Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "Big Think" channel.

  1. mjinzarli > But Islam is Islam and no one can change it. People can change the interpretations they are following, i.e. go with Salafism or more liberal ones.
    3
  2. liam shope But you think society owes it you to protect you and your belongings?
    2
  3. liam shope What if I gave the officers more money to do my bidding? Maybe in order to eject you from your property.
    2
  4. All radiation causes cancer? Including visible light? :->
    2
  5. Mike Broughton  Is the creator just good or also evil?
    1
  6. Are you saying all religious leaders are good?
    1
  7. Mikkel Youreallydontwanttoknow  Well, they specifically mentioned his title.
    1
  8. ***** Is "Registered Dietician" a real thing?
    1
  9. Sun bro So it's like the industry certifying itself. Does not say much about how scientific it is though.
    1
  10. Ozgur Cetiner > A prophet delivers only, and cannot declare what is sin or not. By "delivering" stuff he is declaring that this or that (e.g. pictures of living things) is a sin or not.
    1
  11. Ozgur Cetiner > By "delivering" what is revealed to him from God, he is actually prohibited doing nonsense declarations from his own Obviously that's what followers of a prophet believe. And since there are texts claiming that he said that images of living things are bad and are going to haunt at the time of the last judgement, people who believe these accounts to be true also believe that images are absolutely haram.
    1
  12. Hashim Eltigani > if you're caught driving under the influence of alcohol Driving but not for consuming it alone. Odd analogy because you are also not allowed to drive in a sleepy state, does Islam regulate that as well?
    1
  13. Yes& No > even if the whole universe came together they cannot create a single verse like those in Quran. What do you mean with "like"? No Muslim was ever able to tell me, I doubt you will either, because it's something to be used to move the goalpost.
    1
  14. Yes& No > Scientifically inaccurate how? The Persian/Galen stuff it plagiarized.
    1
  15. >  Taxes in the form of Zakat were paid by Muslims where as Jizya is taxes for non-muslims, if you don't pay taxes you will be prosecuted, how is it different from today? That both pay the same taxes instead of being discriminated? > except Quran since the protection of Quran is been undertaken by ALLAH But it took some time after it was completed? A time where parts might have gone missing (eaten by a goat?). And even longer until an order got fixed? > I consider Mahatma Gandhi to be a greater personality I don't think many "islamophobes" or as you call them will disagree with Ghandi there, Muhammad's life story is amazing to read and he is a very influential person. Still does not mean that his religion is good.
    1
  16. +Darth Vader Who says that? Saying there is no absolute, supernatural "purpose" is not saying that one can't choose a purpose for his/her life.
    1
  17. +Ghostdini Stark Do you consider a god good or do you feel like you have to assume that this deity is "good" by definition?
    1
  18. Distortion0 > If Mohammad was so toxic to innovation, why the Golden Age, Maybe because those after him didn't care that much about that part of him? I mean they also ignored the prophet's disdain for images (read it up if you want, very interesting).
    1
  19. Daniel Satalino You wouldn't let someone die in the streets, would you? So you will always feel obliged to pay for someone else's health at some point. > Why not get rid of the third party payer system Getting rid of insurances, altogether?
    1
  20. I don't get it? So because they were raised in this belief that it shouldn't be disrespected? Or should they just be called out on their actions or inactions? Well, wearing special underwear would be such an action.
    1
  21. never heard of, just about many claims to have found where he was buried, not every person who calls himself is in fact one,
    1
  22. AC/DC? Edison lost that one.
    1
  23. and warm stuff
    1
  24. > Those who teach creation do believe in creation - it's not child abuse, it's just ignorance. Those who physically abuse their children are just ignorant of the potential side effects and therefore it's not child abuse?!
    1
  25. is gravity a fact?
    1
  26. In the US there is another religion with texts from a person who "married" also quite young women.
    1
  27. California - Alabama
    1
  28. So you would be OK with an ever-existing universe?
    1
  29. > it's an abstract thought, not a concrete thought. Ye, just like maths, that's why it has no applications, right? :->
    1
  30. it was much less popular in the US, probably because of the strong protestant/catholic divide
    1
  31. The definition of Atheism says nothing about supernatural beliefs, unless you count everything "supernatural" as "godly".
    1
  32. which one?
    1
  33. I bet you haven't even tried to research the subject, have you?
    1
  34. Jesus didn't come up with the golden rule, couldn't he have left us with something new? ;)
    1
  35. persecute?
    1
  36. actively or passively?
    1
  37. nobody is calling for their "extermination", still it should be possible to point out "oddities" in their beliefs
    1
  38. You are "ignorant" in the eyes of the followers of other religions and also an unbeliever just like an atheist, you aren't that different.
