“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” “I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.” -Albert Einstein- Oh well. At least life is so good in this country we have the time to dedicate political discourse and web page design to the idea of whether or not people should be allowed to TALK about God.
-tomtsunami
did you just talk about god?! quick, someone bag him!
Oh, don’t talk such bollocks. No-one’s suggesting that you can’t *talk* about your God. It’s the teaching of religion as *science* that’s objectionable, and that’s what this site is about.
.
Einstein denied belief in a personal god - your poaching of him as an icon for your faith is both misguided and crass, and I’d ask that you don’t do it again without knowing the truth of the matter. Go read about it.
.
“At least life is so good in this country we have the time…” etc.
Hmm. That “life is good, we’re nice and relaxed here” attitude’ll bite you in the ass one day, especially if the fundies keep using voter apathy and ignorance of science/technology issues as ways of promoting their poilitical agendas. You obviously dont like the idea of living in a nation where you can’t talk about God - how would you feel living in one where belief was compulsory, homosexuality a capital crime, and politics, religion and “science” were indistinguishable from each other? No, wait , let me guess - you’d love it, right?
Another one misses the point. Talk about god, I don’t think anyone here minds, but don’t attempt it in a science class room. Science is about the observation and emperical facts. To place faith in such a setting is to make a mockery of both! How much does god weigh? Faith does not require facts. To require proof of God shows an alarming lack of faith! Since they included ID in certain science classrooms, they should be forced to teach the creation story of every religion as well. It doesn’t have to be the Christian God that’s behind ID, any omnipotent being would work the same, hence why this brilliant piece of satire works so well.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There is only one F.S.M. and Bobby is His Prophet, Pesto be upon Him.
Strength Through Unity!
Unity Through Faith!
.
When religion, science and politics are taught as one subject in schools, slogans like these will be all over the place.
Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He used the term to describe an aspect of order in the universe. His opinions about religion are well known and available to any literate person. If he had only known how unfortunate this choice of words was, and that in a couple of generations ignorant fundamentalist blockheads would be misinterpreting them as an apology for ID, he would certainly have used other words. And if you had bothered to know anything about his ideas you wouldn’t have used that quote.
.
By the way tomtsunami, nobody in this country believes you shouldn’t talk about religion. The debate is about whether christians can lie about their religion and pass it off as science and then pass laws to mandate that everybody’s children have to learn their fairy tale, and also about whether ignorant people such as yourself can blast us with your religion and expect to be treated with respect. I strongly believe in your right to talk about your religion, but I don’t believe you deserve any respect for it.
.
Or rather, you deserve just as much respect as someone who demands that we teach that the easter bunny as science in schools: Very little.
Way to go people! I guess we all jumped on that one!
No point in waiting for someone to strike first…
RAmen Fr. Corpus Callosum
RAmen
I was going to say something meaningful, but you people got in ahead of me!
You’ll have plenty of future opportunities Richie
Pasta is boring without sauce and the sauce is pointless without pasta, so get yourself a plate full of noodles and pass the marinara.
RAmen
Oh please continue to discuss god tomtsunami. I have only just started watching this site, and it kind of seems the whole point. I have a new hobby… dammit, a new religion.
RAmen all..
-Albert Enstine and religion- http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm -goole tha t:>
Durrr, “insert random religious quote from Einstein here”
Einstein is spinning in his grave.
thing is he’s actually spinning at the speed of light, and kicking himself for it… all a the same time!
O.o
P.S. The FSM is a world dice champion.
Here is one you might like relate to better then= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG43TPKgKHY&NR
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” - Albert Einstein
@Zok
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.â€
.
I’m with Albert!
RAmen
@HipsterKing:
“Einstein is spinning in his grave”
As I understand modern physics, we can only know his spin *or* his location. :-)
DJH - Nice! Time to let the cat out of the box. (Big stupid grin)
No, but He(the FSM) loves a good game of Midnight Baseball(that’s poker if you don’t know).
Lol, Alchemist.
@J
You’ve been quiet. Is everything ok? Maybe you’ve been just having a bit of a well earned rest?
RAmen
Umm… Sorry to burst your bubble… but Einstein didn’t believe in god.
