discuss
-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
“Jupiter has gravity” is a testable hypothesis; “God” is not.
what about circumstantial evidence? can we use reasoning to indirectly prove the existence of something we cannot see?
Reasoning without observation and experiment is useless.
But my main point is that those two statements are completely non-equivalent. With a good pair of binoculars on a clear, dark night you can see Jupiter and the Galilean moons. If you make observations over several nights, you can see the moons orbit Jupiter (like Galileo did). Then you can record the observed orbits of those moons and see how they compare with the orbits predicted by Newton’s laws. You can actually use those observations to calculate a very good approximation to the mass of Jupiter and its moons. All of which add up to be a very good case that Jupiter has gravity.
Let me know when you have binoculars that can see god.
if i had binoculars that could see god, then it would not be indirect evidence of something i could not see.
reasoning without observation is useless? i do not believe so.
You can see the problem with reasoning without experiment in, not just religion, but many fields that either can’t or won’t adopt the scientific method. For example, in political “science” no one can agree on even the most basic concepts. They have logic and some historical anecdotes, but without experiment or rigorous observation, neither side can ever come to a conclusive argument. So here we are in the 21st century and we’re still arguing whether capitalism (18th century) is better than socialism (19th century). If you’ve been collectively arguing about something for a couple hundred years, then the method that you’re using is, IMHO, useless.
I’m not trying to make this about whether or not god exists.
My point is that reasoning without being able to see something is not worthless.
Isn’t that pretty much what a hypothesis is? Using reason to guess at what you think a given experiment will show?
What about police work? They use reasonig to follow leads. And going back to my original post, isn’t circumstantial evidence to reason the outcome of court cases?
What about investing money? Or playing poker?
or anything historical?
The scientific method cannot be applied to historical events. All you can do is check historical documents, and then check referenced sites for contradictions or verification.
It all depends on what you consider historical documents.
They too must be authenticated.
Remember, many people believe the Bible to be such a “document”.
It isn’t.
“What about police work? They use reasonig to follow leads.And going back to my original post, isn’t circumstantial evidence to reason the outcome of court cases?”
Not very convincing examples. Police work is lazy as hell, the only crime they even try to solve is murder and they have a surprisingly low success rate at that. Every time a new technique is invented, like DNA evidence, we find out that half the people on death row are innocent.
“What about investing money? Or playing poker?”
Also, more dumb luck that most people like to admit. Actively managed mutual funds statistically suck.
www.marketwatch.com/story/indexes-beat-most-actively-managed
So, which does not exist, Capitalism or Socialism? And, where did you hear that like God or gravity, people are arguing for or against the existance of socialism/capitalism for a couple of hundred years?
BAM! nailed it on one.
Done in one.
I think by definition, the appearance of a God of any faith would be… illogical.
This comic would be less shitty if it chose something that couldn’t be tested or observed by someone with a sufficiently powerful telescope.
Poe’s law FTW!
Possibly, they both look like straw men to me.
This is really posted as a pro-god argument? You cannot argue about god. Either you believe in god or you don’t. You can’t prove or disprove her existence.
This comic is plain stupid.
yea this comic is retarded. for various reason others have pointed out.
No, it’s rather anti-internet-atheists, methinks.
In the real world, a SANE atheist’s answer in the forth panel might be “Prove it.”
Some people just want to rage.
Other people want to bait rage.
I believe it’s called “trolling”, and I think asymon and natedog are doing just that.
natedog trolling? Say it ain’t so!
I wanted to say something funny here, but nothing is funnier than someone calling natedog a troll.
You’re right, posting “omg, religion suxxks, I’m soo agnostic” is so much better.
I call myself an agnostic. Most of the time we nod and smile and go find something more important to put energy into. Really, who cares? Maybe you’ll find out when you die, maybe not. Do beware of those peddling the kool-aid though.
why is it that athiest have to explain basic logic and evidence based thinking to the religous continously? Surely this is something that they must have for general day to day living?
It seems like every argument they make, they have to sacrifice some part of reason/logic.
That made zero sense.
Well this is complete nonsense.
After 5,000+ years of complete nonsense from the religious world, you expected something else?
Weak troll comic is weak.
I am bored enough to reply anyways.
