But the method must be adjusted if you happen to be an atheist.
OMG. As it were.
WARNING: your irony meter may break just after 2 minutes 10 seconds. Adjust your irony meters now. Do not drink coffee while watching this video.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
BTW, hat tip Erik Saulness
*Barfing*
“If you have an imaginary friend there’s something wrong with you.”
My thoughts exactly.
My favorite part is the text: “Prayer relieves tensions, like a punching bag”
Head, meet desk.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/tmsnoaa/picardandrikerdoublefacnm1.jpg
And those prayers keep bringing him altar boys for tension relief no doubt
So, as far as “prayer” goes, talking to gods/god has the same impact on psychology as talking to an imaginary friend… There is a perfectly logical (and really easy) explanation for this…
This wonderful. Imaginary friends are a problem? Yep. Two of the most famous imaginary friends are Jesus and God. It seemed the priest was on the verge of making that crucial distinction.
You would think that the idiots at Fox would at least get a straight priest.
So. 75% of American pray on a weekly basis. I suppose this is meant to convey that Americans are good in this way.
A similar story from the middle east would have the tag line “90 % of Saudis pray five times a day.”
So, who’s better?
oh my! wow! thanks for the warning.
Acceptance of pseudo-science will deiclne when orthodox science becomes, shall we say, more scientific.I have no clue what definition of orthodox science you are using, but by my definition if orthodox science is acting like pseudo-science then it is definitely not orthodox.As for you examples, they merely indicate that science can get things spectacularly wrong (I never claimed otherwise, but it still gets things right more often than anything else), though it is worth noting that your examples of “race science” and eugenics are two theories that, while they began within orthodox science, they gained most of their prominence within the pseudo-science community.