There needs to be some compromise when it comes to teaching the existence of complex life and so I would like to propose this: teach evolution and ID in schools and in Sunday Schools at churches. Obviously a presenter who knows both arguments should go to both and present the same material at both sites. Therefore I suggest one of us pastafarians goes and teaches the stories of the FSM and evolution at local public schools and at local churches.
That’d make Al happy, religion in FSM form and science go together like pasta and beer…
RAmen
DJH, Hurling the old Uncertainty Principle, are we? Good!
Bugga! Why didn’t I think to promote myself to bartender of the ship instead of just going for being a wench.
I’m too slow!
RAmen
@ Wench Nikkiee, surely a shipful of Pastafarians would need more than one bartender.
Does this ship need a bar wench?
BTW OEJ I consider you to be the ship’s compass.
You read my mind as I was typing SaucyWench!
RAmen
Wenches of a feather…sail? together. You might not know the reference because it’s American. You’re across “the pond” right? It’s “Birds of a feather flock together. Like attracts like, and that sort of thing.
“Wenches of a feather…sail? together.”
Definately! I just thought a bit more about my position and decided I’d rather help those holding up the other side of the bar anyway. I’ll stick with being a wench.
Back to work for me
RAmen
OEJ
“OEJ I consider you to be the ship’s compass.
.
I’m hoping you took that as the compliment it was meant to be.
RAmen
This is a religion I can believe in. My own place of worship has a representation of a beer volcano. It doesn’t erupt but it has flowed constantly since I came of age (what was that? 21? No, 18! I’m British).
RAmen.
Since ID/creationists have no actual science to back up their beliefs, they often resort to a tactic know as “quote mining”. Basically, they cut and paste quotes by respected scientists out of context to promote their agenda. When you go back and look at the original quotes, the paragraphs before and/or after usually explain the real intension of the quote, as demonstrated quite well by Zoks post.
Props to Fr. CC as well. Well done, mates.
For further information regarding quote mining, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
I can’t find the quote at present where either Behe or Dembski used a perfect example of “quote mining” from Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” in requard to the eye.
However I do have the paragraph they quoted.
.
Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (1882) had great difficulties with eye evolution and devoted an entire chapter to it, ‘‘Difficulties of the Theory,’’ in which he discusses
‘‘organs of extreme perfection and complication:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
.
But then he continues:
Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its
possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable
by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
.
Taken from:
Darwin and the Problem of Eye Evolution
New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and
Photoreceptors
W. J. GEHRING: THE WILHEMINE E. KEY 2004 INVITATIONAL LECTURE
.
I know I’ve got the the ID speech, using the quote to imply even Darwin thought that the eye could not have evolved via natural selection, somewhere.
I thought it might have been in the article below, but on skimming through I failed to find it.
.
DEVOLUTION
Why intelligent design isn’t.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
RAmen
Of course only the top paragraph was quoted out of context.
Science without religion is lame? I would have thought that science without religion is, well, science.
Ah, the eye. An organ of extreme perfection and complication. One wonders, however, why God chose to give those he created in his own image an eye inferior to the eye of squid, octopus and cuttlefish?
Exactly, Wench Nikkiee. Darwin was not saying that evolution of the eye was impossible, he was merely speculating as to how it came to be and could not himself understand. We have come a long way since then with the help of Mendellian genetics, a more extensive fossil record, comparative anatomy of the squid eye, et al. to explain this process. Amazingly, this pool of knowledge has come out of something known as the scientific community, a multicultural entity born out of a desire to explain the universe. My question to tomtsunami: Which God? ;)
The forerunner of molecular genetic research of the eye is Walter Gehring (above) He is a brilliant scientist and was widely tipped to take out a Nobel this year. (for discovery of Hox genes)
Mind you the two guys who got it also really deserved it. (RNAi knockouts) Hard choice for the judges. Maybe the fact that six past Nobel Laureates had already been associated with Gehring’s lab swayed it, but I doubt it.
RAmen
RAmen Peg Leg Dave
One more thing. Gehring is often found saying just how incredibly correct Darwin was
in this requard.
“don’t tease the sabertooth”
http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/11/eugenie-scott-part-1-evening-lecture.html
Euginie Scott from the National Center for Science Education (US) gave a fascinating lecture on this science vs. religion topic.
RAmen
Buggered if I know what is happening to my sentences when I post them?
As a Theologian (And unofficial gynecologist….keep that secret there)
I must take great exception to this article! Science and Religion CAN in fact, coexist, if only the Scientist in question completely restructured his approach to science, to include God.
For example. Physics? No. Bullshit. Instead of thinking about Physics as random energy, a Scientist could think of it as APPLIED, DIRECT Energy from God! Thus redressing the Science/God imbalance.
It’s all quite simple really. Scientists who do not follow the word of God will be punished! I mean, look at Darwin - he had a beard. No doubt this beard was put there by Jesus (Presumably whilst Darwin was asleep of a night) Did Darwin get married and procreate tastefully and Godly? I don’t know! But as a genuine Theologian - I’m going to blindly assume that he did not. He was therefore a sex crazed ape, and felt compelled to spread his word. Also, the Bible goes back further than his theories - so….y’know….it’s pretty clear who won THAT round…
And what the Hell are all these “Logical Fallacies”??!! They are Satan’s work. But they are avoidable!
“Disbelief in God, causes Violence” - Make a fallacy out of THAT!!
And finally - Homosexuality. The evil to beat all evil! As a Theologian and devout Christian, I cannot begin to tell you how disgusted I am by this!!
God said “Love thy fellow Man”!! He did NOT say “Love thy fellow man with lubrications and vibrators and…..deep…..anal…….sex……..” Ohboy.
I gotta go uhh….feed my cat now…..
I hope it is food you are going to feed that cat?
RAmen
Does that make me ship’s Navigator, Nikkiee?
.
“Give me a tall ship and a star to sail her by.”~ John Masefield, a pirate at heart if ever there was one.
.
OEJ
I reckon so OEJ!
RAmen
That doesn’t let you out of the post of ship’s theologian though!
Night
I’ll be the plucky comedy relife:the ships hooker.
Sounds good… change your name Penne.
I reckon you’ll have lotsa fun with that one.
I’m off to bed
RAmen
@Dr. Fenswicke Smythe-Taylor Coleridge PhD (Theo.)
He did NOT say “Love thy fellow man with lubrications and vibrators and…..deep…..anal…….sex……..†Ohboy.
I gotta go uhh….feed my cat now…..
.
That reminds me I wonder who’s feeding Ted’s cat now?
Ohboy indeed,that’s the sort of thing you really otta leave your cat out of.
I thought you you were going to bed,it’s just mid morning here in Nova Scotia.
Talking about religion is fine, no one disputes that, in fact that is the basis of this website you muppet. To me this is a simple debate, whilst I am an atheist, I love nothing better than debating the nonsensical and frankly bizzare belief that some ropey slapper living in the desert popped out a baby even though her carpenter boyfriend ‘hadn’t touched her, honest mum’.
What reasonable people do object to is our children being taught not to question, and that Religion is fact. If children were taught at school that you could create wealth and happyness, not by working hard but by licking trees (and i’ve nothing against a good tree lick if thats what flicks your switch)we would object. All rational people ask is that people do not deal in absolutes, and that if you choose to belive in fairies and goblins and flying babies with harps that you do not insist that your weird beliefs are inflicted on vulneable minds when they are being taught useful things, such as the use of piracy in the reduction of global warming.
Ship’s Navigator AND Theologian… and to think mother said I would never amount to much.
.
“Second star to the left and straight on ’till morning” - Peter Pan
.
Despite his problems with Captain Hook, I think Peter Pan would approve of FSM Pirates. There’s a bit of the Lost Boys in the heart of every FSM Pirate.
.
OEJ, Theological Navigator
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.†“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.†-Albert Einstein- Oh well. At least life is so good in this country we have the time to dedicate political discourse and web page design to the idea of whether or not people should be allowed to TALK about Flying Spaghetti Monster.
.
-Cap’nUberbob
Science without religion is rational…
All this talk about being rational is giving me a headache, if you want to talk rationality try to find a rational effective reason that Christians worship a character in a book that was originally written two thousand years ago and has been rewritten translated countless times.
Were there any disscussions on the Time magzine article last week? I was off the board
when this edition came out and I only saw it yesterday.
.
“God vs. Science”
We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for miracles and for MRIs. But are the worldviews compatible?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html
It ’s sort of like saying that without Evil, there can be no Good, isn’t it? On some level it may make sense,but a good deed is still a good deed and gravity will still keep your feet on the ground,no matter what you belive.
