Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This is the story of a young fellow named Handsome Dan. When Handsome Dan was a child, his mother, Handsome Fran, read him a book. In this book, aside from all the fantabulous adventures and magical occurrences, one character spoke about a sword that was sealed inside a box by a powerful wizard and never found. This book really made Handsome Dan feel good about himself, and he desperately wanted it to be true.

Some years later, Handsome Dan finds out in the newspaper that a man found a locked box in a park, shut with a complex locking mechanism. Immediately, Handsome Dan considered this evidence that the book must be true, and that there must be a sword inside it, and that the discovery of a closed box is strong evidence for the truth of the book.

The box was taken to scientists for examination, with Handsome Dan eagerly anticipating results to verify his expectation that a sword will be found inside. When the scientists shook the box, they heard agitated flapping noises and quacking. They postulate that there is probably a duck inside the box. Handsome Dan replies that the wizard may have enchanted the box to produce such sounds to dissuade people from opening it.

The scientists reply that wizards have never been observed to be real, and if they were real, they would probably have used magic rather than a locking mechanism to shut the box. Furthermore, the box uses modern electronics and machining methods that hadn't even been thought of at the time. Handsome Dan suggests that maybe the box was made by aliens, which were mistaken for wizards in the old days due to their vast amounts of technology. He also suggests that ancient aliens would use technology indistinguishable from human technology, and would stamp human letters and numbers onto the various components for some reason unknown to us. Aliens work in mysterious ways, he says.

The scientists decide to examine the area where the box was found. They find that a trail leads back to the pond. By examining the patterns in the sand, it appears that there was a struggle between a human and a duck, followed by a trail showing that the box was dragged to the location where it was found. Scientists speculate that someone shoved a duck into the box and dragged it to the resting place. Handsome Dan replies that perhaps a hobo found the box, but wandered into the territory of an aggressive duck, who scared away the hobo, then pushed the box away from its home as a safety measure. When the scientists point out that this would require a super-strong duck, and that a duck pushing the box would still leave duck footprints on top of the box's trail, Handsome Dan replies that the super-strong duck may have grabbed the box in its teeth and pulled it rather than pushing it. The scientists point out that such a duck coexisting with other ducks in the park yet never being observed by humans doesn't make any sense, Handsome Dan chastises them for their closed-mindedness.

The scientists, furrowing their brows, use x-ray imaging on the box. It reveals the outline and bone structure of a duck. An MRI reveals the same thing, but with more detail as to the duck anatomy. Handsome Dan insists that the aliens must have designed the sword to absorb electromagnetic radiation and reflect it back in the pattern of a duck. When he is told that this idea makes no physical sense, he insists that the aliens probably had super-advanced technology that wouldn't make any sense to us humans.

Finally, a team of ten scientists and ten engineers devise a way to open the box. They do it in front of twenty witnesses. All participants and witnesses report that a duck was found inside the box. Handsome Dan claims a conspiracy.

Do you see what happened here? The scientists looked at the evidence and tried to fit a conclusion to it, while Handsome Dan assumed a conclusion and tried to fit the evidence to it. As the evidence diverged farther and farther from Handsome Dan's conclusion, his explanations became more and more insane.

Handsome Dan's Assumptions:
- When the book said "wizards" what it actually meant was "super-advanced aliens"
- Super-advanced aliens exist and had contact with Earth in the middle ages
- Those aliens used present-day technology to seal a box, despite the fact that their own technology must have been much more advanced
- The aliens would also lock a primitive human weapon inside a box, but use extremely advanced technology, to the point of it not making any physical sense, to trick people into thinking it was a duck
- Furthermore, super-strong ducks with teeth which have never been observed exist and live close to humans exist, and defend their territory fiercely.
- Fifty people, including many who are ethically bound by their professions to report results accurately, who have nothing to gain by lying all lied about what was inside the box.

Assumptions By the Scientists:
- Ducks exist
- Ducks exhibit the behaviour of ducks

Now of course, we can't actually definitively, 100% say who is correct, but really, who is being more logical in this situation?

The end.

NOTE: This doesn't apply to every single person of faith, or even the majority, just the ones who claim to have evidence for their beliefs that somehow validates them.

The government keeps telling us lies. The duck conspiracy is obvious.

I see what you did there.

Science moulds the evidence around the theory, Religion moulds the evidence around the theory.

At 1/10/08 12:09 PM, Brick-top wrote: I see what you did there.

Science moulds the theory around the evidence, