It's scary how close to the reality this is.

<a href=“http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512”>Just read</a>

Ah, the Onion. But I know a priest who really does believe that. He preaches that all science, no exception, is work of Satan. Things fall because God wants them to fall, people shouldn’t take medicines when sick but should only pray, who was the “all-powerful” human who measured the mass of the stars and how can someone prove it to be true, chemistry is alchemy etc.

That’s a very well written parallel.

They’re really taking advantage of this weakness in the argument between science and religion. This Intellegent angle argument will eventually have a version for every scientific theory out there.

What we need now is people teaching Intelligent Spontaneous Combustion in criminal science classes, to provide a reasonable alternative why some people just dissapear without a trace leaving others to profit from their deaths.

Oh gods …

Long live satire, long live the Onion!

Rhaka if you watched X-files you’d know that already exists.

Which reality is this close to?

Kind of eerie how much Hades looks like Andy Kaufman:


Compare with Hades’ avatar.

Holy shit. Now that you say that, he does!

Well that’s never been said before! Especially not by 984!

I still say gay + 2

It seems your monitor has your attention, too D=
Almost like you’re amazed by it

lol

Better check your insult guage. It’s near empty.

I never said it. You posted a Andy Kaufman = Hades picture much in the same vein as Sin = Hitler. I just said the resemblance was uncanny. :frowning:

Well I didn’t come up with it. Maybe it was SK or something.

Hades and Kaufmann both seem to have that “I’ll love you with my brain” look in their eyes.

Grr, Firefox takes grave exception to the article. Anyway, now that I’ve taken a look at it in Internet Exploiter, yeah, that’s a pretty good parallel, complete with <i>argumentum ad ignorantiam</i>. Makes me wonder if we shouldn’t reform our school systems; keep a focus on logic and critical thinking.

I’m suddenly reminded of my college Speech 101 class, oddly. My teacher had a sort of Sophist kind of viewpoint that I’ve heard of from anecdotes of HS speech & debate clubs; that winning the argument is all-important.

That reminds me. Frame suggested in an phone/AIM conversation that Philosophy courses should cover ID instead of Science courses. After all, the “argument from design” is already covered there, and ID rests on some assumptions that run counter to those that underlie science; that events are lawful and explainable, among others. <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity”>Irreducible Complexity</a> is used by ID to sidestep the idea that natural events have natural causes, or that events are lawful rather than arbitrarily based on the will of a diety. It could also be said to imply that some events are not explainable as well, although ID proponents would say that some events are <i>explainable</i> only through reference to a designer.

It’s another case of: “I don’t like the current doctorine, I will poopoo it!” It been going on for years…

Religon and Science were close until Da Vinchi.

I personally need to take my glasses off before I see the resemblance. In both cases.