Buttdog

Redditor pembull took a panoramic photograph of Fort Funston Beach in San Francisco. The picture here is cropped; see the full version here. A nice picture, but what's that in the middle? It's his dog, which was running when the picture was taken. Let's zoom in.



The poor dog became known as "Buttdog" thanks to this photograph, and now has its own subreddit. However, there is plenty more photoshoppery available in the original thread. Link

Love cute animals? View more at Lifestyles of the Cute and Cuddly blog

Comments (0)

@ 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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 0 comments
Email This Post to a Friend
"Buttdog"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More