Science vs Religion -- Mac Ad/SouthPark

[DrKillaser]

@UBERxL33T better to say, we become a fertilizer... :D

[Kaileo2]

Great vid, but how about removing the "faggot" parts so you don't offend our gay atheist friends? Thanks!

[vader1789]

@Kaileo2

Don't you mean Harley Bikers? If you didn't get the memo, Fag now means an obnoxious biker.

[outofslumber]

LOL.

LOVED IT!!

[Segepop]

I was expecting Religion to say "The Dragons are invisible"

[MrJellyBabiez]

@Segepop Yeah. They have no creator either. -_-

[321Carl2000]

Religion would clearly say "The dragons are invisible.", and then science would say "I can't feel them.", etc.

[Jotto999]

A perfect analogy comparing one method of understanding the world with another. One of which is marvelously accurate and useful, the other is primitive superstition that has been more wrong about more things than any other type of ideology in human history.

[AdoptReality]

Brilliant and spot on.

[seyormi]

booooring.

[mrblackout2000]

WoW THIS is is so true.. and so funny

[sarge11375]

these guys sound mexican

[Lightning523]

@sarge11375 its actually the same person, with the pitch frequency adjusted from the original voice both times lol

[celebrationofreason]

Brilliant! Succinct and oh so accurate. Absolutely perfect.

Nicely done!

[MrSkidzie]

this is brilliant

[ngaiomoxleyalberta]

Watch South Park full episodes

Watch South Park here:

hot-movies-online(DOT)com/?cat­=5

diwlkhjbubj hskumydnfoe mazvrjes nyzrc vgcr hmbrqrdrrya iffaos rdffm jimsbwf injmfb

[Morpheus0000]

Funny.. but ultimately puerile and reductionist. There's people who don't want to 'turn on the light' on both sides ...

[Lightning523]

i thought the whole purpose of science was to shine the light on things. I fail to see where science would want to 'stay in the dark'. Feel free to elaborate.

[Morpheus0000]

@Lightning523 science as a concept can't 'shine light on anything', any more than religion or Philosophy can. What matters is the attitude of the enquirer. See TS Kuhn on Scientific paradigms if you're interested in how knowledge can be encouraged/supressed in any field.

[Morpheus0000]

.. (cont) The idea that a spirit of genuine enquiry and religion are inevitably incompatible falls down when you look at the amount of great religious scientists: Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal... etc. PM me if you're interested in discussion which goes beyond satire and easy caricatures.

[celebrationofreason]

What?

How far is the sun from earth? Do you find that in a holy book?

What causes Malaria? Holy book or medical science?

Need an appendectomy? Who you gonna call, a healer or a physician?

Science is how we garner real truth from our environment. Religion would rather turns the lights off of any truth that counters its untestable claims.

[celebrationofreason]

@Morpheus0000

The religious people don't look for the light switch, though, they just pray for it to appear.

If god wants it to be so, they believe it will happen. If not, it wasn't meant to be light.

It took science to come actually figure out what caused the light and got it to work.

[Morpheus0000]

@celeb

to be honest, there's no argument against that kind of prejudice. You simply contend that people who don't accept a purely materialist cosmology aren't interested in truth, despite the incontestable fact that many of the greatest scientific pioneers were religious. So basically this descends into emotivism: "you can't handle the truth", "no you can't!" etc.

[celebrationofreason]

Religion interested in truth?

Religion takes the conclusion and tries to make the evidence fit. Science gathers evidence and garners truth from that.

When someone's designing your parachute which truth do you want?

[Morpheus0000]

@ celeb

I'm unclear as to what your point is: that different disciplines answer different questions in different fields? Clearly. Just as you wouldn't go to a Rabbi to enquire about radioactivity, so you wouldn't go to a pharmacist to enquire about the meaning of life. I don't get how you conclude that one is more interested in truth than the other.

True enquirers are prepared to look at the evidence and debate conclusions. Others are content to discount those they differ with as ignorant.

[MaskedMarvyl]

@Morpheus0000, wow, you said "puerile" and "reductionist". "Puerile?" Have you really looked that word up?

Religion equates having faith as "turning on the light". But having faith means to turn off the questioning mind that tests everything. It means valuing not thinking freely (notice "freely") above thinking freely.

I don't see how turning off our greatest gift in exchange for ready-made answers and a sense of security is "turning on the light"....

[Iliketorace]

religion is outdated.

end.

[Morpheus0000]

@Iliketorace You can't measure the worth of everything by its age. If religion didn't go back a long time I'd be worried.

Not the end :)

[celebrationofreason]

Religion went back a long time because that was all mankind could do to answer questions about his surroundings. When science came along, REAL answers came along with it.

Religion is outdated.

[Morpheus0000]

When did Science come along and what real answers did it provide in your opinion?

Are these REAL questions:

How can something come from nothing?

Who are we?

Why are we here?

What is the meaning of life?

What happens when we die?

Science has nothing to say on these questions because, as you observed previously, science is empirical and metaphysical questions are outside it's realm.

[celebrationofreason]

The beauty of science is that it doesn't mind saying "we don't know." Unlike religion which says that it knows but only makes dogma.

Science answers the why we are here, from a natural perspective, brilliantly. Meaning? That's whatever you want to make of it. Much like an earthquake -- various forces make it happen. Accidents happen for the same reason -- mistakes, etc. If you want to assign meaning, that's entirely a man-made need.

Do what you need but reality is much better than superstition

[Morpheus0000]

Exactly ... so science cannot shed any light on any of these questions. It is only the hubris of materialists like Dawkins, positing that Science prohibits belief in God, who stretch Science beyond its natural borders. As long as it remains content with naturalistic verification .. fine, we don't have an argument. But when you say meaning is man-made you're assuming a premise which has nothing to do with science... your just peddling your beliefs.

[celebrationofreason]

You bet I'm peddling belief. Belief in the method of learning that has answered questions about our environment far, FAR better than any religion ever did.

Why are we here? Why is the sun that big? Why is the moon there?

Claiming that some god put it there has no more proof than saying that it's all just a play thing of zork or whatever else you want to believe in.

Humans still, unfortunately, have this need to ascribe reason beyond natural causes and do so without the slightest evidence.

[Morpheus0000]

You're missing the point celeb. We've already accepted that scienctific methods are better at answering naturalistic questions. You're attempting to refute a point not made.

It seems that your suggesting theists are primitive Luddites who cower at lightning because God is angry etc.. That's just mud slinging.

Your idea that the moon may be god's plaything is a question for comparative religion. Few people would accept/believe the attempted theology there, but science won't tell you why.

[celebrationofreason]

The point is:

You say that religion can answer questions such as "who are we?". And that the supernatural affects reality.

I say that's bunk.

The question becomes nonsensical, like asking "why do earthquakes happen" as if there's some intelligent agent. Science can answer the how. Religion cannot.

All religion can do is make up questions that go beyond reality.

What happened before the big bang is just as unknown to science as it is to religion. But at least science admits it.

[Morpheus0000]

I respect your right to a materialist philosophy, so long as you realise that's exactly what it is - a belief, with no scientific justification.

If questions of purpose and identity are 'bunk' to you then, again, no problem. As long as you realise that those who consider them meaningful aren't purposefully ignorant or uninterested in truth. You don't seem to.

That 'religion doesn't know what happened before the big bang' is simply a statement of your religious belief.

[celebrationofreason]

Mine is a philosophy of knowledge through evidence, through the scientific method.

It is not religous in any sense that is understood by the vast majority of religion's practioners.

If there is a religion that doesn't believe that supernatural influences have interacted with reality, then I'll accept that as another untested hypothesis.

The only way you can call an evidence-based understanding, religion, is to broaden the definition of religion so much as to be essentially meaningless.

[Morpheus0000]

This is becoming a bit protracted and circular celeb. Thanks for the debate, I'm bowing out here.

In summary, it seems that you're a materialist who ascribes to Ayer's verification principle. It's as much a religious approach as any (in the sense of a metaphysical philosophy, not as in Smart's definition). The fundamental tenet that any statement that cannot be empirically verified is meaningless is self-refuting and unlivable (how do I verify love, beauty, purpose, meaning etc). TTFN, M

[celebrationofreason]

You trying to pidgeon hole reality doesn't change the nonsensical assertion that supernatural causes can affect the material world.

There is no religion in not worshiping any being in any sense that most people call it worship.

Religion worships, science studies.

I find Circular is the saw most frequently wielded by those with the least sound footing--the powered version of obfuscation.

[celebrationofreason]

Verify love? Beauty? Meaning?

Love and beauty result from evolutionary forces.

Meaning is what you ascribe to whatever it is that you feel needs it. What is the meaning of life to a Chimp? Does its life have a different meaning?

No, life is a result of processes much like the snow flake is a result of processes.

[celebrationofreason]

Science does not prohibit a belief in god. But it has found a much better way to discover how reality works than resorting to the primitive explanation "god did it."

[piplup2009]

@celebrationofreason ok so something happened that made the big bang and made the earth

that "something" is god

[AdoptReality]

@piplup2009

We used to say that "something" had to make the sun hot and

that "something" was god.

Now we know better.

There's no evidence whatsoever that it's god. Even if it were, it's clearly none of the ridiculous manifestations of god dredged up by modern religions.

[thindjinn]

@Morpheus0000 O yea, because I forgot religion answers that question perfectly.

[kosselammm]

and oh, where are the light switch?!

[kosselammm]

this one i love!!! :D

[BenJEMean]

LOL that was great

[jayres86]

LOL Great vid! *****

[forger42]

Heh, very good analogy :)

[Lightning523]

thanks!

many people I know didn't get this :P

[atysays]

AWESOME! Sooo true!

[JEwSLayer458]

true !

[achingheadofdoom]

Cool!