    1
  39. Do Christians show respect towards Muslims, Mormons and Scientologists, and more importantily should they? After all, e.g. a Muslim might be already offended by a Christian not talking about their prophet in good ways.
    1
  40. lighting bolt hit him, apparently Zeus was not pleased with him
    1
  41. @iAzurisa Well, if you are claiming that your definition of Satanism is the more "correct" one, then please correct Wikipedia where it says that Satanism is a group of beliefs that share "admiration for the character of, and even veneration of Satan or similar rebellious, promethean, and liberating figures."
    1
  42. there is research and then there's _research_, a believer might study his script more or less by pick and choose and call it "research"
    1
  43. Think about your definition of "random". And then thing about why this is a non-sequitur: > Everything has a purpose to be the way it is or else it would not exist.
    1
  44. a slight insulin resistance does not necessarily need to be treated with medication
    1
  45. like the post-mortem conversions? ;-)
    1
  46. Neither is part of the definition of atheism or theism.
    1
  47. there are rules for how to make the underwear not sacred anymore so it can be torn apart so much for just being symbolic ;)
    1
  48. Solve the debt problem by creating an inflationary one instead in time of bad economy? Ingenious!
    1
  49. Just like advanced mathematics, right? :->
    1
  50. connection to what he said?
    1
  51. Jews as in followers of Judaism? No? I thought so. Then what kind of Jews? Racial Jews? Well, there is no scientific definition of human races.
    1
  52. >"haeckels drawings of embryos" Oh boy you've been on 2nd grade creationist websites, haven't you? What does that have to do with "scientists discarding things"?
    1
  53. "The impossibility of an infinite past" How comes?
    1
  54. You just summed up what I would have replied to your original post, a PhD is not much of an evidence for rational/critical thinking and even if it was, it is no evidence for doing so consistently and in fact I have met people where I suspect they feel the urge to behave this as sort of a counter-balance.
    1
  55. Do not teach history until you respect those who believe in science-fiction. I respect you.
    1
  56. Well, by this he has to dismiss quite some parts of the scientific consensus.
    1
  57. You read read replies?
    1
  58. Do they even properly teach it where you are from?
    1
  59. so who are the really crazy ones according to you? ;-)
    1
  60. Is it any more "disrespectful" than calling out ones belief in general? In let's say horoscopes, homeopathy, the tooth fairy, Obama a saviour or Mitt Romney "one of us"
    1
  61. > Even most evolutionists admit they have no problem doing science without underlying it with evolutionary theory. Ye right, because genetics makes much sense without evolution. Oh not to forget all that has to do with causing evolution on purpose or studying evolving organisms (e.g. virus). And last but not least mathematics/computer science with their evolutionary algorithms. :->
    1
  62. wut
    1
  63. Well, one could say he was atheist in regards to the idea of a Christian god.
    1
  64. > Once upon a time, someone came from nothing and then he created everything. Hello Mr. Deist guy!
    1
  65. a brain-storming on why there are gods, and why they possibly share some similarities
    1
  66. no, they don't
    1
  67. > The Catholics LOL, so I suppose you are an old-school protestant believing certain conspiracy theories like the ones found in the Chick comics? > "then"
    1
  68. but in titles you sometimes capitalise nouns
    1
  69. What? Russel's teapot or Santa Clause?
    1
  70. True, no matter what, there is always room for gods of the gaps, including the Christian god.
    1
  71. quoting you: "antichrist" :->
    1
  72. That was not an explanation. But let me summarize your views and tell me whether I got it wrong: * you believe all things (and all means _all_, including "god") can be either "caused" or "uncaused" * you claim that the universe without god has to fall into former category and god in latter, your only justifications being that we can trace back the observable universe to a "big bang" and it's impossible otherwise
    1
  73. No, they don't. People like you claim this, but it's not true, there is nothing behind your claims.
    1
  74. Define "accident".
    1
  75. to conspiracy nuts there never any coincidence
    1
  76. I am no equating it, I am just pointing out that it something done out of ignorance doesn't make it any less child abuse.
    1
  77. Are you talking about Mendel? Research his story. ;)
    1
  78. > clearly pseudoscience Clearly?
    1
  79. have you looked at money from before the 50s?
    1
  80. a god that represents his fears and hopes, a parent figure after entering adulthood, a story of a lost paradise not unlike childhood?
    1
  81. > human testimony is the greatest form of evidence! I lol'd, still your trolling is mediocre, it doesn't create rage.
    1
  82. yeah, right after agile scrum-based kanban politics
    1
  83. the nowadays popular ones do have in common the golden rule, having many children and marking and/or separating oneself from the rest
    1
  84. did you eliminate the possibility of the tooth fairy existing?
    1
  85. He thought highly of Jesus but as being god (i.e. the trinity)? Well, that's then a different concept of god in my eyes.
    1
  86. Sharpton etc. are now Muslims? Who told you that, Glenn Beck?
    1
  87. for being the person the gospels claim him to be it's strange nothing was written about him by contemporary historians, what documented facts are you talking about?
    1
  88. I am sure you don't believe that _everything_ was designed, you know what I am talking about?
    1
  89. To be fair creationists are no uniform mass (after all they hardly follow scientific standards), and what constitutes macro evolution depends on the definition of "species".
    1
  90. Debt itself is not the problem, in fact not having debt might be unused potential, the problem is when there is no trust that you will pay it back.
    1
  91. Why not mock Mithra cult followers? Who plays a bigger role in US' politics?
    1
  92. > Celebrate, but don't forget the reason. This is respect So true, so let's don't forget that the real name is festivus sol invictus!
    1
  93. Debt can also be a leverage, it's only at a certain point where it's a problem, not having any debt might be unused potential depending on the circumstances.
    1
  94. > evolution has no foundation in moral truth at all Huh? How/why would a scientific theory have a foundation in _moral_ truth anyway?
    1
  95. > In fact, atheism doesn't necessarily preclude having a religion Well unless you only count belief systems as religions that have god(s).
    1
  96. take away the gospels and what evidence is left?
    1
  97. That's not true. This "default" setting you are talking about does not exist. You would have to justify your axioms. Oh and don't forget about Occam's razor.
    1
  98. "Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor." - Benjamin Disraeli
    1
  99. > but why does the Atheist harbor such hatred for those with faith? Those atheist you know about? I would argue that there are quite some pragmatic atheists, but who might not want to change the status quo, e.g. because they believe religion to be necessary for "others". Ever thought of that?
    1
  100. The sol invictus festival when the sun gets reborn, represented by a man with a halo, farther north you would celebrate it with evergreen decoration, lights and nibbles to get through the shortest days of the year. Now take that away from Christmas and see with what you are left, and remember "the Lord God is a sun and shield" and "Christ is the Morning Light, the rising Sun", he himself said: "I am the light of the world"…
    1
  101. But should the majority belief matter?
    1
  102. > linguistic, religious, or social affiliation Ye, everywhere but in the US you would use terms like "ethnic groups" for that.
    1
  103. What makes you think so many people you don't agree with are sockpuppeteering? The numbers?
    1
  104. You make it seem like there was only the christian god idea.
    1
  105. No it doesn't, just like your designer doesn't need one, does it?
    1
  106. define law
    1
  107. yeah, then you can interpret it your way and no need to feel bad about it, e.g. if you are pro traditional marriage, there is a verse for that, if you are pro gay marriage, there is a verse for that too, the same goes for being for/against miscegenation , equability / traditional power hierarchy, etc.
    1
  108. Actually I intended to write something longer how even subspecies wouldn't fit since it would mean long isolation and not merely some 1000s years, but then that come across exceptions to this rule. As the definition of a species is already problematic and not as clear-cut as one would like it to be, the one for subspecies is even worse, still I don't know whether it's right to talk about a Jewish subspecies, Israel is no island.
    1
  109. US states rather homogeneous?!
    1
  110. Well using that argument and considering there are (and probably always will be) gaps in our knowledge you could always argue for religion, more specifically for the "god of the gaps".
    1
  111. that wasn't an elimination of all possibilities… I am sure you also didn't eliminate all possibilities of the Easter Bunny, Santa, the pink-invisible Unicorn, the Spaghetti Monster or Russel's teapot existing, you surely wouldn't call them imaginary either, eh?
    1
  112. It's less inclusive, not a problem per se until you talk about public entities that should always be all-inclusive when it comes to religions.
    1
  113. I don't like "spongy" terms so I personally wouldn't talk about it at all, but yes in this case I would be included to. But going back to what you originally wrote, do you think those people you talked about really identified as Jews? I doubt it.
    1
  114. OK, then please tell me about it and also how the age of the earth is any less factual, than e.g. our understanding of plate tectonics.
    1
  115. > To say Atheists have no faith, is untrue, they believe in science Ignoring that "believe in science" sounds ridiculous, it's not correct, the definition of atheism does _not_ imply that. You might e.g. believe things considered "supernatural" or otherwise unscientific and still be atheist.
    1
  116. not caring is not the same as enjoying
    1
  117. So not everything has a cause?
    1
  118. The LDS Handbook of Instructions says (according to WP) that prior to the disposal of old garments, members are instructed to cut out the markings on them After the marks are removed, "the fabric is not considered sacred" and the garment fabric may be cut up and discarded or used for other purposes. Yeah sure, it's all symbolic… :->
    1