Where do you get your news?

Thought I'd conduct a little poll: Where do you get your news?

Sports news or news news?

News news: cnn.com

Sports news: si.com

news news - yahoo.com, BBC / National public radio

sports news - espn and yahoo

Sports? NFL.com, Jetnation.com, prosportsdaily.com

what about you e-tang clan?

There are several lazy behaviors that really piss me off. One of them is the jackoff guy that pees in a stall but doesn't lift the seat before he pisses. I hate that guy. Anyone that does that deserves to have a mob of liquored up stevedores come to his house and piss on everything he owns. Seriously, how hard is it to lift a ****ing seat? ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WALK PAST A URINAL TO DO IT.

Ok, back to the topic at hand. It is interesting that all of you differentiate between news news and sports news. When I said news, I didn't think about the various types of news. I'm glad no one listed "entertainment news," though, because I'd have to kill them. I'm quite critical of the news outlets. Don't care for any of the cable news channels or their websites in the slightest. BBC site is somewhat better from what I can tell, but I don't spend a whole lot of time there. I subscribe to the Economist and read that each week. I love it, but it is a little too focused on business and the market, so I'm trying to find another good periodical that doesn't have the market theme running through every report.

ethan wrote:There are several lazy behaviors that really piss me off. One of them is the jackoff guy that pees in a stall but doesn't lift the seat before he pisses. I hate that guy. Anyone that does that deserves to have a mob of liquored up stevedores come to his house and piss on everything he owns. Seriously, how hard is it to lift a ****ing seat? ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WALK PAST A URINAL TO DO IT.

Ok, back to the topic at hand. It is interesting that all of you differentiate between news news and sports news. When I said news, I didn't think about the various types of news. I'm glad no one listed "entertainment news," though, because I'd have to kill them. I'm quite critical of the news outlets. Don't care for any of the cable news channels or their websites in the slightest. BBC site is somewhat better from what I can tell, but I don't spend a whole lot of time there. I subscribe to the Economist and read that each week. I love it, but it is a little too focused on business and the market, so I'm trying to find another good periodical that doesn't have the market theme running through every report.

BUT IVE GOT STELLAR AIM BRA

I love the BBC radio. It's basically world news that is unbiased. The NPR is pretty good too, I just prefer world news versus U.S. news!

Ethan, did you miss the urinal thread and feel it had a place in a news thread? I mean, i think that urine and any kind of bowl movement should make its way into normal conversation...i'm just trying to follow your thought process.

During the election I would watch the Daily Show and any local news outlets. Then I felt like i was getting too much of a liberal twist and wanted to hear some nay-sayers...turning to Fox News. Holy crap...I felt like they should all be wearing swastikas and march around the studio. I couldn't handle much of that but i tried damn it.

I also like NPR...i don't listen to it nearly enough.

90.7 (91.7? something like this) has NPR broadcast from milwaukee all the way to madison and almost to twin cities if i remember correctly.

I can't stand watching the FOX news outlet. I don't like to think that I'm super liberal but they certainly made me feel that way.

cpschult wrote:90.7 (91.7? something like this) has NPR broadcast from milwaukee all the way to madison and almost to twin cities if i remember correctly.

I can't stand watching the FOX news outlet. I don't like to think that I'm super liberal but they certainly made me feel that way.

Junior year Schultz would disagree with that statement.

Tree hugger.

Yeah, Fox News is awful. However, the little I see of MSNBC and CNN makes me think that they aren't much better. They've all turned into sensationalist entertainment rather than legitimate investigative news.

Running with Carter's comment about current vs. college ideas, how have you all changed? I think I can say that I've gotten more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative. And my views on religion have gotten much stronger.

ethan wrote:Yeah, Fox News is awful. However, the little I see of MSNBC and CNN makes me think that they aren't much better. They've all turned into sensationalist entertainment rather than legitimate investigative news.

Running with Carter's comment about current vs. college ideas, how have you all changed? I think I can say that I've gotten more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative. And my views on religion have gotten much stronger.

I took a longer look at religion (wrong thread...meh...) Since the church wants my parents to sign a document that says they were of "ill" mind or whatever, when they got married, or they will be excommunicated. Basically calling me illegitimate...at least in my eyes. That was the last straw.

Good to hear, Carter. I'm waiting for Booba to see the truth. I'm not sure how he reconciles his belief in a fairy tale deity. The only reason that I can stay sane in a world where people like Todd exist is that I think there is considerable evidence that indicates religion will eventually go away.

I'd say there is better evidence that says it will not. 2000 years or more for over 5 religions, most based on the same information. It's just set up to continue for virtually ever. The power of story and "what my parents/grandparents did".

Reading Newsweek says some interesting numbers on the topic. Pretty good article in last weeks issue (it was the headliner), you might want to check it out.

I'm not saying it will happen rapidly. But here are a few points I would make in defense of my hypothesis:

Individual freedom has only really existed for the last 200 years out of the 2000 that you reference. Also, the exponential growth of science in the last few centuries means that more and more of what we don't know is explained all of the time. Gods typically being used to explain the unknown, gods will become less necessary as science explains more.

There are several surveys that indicate people may identify as religious despite a lack of belief in fundamental aspects of the religion they claim to practice. Examples of this are people who say they are Christian but do not think Jesus was the son of god, do not believe in the virgin birth, or do not think that there is an afterlife. Similar inconsistencies exist for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. To me, this says that people identify with the faith because of tradition, but they see the stupidity in it. This is exactly how traditions die out. Younger generations appease the elders for a time, but as time goes by the younger generations see less reason to pay lip service to a silly relic.

Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, analysis of human history shows that we progress over time. Any logical consideration of how we might progress from here must include the elimination of intellectual limits imposed by faith and the social ills sponsored and perpetuated by religion.

It may take time, but I do believe that religion will go the way of the Dodo. Until then, I'll continue telling people that their religion is just as sensible as believing in Bigfoot, pink elephants that hide under your bed at night, or anything else that HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

ethan wrote:I'm not saying it will happen rapidly. But here are a few points I would make in defense of my hypothesis:

Individual freedom has only really existed for the last 200 years out of the 2000 that you reference. Also, the exponential growth of science in the last few centuries means that more and more of what we don't know is explained all of the time. Gods typically being used to explain the unknown, gods will become less necessary as science explains more.

There are several surveys that indicate people may identify as religious despite a lack of belief in fundamental aspects of the religion they claim to practice. Examples of this are people who say they are Christian but do not think Jesus was the son of god, do not believe in the virgin birth, or do not think that there is an afterlife. Similar inconsistencies exist for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. To me, this says that people identify with the faith because of tradition, but they see the stupidity in it. This is exactly how traditions die out. Younger generations appease the elders for a time, but as time goes by the younger generations see less reason to pay lip service to a silly relic.

Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, analysis of human history shows that we progress over time. Any logical consideration of how we might progress from here must include the elimination of intellectual limits imposed by faith and the social ills sponsored and perpetuated by religion.

It may take time, but I do believe that religion will go the way of the Dodo. Until then, I'll continue telling people that their religion is just as sensible as believing in Bigfoot, pink elephants that hide under your bed at night, or anything else that HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

Um, I pretty much don't believe in God. But there is a lot that scientists haven't figured out, and maybe won't. So I'm not saying to believe in God, but believe in something greater than ourselves may make us better people.

I mean, look at how the world is turning out when people don't have the church to instill morals in them!

come on teachers, pick it up... parents can't be expected to parent you know

I think the numbers are backing up your side. This is from the Newsweek article:

People thinking the US is a "christian nation" - 62% in 2009, 29% in 2008

68% say religion is losing influence in American society
19% say religion is actually on the rise

48% say that "religion can answer all or most of today's problems" (an historic low, never before being below 58%)

Those were just some of the stats i could find right away.

Back to your point. I think you have an interesting though on science taking the place of religion but one concern i have is that the population does not always do what is "standard" or "educated". Think of the KKK or the Neo-Nazi's. You would think both would fade away with no basis or proof of what they are saying to be accurate. Yet there they are.

Some things just never go away and no matter how tarnished the church has been and will be, it will always be there to give you traffic jams on your way to a Sunday morning coffee.

ethan wrote:I'm not saying it will happen rapidly. But here are a few points I would make in defense of my hypothesis:

Individual freedom has only really existed for the last 200 years out of the 2000 that you reference. Also, the exponential growth of science in the last few centuries means that more and more of what we don't know is explained all of the time. Gods typically being used to explain the unknown, gods will become less necessary as science explains more.

There are several surveys that indicate people may identify as religious despite a lack of belief in fundamental aspects of the religion they claim to practice. Examples of this are people who say they are Christian but do not think Jesus was the son of god, do not believe in the virgin birth, or do not think that there is an afterlife. Similar inconsistencies exist for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. To me, this says that people identify with the faith because of tradition, but they see the stupidity in it. This is exactly how traditions die out. Younger generations appease the elders for a time, but as time goes by the younger generations see less reason to pay lip service to a silly relic.

Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, analysis of human history shows that we progress over time. Any logical consideration of how we might progress from here must include the elimination of intellectual limits imposed by faith and the social ills sponsored and perpetuated by religion.

It may take time, but I do believe that religion will go the way of the Dodo. Until then, I'll continue telling people that their religion is just as sensible as believing in Bigfoot, pink elephants that hide under your bed at night, or anything else that HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

Sience can't explain EVERYTHING. religion isnt going anywhere.

cpschult wrote:

ethan wrote:I'm not saying it will happen rapidly. But here are a few points I would make in defense of my hypothesis:

Individual freedom has only really existed for the last 200 years out of the 2000 that you reference. Also, the exponential growth of science in the last few centuries means that more and more of what we don't know is explained all of the time. Gods typically being used to explain the unknown, gods will become less necessary as science explains more.

There are several surveys that indicate people may identify as religious despite a lack of belief in fundamental aspects of the religion they claim to practice. Examples of this are people who say they are Christian but do not think Jesus was the son of god, do not believe in the virgin birth, or do not think that there is an afterlife. Similar inconsistencies exist for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. To me, this says that people identify with the faith because of tradition, but they see the stupidity in it. This is exactly how traditions die out. Younger generations appease the elders for a time, but as time goes by the younger generations see less reason to pay lip service to a silly relic.

Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, analysis of human history shows that we progress over time. Any logical consideration of how we might progress from here must include the elimination of intellectual limits imposed by faith and the social ills sponsored and perpetuated by religion.

It may take time, but I do believe that religion will go the way of the Dodo. Until then, I'll continue telling people that their religion is just as sensible as believing in Bigfoot, pink elephants that hide under your bed at night, or anything else that HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

Um, I pretty much don't believe in God. But there is a lot that scientists haven't figured out, and maybe won't. So I'm not saying to believe in God, but believe in something greater than ourselves may make us better people.

I mean, look at how the world is turning out when people don't have the church to instill morals in them!

come on teachers, pick it up... parents can't be expected to parent you know

It is hard to say that the will not figure something out. With the rate of discovery they should understand why priests like dipping their sticks in the male holy hole any day now.

Wow, this is such the perfect thread to have this discussion. Good job, guys.

1) while you (Ethan) know that I am more of a Deist than a Catholic, I see that even that annoys you. So be it. But while you state that religion has absolutely no evidence to support it (a rather bold statement that you would need to back up even if me saying such a thing makes me 'stupid'), there is also the problem that there are some problems that scientists and atheists, even the popular ones such as Richard Dawkins, state that there is no explanation yet. This is to say Science can't explain everything either, so there remains gray areas that have no solid proof of how it came to be.

