407 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is that gravity has not been confirmed through experimentation, observation, and evidence, and cannot be used 100% successfully as predictor for experiment and invention?

100% leaves very little room for error. (Actually, it doesn't leave room for error)

I mean, just because some technology works based on the idea of a theory doesn't mean it's perfect.

For example, you'll find that gravity in fact, does not exist, and that all objects are constantly being pushed by His Noodley Appendage in whatever direction He wants them to go. It just so happens that Our Lord the FSM is a pretty predictable guy. It's really a unity thing, He is just trying to bring us all together.

And on a more serious note, they had working calenders before Copernicus.
#409 to #408 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
I... you're a troll and have been this whole time, aren't you? I've completely fallen into your trap. No one is actually this stupid.
#412 to #409 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
If you read the quotes on this page it might help you understand.

www.venganza.org/about/endorsements1/
#411 to #409 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
Admittedly I'm making a fairly lighthearted argument, but no, I'm serious. You're mistaking what it takes to be a scientifically accepted theory with what it takes to be a scientifically valid theory.

I know I'm being pedantic but people do it all the time and it annoys me.
#413 to #411 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
But you're completely incorrect, to the degree of abject stupidity, so you really REALLY are a troll, or are so stubbornly misinformed that you can't compute the fact that you are incorrect.
#414 to #413 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
But i'm not incorrect.

FSM is a scientific theory.

I'm not saying it's a law.

I'm not even saying it's a scientifically accepted theory

It is neither of those things

But it is a scientifically valid theory and you will never find a credible source on what defines a scientific theory who won't be forced to admit that it counts, regardless of how implausible it is.

But that's just it, to be a scientific theory it doesn't have to be plausible, it just has to be possible.

A lot of things are possible. It's really not that hard to do.
#415 to #414 - teranin ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
Again, no, FSM is not a scientific theory, as I have explained. I cannot explain it even more clearly. At this point logic cannot win, believe as you like but know you are doing yourself a disservice by not having a basic understanding of the difference between a theory, and a scientific theory.
#416 to #415 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/28/2013) [-]
But no, you haven't explained why it's not a scientific theory (and you can't, because it is)

All you've explained is alternatively that you know nothing about FSM and that Gravity is a scientific theory, and a rather good one.

Admittedly I haven't put forth a lot of the evidence that makes FSM a scientific theory, but that's because all that observation and evidence was done and discovered by people with PHDs who wrote 10-50 page papers about it which are mostly just vicious attacks at those who believe in Intelligent Design (Because intelligent design is a scientifically valid theory, even though it's a **** one and actual researchers resent it for what they perceive as a corruption of the population away from the theory that they personally believe to be true, ie. Evolution) and I am lazy.

But seriously, it is a scientific theory, it has evidence, it explains things, it's not impossible. It ******* counts.

Consider, if you missed it, all of these people who are vastly more qualified to speak on the subject than you whom refer to it as a scientific theory.

www.venganza.org/about/endorsements1/
#21 to #2 - threeeehuggings
Reply +1
(06/26/2013) [-]
How dare you call the flying spaghetti monster something as degenerating as a theory.

Flying spaghetti monster is the way, truth and life.
#3 to #2 - emotep
Reply +27
(06/26/2013) [-]
The flying spaghetti monster is not a theory nor is it even a hypothesis.
#11 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(06/26/2013) [-]
Your right His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a theory or a hypothesis! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is life.
#4 to #3 - traelos
Reply -11
(06/26/2013) [-]
Wrong.

It's not a very good theory or a believable hypothesis.

That's exactly the point.
#39 to #4 - ScottMJfan
Reply 0
(06/26/2013) [-]
I can't even begin to describe the level of stupidity you are.

"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works."

Does that really sound like a theory to you?
#85 to #39 - traelos
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I actually can begin to describe the level of uninformed you are.

To start, your definition of a theory is pretty abstract, I mean that's a bit closer to the definition of "idea" (And by the way, the FSM completely fits into your definition)

I prefer one more like this

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"

The supposition is that the FSM exists and is causally related to the function of the world, the thing being explained is creation. BAM that's a theory, not very hard to do.

Note that this definition focuses more on the bit where a theory explains something and less on the bit where a theory is just a series of concepts.

Also note that the FSM is a scientific argument put together to explain why Intelligent Design is a silly idea. The very point of the FSM is to prove that just because something is a scientifically valid theory, doesn't mean that it should be a scientifically accepted one.

Consider for example conspiracy theories. They are theories about conspiracies. They are also the domain of lunatics and schizophrenics. However, do note, that they are theories. I didn't say FSM was a good theory, I just said it was one.

It's ok though, don't feel bad. A lot of people don't really understand that the existence of a ****** theory is possible. It's because a lot of people put this sense of divine reverence into "science" and they lose sight of what the word "science" means in the first place.
#13 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(06/26/2013) [-]
No, YOU'RE wrong.

A scientific theory has to have a well-substantiated body of evidence. You're doing what everyone who thinks they're a soopa clever does and confusing a theory with 'hunch'.
#9 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(06/26/2013) [-]
I'm not sure but... could you by any chance be my little sister? She also makes things up which in her logic seem more reasonable when people who actually know their **** tell her how things work.
#25 - Smidgit
Reply +20
(06/26/2013) [-]
I don't like Dawkins
not because I'm a christian (which I am) and not because I believe in the creation story (which I don't) but because he has such a VENDETTA against religion
for goodness sake if me believing in God isn't hurting anyone and makes me happy then let me believe in God!
#159 to #25 - lordmoldywart
Reply -7
(06/27/2013) [-]
You're a Christian who doesn't believe in creationism....wut




wut
#222 to #159 - zorororonoa
Reply +2
(06/27/2013) [-]
Creationism isn't the believe that God created us, it is the belief that God created everything starting 6000 years ago, he did it in exactly 7 days, and that he made Adam from dust and Eve from a rib. Pretty much Creationists are the ones who take everything the Bible says literally and believe that dinosaurs are made up lies from scientists because they are not specifically in the Bible. Christians that don't believe in Creationism, like myself, believe that, while God did create everything, he used evolution to do it. I'm smart enough to know that the Bible isn't a literal book.
#224 to #222 - lordmoldywart
Reply -3
(06/27/2013) [-]
Creationism is simply the idea that everything as we know it was created by a divine being, and not via the big bang. That's creationism

