81–90 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true, but it's not as significant a difference as interpretative art. The original still dominates. Good point, though. Delivery of embedded content is often ignored.
Significant enough to be considered valuable by millions of viewers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…
"Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence." Quoi? May be you have some particular religion in mind, but many beliefs coexist happily with science. There is a domain where atheists and many religious people agree on. Which is the domain that is not covered by the particular religion and that is covered by the scientific method (do an experiment, analyse data, get conclusions, rinse, repeat). Choice of medicine…
Totally! Perfectly faithful Christians can be Evolutionary Biologists without falling victim to fundamentalist anti-science idiocy.
"The critical question is what to do with things we have no physical evidence of, things which we have no data of, are uncertain of. Things that science has not reached a verdict on. Religions typically have loads of these. The existence of god/gods for example."
That's the realm of social science, not hard science, seeing as there is always going to be zero physical evidence of "God"/gods.
"In short, science is not and has never been the whole of objective reality. This assigns mythical powers to scientists, which some would certainly call a "religion"."
Again, "Science" is reality. Scientists do not have mythical powers. They are human. They are however the best we have to understand objective reality, through our feeble and failing minds. We do quite a good job, and conflating priests with scientists shows how little persons understand what facts and objective evidence versus subjectivity, belief, and perspective. Priests are "infallible". Science is not. And that is a very good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…
> No one on earth worships "SCIENCE". The problem with ifls and equivalents is that that is actually what they are encouraging. They misrepresent "science" completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your analogy to reposting is a robbery? Really? Mine is, telling your friends a joke without bothering to establish who originally invented it.
It's not like many of the original artists want a payout. They just want attribution.
Do you have a suggesting for finding each "owner"?
Such requirements would shut down all these sites (not that we'd have a huge loss by doing so, but I'd like to think that a social/technological solution would be possible.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're all ignorant of the vast majority of facts relevant to almost anything. Comprehension is expensive and scarce. That being the case, simple extensions of good faith count for a lot.
Ignorance is fine -- it is an unfortunate fact that nobody can learn it all. But to think that one is "engaging" in science -- I suppose most fans of the Page think they're somehow engaging in it (anecdotal) -- is, well, wrong. As much as I'd like it to be true, looking at a bunch of .gifs about quantum mechanics and astrophysics plastered with white majuscules does little for one's understanding of science. In other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. A small part of IFLS' success rests on Andrews' eye for picking out good/funny/clever quotes/cartoons/photographs/artwork This isn't hard, and can be automated... it's the 9gag model. Just view the cream of the crop that bubbles to the top of reddit and randomly pick out a few every day.
Small part of Shakespeare was picking the right words and phrases and putting them in right order. Small part of every DJ is picking the righ music to remix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you so sure? A person that is conditioned to follow an idea will behave in a conditioned way, I doesn't matter the topic. When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol".
"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…
Both of these claims are 100% false.
Religion does have significant evidence; the problematic part of religion is in its interpretation of that evidence, rather than the evidence itself. This ranges from the metaphysical "X exists, therefore God" to the specific incidences of revival tents and miracle workers. This is evidence. Just because you have a different interpretation does not automatically invalidate theirs.
Science is a fucking method, not some "whole". There is and possibly always will be parts of reality that we do not know. We cannot stand outside reality, by definition, and we will always have non-objective biases coloring our perspective. Pretending to be objective is self-delusion. Trying to be objective is worthy and good, but recognize that you can't be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…
All that you say is true, but at the same time I don't think you are getting my point. Atthe human level religion is nothing more than emotion, social and group dinamics and conditioning. Then there are the folcloric items, like gods, prayers, popes, books... But as humans we are always susceptible of falling in all the conditioning, emotion and tribalism present in religion. Even in cience, even cientifics are able…
Outside of parapsychology, cold fusion, and free energy devices, how are you stating that this occurs as a regular practice? I criticize scientists from within the framework of poor evidence, biases, systemic issues, but calling it a "religion" misses the point. Personal biases don't make a religion. Watered down pop-science isn't a religion either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity" A lack of belief in God is not a belief in a God. Your example is ignorant.
I think you misunderstood parent. He didn't imply atheism is a religion but that atheists who behaves like religous/zealots are as dangerous as their couter-parts on the religious side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstood parent. He didn't imply atheism is a religion but that atheists who behaves like religous/zealots are as dangerous as their couter-parts on the religious side.
I can understand the dig on zealotry, but the direct comparisons to "atheism as a religion" remain a pretty good sign that someone doesn't really understand what either term means. It's as unfair to religion as it is to those who lack belief in any God(s).
I think the comparison is valid. Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem (
Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion.