Volkswagen unveils their Super Bowl ad campaign. If you sold cars and were going to advertise during a football game, it only makes sense that you would feature dogs barking the Imperial March. Makes perfect sense! -via reddit
So what's with Volkswagen using the Star Wars themed Super Bowl ads? Are they going for the geek market? I still think the little kid from last year is the best. Although I did like the ending of this one too.
@ Vonskippy, lol. I would however argue that you can be smart and religious. Francis Collins is an Evangelical Christian who was the head of the human genome project for 15 years and is a prominent advocate and defender of evolution. He provides an admirable example of how people can be religious without letting their faith compromise their scientific views, or trying to push their religious views on others.
A lot of scientists are religious, which is something that I don't quite understand. If you are a scientist you should know about the scientific method. If you know about the scientific method you should come to realize that religion is hogwash.
@hmm... Do *you* know about the scientific method? It involves observation and conclusions drawn from observation. If something, by it's very nature, cannot be observed in a physical way, one cannot use the scientific method to either prove or disprove it. A true scientist would know this. Someone treating "science" like a cult or religion in itself would not.
@Fata Morgana, it is a strawman argument to accuse people of treating science like a cult or religion when scientists do no such thing.
I believe hmm... was intending to express that a person thinking scientifically shouldn't believe in a paranormal being when there is no evidence to support its existence. You may say there is no evidence that it doesn't exist but because it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative, and the religious are the ones making the claim, the onus of proof is on those who argue that god does exist. If and until such proof arises, the scientific thing to do is to say that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a god/s.
As for the argument that god cannot by its very nature be observed, well then the claim that god does exist is not a scientific one. As such, the scientific thing to do again is to say that there is not enough evidence to support the extstence of a god/s.
Comments (3)
Only the self delusional answers yes to either question.
I believe hmm... was intending to express that a person thinking scientifically shouldn't believe in a paranormal being when there is no evidence to support its existence. You may say there is no evidence that it doesn't exist but because it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative, and the religious are the ones making the claim, the onus of proof is on those who argue that god does exist. If and until such proof arises, the scientific thing to do is to say that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a god/s.
As for the argument that god cannot by its very nature be observed, well then the claim that god does exist is not a scientific one. As such, the scientific thing to do again is to say that there is not enough evidence to support the extstence of a god/s.