Observe, hypothesize, test, conclude. Wash, rinse, repeat. That’s the scientific method. God has nothing to do with it, real or made up. You can believe in whatever you like, the method doesn’t give a shit. That’s not what it’s there for.
Science doesn’t tell us Why, it tells us How. How things work, not Why things work. How life is created, not Why life was created. “Why” is for philosophers and theologians.
So far as science is concerned, nobody is asking “Why did you make stuff, God?” What kind of meaningful answer do you think you’ll get?
God: “I dunno, cause I was bored.” or “I needed an army of fleshbags.” “I was bored.” “I just wanted to be loved.” “To dance for me, puppets! DANCE! DAAANCE DAMN YOU DANCE!”
There are a billion reasons. What do you do after that?
Us: “Thanks god! … now what?”
God: “I don’t know, go invent something. Maybe burn a goat for me, whatever. Free will and all that, you think I just put that there for shits and giggles? Well, maybe I did, but that’s not the point. Do whatever, just leave me alone. Except for the goat thing. Keep ’em coming. I like that bit.”
While the answers to Why would be interesting, probably spiritually enriching and certainly nice to know our purpose and place, on a daily level none are going to put food the mouths of 7 billion people or keep you from dying of diptheria or being eaten by a rabid badger on your way to work.
What we have now is the gift that we can *make* our place and *choose* our purpose. By skybeard, spaghetti, or random chance.
To some people, the difference between the three matters. To some, not so much. If all you fuckers could get over that bit and stop trying to cram shit down each other’s throats, we can get back to the living part. And don’t talk shit about morality, either. No matter the Why you choose, you still have to live with yourself and your actions when the day is done.
Also, there is an answer beyond “it seems reasonable” for gravity on other planets. Motherfuckers. (That’s not the answer, I’m calling you all motherfuckers.) Google it. (The answer, I mean. Not motherfuckers.) Unless you’re into that sort of thing, which I know some of you are. (Motherfuckers, that is. Not answers.)
… Assholes.
I wish I could give you more up-votes.
Sounds like someone that has a grasp on life.
also someone who is cooking lamb for dinner.
With or without mint jelly? Some questions are important, some are not. Jelly is ALWAYS important!
BTW A good Spicy Pepper Jelly goes good with lamb too.
without jelly, not necessary nor would it have been good with the dish.
it was a moroccan/north african stew with lamb, onion, potatos, beans, rosemary, lemon juice, anchovy, worchestershire, and vegetable stock. in a dutch oven for 2 hours at 400 degrees.
DROOL!
Oh I almost forgot: EPIC post!
So… What part of there being this big all knowing, all seeing dude who lives up in the sky somewhere but is invisible, who loves us all more than a mere human mind could possibly comprehend but is willing to condemn us to a fucking eternity of pain & suffering for eating shellfish seems logical, exactly?
I would have that that it seems kinda the opposite.
Biased christian fag OP detected.
Who says you need to be a christian to believe in God? What about Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews? This is why all religion fails. The whole “YOU MUST BELIEVE IN OUR BELIEFS OR YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!” is a total BS story.
To quote GC –
“If you read history, God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years…
… all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question.
Do you believe in God? No.. dead
Do you believe in God? Yes…
Do you believe in MY God? No… dead
My God has a bigger dick than your God!”
Because Catholics aren’t christian…
Wait, what?
I know, that drives me crazy. How are Catholics not Christians? The first time I noticed this was when I moved down south. For some reason they make a distinction between Christians (Protestants?) and Catholics.
Of course, not every religion believes you go to hell if you don’t follow them… But don’t let that interfere with your generalizations.
Also, atheIST.
Goddamn.
I believe Jupiter has, in fact more mass than the rest of the known universe combined, but also has an alien anti-gravity field generator at it’s core canceling out almost all of it’s gravitational field, leaving it with a perceived mass of roughly 2 × 10^27 kg. And the battery powering this device is going to run out in 2012 at the end of the Mayan calendar, suddenly restoring it’s near infinite gravitational pull, crushing us before we even notice what’s happened.
Well it just seems logical.
Woah Mind blown!
Now I will never have enough cheese to power my transgalatic pogo-stick. It has a bell!
There is no GOD, there is only ODIN
I thought Odin was a god?
Yes he is a god, but he is not GOD.