The bible speaks of giant beasts in prehistoric times, Christians don't reject dinosaurs, they just don't believe they're as old as we think they are
#227 to #224 - zorororonoa
Reply +3
(06/27/2013) [-]
"as we think they are." Don't lump all Christians in one boat and all atheists in another boat like that. I believe that dinosaurs are as old as everyone else. Also, here is the definition of creationism that I found. "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes." So that means that you believe that God created everything exactly how the Bible describes. If you believe that God created everything using a process like evolution, than you are not a Creationist.
#230 to #227 - lordmoldywart
Reply -3
(06/27/2013) [-]
You need to pull that stick out your arse and stop being so defensive, I wasn't lumping anyone from either side into a boat. It was general talk, the 'we' wasn't meant in a hostile manner like how you took it

The Bible doesn't speak in detail of how God apparently created everything, only a timeframe within which he did it. There is a large hole in the Bible leaving out how he created us, and the Bible not once rejects evolution, so it's perfectly reasonable that evolution (and even possibly the big bang) was God's method of creating life. That definition you presented is of no use whatsoever, because the biblical account we have doesn't mention the process God used, so it is perfectly reasonable to suggest he used processes to create

God being God would have had to** create** the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology necessary for evolution to take place, therefore you can believe that evolution happened, and that God created it and subsequently all life
#351 to #159 - Smidgit
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
my mum's a deacon in the Church of England and she doesn't believe in it either
just because you're a christian doesn't mean that you have to take everything the bible says literally or metaphorically
I believe that the big bang happened and that evolution happened etc
#359 to #351 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
It's reasonable to be a Christian and believe in the big bang and evolution, but surely you believe it is God that created those events/processes?
#360 to #359 - Smidgit
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
yes but isn't that the first cause theory?
#361 to #360 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Yes it is, and being a Christian, don't you believe in it?
#362 to #361 - Smidgit
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
yes, but i don't believe in the whole "created the world in 7 days" fandango
#363 to #362 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
The Bible doesn't specify how long a day means in biblical terms

A day to us is 24 hours, a day to jupiter is 10 hours, day lengths vary
#364 to #363 - Smidgit
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
It also says that the sun was created on the 4th day after day and night and trees and plants and man was made from the dust of the earth and woman from his rib
#248 to #159 - anon
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
a little bit late but, havent you consider that the bible isnt that literal? for example, cain and abel, maybe they were tribes, one of hunters, and one of farmers, the story tell us that one kill another... maybe thats a reference to the first war/combat in the bible chronology, Jesus use parables in order to reach all kinds of people, maybe the bible was written with that idea...
#255 to #248 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Lots of the bible is metaphorical, I know that
#260 to #25 - hailarty
Reply -3
(06/27/2013) [-]
As you are one person who believes in god you might not feel the negative impact religion is causing to the society. But once you look to the big picture when there are enough religious people to form churches ect. then religion starts to effect laws and social norms. For example there are still countries where abortion is illegal, stem cell research is still illegal in most places and so forth. The progress of science and society is being slowed down greatly, because there are enough religious people to influence elections. If everyone was more like you -"I am religious I am not hurting anyone, leave me alone" people like Dawkins would not exist, because there would not be a need for men like him. But right now we need more people like him so they could weaken religions negative impact on society.
#82 to #25 - kingchase
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#96 to #82 - fredthemilkman
Reply +3
(06/27/2013) [-]
Not even. The crusades brought back a lot of good things to Europe, such as Algebra and painkillers. Besides, during the 174 years of the Crusades, only 24 involved fighting.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru3.htm

Also, i doubt we were set back at all, let alone 1000 years. Although you were probably just making a point.
#118 to #82 - recio **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#32 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(06/26/2013) [-]
>believing in god hasn't hurt anyone

...

the crusades, the inquisition, arranged marriages (to minors), hating homosexuals, burning witches, condoning slavery, the systematic ******* of children.

and that's just christians...
#37 to #32 - Smidgit
Reply +5
(06/26/2013) [-]
"if ME believing in god isn't hurting anyone"
last I checked I haven't done any of those things.
#42 to #37 - cawpikolo
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
I don't knoooOOOooow noah's ark is about him drowning the entire earth. Jusssst saying but I do respect your beliefs.
#45 to #42 - Smidgit
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
also thank you for respecting my beliefs!
#43 to #42 - Smidgit
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I... What?
haha also just to say, I don't believe everything the bible says, but I do follow its basic moral code
eg creationism, noahs ark and to some extent the virgin birth not so much
but loving thy neighbor (INCLUDING those of all races and sexual orientation*) and the 10 commandments yes.

*does not include rapists murderers pedophiles etc
#54 to #43 - croski
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
What denomination are you?
#352 to #54 - Smidgit
Reply -1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Church of England
#80 to #43 - kingchase
Reply -3
(06/27/2013) [-]
The "basic moral code" for Christians is being nice while surviving. Our ancestors have been doing that at least 50,000 before Judaism was created. Your a christian because you were born into it.
#353 to #80 - Smidgit
Reply -1
(06/27/2013) [-]
true, I was born into a religious family but I have always been allowed to make up my own mind about religion.
As long as I'm living by a basic moral code, why should it matter what type of code I call it?
#180 to #37 - anon
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Well, that's precisely why Dawkins doesn't (or shouldn't; I'm unsure of what Dawkins does) hold vendettas against religious individuals, but rather, has a vendetta against religion as a whole. I would guess that he really doesn't care about an individual such a you, believing in god, as most religious individuals are harmless, but that he despises religion for its larger effects throughout society. In any case, he is probably not so much concerned about you harming others with religion (as you don't), but he is likely more concerned about religious exposure to a whole population, which then will likely lead to at least of few incidences of such tragedies. As such, it isn't unreasonable to hold a vendetta against religion in that it is generally useless and not beneficial (at least when accounting for its negative influences), yet causes tragedies in society as a whole. Thus, removal of religion entirely may be seen as a better choice, and personal sentiments are just collateral damage.
#97 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
It's ok to be gay, but not religious. Didn't you know that?
#41 to #25 - zzforrest
Reply +3
(06/27/2013) [-]
Richard Dawkins Quote #1
"Religion is like a virus."
Richard Dawkins Quote #2 ( way later than #1 )
"I meant that religion is like a virus in the way it spreads"

No, Dawkins, you meant that religion is like a virus because you hate it, not because it spreads.
#40 - termz
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Evolution was proven in bacteria or some ****
#206 to #40 - icefall
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
To the extent I know, Evolution as a concept of "specias change" is a proven fact, the question is how it actually happens. There are different theories of evolution, natural selection is just one of the many methods that are thought to have a contribution in evolution. There are theories that speculate that evolution happens over a long period of time, other suggest that it is rapid changes, etc
#257 to #40 - metalmind
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Evolution is prooven in everything. It's a fact.
#47 to #40 - largeheadphones
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Whether or not it's proven, very few religious groups will accept that fact.
#60 to #47 - kingchase
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Not accepting fact pisses me off. ******* people.
#61 to #60 - largeheadphones
Reply +3
(06/27/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, can you clarify, really tired today, a little slow.
#63 to #61 - kingchase
Reply +2
(06/27/2013) [-]
If something is proven, it is fact. Facts are absolute. It is extremely foolish to deny fact. You are correct in your statement btw.
#70 to #63 - sanguinesolitude
Reply +9
(06/27/2013) [-]
thats a very unscientific view. There are no absolute facts, just very well supported theories. You should always question everything and accept only that which is logical and well supported, otherwise you are just being religiously atheist, which is as empty and ignorant a position as a religious fanatic.
#74 to #70 - kingchase
Reply +4
(06/27/2013) [-]
That's actually a very good point, and I've tried to do that before. You have made me realize that I've strayed from my path of scientific paranoia, thank you.
#78 to #74 - sanguinesolitude
Reply +6
(06/27/2013) [-]
no problem. I find Atheism an arrogant position when taken hardline. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, in that i do not believe in a god, but i am open to the possibility that i could be wrong. Do i think i am wrong? no. But there is no proof that God doesnt exist, and we dont even know what God might possibly be. So you gotta leave the door open in case jesus appears and is like... "BOOM son of god ************... you ready for hell faggot"
#64 to #63 - largeheadphones
Reply +2
(06/27/2013) [-]
OK, thank you, I to hate it when people deny facts.
#83 to #47 - anon
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Many do, you just dont know any for yourself so you jump to conclusions you retarded faggot.
#354 to #83 - largeheadphones
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Ha.
#145 to #40 - newforomador
Reply +2
(06/27/2013) [-]
Evolution has been proven, but the big argument is whether or not homo sapiens evolved from primates.
#182 to #145 - anon
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
not a single intelligent person has ever said that we evolved from primates. all of the great apes (including homo sapiens) came from a COMMON ANCESTOR. that means a long time ago, there was a certain species of animal that diverged into separate branches of species, and we evolved alongside the rest of the apes.

WE DIDN'T COME FROM APES. NO ONE ACTUALLY THINKS THAT.
#187 to #182 - newforomador
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Whichever, people understand what I meant. Either way, I actually had never heard that before and thought the theory was that we evolved from primates. Well, you learn something new everyday.
#252 - abstract
Reply +8
(06/27/2013) [-]
#294 to #252 - anon
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
thats a great graphic organizer.
#158 - anothereposter **User deleted account**
+7
has deleted their comment [-]
#211 to #158 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say that, he's just a little "harsh". Considering what religion has done AND does I think it's good that we aren't all being so nice about it..

Also, giving atheism a bad name kind of sounds retarded because atheism is simply NOT being religious... personally I don't really like that word because it gives us a form of title for NOT being something
#221 to #211 - babbylicious
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Any belief system (or lack thereof) can be given a bad name due to people's behavior, even if it has nothing to do with the faith.

All atheists believe that there is no god (no ****), but some act like assholes who believe that religion is a curse on man and must be exterminated. Atheists have made large contributions to the advancement of society.

Catholics believe in the Catholic Church, yet pedobears priests are abundant.
Catholics have made large contributions in the fields of social justice throughout the world.

The thing is...there are always assholes who might share the same belief or lack thereof which make the entire system frown upon in some area or another. This is one way on how stereotypes start developing. I am sure you have seen this picture around. This stereotype developed because of angry atheists bashing on religion, much in the same way pedo jokes developed because of priests touching kids.

It is not the belief. Yes not believing in God is a belief in my book. It is the social behavior performed by individuals which taint the group.
#269 to #221 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
fun fact! Muslim scientists greatly preceded Darwin with the theory of evolution

check out this thread
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89773
#350 to #269 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Well if this is true I suppose some of them "actually know their ****" as they were saying it. However there are some important scientific discoveries that was done by the Nazi's as well so I suppose science can in some cases be viewed a neutral to belief unless it downright contradicts or supports it(I've mostly heard of contradictions though)
#250 to #221 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Well it was kind of bound to happen that someone would go strongly against religion when the name of religion gets misused to such a stage that anyone who questions it gets executed...