2) To use statistics in regards to the rise and fall of religion is too sneaky for my tastes. Religion has shown to go up and down throughout history, and while I'll admit it may indeed be going down permanently, it also could just be on the downward trend until some major disaster, epidemic, etc brings people back to it.

3) To keep using the cases of sexual assault by priests as a hit against religion doesn't work. It's a case against human beings within a structure, but not what the structure represents.

Lastly, don't confuse this with me advocating everyone should turn to religion. Personally I am more non-religious than I am religious. But I think to be so positive that all religions are false is as bad as people advocating religion as the end all, be all of everything.

Booba, you have it quite backwards about evidence. Those who believe in a god are asserting that something is there, whereas I am saying there isn't anything there. The burden of proof falls on those who claim that something exists. That is why I made a comparison to pink elephants that live under the bed. If I say they exist but offer no tangible proof, and you say that they do not exist because there is no reason to think that they do, it is not you that is insufficiently stating your case, it is me.

Talking in circles...christians claim countless miracles that have no explanation and some that have plenty of explanation. I don't know that a person needs the burden of proof for an explanation in their own mind.

I don't look down on people that still follow the church, i look down on people that call me irrational for not following the same church that has done more ills than rights through its existence. The Catholic church should be on its knees asking for forgiveness for their crimes, not the other way around.

Second, the inability of humans to explain something is not evidence of a deity. It is merely an inability to explain something. Thunder and lightning used to be inexplicable, but that doesn't mean that thunder and lightning gods used to exist (but no longer do now that we can explain them?). The things we can't explain may be more complex now than in the past, but we will eventually explain them. And even if we do, the unknown is not evidence. This is why I say science will eventually eliminate religion.

ethan wrote:Booba, you have it quite backwards about evidence. Those who believe in a god are asserting that something is there, whereas I am saying there isn't anything there. The burden of proof falls on those who claim that something exists. That is why I made a comparison to pink elephants that live under the bed. If I say they exist but offer no tangible proof, and you say that they do not exist because there is no reason to think that they do, it is not you that is insufficiently stating your case, it is me.

You could say out existence is proof enough.

This is f-uc-ke-d up. I hate the church but feel compelled to argue against you.


P.S. In the Hebrew text it turns out that hell wasn't they make it today. Lucifer was an angel, but it turns out that he didn't turn on God, but he was basically the prosecuting attorney against humans. That he didn't like humans, so when they ****ing up he basically tattled to God. He wasn't evil. But look what they did with that text, they turned him into an evil ****ing, a dude who ran hell. Sweet huh?

You are correct about the evidence matter. However, you are still trying to state what I assume you believe to be a fact: God does not exist. In doing so, your argument is that nothing that you have seen or heard can back up in an evidential manner that there is a God, therefore he must not exist. I don't agree with that line of thinking. To me there is still a level of assumption on your part, especially when you believe that science will answer everything. And this belief (it is a belief) of yours takes the place of faith. But what we (maybe) can agree on is that there are certain things that we will never know the true answer to...unless you believe that science will eventually be able to explain everything. I don't believe it can, since it is dictated by human intelligence and rationale, and some things will always be beyond that.

Side note: read Paradise Lost. Not for the religious aspects of the book, but just because it's a freaking great story, and the man that wrote it was a genius.

I don't know for sure that there is no god(s). What I do know is that at this point no one has presented any evidence that there is one. Again, just like the pink elephants, I will believe as soon as someone shows me any evidence. Until then, I operate on the assumption that something does not exist until it is demonstrated otherwise.

I don't necessarily think that science will eventually explain everything. It bothers me enormously, though, that people think our inability to explain something is in any way proof of a deity.

The reason I feel so intensely about the issue is that religion, and beyond that faith in a deity, are incredibly harmful in many ways. In the physical realm, they create reasons for people to separate themselves from one another, look down on others, and violate others in many ways including murder and genocide. In the intellectual sense, the cultural acceptance of faith is harmful to critical thought. It sends the message that you can believe in something just because you want to, and that it is acceptable to claim religious freedom if your backwards ways do not mesh with what is right, good, or in some cases real. I know that is sort of wordy and unclear. What I'm trying to get at is, as Jefferson described it, the tyranny of the mind.

Lastly, Booba, you're right that I got too carried away in condemning all believers as stupid. My apologies. I stick by my somewhat milder position that belief in a deity is not consistent with critical thought, and that strong religious convictions are sufficient to qualify someone as unintelligent.

cpschult wrote:

ethan wrote:Booba, you have it quite backwards about evidence. Those who believe in a god are asserting that something is there, whereas I am saying there isn't anything there. The burden of proof falls on those who claim that something exists. That is why I made a comparison to pink elephants that live under the bed. If I say they exist but offer no tangible proof, and you say that they do not exist because there is no reason to think that they do, it is not you that is insufficiently stating your case, it is me.

You could say out existence is proof enough.

This is f-uc-ke-d up. I hate the church but feel compelled to argue against you.


P.S. In the Hebrew text it turns out that hell wasn't they make it today. Lucifer was an angel, but it turns out that he didn't turn on God, but he was basically the prosecuting attorney against humans. That he didn't like humans, so when they ****ing up he basically tattled to God. He wasn't evil. But look what they did with that text, they turned him into an evil ****ing, a dude who ran hell. Sweet huh?

What is so ****ing up? If there is a deity or deities, I would think that it/they would have no problem with the people that they created using their god-given abilities to question something.

And no, our existence is not proof enough. By definition, proof must establish that something is true. Our existence may be due to any number of natural phenomenon. Or to 5 gods. Or to 1 god. Or to aliens that grew us in petri dishes and put us on this planet. Saying that our existence is proof enough is operating backwards from the assumption that there is one god, then saying, "See, we exist, it must be because of the god that I believe in."

cpschult wrote:

ethan wrote:Booba, you have it quite backwards about evidence. Those who believe in a god are asserting that something is there, whereas I am saying there isn't anything there. The burden of proof falls on those who claim that something exists. That is why I made a comparison to pink elephants that live under the bed. If I say they exist but offer no tangible proof, and you say that they do not exist because there is no reason to think that they do, it is not you that is insufficiently stating your case, it is me.

You could say out existence is proof enough.

This is f-uc-ke-d up. I hate the church but feel compelled to argue against you.


P.S. In the Hebrew text it turns out that hell wasn't they make it today. Lucifer was an angel, but it turns out that he didn't turn on God, but he was basically the prosecuting attorney against humans. That he didn't like humans, so when they ****ing up he basically tattled to God. He wasn't evil. But look what they did with that text, they turned him into an evil ****ing, a dude who ran hell. Sweet huh?

He just tattled? I thought there was more to it, like he betrayed god and god doomed him to run hell for all time. Which is another problem i have with the good book. Who makes this **** up? I mean come on, it's like they are ghost stories.

Booba- you make a lot of good points. I think Science is also a general faith. I hear it all the time that the 21st century will have 1000 times the growth that the 20th century had but that is almost like worship in itself.

Ethan's point about religions dividing people is interesting but almost invalid. When the four major religions were founded they were largely needed due to lack of government. Maybe i'm wrong here but they were largely founded on treating people with respect and giving out moral guidlines. The things are so damn similar i can't blieve there is as much fighting over the holy land as there is. My only point is that its original intention was not to divide but to unify. It's the man made stuff that divides us and for that reason i don't blame religion.

In speaking of genocide, which ones are you talking about? The ones i can think of had more to do with claiming one race was dominant, not necessarily one religion (rape of nanking, nazi's, rowanda...)

Ugh. F'n religion. It's always an interesting yet at the same time frustrating debate. One of my friends who is very into her church asked me which religion I thought was the right one, and I answered all of them. She didn't like that, being a Christian and all, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I still stand by it for non-logical reasons.

Carter, regarding genocide, religion, and Nazis (I won't go into too much detail) but it's kind of interesting. Hitler wanted Nazism itself to replace all religions in Germany. One thing that it took me a while to completely understand is that the nature of the Nazi's anti-Semitism is not based on religious values, but more of the culture. One major historian on the Holocaust, Saul Friedlander, coined the phrase 'redemptive anti-Semitism' to explain the Nazis' stance. It is a more pseudo-mystical/religious belief in which the Nazis believed they were on a divine mission to wipe Evil off the face of the Earth, and evil took the form of Jewish blood. Pretty insane stuff. Also, the Catholic church in Europe is notorious for not speaking out against the Nazis during WWII for their actions against the Jews. Even crazier, the Catholic church actually did speak out and protect some Jews....but only the ones that converted to Catholicism; those were the people that the Church deemed worthy to save. Makes one shake with anger to think about it.

carter wrote:

He just tattled? I thought there was more to it, like he betrayed god and god doomed him to run hell for all time. Which is another problem i have with the good book. Who makes this **** up? I mean come on, it's like they are ghost stories.

it was made up to make the kids behave bra.. i think something is lost in the translation from hebrew to the bible.. thank you history channel!

cpschult wrote:

carter wrote:

He just tattled? I thought there was more to it, like he betrayed god and god doomed him to run hell for all time. Which is another problem i have with the good book. Who makes this **** up? I mean come on, it's like they are ghost stories.

it was made up to make the kids behave bra.. i think something is lost in the translation from hebrew to the bible.. thank you history channel!

Two things:
1-I need to watch Lost in Translation again. I'm one of the few people that really liked it.

2-Booba makes a good point about Nazism being a religion. I'd extend that to say that Stalinism was a religion, as was Maoism. There is some evidence that the church was complicit in the Rwandan genocide, though it isn't conclusive and it is possible that individual priests made the decision to cooperate with the genocidaires. Long before the Salem trials, the Catholic church and Church of England were experts at executing witches. Depending on how one defines genocide, the murder of 30-40k witches might qualify. Lastly, I think that the Catholic opposition to condoms in Africa is a sneaking, passive genocide.

[quote="ethan"][quote="cpschult"]

carter wrote:
Lastly, I think that the Catholic opposition to condoms in Africa is a sneaking, passive genocide.

Excellent observation

ethan wrote:

cpschult wrote:

carter wrote:

He just tattled? I thought there was more to it, like he betrayed god and god doomed him to run hell for all time. Which is another problem i have with the good book. Who makes this **** up? I mean come on, it's like they are ghost stories.

it was made up to make the kids behave bra.. i think something is lost in the translation from hebrew to the bible.. thank you history channel!

Two things:
1-I need to watch Lost in Translation again. I'm one of the few people that really liked it.

2-Booba makes a good point about Nazism being a religion. I'd extend that to say that Stalinism was a religion, as was Maoism. There is some evidence that the church was complicit in the Rwandan genocide, though it isn't conclusive and it is possible that individual priests made the decision to cooperate with the genocidaires. Long before the Salem trials, the Catholic church and Church of England were experts at executing witches. Depending on how one defines genocide, the murder of 30-40k witches might qualify. Lastly, I think that the Catholic opposition to condoms in Africa is a sneaking, passive genocide.

If you want to dig deep enough you will find a religion within any form of anything good or evil. Rwanda is no different. My issue there is that it seems to be more of a cultural thing in that the one side wants total domination and will do anything to get it, they can claim it is for god all they want but deep down, it is just the will to dominate and be on top.

Reading about Christopher Columbus makes me really question how the catholic church even survived. I have to thank our history books there. Anyone that reads that man's journal would damn near cough up their faith on the spot. Everything he said and did was in the name of the church and the brutality of him and his brother were off the charts.

I'd love to see the Catholic church bring that up in sunday mass and explain why god wanted the disappearance of 8,000,000 Haitians over a 70 year period.

I get my news from the following websites, in no particular order:

CNN
CNET
All Things Digital
Google Finance
ESPN
Huffington Post
BBC
Madison.com

I agree with Ethan. Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism were (and still are) largely faith-based. Many Christians hold up these movements as examples of societies that rejected God, but we must acknowledge that what was put in God's place was more similar to religion than it was to the ideas of the Jefferson and Einstein. Look at North Korea, a supposed atheistic paradise, and tell me that country isn't under the grip of a faith- and worship-based totalitarianism.

I reject Carter's claim that science resembles religion. The significant difference is that science is concerned with facts based on evidence and religion is belief based on faith.

So, a scientific fact is proven with evidence, but can later be overturned with better evidence if it becomes available. A religious belief is almost certainly unsubstantiated due to a lack of empirical evidence, and is most certainly unfalsifiable if you've ever argued with a religious person. Even if it is falsifiable to a believer, you must first break the religious will of that person, which--by the way--has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is true or not.

You might say that the belief in the scientific method of inquiry itself resembles religious belief, but by such standards mathematical methods and logic itself should face similar scrutiny. I would hate to live in a world where 2+2=4 is considered a "belief" rather than a "fact".

The problem I have with religion versus fact is that they tend to get intertwined in the debate and people never want to understand the significant difference.

Your example of the simple equation is simple enough in explanation but but when it comes down to it, that religious person you mentioned, would almost certainly say the good book is the same kind of fact as your math.

Great post though, it's nice to see the political thread get a little action.

Ethan and I don't agree on much but where is that goofy Packer fan? I hope he is doing something important like devising a plan to invade Poland.

You're right. Many religious people would contend that their beliefs are just as factual as the workings of basic arithmetic.

However, there is a meaningful distinction. A religious belief may just happen to be true, but until it is proven with empirical evidence, it should be considered a belief--not fact.

So, people can use a more liberal interpretation of the word 'fact', but the underlying reality is that religious beliefs still rely on leaps of faith and--in my humble opinion--blatant non sequiturs.

Did i say that religion and science are similar? The only similarity i see is that science is forever changing and religion is so stuck in it's ways it can't come up with a better explanation for the dinasaurs than "testing your faith in God".

ok, that's more of a difference but i still think current religion is a complete and utter joke.

Here's what you wrote:

"Booba- you make a lot of good points. I think Science is also a general faith. I hear it all the time that the 21st century will have 1000 times the growth that the 20th century had but that is almost like worship in itself."

I'm not quite sure what you meant. Maybe you can clarify.

the assumption that technology will grow exponentially.. except its not a general faith

its based on fact for the last 10-20 years the speed technology has increased scary fast

t-unit wrote:Here's what you wrote:

"Booba- you make a lot of good points. I think Science is also a general faith. I hear it all the time that the 21st century will have 1000 times the growth that the 20th century had but that is almost like worship in itself."

I'm not quite sure what you meant. Maybe you can clarify.

Thanks for clarifying. What i mean by 'faith' is that I honestly don't KNOW that we are X light years from another star, or that the moon pulls the tides, or any number of facts in science. To me, i have just accepted them to be facts but never went to figure them out myself...so i guess what i'm saying is, I have faith that science is correct and many people are in my boat because they are not scientists or welled educated people.

Not sure if that explanation helps or hurts?

OK. I understand now. It's an important point. Many people do take certain scientific facts for granted without going through the proper scientific processes to prove them. Nonetheless, SOMEONE did go through rigorous scientific method to arrive at those facts. More importantly, tested theories must also go through rigorous peer review before they can be accepted as fact. Hence, science isn't just a collection of whims that can be dreamt up by any single person. A religious text, on the other hand, can be redacted and disseminated by a single clever person.

So, this huge difference between faith and science transcends the reality that most people aren't scientists themselves.