Aside from the NSFW section, how about a “lame troll” section where all this stupid shit would be hidden from view unless you clicked on it?
Can we get that? Is that too much to ask?
Are you saying that you wouldn’t click through?
It would be like a candy store. You know that you shouldn’t go in, but you will. Afterwards you might feel guilty, but you’ll be going back as soon as the feeling subsides… in five minutes or less.
www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/157635/Horseshit.JPG
math = proof of everything.
Prove Dark Matter
See, that would have been a halfway decent choice. “I believe in dark matter.” “Why?” “Well, you can’t see it, but its presence would explain things we can’t explain about the universe.”
Atheists don’t have to prove any theory. Scientific knowledge isn’t a prerequisite of atheism. I can give a fuck about physics the same way I give a fuck about religion and it doesn’t effect my non-beliefs.
I can be by measuring gravity around areas that have no mass.
Yes, but with scientific instruments most people have no access to and have little or no understanding of, so they, essentially, have to take the word of scientists on faith.
Not really. Science is provable or disprovable, God is not. One can’t use science to verify either side of the argument. Some scientists believe in God, most of them keep it completely separate from their scientific work, a few don’t. Not all atheists are proponents of science. Atheism says one thing and one thing only: I don’t believe in God or gods.
Science is provable or disprovable to people with the proper tools and training. You, I, and over 6 billion other people on this planet don’t have the ability or tools to prove dark matter exists.
(Unless you’re an astrophysicist or something, in which case just pretend I didn’t mention you in that last sentence.)
But is there really much difference for the vast, vast majority of the world’s population whether it’s a priest or a scientist that is saying he has years of training that allows him to use special skills to know and understand that something is most people can’t understand or otherwise prove? At least a priest tells you anyone can find it out if you believe- scientists take years of training and, in some fields, millions of dollars worth of equipment.
If you’re going to make ridiculous arguments like that, it’s pointless to discuss it w/ you.
What’s ridiculous about it? I’m just saying- to people without a proper scientific background, saying “there’s some matter floating deep in space that we can’t see, but affects everything around it” isn’t all that much different than saying “there’s an all-powerful being all everywhere that we can’t see, but affects everything around it.” And the vast, vast majority of humanity doesn’t have that background. I’m not saying it’s right. Just that’s how the human brain works.
Because you’re missing the very big, most important point. Science CAN be proved or disproved. God CANNOT. Faith means you believe w/out proof. Faith means you believe even when facts indicate you’re wrong. God is beyond the knowable. Faith is Truth via Revelation. Science is truth via experimentation and scientific method. It’s irrelevant that any given scientific theory may be false. They’re two completely different ways knowing and never the twain shall meet.
If you can’t grasp the difference, arguing w/ you is a lesson in futility.
I grasp the difference, except you’re ignoring my point. Science can be proved or disproved- with the proper skills and equipment. Religion makes, at times, similar claims. If you lack the proper education, these claims could be seen as similar.
I’m not in any way trying to justify religion or condemn science. I’m just saying that, to someone without the necessary information, they could be seen as similar. It’s not about science or religion. I’m going to repeat that: *It’s not about science or religion.* It’s about how the human brain works when it lacks proper information, and is told something by a source that it sees as an authority.
Ok, re-reading what you wrote, I see I misinterpreted what you said. I apologize. Yes, you are prolly, unfortunately, correct and it’s for that very reason that I try not (clearly, not always successfully) to argue w/ people who cannot see that difference. In order to debate, one needs to find some common ground from which to start. If that doesn’t exist, both are wasting their breath.
Haha! Standard Logic!
Gold…
“It just seems logical” as the credulous person’s version of standard logic might make a good meme.
That comic is so just off the wall stupid. I’m a atheist I just have a problem with being a product of incest twice over, ill take being a monkey any day.
Fail at logic.
Fail at trolling.
Come back when you’ve grown more of a brain.
“faith” means not wanting to know what’s true
Faith means you already know what’s true.
I respectfully disagree. Truth is its own truth, but only if it’s truly true.
Faith means that you believe what you think to be true. And what happens if something comes along and is contrary to those beliefs?
