Fox News Parodies

The webcomic that hates you secretly, and for good reason.

Moderator: Chris Crosby

Fox News Parodies

Postby pokegravy on Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:18 am

Superosity has zinged Fox News several times with humorous results. I thought readers of Superosity, and maybe Chris would enjoy my own comic strip's take on Fox News. It's packed with caricatures and yelling.

Enjoy: http://www.pokegravy.com/pokegravy/comix/nospinzone.gif
(from http://www.pokegravy.com)
pokegravy
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:49 pm

Postby BabyJ on Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:54 pm

That wiping made me laugh! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMPEACH BUSH! A Graphic Novel by Bob Scott, Illustrated by Mike Leffel. Available at BLATANTCOMICS.COM now!
COMING THIS JUNE?: OFFICE OF HEROES!
User avatar
BabyJ
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 5645
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 am
Location: BUY IMPEACH BUSH AT BLATANTCOMICS.COM!

Postby TODCRAProductions on Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:00 pm

.....there's a circle jerk you'd _want_ to be in the middle of?
User avatar
TODCRAProductions
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: http://kittysneezes.com

Postby BabyJ on Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:36 pm

Thing Fish has many lists of that nature.

#483: (yes) Rod Sterling, Fred Savage, Colin Quinn.

#129: (no) Kelsey Grammar, Steve Forbes, Emeril.
IMPEACH BUSH! A Graphic Novel by Bob Scott, Illustrated by Mike Leffel. Available at BLATANTCOMICS.COM now!
COMING THIS JUNE?: OFFICE OF HEROES!
User avatar
BabyJ
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 5645
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 am
Location: BUY IMPEACH BUSH AT BLATANTCOMICS.COM!

Postby David_McGuire on Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm

I thought Fox News was ALREADY a parody.
Image?
User avatar
David_McGuire
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Furrlough #122 (BUY_MANGAPHILE!)

Postby BabyJ on Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:36 pm

That book was banned, then unbanned, then banned again by the libraries.
IMPEACH BUSH! A Graphic Novel by Bob Scott, Illustrated by Mike Leffel. Available at BLATANTCOMICS.COM now!
COMING THIS JUNE?: OFFICE OF HEROES!
User avatar
BabyJ
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 5645
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 12:00 am
Location: BUY IMPEACH BUSH AT BLATANTCOMICS.COM!

Postby McBean on Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:30 pm

What's up with Bill O'Reilly trying to sue Al Franken? He's gone completely out of his mind! You'd think Al Franken is a threat to national security by making fun of FNC, and if that's true then I'd watch out if I were chris crosby.
Matt C. "mcbean"
User avatar
McBean
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:19 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby NOW!!!! on Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:11 pm

Image

I want one of those "Faux News" t-shirts.
[url=http://rugg.keenspace.com]Image
What the heck is going on here?!![/url]
User avatar
NOW!!!!
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:25 am
Location: The Planet England

Postby McBean on Fri Aug 22, 2003 7:18 pm

I heard O'reilly talk about that interview before I saw it and he talked about it like Franken was derranged demon and he himself was Uther Lightbringer, defender of justice. Of course seeing the interview just confimed what an ass he is.
Matt C. "mcbean"
User avatar
McBean
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:19 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby SBernard81 on Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:41 pm

For some reason I always used to have trouble grasping why so many people watch Fox News... All the time I'd have people tell me that Fox was the only trustworthy news network on cable, and I had so much trouble grasping it, even though in the end its so simple.

Fox News is the king of "tell people what they want to hear" news. Fox News is the cable equivalent of that time your parents assured you Santa Claus was real even though your friend Johnny told you he wasn't. Fox News is that really cool pastor you had when your friends started turning away from religion, and seriously, you should just talk to him, he's really cool, I think you'd learn a lot.

Mr. O'Reilly?

Yes, Billy?

Mr. O'Reilly, Johnny down the street told me the President of the United States has destroyed our credibility in the global community and that we went to war with a country that didn't really have any weapons of mass destruction. It's not true, is it?