RAmen Penne (or is that Ship’s Hooker Penne?)
Penne said: “gravity will still keep your feet on the ground, no matter what you believe”
You should know better, there’s no such thing as “gravity”, it’s just His noodly Appendages pressing down on us.
Praise be his noodly appendage, for without it we would all fly off the ground into the inky pesto sauce of space, and explode.
@ hommo narrans-”Strengh through Unity! Unity through Faith!”
Bbbbrrr… great, absolutely GREAT movie & comic, but sooooo creepy futurewise.
@ Dr. Fenswicke Smythe-Taylor Coleridge PhD: Why does god think so much about-hot-throbbing-man-love? Is it because he’s everywhere, and therefore up our asses? I might love him, but I find that thought rather disturbing.
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.†Actually a pirate without his timber-toe is lame, but some pirates without their eye-patches can see better.
@Penne the Ship’s Comedic Hooker: RAmen for the revelation! There is no gravity! There is only a curvature of the space-time continuum around massive bodies, and underlying all reality there is the sacred vibrations of His noodly appendages.
@Anna: What movie is that?
Fr. CC
“Strenght through Unity! Unity through Faith!” is from “V is from Vendetta”.
Dr. FS-TC PhD (?)
.
Maybe you should actually read the article before you post. Jon Voisey was commenting on Eugenie Scott’s lecture. She is quite clearly a woman. She also quite clearly detemined that in order to include God in science you would have to restructure the definition of science to include supernatural explanations, thus reducing astronomy to astrology, chemistry to alchemy, etc. How a theologian is not aware of this is beyond me. If you want to wander back into the dark ages, then please take all the other fundies with you. You’ll be happy there, you can burn all the heretics and homosexuals at the stake to your heart’s content.
.
My first question is how a theologian is suddenly an authority on physics? Using your own languauge, bullshit, does quite effectively describe your dissertation. Secondly, where exactly did you earn your Doctorate of Philosophy? The Garbage Degree Mill of Fundamentalist America? Were you classmates with Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind, by any chance?
.
Concerning your cat, go ahead and tease the saber tooth. You could become the next recipient of the Darwin Awards.
Talking about talking about God, here’s a nice piece of satire from DOWNUNDER. It is directed at the Mormons who don’t respond well when the shoe is on the other foot.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/11/tolerance_2.html
Thanks MJK! I wondered if it was. I loved the comic and liked the movie.
Right, that should read “V is for Vendetta”.
Wench Nikkiee
.
I finally made it through that Time article. Whew, that’s a long one. Interesting dialog, though. I’m a long time fan of Stephen J. Gould and agree that science and religion are in different realms, but must agree with Dawkins that there does exist some overlapping. Sometimes Dawkins can be a bit arrogant which often doesn’t help his case. I think his closing statement summed it up best. “If there is a God it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.” This could quite possible be the best description of the FSM I have ever read.
.
RAmen
I still haven’t had a chance to read right through it. I thought there may have been some disscussion on it here. I agree with you requard Dawkin, but it will probably take someone with his attitude to gain even a little ground. You can’t really miss him!
I agree with that l;ast statement as well. I’ve got to go again. Still catching up on some reading.
RAmen
just like to make a general point, although we all argue about whether true faith is not needing evidence such as science, i beleive that most people would want to live in the false hope of something bigger out there…so if there is no god..please dont tell me! btw i liked the point about how lucky we are to be able to dicuss religion free of Prejudice.:)
@ raspberry:
surely a bracing truth is better than a comforting lie? that’s what many of us here believe, anyway.
“i beleive that most people would want to live in the false hope of something bigger out there”
.
Count me out. I prefer the truth.
-a curvature of the space-time continuum around massive bodies-Isn’t that gravity? If a black is just a curvature of space ,and things fall towards it isn’t that gravity?Here’s a site that might explain what I mean: http://www.crystalinks.com/black_holes.html and another more basic one: http://physics.webplasma.com/physics07.html
There is two things I don’t get…
Why do you refer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a “he”? Woudn’t it be more appropiate to use the form “it”?
According to your pirates/global temperature graph, global temperature rised from 1820 to 1845. At the same time the numbers of pirates raised from 35 000 to 45 000. Doesn’t this pove you wrong?
I often pause before using “he”, but you can’t use “it” because thats disrespectful.
DON’T QUESTION THE GRAPH!!!!!!111!!!11!
or you’ll go to hell, where the beer is stale and hookers wrinkly
He? Seriously, have you seen those balls?
.
The graph: Any discrepencies were placed there by Him to test our faith. Do not think. Believe.
.
OEJ, Ship’s Navigator
As the very nature of the pirate is secertive and stelthy,(sneak attacks,and what-not) no one really ever knew how many there were or are now,for that matter .
Marxist Lenninists are alway questioning divine revelation. I’m putting my fingers in my ears now ‘la-la-la-la! I’m not listening to any evidence! la-la-la-la!’
@Penne: Here’s a movie you’ll want to run and get. http://www.vrealities.com/horror.html
“i beleive that most people would want to live in the false hope of something bigger out thereâ€
.
I’ve heard that lots of married women feel that way.
thanks for the responce…btw i am an athiest…so i don’t live with alot of hope …so contradicting… sorry
The only problem I have with Atheism is the fact I don’t get to scream, “I told you so you fucking dickheads!” at the theists.
.
It is my only real sorrow and sometimes makes me depressed, but I am sure I’ll get over it.
Why would hope have anything to do with a god? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just wondering. I’m an atheist myself and I think my level of hope (or the belief that things are basically ok) is greater than when I was a theist.
God does to play with dice. they just loaded dice lol
-Corpus Callosum,Are you a clown? I could swear you are getting off on torturing me.
speaking hypothetically here, would any of you if you knew for certain there was no god, dash the hopes of thousands to prove your point?
btw this is certainly not going to happen so i u cbf (bloody abreviations) answering thats fine..i just have nothing better to do in my hollow existance
raspberry
.
Being atheist has nothing to do with a hollow existence. Life experience does that. Sounds like you need a change of venue, or maybe just give it some time and go with the flow for now. Keep learning, growing. Eventually, through experience, life will make more sense. Try reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins or other competent authors. Of course, if you are looking for something a little more theistic yet non-judgmental, our prophet bobby’s Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is destined to become a classic of immense proportions!
RAmen
Penne: I don’t think I’m a clown. Well, I do have really big shoes, and a red nose, and orange hair, and big fluffy buttons, and a horn, but other than that I’m not a clown.
Sure I would raspberry. I know that I’m better off without christianity and I think almost everyone else would be too.
haha..i actually got a responce..i love the fact u guys seem to have an endless amount of worldly wisdom …may the compliments flow
@alchemist
isn’t the cat supposed to be dead?
Dead? That’s just awful. What did you do to that poor little Pussy?
-Corpus Callosum, I thought as much! You do live far away, yes?
I think the cat is alive. Maybe. There is just a statistical probability that it might be dead but we can’t know for certain until we open the box. It’s very confusing.
Penne: I live far away in a scary clown amusement park filled with evil clowns and Bozo is our king.
according to Schrodinger, the subjective nature of reality means that the cat is neither alive nor dead until someone actually opens the box and finds out.
Yeah. That’s the weird part.
But subjectively, the cat must experience being either alive or dead. I don’t think we experience an indeterminate state. So to itself, as an experiencer of its own experience, the cat is actually in one state or another, and if it’s alive, it knows it.
true, but since we have no means of ascertaining the cat’s thoughts while it is in the box, we have no grounds for assumption. indeed, if the cat is either dead or asleep, then no thoughts will be occurring at all (disregarding the argument that even cats can dream, of course).
WOW! I’ve heard something about this lately, but couldn’t find anyone learned enough to tell me more. Googlin it just got a lot of German websites. If it’s not too much trouble could you explain the theory or give me a good website?
Anna:
Here’s a fun site for you:
http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html
Here’s a more serious one: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html
Anna: Here’s a fun site for you:
http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html
Here’s a more serious one:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html
Hi Anna, just got my link working again. If you have a google for Schrodinger’s cat you should get something. Try Wikipedia, I’m sure there’ll be something there.
An interesting feature of this problem is its very subjectivity. We can’t decide the state of the radioactive atoms responsible for releasing the poison, so from our point of view, the cat is in an indeterminate state, neither dead nor alive, but from the cat’s point of view its state is not indeterminate at all. A Whiteheadian type process philosopher would say that whatever was in the box would have SOME sort of experience, however vague that might be, so there would always be a subjective experience of conditions in the box, and therefore events inside the box would be in a decided state (for the occupants of the box, not for those outside the box). I’m curious to know what you think of this.
Anna: Here some sites for you:
.
http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger’s_cat
Yes there is - but I think uncyclopedias version is better.
RAmen
Er, I’m a little teapot, short and stout ….
.
Whiteheadian being a splinter group of the Acne School of Philosophy?
.
Semi-seriously it does assume that we are the only animal capable of conscious thought.
.
Is it the observer or the subject that collapses the waveform? In essence it’s a technical version of “..if a tree falls in the woods.”
Forgive me if this seems a touch inflamitory, but it’s 2:00 AM, I have a novel due in a week to the day, I haven’t gotten enough sleep in weeks, and I am pissed off. Here’s the comment: Did you know that Hitler was in favor of non-secular schools? It’s true. The quote is in the book Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O’Reilly. Go look it up. Scary, eh? Besides, nobody ever said you couln’t talk about your God. We created this site to talk about our God. Are you saying that that is wrong? If so, isn’t your post here a little self-contradictory, like your Bible? You know, the one that says how you should love thy neighbor and shit and then goes on to talk about stoning the gays? The one that says that you can have your mother burned for wearing a garment made of two different threads, or some shit like that? Also, let me point out that some of us on this site live in America, a country where it is not only considered patriotic to debate about such volitile theo-political issues, but also our duty as good citizens? America was founded on principles of free speech, dumb ass. Ever heard of it? It’s fantastic. And you’ll notice that none of us are trying to suggest that you should shut up about our religion, though we may debate your talking points. That’s because we respect your right to belive wahtever crap you want to.
RAmen, already.
~W.A.
Werefox Alchemist
Yes, contrary to popular belief, Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist, and felt that he was doing the Lord’s work by exterminating Jews.
RAmen
i like how einstein used the phrase that something is lame
That cat in a box stuff is all crap! Anybody who has a cat knows that if you put a cat in a box you are going to find out real quick if it is alive or not! Trust me ,it will let you know.You certainly don’t have to open it……..yourself.
The whole cat argument is flawed: long before anyone checks the box, the cat will have teleported itself into the nearest warm laundry cupboard, where it will spend the rest of the “experiment” dozing and depositing cat hair on your nice clean towels.
-Davey,you may be right,my cat likes to steal socks and grey underwear (dirty ones) and make a nest out of them.
Here is my new second favorite-ist site ever,I hope you guys will like it too: http://newassignment.net/blog/inga_schrobsdorf/nov2006/21/a_website_for_th :>
Woopes,this is better: http://www.citizenjoe.org/
God is playing dice:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html
Mad John Kidd-
I knew Hitler was a Catholic before I read the book. I’m not an idiot. I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic here with the ‘contrary to popular belief’ thing or not.
.
This cat in the box theory is wrong. I have three cats, and none of mine would stay in the box long enough for an experiment ot be conducted… if you could get them in the box to begin with.
“What sort of philosophers are we, who know absolutely nothing about the origin and destiny of cats”- Henry David Thorea
or
“Ignorant people think it’s the noise which fighting cats make that is so aggravating, but it ain’t so: it’s the sickening grammer they use”- Mark Twain
yeah, i guess the most difficult part of testing Schrodinger’s theory is actually getting a cat into a box in the first place.
Whilst keeping all your fingers?
-far away in a scary clown amusement park filled with evil clowns and Bozo is our king.-Bozo! Blast! I thought I’d vanquished him at the end of The Great Silly String Encrusted Thong Wars. No matter,I shall prevail and put an end to you and your floppy-footed overlord once and for all. Victory shall be mine!!!……….is this where I’m supposed to say something like ‘take care and god bless?’ :)
-Damn clowns.
Think assclowns Penne. All rosy cheeks and big red. Ah hell, that’s as bad isn’t it ;-0
not as bad as the mimes. Brrr…. creepy and ANNOYING!
At least mimes can keep their yaps shut!
Why even ask?Nobody wants to smell their damn flower!