A FEW examples:
Flat earth – Disproved
Earth as the center of the universe – Disproved
Diseases are caused by evil spirits – Disproved
Orbits are perfect circles – Disproved
Witchcraft/magic – Disproved (Sadly)
Speed of sound – Shattered
When things like these happen, some people will chose to blindly follow the old ‘truth’ without acknowledging the reality of reality.
You disagree then go on to not disagree.
No I didn’t. But then again, maybe I did. Let’s see.
“Faith means you already know what’s true.” This sounds like you are saying that YOUR truth is the only truth. My point is that there are no immutable truths outside of science. And even there, truths have changed over time.
My take on the word ‘faith’ goes like this: “Faith is belief without proof.”
If something proves your belief wrong should you believe the proof, or what you have put your faith in? We have a lot of people sticking their collective fingers in their ears so as not to hear anything that might disturb their faith.
Have you read the rest of this thread? Have you looked at the debate between myself and Kishi? Faith is knowledge via revelation. You cannot change the mind of the faithful w/ facts and science. It’s pointless. Science requires you to show your work, so to speak.
Yes I have, and we do share a common viewpoint, but I degrees. I agree with your statements in #19. I’m disagreeing with the original poster’s, as well as your, definition of ‘faith’ from this thread.
Had I put this as a response to their post, then we might have forgone a lot of drama; but I still would have been at odds with your definition in #23.1.
You had a much better definition in #19.9: “Faith means you believe w/out proof. Faith means you believe even when facts indicate you’re wrong.”
Those phrases were more concise in their description of your viewpoint.
“Faith means you already know what’s true.” Sounds like a proclamation of fact. One in which you , not YOU (The one speaking) is proclaiming that your truth is the only truth.
I should have put the bracketed definitions of the uppercase text in my previous post, sorry.
I’m sure that you, Kishi, and I, would all agree that it’s not always what we’re saying, but what we hear (Or in this case read.) that defines our ‘truths’.
Those elements are provable and were thusly disproved. The speed of sound part…I dunno how that factors in?
If you’d like to provide an alternative to intelligent design go ahead but even evolution eventually requires a God to kick start the party.
Where did that God come from?
One fucking question at a time, dickhole.
In summation: you are not nearly are knowledgeable or intelligent as you seem to think you are and if niggerfags were made in factories you’d be an irregular.
Goddamnit tiki how many times do I have to log in to post a comment (and yes, I’ve cleared my cache and cookies)?
Ok, third time’s a charm.
Evolution requires no such thing. Evolution seeks to describe speciation, nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to say on life’s beginning, let alone that of the universe. I don’t know how to get around Aristotle’s Prime Mover, but it’s really more of a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. One day it may be that science can say something about it, though.
“Those elements are provable and were thusly disproved.”
I agree. Should I have pulled out some of the NEC’s favorites?
Radio Carbon Dating
Microwave radiation used to determine the age of the universe. (Big Bang Theory)
Light speed
Eyeballs and Flagella (i.e. irreducible complexity)
Geologic Aging
Historical records that pre-date the Bible
“The speed of sound part…I dunno how that factors in?”
At one time aeronautical engineers believed that the speed of sound was the fastest we could go inside an atmosphere.
Enter Chuck Yeager…
It was a belief that was proven wrong. Much like the others.
“If you’d like to provide an alternative to intelligent design go ahead but even evolution eventually requires a God to kick start the party.”
Evolution is not an alternate ‘Theory’, it is the only ‘Scientific’ theory that fits the observable evidence. If you could prove any part of IDt, then we could debate the strengths of the two.
Atheist POV: Why? Why does it need a god, let alone God.
My POV: God possibly did kick it off; but since I can’t prove it, it isn’t science. Philosophy, yes; science, no.
“Where did that God come from?”
How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? Again it’s not science.
“One fucking question at a time, dickhole.”
Trolling yourself? I gotta’ say, that was funny.
“In summation: you are not nearly are knowledgeable or intelligent as you seem to think you are and if niggerfags were made in factories you’d be an irregular.”
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but ad hominems will never hurt me. I’m assuming that you are using niggerfags as a generic tag, as it is wrong on both counts.
I do know that I do not know as half as much as I would like to know.
But I never claimed otherwise.
The one point I will agree upon is the designation “Irregular” I am by no means normal. That one I can hang my hat on.
In summation: Think before you respond. Attack the argument, not the person you are arguing with. Act like an adult.