Colbert explains god of the gaps

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

However I do very much enjoy Taosim and its philosophies and teachings.

Taoism sucks, we ate that shyte for breakfast, absorbed it, and crapped it out....

Very mature

So which part of Taoism do you disagree with, and why is it worse than Judea-Christian religions?

I don't disagree with it, we ate it... and absorbed it just like I have said, then rid ourselves of the waste of it.

you are what you eat...

What the hell are you talking about???

reply to post by MrXYZ


Who the hell needs science to prove God?

Really.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

What the hell are you talking about???

again as usual... you are not asking the right questions !

let me try to give you a metaphorical understanding... if you're a Jedi -- we are Borg

today that is

I'm quite flexible when fighting fire with fire.

Originally posted by Soke33
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Who the hell needs science to prove God?

Really.

Anyone who'd like to base their opinions on rationality and logic? Of course most believers don't seem to care about that

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Soke33
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Who the hell needs science to prove God?

Really.

Anyone who'd like to base their opinions on rationality and logic? Of course most believers don't seem to care about that

hey !

where you going you deity worshiper ?

get back here and prove the existence of "the Force"

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence correct...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I think my signature and avatar make it clear I definitely don't worship any deities.

This thread was bout the words of Bill O'Reily and Colberts commentary on them. It's a comedy bit. Why is this a discussion of who god is, where he came form etc. Far from the topic at hand. Just saying.
P.S. God is gay (that's comedy too)

PPS, gay means happy.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Soke33
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Who the hell needs science to prove God?

Really.

Anyone who'd like to base their opinions on rationality and logic? Of course most believers don't seem to care about that

You are doing the same thing the religionists are doing.

You expect people to totally set aside their own experiences and knowledge, and accept whatever science says...and that is all. What about all of the things science can't explain? That is a lot, by the way.

My original post remarks stand. Men are too ignorant to tell me what to believe.

reply to post by Soke33


You seem to believe subjective evidence is just as good as objective (scientific) evidence...which simply is not the case. Us humans are flawed in that our perception of things are flawed, and so is our psyche...so the best way to assess reality is the objective, scientific way. That's not being ignorant, it's being realistic, rational, and logical

Fun Fact: Colbert is a Christian (Sorry if this has been mentioned before).

Regardless I find him to be a really cool guy and I doubt he's nut: it's not completely ridiculous to believe in god. Heck I believe in god without religion.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Soke33

 

You seem to believe subjective evidence is just as good as objective (scientific) evidence...which simply is not the case. Us humans are flawed in that our perception of things are flawed, and so is our psyche...so the best way to assess reality is the objective, scientific way. That's not being ignorant, it's being realistic, rational, and logical

Like the subjective evidence of a pill to fix every ail? Many scientists are competing with street drug dealers. They drug anyone every chance they get, which puts many people at their mercy. The extent of their mercy is to push more pills.

I deal with so many people on a weekly basis who have their brains fried by scientific meds, when they could have been helped with some good, honest, true principles ~ prior to the tainting of their brains; so, don’t think that you can tell me science is realistic, rational and logical. Especially today because that is what I did with most of my day. The amount of pills pushed is astounding!

Like your guy, Tyson…I had the chance to go watch one of his speeches. He is a talker; I’ll give him that. However, he is arrogant and condescending, with his own fantasies. He contemplates on being sucked into a black hole and “spaghettified.” The man continues to paint everyone else as totally stupid, and they need to bring him hard evidence, so he can approve it. That is a WTF. He is quite the front man to help make science some money to further their cause. Think about all of the people with experiences. Even if only one third of these people have had legitimate experiences, science labels them as schizo or one of many names they invented, and they are mistreated because of the ignorance of science.

Adults don’t communicate with cans and strings, as Tyson portrays them; and witnesses give a signed statement. This prevents changes, and allows the big people to draw conclusions based on facts; even if the first summary is concocted. This has to happen, so we don’t live in an indecisive society that keeps the world in limbo. Science makes people indecisive and psychotic. They interfere with the natural course of human life too often.

The word "nothing" is merely a noun to express something for which is lacking in action or can not be sensed. Our conventions of language do not in any way meliorate our ability to imagine "nothingness" which people in this thread think to be an impossible state. To say "life and the universe started from nothing" is actually an accurate statement. The net energy of the universe is zero, therefore any primal state of the universe in which no "action" or matter was present does not in any way contract the laws of physics, or logic. We can't imagine existence "before" matter, so yes it is hard to comprehend, but is mathematically tenable.

I find it quite amusing, as well as magnificent, that intelligent creatures can be the invention of a mass assortment of random energy. The only caveat is our brains have yet to come to the realization that everything is simply space and time. And from an evolutionary standpoint, it would have benefited an early human to believe in some purpose, and creating an imaginary incentive for doing. Because of that belief, that human spread his/her genes, and as a byproduct, we have emotions and feelings to negotiate the various modes of living.

Ironically humans (some) have now reached the point, where enough evidence, as well as established methods of evaluating evidence, have made the thought of a higher purpose immaterial to survival, and displaced such ideals in favor of gene replication and an acceptance of human nature

reply to post by Soke33

Like the subjective evidence of a pill to fix every ail? Many scientists are competing with street drug dealers. They drug anyone every chance they get, which puts many people at their mercy. The extent of their mercy is to push more pills.

What the hell are you talking about??

Also, of course people like Tyson ask for objective evidence in science because subjective evidence is worthless. That's not condescending, it's caring about the accuracy of statements and reality.

You have to watch Colbert on a regular basis to get the humor in this clip. He's not really trying to claim God doesn't exist or bash a belief in God, but is pointing out that Mr. Bill is once again claiming to have an answer or speak from a position of Authority on his show to get his personal views across. I'm all for believing in God, but Mr. Bill doesn't need to go on tv and say crap like this to make himself more appealing to the more religious viewers. Claiming belief in God for profit or ratings is probably worse than saying you aren't sure or don't believe a God exists.

- Dredge

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Soke33

 

Like the subjective evidence of a pill to fix every ail? Many scientists are competing with street drug dealers. They drug anyone every chance they get, which puts many people at their mercy. The extent of their mercy is to push more pills.

What the hell are you talking about??

Also, of course people like Tyson ask for objective evidence in science because subjective evidence is worthless. That's not condescending, it's caring about the accuracy of statements and reality.

Surprise! There is a debate about this subject that just started:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I apologize. I had a very rough day yesterday. There are a few people that I counsel, and they are in really bad shape because of the medicines they've taken for so long; one is experiencing organ failure.

My bottom line is simply that people can't look to other people to find solutions to the very personal quandaries each of us have, especially the decisions regarding One to Whom we may or may not be subject. An individual effort should be made on the part of each person to seek understanding and acceptance, rather than escape and euphoria.

My problem with O'Reilly is the same problem I have with so many others, and it doesn't matter that he may be a believer in God. He's very famous for his "no spin zone" in a round world. He has tried to put a line out, as Truth. That can't happen because every single circumstance of life differs, and life spins.

I enjoyed Colbert's counter to O'Reilly on his comments. Bill has become a very self-righteous individual, as the world has continued to turn. The simple principles of existence expound from someone like that in a way that can only be compared to a child trying to explain the realities of the world around them. It makes ya laugh!

reply to post by Soke33


I think you confuse scientists with business men. No one's saying the pharma industry isn't horrible and exploiting people...but it's not the scientists developing meds that do it. It's the business men running those companies.

A good friend of mine works for Novartis, and he told me some sick stories. Like, he and the other guys would love to work on meds countering AIDS or something else drastic...but instead, they are forced to work on weight loss meds and other crap. Why? Because there's more customers for those kind of meds, and it's more profitable.

It's not their fault really, they are employees and have to do as their employer tells you.

Originally posted by cluckerspud
This thread was bout the words of Bill O'Reily and Colberts commentary on them. It's a comedy bit. Why is this a discussion of who god is, where he came form etc. Far from the topic at hand. Just saying.
P.S. God is gay (that's comedy too)

PPS, gay means happy.

edit on 7-2-2011 by cluckerspud because: (no reason given)

It is all for the same reason that it only took 3 posts before someone walked into this thread all huffy and puffy, put on their pseudo-intellectual glasses, made a loud "ahem" and then proudly employed the exact same failed logic as O'Reilly in an attempt to be clever as well as defend the same idiocy that O'Reilly was spouting. Then it got really ugly as more people missed the point completely of what had happened here. I kind of feel like it is just the comedy bit that continues to bring me new laughs.

Keep it up, fellers!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
It's not their fault really, they are employees and have to do as their employer tells you.

It's the fault of the capitalistic system. Things like health care and med research should be state run non-profit businesses.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Soke33

 

I think you confuse scientists with business men. No one's saying the pharma industry isn't horrible and exploiting people...but it's not the scientists developing meds that do it. It's the business men running those companies.

A good friend of mine works for Novartis, and he told me some sick stories. Like, he and the other guys would love to work on meds countering AIDS or something else drastic...but instead, they are forced to work on weight loss meds and other crap. Why? Because there's more customers for those kind of meds, and it's more profitable.

It's not their fault really, they are employees and have to do as their employer tells you.

That puts their integrity as low as these preachers trying to herd people as sheep, according to the mother churches for profit, power and control; and I abhor their participation in deception.

At what point should a person refuse to be a part of something that bears harm to so many?

I'm not confusing anything. Each individual is responsible for their own contributions.

reply to post by Soke33


You do realize if you studied that field, you can either work for a university, or a pharma company...not like you have a lot of choice. They're not the ones deciding on what meds they work...

According to your logic, everyone who ever worked for a bank is responsible for the economic meltdown, which obviously also isn't true.