I'm confused, did you post this and tagged it as lies because you know the whole hoax thing is false, or because you believe it was a hoax and think the landing is a lie?

if you posted this because of the former, then could you please remove it from the science channel?

If you posted because of the latter, are you saying this is bullshit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment and since 1969 dozens of astronomers have been in observatories pretending they shoot a laser to the moon and the signal bounces back? really, are you telling me there are scientists wasting their time shooting lasers at the moon and the computers that read the signal lie to them?

Congrats on the gold star.

>> ^Darkhand:
Seriously,
How many atheist videos are gonna get upvoted like this? I'm fine with everyone believing in what they want to believe in as long as they don't hate on other peoples views. But this is starting to become like an atheist evangelism site.
I feel like these videos are going over the same things over and over and over. Religions are never going to stop coming after atheists, but atheists need to stop making videos!


are you saying this video has hate of other views? what part of this video has hate?

or have I read your comment wrong?

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*discard

*beg

I'm going to go with caterpillar.

^ Yeah, when trends get like that it makes the place boring, but I will gladly have a QI trend over trends like that Spore videogame trend. That was terrible.


"^ how did you know it would piss me off then?"

D'oh! gwizz

Shouldn't this be *talks too?

>> ^Yogi:
So let me understand this clearly. You agree with Mr. Fry in that if I don't accept learning about Latin or Geometry as a virtuous exercise I will become a drunk or a loser?
I think what he said didn't come across like he meant it to. There's also a good argument to be made about classes you take even in college where you just work for a grade and a week later you don't remember what the class is about. I've taken several classes like that.


That part I don't agree with, but this is a comedy show. Not that it is an excuse, but is a comedy show and he generalized. It doesn't have to be Latin or geometry, but just about anything. The woman in the video asked, why bother learning about what they were discussing, and when would that info be useful? Why must everything has to have some material benefit as motivation to learning it? Is appreciating art going to give you money if you are an athlete? not likely, but that does not mean you should ignore all art because is not what you want to work on in the future. My main point is that to learn for learning's sake helps broaden your perspective of things, and sooner or later that will help you.

I agree with what chilaxe said, there has to be some liberty. I also think your history teacher should have handled things better.

>> ^Yogi:
You guys thought this was good? I think it's indicative at the pointless bullshit we're taught roboticly in class when we could be learning things about the real world. For instance I failed a History class in High School, because I just didn't care about the subject matter. The teacher pulled me aside and gave me a book called "The People's History of the United States."


So the whole idea of learning about the world so as to reduce one's ignorance about it is refuted by you failing a class you did not even try to pass? Sorry but it does not work that way. Geometry is not from the real world? Latin isn't? so biologists name species from something they pulled out of their asses? engineers build things using fantasy formulas? He did not even divide 'real world' (whatever that means) learning from academic learning. The whole point is learning for the sake of learning no matter what type of learning it is. Not because you just need a grade, or because the field is 'hot' or because studying X will not give me money so I should just focus on Y, or not trying to learn because 'I will never use it so why bother?' etc.

And true history learning is more about critically comprehending and analyzing past events and ideas, and less about robotically learning dates. Many history professors of mine, treat dates as secondary.

Has series G started yet? I thirst for new episodes.

Timeline of successful transplants

1905: First successful cornea transplant by Eduard Zirm[9]
1954: First successful kidney transplant by Joseph Murray (Boston, U.S.A.)
1966: First successful pancreas transplant by Richard Lillehei and William Kelly (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
1967: First successful liver transplant by Thomas Starzl (Denver, U.S.A.)
1967: First successful heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard (Cape Town, South Africa)
1981: First successful heart/lung transplant by Bruce Reitz (Stanford, U.S.A.)
1983: First successful lung lobe transplant by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
1986: First successful double-lung transplant (Ann Harrison) by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
1987: First successful whole lung transplant by Joel Cooper (St. Louis, U.S.A.)
1995: First successful laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy by Lloyd Ratner and Louis Kavoussi (Baltimore, U.S.A.)
1998: First successful live-donor partial pancreas transplant by David Sutherland (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
1998: First successful hand transplant (France)
2005: First successful partial face transplant (France)
2006: First jaw transplant to combine donor jaw with bone marrow from the patient, by Eric M. Genden (Mount Sinai Hospital, New York)
2008: First successful complete full double arm transplant by Edgar Biemer, Christoph Höhnke and Manfred Stangl (Technical University of Munich, Germany)[citation needed]
2008: First baby born from transplanted ovary.
2008: First transplant of a human windpipe using a patient’s own stem cells.

Not sure if it's real but I have seen enough ignorance in the world

http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/1/7/0/5/i/4/2/7/p-large/yanswers1.jpg

>> ^chtierna:
Sure, but that does not mean you can automatically assume there is no flaw in your rationale for thinking god does not exist. I was referring to the type of atheist that dont even bother to check if their argument makes sense. They are just atheist for so and so reason, don't even know the history of atheism, etc. The same way a believer claims certainty and they dont even bother to read the bible.

I dont know, to me it feels like atheists dont really need an argument. They are simply not convinced by the arguments of the religious people... Again, the burden of proving something is on the religious people.
Like say someone came to you and said "Santa Claus is real". I dont see how you would suddenly need to prove that he is not real (it would seem impossible). And you dont need to know the history of people who deny Santa is real, you would just need some kind of proof that he is real before you believe it.
Maybe I missed your point.


Yeah, the burden of proof is definitely on them. They are claiming a supernatural being exists, and a whole another range of moral issues, and views of reality come behind it. A lot of conclusions covering everything, and not many reasonable answers.

But santa claus existence does not really affect the way you see reality, and ethics, and yourself. And if you dont buy the bible, they should be able to back it up with proof. But what religion tries to answer is the question of whether something of maximal perfection is out there. if you say you don't think that is the case because you don't buy what the bible is saying, what you are really saying is that you dont believe in the way Christianity is trying to answer that question. But the question can be studied separately from those religious views. And some people never try to while at the same time they claim absolute certainty.

>> ^rottenseed:
What I said about the belief in Zeus was to bring a sense of relativity to ctrlaltbleach who had a problem with atheist thinking Christians are crazy. It wasn't to form a response that's obviously weak in logic.


point taken