So if not believing in god is a belief don't you think you can say the same thing about invisible pink unicorns? It's a non-belief, not a belief.
#271 to #250 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Atheism isn't "not caring whether there is a god or not", that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is no god indefinitely, so that's when someone uses science to disprove things like the splitting of the red sea, Mohammed (pbuh) riding the magical horse into space, etc. The issue with that is that there is little to no evidence to disprove theism, as there is scientific proof of the splitting of the red sea and a scientific back story to the Prophet (pbuh)'s trip
#301 to #271 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say Atheism is the belief that there is no god, that would imply that atheism is somewhat related to Christianity or any other religion that contains gods and it would also imply that Atheism is a religion.

Buddhist don't believe in an entity but that doesn't make it so that their religion is about there not being any god because.

I didn't say that atheism was about not caring whether there is a god or not, in fact it isn't about anything. The word atheist probably shouldn't exist because as I mentioned earlier it gives us a title for NOT being religious.

Agnosticism is more about wondering what is out there, it doesn't make them religious but they don't deny or claim that there is a god or something like that. They just accept the fact that they don't know so agnostics aren't exactly religious either. However it's still different from atheism because Agnosticism is actually something.

Neil degrasse tyson doesn't like the word "atheist" either. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

I don't believe there is scientific proof just because I read it on the Internet though, did you suddenly start to try and turn me into a Christian or something?
#312 to #301 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Side note (completely irrelevant to the argument) I've long learned that those that actually are looking for some answer can find it on their own, and my practice will preach itself, answering questions or referring to other resources should anyone ask. Whether they convert or not is completely irrelevant to me, all that's asked of me is to be a good representation of Islam.
#320 to #312 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
As long as you're one of these good "representations" I don't really care about you being a religious person and I only like arguing anyway. However there are also many bad "representations" as well. I don't doubt that you're aware of them but absolutely ANY group of people whether they are religious or not have good and bad sides to them.

People like Richard Dawkin are often driven to be against religion because there are too many of these VERY bad "representations" . I am not going to go into detail about them though unless we go "that far" with this discussion.
#327 to #320 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Well, terrorism is a real issue but it shouldn't be linked to Islam, there's just a ridiculous amount of misinterpretation about Islam with the media. Nobody really feels the need to do anything about it (except for the great men and women in the UN and wikipedia behind the xenephobia and islamophobia programs) because if you actually go to learn anything about it, muslims are and always have been very rational, fair, open minded and advanced technologically and socially all throughout history (I can go deep into this if you're interested, there's a lot of things that people should note i.e in depth analysis of the proper sharia law, but I digress) We don't need to sit on internet forums and stand at picket lines spreading the good ol' word of Islam, we don't have to prove anything to anyone. People have as much of a legal right to practice Qur'an burnings as we do to read and recite it, and if that's their way, we have no right or practical reason to conflict with them. We just need to practice Islam and integrate with society (which never conflict in our great countries)
#330 to #327 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
"muslims are and always have been very rational, fair, open minded and advanced technologically and socially all throughout history"

I've got more than a few counter-arguments for this.. but I am not so sure if I should go "that far" as I mentioned earlier, however one thing I will say is that you should perhaps consider that you are believing what you want to believe. It is true that some media has exaggerated to an extent where being a muslim is automatically bad though which is not true of course. I have a lot of bad things to say about muslims but it doesn't go for all of them.
#342 to #330 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
(cont of previous comment) what you don't realize is that any money the woman gets is entirely hers to spend and she has 0 obligation to spend it on anyone but herself, whereas the man in the family is absolutely not allowed to spend a dime on himself until his woman and his children's needs are met, and any money the woman gets from her parents will etc is NOT to be used in fulfilling these needs unless she decides to do so, in which it is counted as a donation in her "book" (which is read during the day of judgement)

Then there's the seemingly sticky case of polygamy, which if you look at it from a social perspective, it makes sense. You are allowed to have 4 wives maximum as a male and you absolutely must keep everything entirely fair between your wives from time spent with them to money given. Do please note that this is only in place to be there in times of necessity, such as during times of war when many women are left on the street as widows and it is explicitly stated that if you fear you cannot keep things fair (because it's very difficult to do, it's not like having 4 different "flavors" every night like people think it is) stick to one wife.
#347 to #342 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I'll just skip almost all parts that you have mentioned already because among the stuff I knew about it's pretty much true and I have nothing to say that the stuff I didn't know about wasn't. However at first I think I shall mention a bit about a lot of the people.

This video speaks for itself btw: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XRCYlZ4XOQ

There are many muslims that come from Islamic countries that immigrate to non-Islamic countries for a better life. However WHY do they find better lives in the non-islamic countries is something that we should consider and the first video explains ONE of the reasons quite well. so it's basically their strict law, which I admit that I don't know much about since I am not exactly an expert.
One thing I do know is that when something is different in the new country from what their religion says is should be they always seem to react the same way. If someone freaking DRAWS a picture of their prophet then their rioting about it is probably gonna last a bit like history have shown merely in this new century. They also always claim to be the victim.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=koMRz3jjyi0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0GqNL40h4
I think it's also worth mentioning that the Boston bombing was done by islam or at least a muslim
I'd imagine people following a religion of divine word and "peace" to be at least a bit more civilized eh? Not to mention the way the violently act against homosexuals and jews

The "good parts" are always there in every single religion and it makes people more able to have an excuse for themselves for having their belief.

Here is a video from a very active atheist that I subscribe too on youtube, he often puts entertainment clips into his videoes to make his points but his points are pretty good. here he is talking about a man facing execution in an Islamic country simply for posting something on twitter www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKNwTDFvfps
#358 to #347 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/2013681251485552.html

SOME efforts that have been made to deal with the gap
#388 to #358 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
36 seconds may not be much but It is more than enough to prove a single point, Also I think you forgot to mention the video about the guy who faced execution for twitter posts,

Well, but yeah if you want to go about Islam itself instead of the actions of the people... I have already mentioned part about Drawing Muhammad being a sin and I would GUESS that the hate towards homosexuality and jews. Also, the way you explain Apostasy makes it sound like a typical way of justifying to execute someone when they leave the religion.

Just because they leave the religion it doesn't mean that they completely and utterly reject ANYTHING muslim. but the muslim leaders could just call it apostasy and suddenly the guy gets executed. I'd just say that it's a stealthier version of the Christian "if you're not with us, you're against us" .
I honestly don't know of much else to say about the religion itself since I don't know that much about Islam itself.

My arguments have mostly been about the actions of the people and your arguments have been mostly about the islamic law. I suppose we should argue about whether or not Islam is actually true

How do you know that everything in Islamic books wasn't just written by ancient men who just had a great fantasy. Now days these people are called authors because they write nice entertaining books and they just earn money and fame on it rather than power. In the Christian religion some people say that "if god doesn't exist then who wrote the bible" which is like asking "if harry potter doesn't exist then wrote the harry potter books?"
I suppose a similar argument can be made towards the Qur'an and other Islamic books.

Also, how could Allah AKA god be born out of nothing? I don't know how Islam mentions him in the beginning of time and/or his birth so please just clarify that for me before I go on.
#399 to #388 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I double checked with a few more people I know and the punishment against apostasy is really controversial, because it doesn't make sense how you're allowed to practice "heretic" paganism in a muslim society under the Sharia law, protected by the state itself against war and not obligated to go to Jihad Al Saif (holy war, should it ever be declared, there's a LOT of rules to be observed before actually becomes Jihad Al Saif) yet if you leave Islam, you face death and many Islamic scholars agree with it's controversy.

As for the twitter posts and the drawing of Muhammad, drawing any man or animal is forbidden (I understand it as attempting to recreate God's art, which we can't ever get considering how complex humans and animals are from a biological standpoint. Muslim art mostly consists of calligraphy and flowers and other decorations, it looks REALLY nice in my opinion, they use a lot of gold in their decorations, pic related) so people get really offended when you draw the Prophet (it shouldn't result in degrading to a bunch of brainless murderers but you and I both know that not everyone likes to think, sometimes.)

You have to understand that in order for a Caliphate to implement the Sharia to the word and letter, they have to do their part which includes the maintenance of the Mosques, roads and the economic as well as the social stability. Saudi Arabia probably has the best social security out of any country I have ever seen (actually talk to Saudi Arabians, don't just read the tabloids. They are very, very happy with the Sharia law and these aren't "brainwashed Jihadis", my neighbour is Saudi Arabian and he is a research biologist at the nearest hospital and he's a very intelligent and patient man) yet they still don't implement the Sharia law fully.

As for why the Qur'an has a divine source I'll explain fully and in detail (I've looked deep, DEEP into this. I'm a man of science as well) but I must go to my high school graduation, give me some time
#419 to #399 - atoma
Reply 0
(05/16/2014) [-]
Did you think I ever forgot?   
   
YOU WERE WRONG!! THIS HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME FOR FAR TOO LONG   
   
Long time no see
Did you think I ever forgot?

YOU WERE WRONG!! THIS HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME FOR FAR TOO LONG

Long time no see
#418 to #399 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/30/2013) [-]
I think I have given you a lot of time now... how much time did you need exactly?
#401 to #399 - atoma
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#357 to #347 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
(continuation 1)
What I'm trying to get at is apostasy is the complete and total rejection of everything muslim, essentially, which includes the Sharia law, which is equal to rejecting the laws against murder, payment / collection of interest, adultery, theft. It's not merely saying "I'm not muslim" because Dhimmis (non-muslims living in muslim states) were subject to Jizya en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya and they were allowed to believe whatever they wanted to believe (read the first paragraph of the wiki article) Including (very important to note) pagans and other polytheistic religions, even though Shirk (or association, basically denying that there is only one god) was absolutely forbidden in Islam.

As for the protests against the youtube video Innocence of Muslims and the various insults against Islam, there's not a whole lot I can say. I can go on and on just like many, MANY scholars and muslims about how the Prophet pbuh himself was insulted personally many, many times and how he handled the situation with patience and how he instructed all of us to handle these situations, but none of that applies to you. As far as you see it, a bunch of crazy muslims rioting again, burning down a US embassy (which is an absolutely insane thing to do, and possibly was the single worst thing they could have done. You just don't touch an embassy, it is the single most basic international law that ever and if the US decides to glass the entirety of Libya, I won't be able to raise a single valid protest.) Unfortunately a couple thousand protesters represent the tens of millions of muslims all around the globe according to the western world, and there's nothing we can do about it.
#356 to #347 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Well, there's a number of things that you bring up, first one is the fact that apostasy is punishable by death. This is true, and like the man in the first video he stopped the woman who was hesitant to say it and said it outright. The crime for apostasy is death, but are you going to stop there like Mr. Dawkins did? Should a mere 36 second video be the deciding factor on whether or not a law is incorrect? Islam is very, very complex and it takes many people to come together and form a conclusion, there is an entire university in Saudi Arabia that studies these things, so as with all things we encounter, we have to actually wrap our heads around the whole situation.

First off, these laws are referred to as the Sharia and that's a completely different topic much larger than a simple "what is the ruling for this crime". The Sharia law is very harsh towards certain crimes including theft, adultery, murder, highway robbing and another one I can't quite remember (I'm terribly sorry) these are the cornerstones of a society, however. It's there to protect women, economy and families, 3 things that a lot of countries cannot secure, which leads to poverty, devalue of women and broken homes (how many children are born out of wedlock, or to divorce, or had to experience a divorce?)

HOWEVER if you (the sultan / president / ruler) are to start implementing these laws and punishments, you have to do your part as well. We all know making something illegal won't solve the issue, you need to tackle the issue at it's source, to which I present to you Zakat en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak%C4%81t by using Zakat, nobody will be in the position where they either steal or starve, nobody will be in overwhelming debt and investments can go forth and everyone will have enough money to marry early, avoiding pre-marital sex and securing families early on (5 husbands later, things change man)

continued in next reply
#339 to #330 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Please, don't pull any punches with me. If at the end of our discussion I agree that Islam is incorrect and barbaric, I will drop my faith immediately. It's like I said earlier, if you're going to devote your life to a purpose such as a religion it damn well better be 100% perfect and flawless. If I find any flaw in my religion (which I am still actively looking for) of course I'm going to drop it dead.

First off, I'm sure the first argument is terrorism and the whole idea of 72 virgins. Terrorism is a very real issue, it's not like the 3 thousand men and women that died in 9/11 deserved to die just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, I can't speak for the shiite sect, I can only speak for the sunni sect (which is the majority by far, picture related) but Jihad (which is essentially any struggle for the glory of god, really non-militaristic in the modern world ) has laws on warfare, such as no killing of women, children or non-combatants or damaging cultivated or residential areas (of which the 9/11 attacks violated almost every one of those rules)
citation: The Muslim Conduct of State by Muhammad Hamidullah (1987)

Another popular argument is the unfair treatment of women. This is something that you will always think about Islam if you don't wrap your head around the entire Sharia law as it pertains to women (I myself was very wierded out by polygamy until I fully understood it) what you see is a Hijab and burka and a woman that is restricted from expressing her beauty. What you don't see is the fact that women are not allowed to wear perfume, whereas men are encouraged to do so, as well as dress nicely and groom oneself properly, because men are the ones that are supposed to impress the woman, not the other way around. Another thing is the fact that a daughter is entitled to half as much as the son. (cont in next reply)
#341 to #339 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I'll just wait for your next reply before I answer then
#309 to #301 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
(I'm muslim actually) and no, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just saying that what I believe has a lot of scientific background that I can defend, and why athiests get such a bad rep, because those who actively try to fight religion like Dawkins shouldn't represent those who don't really care for religion or the fight in general.

If you take a look at this comparison, it'll show you that the level of faith can vary for both, and that they both are actually "something"
www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist
#318 to #309 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Looks like we are both right actually, there are many different definitions of atheist as stated in this article depending on opinions and what "atheists" generally accept as definition for it.  
			You need to login to view this link
		    
   
I guess Atheism/Atheist is one of the most unstable words there are, in fact the only word that I can think of that is harder to define would be the word "life".    
Which brings us to the question: what is the meaning of the word life? It would have been so simple if we could just religiously answer that it is whether or not they have a soul. In that case the problem would be to define a soul.
Looks like we are both right actually, there are many different definitions of atheist as stated in this article depending on opinions and what "atheists" generally accept as definition for it. You need to login to view this link

I guess Atheism/Atheist is one of the most unstable words there are, in fact the only word that I can think of that is harder to define would be the word "life".
Which brings us to the question: what is the meaning of the word life? It would have been so simple if we could just religiously answer that it is whether or not they have a soul. In that case the problem would be to define a soul.
#321 to #318 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
If that's the argument, you need to start small. It IS possible, lets look at it from one side. Life would be useless without a purpose, correct? Then what is our purpose?

Actually that's far too broad, what dictates what we do? Do you agree that we have a soul to maintain (consience, karma, morals etc) and that doing (generally accepted) bad deeds hurts us or dis encourages progress in some way?
#326 to #321 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Life would be useless without purpose and it IS useless and without purpose if you ask me, however my view on that is merely the realistic side of me because I am pretty sure asking for the meaning of life in a "why are we here?" kind of manner is like asking "what's the square root of apple pie". In fact it's a dumb question, people create religions in order to feel like they have a purpose.

So what purposes do we have if we weren't created for a all godly divine purpose? It's simple, we look at our purpose according to someone or even something, According to our genes we are vessels carrying from one to an another, according to your father it could be to be a doctor who achieves great stuff. That was just a "what if" btw cuz I don't know anything about you personally anyway..


I guess it's the purpose that you give yourself that you should count in the most perhaps and living without a purpose is quite simple for me anyway because I care about living with my family and friends and enjoying myself. I care about actually being a good piece of "the chain".

Someone might ask "why care about any of those stuff if they are meaningless?" Well my answer is "why not? we are humans anyway, we DO care about pointless stuff whether you like it or not!"

I don't think that we are alive through some sort of "soul" but I don't doubt that whatever makes us alive could be CALLED a soul if we ever were to discover it. what dictates what we do would be our knowledge, wisdom, instinct, emotions and intelligence which is the answer I provide since it was me you asked.
#334 to #326 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I agree with you 110%, you don't need religion to find a purpose on earth. but has man really been able to create a proper set of "morals"?

Think of it as a law from a completely neutral party, an already established set of rules to end any form of ambiguity because somewhere along the line, ideals such as your's will be long lost and everyone will want to tweak what is morally correct in their favor which infringes on other people's morals, leading to conflict. It's not like man would be able to realize "I'm not the only person here and what I do might affect my friend i.e stealing their food will make them go hungry for a day"

Said law, however, that is to be passed down from a divine entity, the same one (or group, I guess) that created the universe as we know it which must have taken an enormous amount of energy and unimaginable level of intellect must be absolutely 100% perfect and applicable to all eras in time with no room for misinterpretation. So when the Bible scriptures are so vague and confusing with an enormous amount of people misinterpreting them (all the various denominations of Christianity) you know it couldn't have been from a divine source.

(I can use this to explain why I think the Qur'an has a divine source but I don't want to preach, it's your call)
#338 to #334 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Oh and also, I don't think it exists a "proper" set of morals. I spend a lot of my time alone when I am thinking for myself developing my own. I suppose the most "proper" sets of morals would come out of great reasoning.
#337 to #334 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
You raise a lot of valid questions, but you know what? I guess we can start to discuss religion a bit deeper and go "that far". You have also made me curious as to what makes you believe, my father is a Christian yet a very intelligent person.

It is intriguing what can make such smart people out there believe in such entities, for me the word "spirituality" is just an another word "magic". I am guessing that you grew up as a muslim but it would be surprising yet quite possible that you actually converted at some point. The human mind is so fragile to belief and how they grow up may have a lot of affect on it.
#344 to #337 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
While having a religious background can have a lot of influence on your spirituality you don't keep that thought into your later years unless you're entirely convinced by it, and I wasn't 100% religious from start to now. My dad's a heavy athiest and my mom was muslim against her parents choice initially (we're from the middle east, I was born in Syria. My mom's parents started to practice more diligently after going to Hajj) so I didn't really have much of a "push" so to speak to be religious. Very recently, actually, I was talking to my mom about the signs of judgement day and was very frightened when I realized there's a lot of scientific evidence backing up the prophecies, and all the minor signs of "the hour" have all been observed and confirmed so I decided it was high time I took care of myself spiritually.

You'd be surprised, actually. "Smart" people are those out there looking for answers, and we all love our sciences (the scientific part of Islam is what grabs my attention the most, more than the social, historical or philosophical aspects) and the more you learn about the world, the more you realize that you know very, very little. For heaven's sake, we don't know why our retinas are inverted. Our very eyes, the one sense we use the most in our lives (which is in a way, unfortunate) we don't understand, man.

For some people the philosophical aspects are enough, they can be happy with all of the great writings in the scriptures (I personally really like Mark 8:36, "if achieve gain the world, but forfeit your soul, what have you gained?") but being a man of science as you are, what you can observe through science is what makes you decide what is real and what is not, which is why "spiritual" is just simply "magic" to you. It's not like Muslims were so advanced from a medicinal perspective because the Qur'an is a manual on how to perform a surgery, it was simply stated that for every disease or ailment god has created, there also exist a cure
#349 to #344 - atoma
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I am not entirely about what I can prove and cannot, I also think about the fact that I shouldn't assume that there is something magical/spiritual going on just because I don't understand it and in some cases I might never understand it. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if there was more big bangs than in just one place. I like to use some logic to imagine how things works as well and my dad is an expert on science.

When I told him about what I imagined to be the reason it's impossible to travel faster than light he told me that I in fact got it right, because I had put together stuff logically to figure it out. Basically I could create good science fiction by thinking logically.

So logically speaking I think of nothing as something which perhaps could contain a form of gravity which could start a chain to cause a big bang. So if an infinite amount of nothing in an infinite amount of space could cause a big bang... why shouldn't it happen more places in that space?

This is a way of thinking that allows me to imagine things that I don't know, I have been wrong several times but I still haven't done some reading on whether or not there are more big bangs in different areas. So basically my answer is no to why I view spirituality as an another word for magic has also been through that logical way of imagining what I don't know.
#247 to #221 - sebthebrony
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Catholics beleive there's a god, and that he sent his child down to earth to die for our sins. I go to a catholic school and most of them hate the catholic church, so I don't really think supporting the church immediately implies you're christian
#157 - drtrousersnake
Reply +6
(06/27/2013) [-]
Law of gravity
Theory of evolution
Laws (how) =/= theory (why)
#169 to #157 - thegrayknights
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
YllekNayr said it perfectly, it is "Both. There is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. The law is what happens. The theory is why it happens." So yea.
#171 to #169 - YllekNayr
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Heh, there are plenty of other people who said it as well. I was just the most recent.
#172 to #171 - YllekNayr
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Here's one someone else posted.
#201 - amateriandarknut
Reply -6
(06/27/2013) [-]
Gravity is a scientific theory validated through open science tests.
Evolution is a non-scientific theory "proven" through means that circumvent the scientific method that defines all credible science.
#205 to #201 - Katzie
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Care to explain what you mean by that?
#209 to #201 - DmOnZ
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
One ******* word... Carbon Dating... that's literally enough evidence to disprove creationism and everything else other than evolution.
#215 to #209 - phantomeins
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
That's two words.
#223 to #215 - DmOnZ
Reply +5
(06/27/2013) [-]
holy **** I'm an idiot...
#204 to #201 - shadowsynergy
Reply +2
(06/27/2013) [-]
#217 to #201 - yuukoku
Reply +2
(06/27/2013) [-]
Gravity is less explainable than evolution.

No, seriously. We don't know why gravity functions, but it just does. We have no idea WHY it works, but we know HOW it works and the effects of gravity. However, we do not know how it comes to be.
#154 - vatra
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Law. Gravity is a law.
#160 to #154 - YllekNayr
Reply +5
(06/27/2013) [-]
Both. There is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. The law is what happens. The theory is why it happens.
#162 to #160 - vatra
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Huh, well then. Just looked that up, and you're right.
#163 to #162 - YllekNayr
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
I didn't know that til this year. It's all good.
#164 to #163 - vatra
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
I see, I wonder why it is less known.
#166 to #164 - YllekNayr
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
People typically think that you can only have one or the other. It makes sense to think that.
#168 to #166 - vatra
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Hmm.
#170 to #168 - YllekNayr
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Hey, idunno who's thumbing you down, but I set it back to 0.
#173 to #170 - vatra
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Yeah, you got thumbed down too, so it was probably some unhappy person scrolling down the comments.
#235 to #173 - lujan
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Lol at some unhappy person. I thumbed both you guys up.
#262 - metalmind
Reply +4
(06/27/2013) [-]
Oh god, the whole comment section is full of Americans that still don't get that evolution is prooven.
Not even the pope questions evolution. He accepts it.
#267 to #262 - AlreadyExists
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I don't doubt evolution but philosophically I'd argue it has yet to 'proven' that the sun will rise tomorrow.
#277 to #262 - gavenjones
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
I'm American and I accept evolution. Really, most other countries see the U.S. as closed minded religious hicks because that's the sensationalized view that media likes to portray for ratings. Same goes for everywhere, people say that people from Canada are polite but I've met some real dicks from there.
#306 to #277 - gladiuss
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
But were they polite about it?
#305 to #262 - anon
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
When was evolution "prooven"? I never heard the announcement or got the memo.

Piss on someones kitchen table and tell them it's leaks in the roof long enough and sooner or later, they'll start bitching about the leaky roof.
#336 to #262 - swagloon
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#156 - mrsadsap **User deleted account**
+4
has deleted their comment [-]
#200 to #156 - slumberdonkey
Reply -4
(06/27/2013) [-]
As much as most of that may be true, my problem is with the church. They forced people like Copernicus, Gallileo, Newton, and Keplar to revoke everything that they found for science. Gallileo was sentenced to house arrest. Do you want to know when the church apologized for Gallileo? 1992. He was arrested in 1633. It took them over 300 years to apologize for silencing one of the most intelligent minds this world has ever seen. They will never make it up to me, no matter who says "Condoms are ok" or "gays can marry".
#213 to #200 - icefall
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Wrong, if you actually did some research and look at the standings of the Catholic Church in these matters you would be surprise how disturbingly wrong is the whole "Church vs Science" thing.

Copernicus and Galileo were banned by the church, yes. But the reasons for it are partly scientific. Copernicus was prohibited from publishing as he didn't have any evidential proof to support his claims. His claims contradicted the laws of classical physics in that time period (Newton's Laws did not exist yet, thus Astronomy and Classical Physics were two separate fields of study). Even philosopher (physicists) of the time argued that his thought process was not correct, in fact it was the opposite thought process of what we call now the "scientific method"

Galileo didn't present consequential proof either. In fact, Galileo went ahead and published a book without Church consent (and also ridiculing the Pope, which BTW was a close friend) with erronous proof in today's standards (He suggested that the tides were caused by the movement of the Earth around the Sun, when we know it is mostly Moon's gravity). Also, Galileo was allowed to do any kind of research and perform other studies as long it wasn't related to his heliocentric theory.

Newton? WTF? do you even know what are you talking about? Newton was never banned the English Church (which BTW is different to the Catholic Church), and in fact Newton did a lot of scientific study based on the Bible. Any conflict with the Church or anything religious was caused because different views, such as Newton rejecting the Holy Trinity as a thing, but not religion itself. Fun fact: he predicted the end would come in 2060.

Kepler, same thing with Newton. IN FACT, he wasn't criticized by the church, it was other great thinkers of his times such as GALILEO HIMSELF and Rene Descartes.

#225 to #213 - icefall
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
Continuing:

I honestly hate when people bring up "hurr durr church is bad for science durr"

BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE. In fact! Many of the great thinkers of the dark ages and mordern times were sponsored by the church or were priests themselves! Should I also remind you that entities such as the Catholic Church and the English Church created and still fund many universities around the world?

These are theories that the Catholic Church ACCEPT, contrary to the common belief:
-The Big Bang Theory (proposed by a priest from Belgium)
-Theory of Evolution (YES, they do, look it up, in fact they never rejected it)
Heck, they even teach it as facts in Catholic Schools.

AND, since you brought it up, the reason because they are agaisnt condoms and gay marriage has specific reasons.
- They don't want condoms, because for them, the act of sex is sacred, the act of creating a human being. They don't want more teenage pregnancy, they just don't want to encourage carnal sex.
- They don't encourage marriage because they believe a holy union should be between a man and a woman. They DO NOT disencourage legal marriages that are strictly related to the legal system. They just don't want people coming to their churches demanding for a holy ceremony.
#390 to #225 - slumberdonkey
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Alright, i'm just going to stop you right there for being a complete and utter retard. I'm sure that you think just because you wrote two whole comments full of stuff that you are an expert on the situation but the truth is that you just aren't. Gallileo was one of the first few people to have a TELESCOPE. Any "classical physics" that you speak of doesn't exist. It was all philosophical at that point. I find it very hard to believe that anyone without a telescope had any more idea about the movement of heavenly bodies than did an insect.
Quote from the church's indictment of Gallileo:
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."
They didn't give a **** about Gallileo. They were not Scientifically driven people. All they knew was that this guy was preaching stuff that their Holy Scripture was opposed to.
To go on with this, Pope Pius IX wrote about Gallileo's situation:
"Divine revelation is perfect and, therefore, it is not subject to continual and indefinite progress in order to correspond with the progress of human reason."
Honestly, this quote alone is why I hate the church. Because there are, were, and still will be people this stupid in charge of things.

In any case, i did not mean to say that all of the scientists were as directly affected by the church as Gallileo was. For instance, the only way that Keplar was affected was that he questioned everything he did because his thoughts all contradicted the bible. He spent a lot of time with the church and not a lot of time doing scientific research. I personally think that such a brilliant man would have done much better work scientifically than theologically.
#233 to #156 - lujan
Reply 0
(06/27/2013) [-]
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
#175 to #156 - critz
Reply +1
(06/27/2013) [-]
This video deserves all the thumbs