Do We Have A 'Silly Shit Politicians Say' Thread? If Not, Here We Are

[Abandon]

you guys are all idiots, clearly aliens are responsible.









































Bill Clinton is Jesus

[Ghost_Wheel22]

The truly curious don't let things like "God did it." slow them down. However for every Copernicus, Kepler, or Descartes there are millions of people that stop and accepted "Because God did it." instead of potentially being driven by the burning question of "Why?".

[BaneTheBrawler]

such people would not be stricken by a burning desire for knowledge regardless of their faith.

[notorious bum]

You're undervaluing the power of indoctrination. Many wasted minds who've become pawns or have their intelligence used as a weapon to brainwash others for unjust causes or furthering some bigotry agenda. The church are the original gangstas when it comes to political organizing, nefarious plots, and synchronized swimming in the resource-rich battleground countries.

[BaneTheBrawler]

does not contradict what i said

[Meresgi]

Gotta agree with Bane on that. People who will just go "Because of God!" and never try to find another answer, or question themselves are the same types who would never question shit anyways. They would latch on to whatever answer was the easiest and stop there. Saying "God created the world" and not asking "When? How? Why?" is what IS wrong with most religious people. They are happy in their smug arrogance and believe they have the answer to questions no one can answer.

Also aliens

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...gif?1311943181

[RKenshin]

But they are the type of people that (typically) make it more difficult for the ones that attempt to find answers beyond that.

History and even current events are full of 'fights' between people satisfied with "God did it" as an answer, and the people that attempt to/find the real answers.

[BaneTheBrawler]

yes. but such conflicts could often have been avoided if the search were presented differently.

if you set out to prove the parting of the red sea was all just wind and tides, people who take that shit seriously are going to take issue with it. if you present it as trying to learn what God did to accomplish it, it stands a much better chance of being accepted. still not 100%, obviously, but c'mon. you're smart enough to ask these questions but not smart enough to play a bit of politics?

[Meresgi]

if you present it as trying to learn what God did to accomplish it, it stands a much better chance of being accepted. still not 100%, obviously, but c'mon. you're smart enough to ask these questions but not smart enough to play a bit of politics?

I can't blame science for being annoyed by religion, I mean they were presecuted to hell and back for so long, but I agree that if these things were presented in a different fashion, it would be taken better. Saying "We're going to see how the red sea parting happened" is much different then "We're going to disprove the bible and show you it was only tides and wind!".

Obviously it's the same thing, but people who would be outraged are usually pretty fucking stupid anyways, so rewording things always helps to alleviate anger.

[Blubbartron]

Yeah, no, science doesn't work that way. You don't make conclusions or present research based on what will make people feel good. You do things in a way that is correct and substantiated by the data/experiments at hand. If there's no need for a god to explain something we've observed, then we strip gods away. Unnecessary assumptions like "god exists" add literally nothing, and in fact, make the conclusions of research weaker.

The idea that we should placate these willfully ignorant motherfuckers is ridiculous. NDT makes a similar argument about creating impact, and I disagree with him there as well. You can't fight irrationality with rationality. It just doesn't work. Believers don't like science because science is actively creating cognitive dissonance for them, and it's painful. That's why so many are against evolution; if we weren't created in place then there was no garden, and no apple/fig. Original sin doesn't exist, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down in the Abrahamic religions.

It's also worth pointing out that a large portion of these creationist/anti-science movements are directly funded by churches. If their sham is exposed, no one would ever willingly throw money at them for doing nothing (aka: tithing). Religion is the original manufactured demand.

[hey]

Gotta agree with Bane on that. People who will just go "Because of God!" and never try to find another answer, or question themselves are the same types who would never question shit anyways.

It's pretty trivial to turn anyone into that type of person, if you get at them from a young enough age. Religion does that.

[Meresgi]

Yeah, no, science doesn't work that way. .

Work what way? It's the same method in both ways, just one is not being overarly harsh and blatantly saying "FUCK GOD HAHA". Obviously that's an extreme but you understand what i'm saying. Same shit as any aspect of life, even if someone IS a fucking idiot, it's far better to take a path of least resistance.

You can't fight irrationality with rationality.

Unless you're still in your teens and believe that the world is all stupid and your 101 class has enlightend you to the world, you will understand the simple phrase "You catch more flies with honey..". Or you can be a twat about everything.

It's pretty trivial to turn anyone into that type of person, if you get at them from a young enough age. Religion does that.

Over generalizing a lot there.

[archibaldcrane]

You guys are the worst.

[hey]

Over generalizing a lot there.

Hardly. If you know what you're doing, you can easily turn a small child into literally anything you want them to be. This is something religion has become insanely good at. There's a reason no successful religion suggests waiting until children are grown to teach them about religion and let them decide for themselves (hint: because they wouldn't be successful then).

Right from a young age, religions teach people not to question things. This carries over to all aspects of people's lives.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Yeah, no, science doesn't work that way. You don't make conclusions or present research based on what will make people feel good.

bullshit. there's a reason NASA sends me emails about how fucking badass space is.

[Blubbartron]

Work what way? It's the same method in both ways, just one is not being overarly harsh and blatantly saying "FUCK GOD HAHA". Obviously that's an extreme but you understand what i'm saying. Same shit as any aspect of life, even if someone IS a fucking idiot, it's far better to take a path of least resistance.

Unless you're still in your teens and believe that the world is all stupid and your 101 class has enlightend you to the world, you will understand the simple phrase "You catch more flies with honey..". Or you can be a twat about everything.

edit: ignore the following bit - I didn't realize that you slipped in a post before mine, so it looked like I was responding to you. The "no, science doesn't work that way" was directed at Bane. I agree that science doesn't have to be overtly antagonistic, even though it kind of inherently is.

No part of the scientific method, or any valid scientific experiment includes the assumption that any gods exist. If you make a conclusion based on research that says "this is how god achieved a result", then your results immediately lose credibility because you're making a claim that is unjustified.

And again, while I realize that you catch more flies with honey, the goal of science isn't to make people feel good. The goal of science is to figure shit out. Whether people like the answers we reach does not matter.

bullshit. there's a reason NASA sends me emails about how fucking badass space is.

Yes, that reason is to try to convince people that NASA (and science in general) is worthwhile, or more bluntly, worth spending money on. They aren't conclusions or presentations of scientific research. NASA doesn't take religious beliefs into consideration at all when doing research. Their research relies on the sum knowledge of science in various fields, intentionally ignoring all myths and fairy tales, and is done to ensure their astronauts don't fucking die. God is not a contingency plan.



I'll never understand why people have this "why can't we all just get along" kumbaya bullshit attitude. Science and religion are irreconcilable because theism and atheism are irreconcilable. Science is inherently atheistic, or perhaps more technically, apatheistic. Science works. Religion doesn't. End of story. If you prefer religion over science, congrats, you're holding us back.

Somebody make a proper thread for this discussion so I can continue railing on the impotence of religion (except when it comes to indoctrination - it's fucking mastered that concept).

[RKenshin]

yes. but such conflicts could often have been avoided if the search were presented differently.

if you set out to prove the parting of the red sea was all just wind and tides, people who take that shit seriously are going to take issue with it. if you present it as trying to learn what God did to accomplish it, it stands a much better chance of being accepted. still not 100%, obviously, but c'mon. you're smart enough to ask these questions but not smart enough to play a bit of politics?

Ehhh I'm not sure I agree with that line of thought.

First, is by tying scientific discoveries/research to explanations of how X religion's claims could be true/explained, you're further linking two things together that should in reality be absolutely unrelated and separate. Science has no relation to or dependence on religion or faith, and most of these issues arise from trying to make these two things work with each other when they just do not.

Second, is it also sort of forces those not a member of a certain religion to try and make their work/research/thoughts about or 'in service of' religion, to a certain degree. But, it shouldn't be part of a scientists job to make their research acceptable to a religion (much less one they don't believe in, or if we want to be fair - all of the various ones of the world).

[NynJa]

Bane, do you ever wonder about a cure for your disease, or would you be satisfied if a doctor told you "were not going to bother trying to treat this anymore, god did it"?

[Jaybar]

Ehhh I'm not sure I agree with that line of thought.

First, is by tying scientific discoveries/research to explanations of how X religion's claims could be true/explained, you're further linking two things together that should in reality be absolutely unrelated and separate. Science has no relation to or dependence on religion or faith, and most of these issues arise from trying to make these two things work with each other when they just do not.

Second, is it also sort of forces those not a member of a certain religion to try and make their work/research/thoughts about or 'in service of' religion, to a certain degree. But, it shouldn't be part of a scientists job to make their research acceptable to a religion (much less one they don't believe in, or if we want to be fair - all of the various ones of the world).

I believe the approach isn't meant to say "receding tides could make God's power real", however it is trying to avoid "anything other than receding tides is illogical and you are wrong". It is meant to approach the subject of the scenario objectively rather than through confrontation - "here is an interesting miracle in the Bible, how can it happen today?"

Of course the conclusion for the religious would still be God-centric but they understand the science behind it, moving from "God did it" to "God manipulated the winds and tides to recede the waters briefly".

[Waraji]

"God manipulated the winds and tides to recede the waters briefly".

And by God you mean Gravity. I mean they both start with G its so obvious.