Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While I agree that people should dislike sociopaths and con men, I don't see conflating religion with sociopaths and con men. Sociapathology isn't relegated just to the religious. On the other hand people also seem to use sociopath in just about any situation they dislike. I saw a paper that said that anyone that wasn't a vegetarian was a sociopath.

I think it is one thing genuinely believing in a higher power. But receiving money for something which can't be proven, or which is demonstrably untrue, I am more suspicious of.

 Alpharius wrote:
Still leaning towards a bane for jasper76...

'Tis the Season after all, amirite?!?

I don't think jasper is my type, sorry guys



Anywhoo, I had a coworker that I drove to work who was alot like this woman. He would run his moth the entire 30 minute trip, and the moment I made any sort of retort that had even the slightest scientific backing (dinosuars was a personal favorite), he would sit there in silence the rest of the trip. Premarital sex was a fun car talk as well

I had a coworker who asked me if I subscribed to any magazines. I told her I subscribed (at the time) to National Geographic. She said she liked the pictures, but then said something to the effect of "It's kind of one-sided though, don't you think". I didn't know what she meant, so asked. She said something like, "It presents evolution as though it were a fact." To which I said that the fossil record and DNA evidence pretty conclusively shows that evolution did occur. She rebutted with Genesis, and not knowing how to really have a nice conversation about it, and not wanting to destroy my relationship with her, I changed the subject.

The next day, she politely informed me that after discussions with her husband, she's decided it was best not to socialize with me anymore. True story. I got the "friend axe" from a personable, intelligent co-worker because I think biology is real and/or I subscribed to a magazine that accepted it as such.

I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.


If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.

 Ahtman wrote:
I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.


If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.

This! Exulted! There are donkey-caves on all sides, religious or not, left or right, rich or poor. These people would remain donkey-caves even if they change their beliefs.

I'm not bothered by religion (any stripe) one bit up to the point that it tries to impose itself on me. The short answer to this is, I've considered it, I don't want it as a part of my personal life, and I will do my little part to keep it out of my life and the lives of others who have also decided to give it a pass.

I view science as humanity's best known method to give us answers to the necessary and/or interesting questions in life.

I don't think they are necessarily opposing, I just think one is better than the other, because it makes more sense and produces verifiable, tangible results, ones that you don't even have to believe in, because they work.

For example, it doesn't matter whether someone believes electricity is real or fake...it will still turn the light bulb on when you flick the switch.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.


If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.

This! Exulted! There are donkey-caves on all sides, religious or not, left or right, rich or poor. These people would remain donkey-caves even if they change their beliefs.

Agreed.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Still leaning towards a bane for jasper76...

'Tis the Season after all, amirite?!?

Any points back for this???

Going a bit off topic but......

What is the movie in there where the woman is fighting Germans? And throws an Axe into the nice gentlemans chest?

So who is the OP chick and why am I supposed to give a damn?

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Science isn't an ideology. It is a method.

It's hasn't been too long ago but I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but in a nutshell:

There have been frequent instances where scientists that latch onto a particular theory will continue to defend that theory even when new evidence is found that proves their theory wrong. They displayed behavior that was very similar to religious people.

And yet somehow we have flown to the moon, eradicated smallpox, and made the internet.

ahh stupid people with too much emotion

"it doesnt make sense to me, it must be wrong"

I wish it was only militant-creationists who do this.

plenty of people do this with other things, including scientific theories as D-usa pointed out.

evolution and intelligent design dont conflict for most Christians so not sure what conclusions people want to draw from this unless they want to judge a whole group by its extremists/idiots

Everybody look! Someone on the Internet said something stupid!!!

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.


If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.

This! Exulted! There are donkey-caves on all sides, religious or not, left or right, rich or poor. These people would remain donkey-caves even if they change their beliefs.

Also exalted.

 Frazzled wrote:
So who is the OP chick and why am I supposed to give a damn?

because she is fringe case from a group that is acceptable to judge/stereotype based on its most extreme/stupid people?


personally, I was misled, i thought it WAS that megan fox...

shame on you OT!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Science isn't an ideology. It is a method.

It's hasn't been too long ago but I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but in a nutshell:

There have been frequent instances where scientists that latch onto a particular theory will continue to defend that theory even when new evidence is found that proves their theory wrong. They displayed behavior that was very similar to religious people.

And yet somehow we have flown to the moon, eradicated smallpox, and made the internet.

Point?

That "science" "works" despite the human foibles that individual scientists are prone to.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That "science" "works" despite the human foibles that individual scientists are prone to.

Science doesn't "work" when a scientist discards valid findings if they disagree with his personal dogma.

If a scientist sticks to theory A despite evidence that theory A is invalid and ignores all the evidence that theory B is correct then "science" won't work because it is based on faulty thinking.

And nothing in your statement counters the fact that there is documented evidence of dogmatic scientists clinging to outdated and wrong ideas, just like some non-scientists do.

The great thing about science though is that there are always people working to discover the truth, regardless of what either a minority or majority believe.

I don't dispute that at all. I was just pointing out they adherence to certain ideas despite evidence to the contrary is not something that is restricted to members of various religions.

Being a scientist doesn't mean you are free from that risk. Look at Mayim Bialik from the Big Bang Theory: PhD in neuroscience and still an anti-vaxxer.

People with closed minds can be found in all areas of life.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The great thing about science though is that there are always people working to discover the truth, regardless of what either a minority or majority believe.

Science, like velociraptors, always finds a way.

 Ahtman wrote:
If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way.

That's true, but people make them opposing sides when they try to get religious "theories" taught in school alongside evolution. I'd wager those people aren't scientists, but when it happens, I think people do need to stand up and defend the scientific method. That will inevitably include drawing comparisons between scientific theories -- which have been tested, peer reviewed, and corroborated, and which are based on evidence and often able to make predictions -- versus: religious "theories" which are either 'entirely made up fiction' or indistinguishable from 'entirely made up fiction' on account of the convenient "you can't see any proof until you're dead" clause.

 Ahtman wrote:

If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.

You are operating under three false assumptions here: (a) that all religions serve the same function, (b) that some of these functions are "right", while others are "wrong", and (c) there is no overlap between the explanatory function of science and the explanatory function of religion.

There are different religions. Some religions attempt to provide comfort to people for suffering. Some religions attempt to provide for survival of death. Some religions seek to placate nature for crop yields, calm seas, etc.. Some religions seek to provide explanations for why things are the way they are, how they came to be, how stuff works, etc. It is here that there is the most potential conflict with science, because science does the same thing, but in many cases provides very very different answers. This is on plain display with the subject of the OP video. Scientific findings clash with her religions explanation of how life came to be...in her case, religion wins, and she is attempting to discredit the findings of science, because they are at conflict.

There is really no "right" or "wrong" function for religion. I could come up with a religion tomorrow whereby devotees worship their own pinky toes in an effort to channel the energy of Xenob to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula. The function would not be "right" or "wrong", it just would be what it would be.

Would you mind making your point again plainly in one sentence, if I missed it?

I'm a religious man who has no problem with science. I do believe "God did it" when it comes to the question of why is everything the way it is, but I don't think that anything in the Bible really tells me "how" God did it. Science is amazing to me, and I personally feel like I am more on awe the more we learn. For me my religion and my scientific worldview are perfectly compatible, the Bible is my blueprint for my relationship with God and not a blueprint that replaces science.

I don't understand how some people, like the woman in the OP, can latch onto something that isn't even in the Bible and block out actual evidence that wouldn't affect her religion anyway. Young Earth Creationism is just so weird to me as a Christian because nothing about our religion depends on earth being 6000 years old.

Your avatar is proof that there is no God

I'd like to proxy that for a Tervigon!

 jasper76 wrote:
Your avatar is proof that there is no God

I'd like to proxy that for a Tervigon!

A dead turkey twerking?

Christians: 0
Atheists: 0
Humanity: -5

Twerkin turkeys and Miley Cyrus' tongue may not be compelling cases against a benevolent God when considered individually, but put together?...my position on the atheist meter just edged a little closer to a hard 7

 agnosto wrote:
Damn false advertising. I clicked the video expecting to see a vacuous hottie breaking some gak, instead I see some ignoramus ranting about things she is incapable of pronouncing much less understanding.

coming in late here , but i thought it was going to be some (now crusty) ex 80's hottie breaking up exhibits in a museum. So very angry right now ...

Jesus woman, pick up a damn book. "I dont know, therfor no one can". The stupidity just... I cant. I spent the whole 30 minutes just pounding my head against my desk and slowly tearing apart my plastic fork
The only thing that could make this worse is if it was THAT Megan Fox.