No, of course not, Johnny down the street is just trying to scare you, his dad is a lying liberal hippy, and really it was only a matter of time until Saddam Hussein found a way to gas America off the face of the earth. Do you feel better now, Billy?

Yes! Thanks Mr. O'Reilly!

Incidentally, the "people will listen to what they want to hear" factor is also what fuels religion, psuedoscience, occultism, and John Edwards.
User avatar
SBernard81
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Happy Town, Alabama

BUDDHISM RULE #1: BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER

Postby Dezro on Sun Aug 24, 2003 12:46 pm

There are a few religions that are exempt from that rule. Buddhism for one.
User avatar
Dezro
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Contested Territory

Postby SBernard81 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:00 pm

I know Buddhism is trendy, but I'm going to have to disagree (with at least some of the sects). There is a lot I like about Buddhism, in terms of the philosophy behind it, but what most people don't admit is that plenty of sects of Buddhism (if not all of them) still believe in weird things there are no evidence for, particularly reincarnation. The chants are interesting, although I feel that it is pretty obvious that any powers they have come from psychology and not anything magical.

Of course, I'd be willing to bet that the Dalai Llama would agree with that statement, which is what makes Buddhism cool. I always remember a conversation the Dalai Llama had with Carl Sagan, in which he told Sagan that if science were to prove any of the beliefs of Buddhism wrong, then "Buddhism would have to change." When Carl Sagan asked, "even if it was a really central belief? Like reincarnation?" the Dalai Llama answered, "yes, even then." With a laugh, he added, "but it will be hard to disprove reincarnation."

Still, I think anyone who turns their back on science in favor of Hindu or Islam or Christianity or whatever else, is ultimately doing so because said religions tell them happy things, like that they are never really going to die and whatnot. I tend to feel that religions are disrespectful of the natural world... Scientists look for their answers by observing the reality we live in, and I can't think of a more respectful, brilliant way of finding answers than that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an angry high school student in Marilyn Manson t-shirts that hates anyone who commits themselves to a dogma. Four years ago that description fit me well, then I went through a maturing phase in college where I realized it was stupid to be so angry at everyone. However, lately I've boomeranged back to the position where I feel it is time for our species to discard these outmoded systems, except I'm not angry about it anymore. I'm just beginning to feel like the human race is a baby that has been drinking from a bottle for too long, when it is clearly time for us to move on.

That said, if humanity would embrace the philosophies behind Buddhism the religion, I think the world would be much better off.
User avatar
SBernard81
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Happy Town, Alabama

Postby NOW!!!! on Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:48 pm

SBernard81 wrote:Of course, I'd be willing to bet that the Dalai Llama would agree with that statement, which is what makes Buddhism cool. I always remember a conversation the Dalai Llama had with Carl Sagan, in which he told Sagan that if science were to prove any of the beliefs of Buddhism wrong, then "Buddhism would have to change." When Carl Sagan asked, "even if it was a really central belief? Like reincarnation?" the Dalai Llama answered, "yes, even then." With a laugh, he added, "but it will be hard to disprove reincarnation."


That's a great quote. I think it's possible to be religious AND scientific. The trick is to just not take EVERYTHING one side or the other says as absolute fact just because they said it. Personally, I've always thought that if there is a God or some other being like that, the human mind would be incapable of even expressing or understanding even the actual concept of said being in terms the human mind understands.

One important thing about science is that we're always learning, and scientific beliefs are always having to be modified. If you told some perfectly intelligent and scientific person from one or two hundred years ago about things like television and the Internet, they'd probably look at you like you were crazy, because they lacked the scientific knowledge at the time to understand the concepts and principles that those things operate on. Does that mean that at that time, even if the technology had been available, they would've been scientifically impossible? Of course not.

I'm just saying... be open-minded. We can't scientifically disprove the existence of a God or Gods, and we can't scientifically disprove other planes of existence (in fact, things like that are looking more and more probable every day). Believing in these things doesn't necessarily mean a person is delusional or just believing in it because it makes them "feel good," and it doesn't mean their ideas and beliefs are "outmoded," either. To say so is just as arrogant as it is for religious fundies to argue against things that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by science. That's like saying Da Vinci was just deluding himself or just trying to make himself "feel good" when he believed it was possible to build machines that would help men fly, which history has taught us was true, obviously.

I dont' see why it isn't possible for EVERY religion to be correct. Again, levels of existence beyond human understanding. Maybe there is a God AND Gods, and maybe He/She/They are in some multi-dimensional form where multiple, contradictory facts can all be true at once. Maybe there isn't. But I'll say, regardless of anything else, I believe there must be SOME form of existence after death, simply because the very concept of nonexistence is impossible to imagine, and anyone refusing to believe in that, at this time, with our present level of understanding, should have to first be able to accurately imagine nonbeing, IMO.

I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping it's something other than an isolated mind with no access to outer stimulus and no way of interacting with other minds, though. Not like I can do much else at this time.



There's a big universe out there, and mankind is very, very insignificant by comparison, and a lot of what we believe to be scientific fact today is probably in actuality either totally incorrect or a lot fuzzier than we think it is. Don't fool yourself into thinking that mankind is the master of fact or the universe just because he has science.
[url=http://rugg.keenspace.com]Image
What the heck is going on here?!![/url]
User avatar
NOW!!!!
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:25 am
Location: The Planet England

Postby SBernard81 on Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:39 pm

One important thing about science is that we're always learning, and scientific beliefs are always having to be modified.

That quote, to me, expresses exactly why science is superior to the religions of the world. Religions cannot change their ways as time goes on, religion doesn't have a system of constantly improving and throwing out and gaining new ideas. It is impossible for them, because their ideas weren't based on the world around us to begin with, so how can the world around us ever change these ideas? Change is good, not bad.

I always hear people bad-mouthing science because of this ever-changing fact. I understand, I really do... One day saccharine causes cancer, the next day it doesn't, one day you need eight glasses of water a day, the next day you don't, one day the expansion of the universe is decelerating, the next day it's accelerating... It's a lot to keep track of. However, none of these things are things I see as points against science. Rather, they are the greatest point in favor of science. I hear people who believe in the scientific method get told all the time, that they should be more "open-minded." If you ask me, the scientific method is the most open-minded system humanity has ever had.

Why can't religions become outmoded? Every other social and scientific invention can become outmoded, and I never hear anyone complaining about that. The geocentric model of the universe has been outmoded... Racism has been outmoded... But religion, no, religion is untouchable, right? Why? Is it merely because these institutions have held on so long? Is there a tenure on ideas, and after they last a certain amount of time, they're in for life?

I agree that no scientist has disproved the idea of a God, and I certainly have not ruled out the idea entirely. However, I do believe scientists have presented a great body of evidence that suggests that almost every major religious text in human history is filled with errors and falsities. I ask you... am I guilty of being closed-minded because I agree with the scientific findings, or are the religious guilty of being closed-minded because they refuse to even hear the scientists out? Again, I whole-heartedly believe the scientific method is absolutely open-minded.

I have heard many people suggest that "all of the religions of the world may be correct." Unfortunately, to me, this sounds like an overly-p.c. circle jerk that doesn't make any sense. Isn't it impossible for two things to be correct that contain absolute statements that contradict each other? How can Shiva exist in the same universe that Jehova has declared there are No Gods Other Than Him? The answer is simple: she can't.

I know I can sound like an asshole when I talk about this subject, and if I've offended you, I apologize, because again, I don't harbor any anger towards religion, and I do think it served a noble purpose while it has been here. I simply believe that it is time for us to move on. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this:

"We are all in some sense athiests, it is just that some of us believe in less gods than others. When you understand why you have ruled out all of the other gods to choose from, you will understand why I have ruled out yours."
User avatar
SBernard81
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Happy Town, Alabama

Postby theangryQ on Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:23 pm

Religions cannot change their ways as time goes on, religion doesn't have a system of constantly improving and throwing out and gaining new ideas.


Religions change quite a bit, actually. Christianity around 200 AD and Christianity today are very different. Different versions of Christianity differ enormously; there's the relinquishing all wordly possessions form, the televangelist form, etc. In polytheistic religions, the importance of certain gods change over time, new gods are added, old ones fall out of fashion. The cult of Dionysis catches on and gives Dionysis a role in the Greek pantheon; in the Sumerian, Enlil replaces An as the head honcho.

Religion changes based on perceptions of the world. Contemporary Western religions often seem to favor a nicer, loving God, because we're fairly comfortable. People living a time of constant famine and plague and war tended to think of cruel, vengeful gods.

Also: I believe Shiva is male, actually. It's a common misconception, possible because the name sounds kind of like the feminine pronoun, and partially because of the summon in Final Fantasy games.



I sometimes find myself a bit apprehensive about the role of science in modern society, though. Please please PLEASE don't accuse me of being a troglodyte or a fundie or anything (I don't have a religion, actually... I guess I don't have faith in much of anything), I just sometimes wonder if perhaps (improperly-cited, misunderstood) science is taking up the same role religion did in the Dark Ages, which is to give people an excuse to behave like jerks. Instead of saying, "Men should beat up women because GOD SAID SO," people say, "Men should beat up women because that's how animals do it." Saying, "Don't worry about starvation or conflict or anything because when you die you'll go to Heaven anyway so it doesn't matter" became "Don't worry about social problems because we'll invent something to fix it."

I guess it's just human stupidity and greed and blind optimism I fear more than anything else. I can't really see how science would be much less susceptible to corruption than religion. Being intelligent doesn't necessarily prevent one from being cruel and selfish. Please don't think I'm implying that scientific people are cruel or anything; I'm just saying that they're human.
Crime is down and, oddly enough, so is tourism.
User avatar
theangryQ
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3554
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Saturn Valley

Postby Dezro on Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:39 pm

SBernard81 wrote:Unfortunately, to me, this sounds like an overly-p.c. circle jerk that doesn't make any sense.


That's #653, right? A dolphin, the women's rights movement, trees, and the term 'Inuit'?
User avatar
Dezro
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Contested Territory

Postby TODCRAProductions on Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:12 pm

I think with Shiva (and I could be 100% wrong about this, and there's an increasingly good chance I am), the sex is fluid, and so when Shiva's doing some stuff she's female, and when he's doing other stuff he's male. So, I figure you're both right. Unless I'm totally wrong about this and confusing Shiva with one of the other gods (or, worse still, The Residents' _God in 3 Persons_).

Also, I share your distaste of False Science, but I still wouldn't say I'm apprehensive about the role of science in modern society, since, well, that shit's not real science. And, well, I figure that if you're just blindly accepting "animals beat up their wives, therefore it's bitchin for me to!", then you're going 100% against the spirit of science, since, well, one of the things about science is at examining the views (I mean, in a perfect world where no one had anything to do, it'd be good to do the studies themselves, but, well, that's a little silly to expect everyone to do before they believe anything for obvious reasons, but you can easily read how people got their conclusions and draw inferences from that as to whether or not they did their job, or they're just makin' shit up because they want it to be true)... and, seriously, I think it'd be arguable that anyone who was accepting that particular statement wasn't actually examining the methods. So, uh, yeah. I think the problem with that is more of Stupid, Stupid People rather than Science.

I'd make some sort of comparison to not blaming all religion for those religions based on made up crap, but, erm.... I'm havin' a bit of difficulty.
User avatar
TODCRAProductions
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: http://kittysneezes.com

Postby NOW!!!! on Sun Aug 24, 2003 10:04 pm

SBernard81 wrote:
One important thing about science is that we're always learning, and scientific beliefs are always having to be modified.

That quote, to me, expresses exactly why science is superior to the religions of the world. Religions cannot change their ways as time goes on, religion doesn't have a system of constantly improving and throwing out and gaining new ideas. It is impossible for them, because their ideas weren't based on the world around us to begin with, so how can the world around us ever change these ideas? Change is good, not bad.

I always hear people bad-mouthing science because of this ever-changing fact. I understand, I really do... One day saccharine causes cancer, the next day it doesn't, one day you need eight glasses of water a day, the next day you don't, one day the expansion of the universe is decelerating, the next day it's accelerating...


"I don't like to use sunblock because the people telling us to use it are the same ones who 50 years ago told us eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. But then they said, Oh, eggs were BAD. Bbbbut I just ate the EGGS!! Then they said they were good again, so I ate a whole bunch of eggs to make up for lost time and then they said eggs were bad and I went, 'Well now I'm REALLY f**ked!!!' Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're-- the WHITES are good, just the yellows-- MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMN MINDS!! It's BREAKFAST, I gotta EAT!!"

Sorry, that's off-topic, but you just reminded me of it and Lewis Black is hilarious. ;)

SBernard81 wrote:It's a lot to keep track of. However, none of these things are things I see as points against science. Rather, they are the greatest point in favor of science.


I wasn't using them to argue against science. I was using them to demonstrate that scientific belief and religious belief are... kinda the same, in a way.

SBernard81 wrote:I hear people who believe in the scientific method get told all the time, that they should be more "open-minded."


I'm not arguing against the scientific method.

SBernard81 wrote:If you ask me, the scientific method is the most open-minded system humanity has ever had.

Why can't religions become outmoded? Every other social and scientific invention can become outmoded, and I never hear anyone complaining about that. The geocentric model of the universe has been outmoded... Racism has been outmoded... But religion, no, religion is untouchable, right? Why? Is it merely because these institutions have held on so long? Is there a tenure on ideas, and after they last a certain amount of time, they're in for life?


I didn't say it was untouchable, I just said to keep an open mind (and this statement, just to remind you, is not meant to blast the scientific method or science, nor is written in a manner that suggests so).

And comparing religion to racism... well, it may depend on which specific person from which specific religion you're talking about, but that seems like a loaded miscomparison.

SBernard81 wrote:I agree that no scientist has disproved the idea of a God, and I certainly have not ruled out the idea entirely. However, I do believe scientists have presented a great body of evidence that suggests that almost every major religious text in human history is filled with errors and falsities.


What do those two things have to do with each other? Of course religious texts are filled with mistakes. Even if the first person who wrote some given text really was transcribing "the word of God," that person was still human, and humans make mistakes. And most religious texts have been translated and re-translated and transcribed and re-transcribed so many times that any mistakes that were there to begin with are going to have been exaggerated many times over as a result, as well as have been joined by mistakes made by other scribes. It's a macrocosmic version of that telephone rumor game.

"Skinner says 'The Teachers are sure to break any minute now, purple monkey dishwasher.'"

SBernard81 wrote:I ask you... am I guilty of being closed-minded because I agree with the scientific findings,


That depends on if you just agree with scientific findings, or if you agree with scientific findings to the absolute exclusion of anyone else's beliefs. Replace "scientific findings" with "religion," and you have a Religious Fundementalist.

It also depends on whether or not you're willing to admit that it's at least POSSIBLE that some of the findings you agree with are wrong, and whether or not you have a tendency to draw fallacious conclusions from the scientific findings you agree with (as you appear to've done above), et cetera, et cetera.

SBernard81 wrote:or are the religious guilty of being closed-minded because they refuse to even hear the scientists out?


Not all religious people think this way. Don't let the bad apples spoil the whole bunch, even if you feel the bad apples outnumber the good.

SBernard81 wrote:Again, I whole-heartedly believe the scientific method is absolutely open-minded.


I'm not arguing otherwise.

SBernard81 wrote:I have heard many people suggest that "all of the religions of the world may be correct." Unfortunately, to me, this sounds like an overly-p.c. circle jerk that doesn't make any sense. Isn't it impossible for two things to be correct that contain absolute statements that contradict each other?


From a limited 21st-century human perspective, maybe.

SBernard81 wrote:How can Shiva exist in the same universe that Jehova has declared there are No Gods Other Than Him? The answer is simple: she can't.


See above statement. You're speaking from a human point of view. I'm sure you've heard the statement, "I'm only human" before. People really need to think about that statement and what it means more often sometimes.

There's a lot we don't know about the universe. I'm sure you could find many scientists in the realm of theoretical physics who, while they may not believe in a God or Gods, would still admit that it's possible that if there is some being or beings who were capable of creating the universe, it's also possible that said beings exist in a pan-dimensional or otherwordly state that can't even be accurately explained in 4-dimensional homo sapiens terms or thought.

SBernard81 wrote:I know I can sound like an asshole when I talk about this subject,


Not really. Just a little set in your ways. ;)

SBernard81 wrote:and if I've offended you, I apologize, because again, I don't harbor any anger towards religion, and I do think it served a noble purpose while it has been here. I simply believe that it is time for us to move on. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this:

"We are all in some sense athiests, it is just that some of us believe in less gods than others. When you understand why you have ruled out all of the other gods to choose from, you will understand why I have ruled out yours."


Again, that quote reflects a sound, but limited and self-centered human understanding of reality and the universe.

Why can't we all just get along?
[url=http://rugg.keenspace.com]Image
What the heck is going on here?!![/url]
User avatar
NOW!!!!
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:25 am
Location: The Planet England

Postby Dezro on Sun Aug 24, 2003 10:14 pm

Because of my not-get-along satellite raygun.
User avatar
Dezro
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Contested Territory

Postby theangryQ on Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:11 am

TODCRAProductions wrote:I'd make some sort of comparison to not blaming all religion for those religions based on made up crap, but, erm.... I'm havin' a bit of difficulty.


Well, yeah, that's what I was thinking. I just don't think that science is any more likely to lead to a new era of intelligence and compassion than religion did. People are going to screw it up, just as they did with religion. It seems like the core of just about every religion is "Go forth, and be gnarly to one another" or something to that affect, but it somehow ends up as "I KEEL YOU!"
Crime is down and, oddly enough, so is tourism.
User avatar
theangryQ
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3554
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Saturn Valley

Postby SBernard81 on Mon Aug 25, 2003 9:29 am

Wow, religion arguements always spark a firestorm of controversy, don't they? Better get crackin'...
Saying, "Don't worry about starvation or conflict or anything because when you die you'll go to Heaven anyway so it doesn't matter" became "Don't worry about social problems because we'll invent something to fix it."

I would agree that science has been used in these ways, but I would disagree that science is meant to be used like that. The problem is that science can't really be used as a template for how we go about every aspect of our lives (in the way that some use the Bible)... For example, politics is not a science, and never will be, because science cannot decide what our society should be like. From a scientific perspective, I'm sure any human society would seem equally amazing and interesting, so morally, we're on our own. My morals, you ask? I have two rules:

1. Always search for and defend the truth (this is the one I've gleaned from the scientific method). This is where my problem with religion comes in, and it's pretty simple. I believe that most people who find religion no longer concern themselves with the search for truth, because they believe they already have the answer in it's entirety.

2. This is far more important than above: The Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is, in the end, all we really need, I think. Combined with the rule above, I think we'd have a pretty good society running.
And comparing religion to racism... well, it may depend on which specific person from which specific religion you're talking about, but that seems like a loaded miscomparison.

I apologize, I realize that seemed like I was linking racism and religion, but I would never support that link as valid. While many religious people have been racists over the years, the religions themselves almost always tend to be the opposite, I think. If the KKK would actually read their Bibles once in a while, maybe they'd drop the whole thing, as it seems pretty clear Jesus wasn't a fan of racism.

All I was trying to say was, if other social inventions can become outmoded and debunked, can't religions, too?
That depends on if you just agree with scientific findings, or if you agree with scientific findings to the absolute exclusion of anyone else's beliefs. Replace "scientific findings" with "religion," and you have a Religious Fundementalist.

I guess what I'd say here, is that I don't not believe in anything that hasn't been debunked by science, which is not to say I believe in reincarnation or anything like that, it simply means, if there's no real evidence either way, I choose not to take a stand on certain things. Admittedly, I may lean one way or the other, and if I lean away from religion, it's because of Occham's Razor. The Occham's Razor rule states this: if two opposing theories both explain the data, shave away the more complicated of the two.

This would mean, let's take reincarnation: both it and the natural circle of life seem to explain why new humans pop out of women from time to time. While we can observe every aspect of the natural circle of life, reincarnation calls for a whole type of energy that it is impossible for us to detect (spirit or soul energy or whatever) and an insane system, ruled over by strange forces and gods, all of which are indetectable to us, to return the same data. Occham's Razor shaves away all these strange forces and leaves us with the matter 'n' energy version of the circle of life. Not that Occham's Razor is an absolute answer, of course, but usually it's a good way to point you in the right direction.
There's a lot we don't know about the universe. I'm sure you could find many scientists in the realm of theoretical physics who, while they may not believe in a God or Gods, would still admit that it's possible that if there is some being or beings who were capable of creating the universe, it's also possible that said beings exist in a pan-dimensional or otherwordly state that can't even be accurately explained in 4-dimensional homo sapiens terms or thought.

I've heard the arguement that the idea of religions being contradictory may be "too simple," and I'm not "looking at it the right way," but I don't know man... Sometimes, again, it sounds like you're stretching a long way in an effort to celebrate everyone's correctness. I'm the first to admit we monkeys are limited cerebrally (if there is anything out there smarter than us, anyway, which I'm sure there is), but I honestly don't believe you are basing your opinion on anything real. The opinion is simply based on someone's daydream, "hey guys, wouldn't it be wicked if we were ALL right, then we'd all get along! Hooray!"

The problem with the idea of gods occupying more dimensions than we are is that, right now, it would appear that, while it is very possible we have as many as 12 dimensions, the ones above good ol' #4 (which, if you ask me, is already a dimension we have too much damn trouble wrapping our brains around) would probably be curled up really tight and wouldn't be useful for much. For example, take a sheet of paper. The first and second dimensions are very significant, but that third dimension? It's too tight to fit anything that really matters in it. Not that this means there can't be an 8-dimensional superior being out there, but it means he/she'd be really skinny (haha, skinny in some bizarre postmodern way we wouldn't be able to comprehend, anyway).

Actually, that's just kind of a joke, because to me it seems like however many dimensions our universe has, every being must occupy. For example, look at the piece of paper again. Okay, so that third dimension on the piece of paper, it's really skinny, right? Well, if it's so skinny, maybe it wouldn't matter much if we just shaved it off. But what happens without a third dimension? No atoms can fit in it. The paper blinks out of existance.

The same is true for the first, second, and fourth dimensions. Nothing can exist without length, without width, without time. They'd simply blink away. The same is probably true for the other 8 dimensions or so... We simply don't realize we have them, because, again, those dimensions are so small and insignificant. So, in reality, it's possible that we are 12-dimensional creatures, as are all creatures in the universe.

Also, not only would some theoretical physicists agree that it is possible there are superior beings out there, but some theoretical physicists develop a profound belief in god when they realize that the numbers that created our universe are so perfect. If the big bang happened even slightly differently, our universe would not have been an environment life could thrive in. Many astrophysicists come to the conclusion that a creator's hand must have been at work. However, just because scientists believe in something, doesn't mean that science agrees. That's another great thing about science, I think.
People are going to screw it up, just as they did with religion.

People screw everything up, what's new? Science may not lead us to utopia (I doubt anything will), but I do think it may take us a little closer to the truth.

I'll close with a little self-defense of my spirituality. I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I find a lot of people are afraid to take the plunge from religion, whole-heartedly into science, because they don't want to give up their spiritual side. I believe science can be at least as spiritual as religion can be. Some people feel spirituality needs to end in an -ism, but I simply define it as maintaining a sense of wonder about the universe, and about why we're here. I think looking up at the stars, contemplating our tiny little lives and our tiny little existence, is just about as spiritual as it gets.
User avatar
SBernard81
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Happy Town, Alabama

 
Next

Return to Superosity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest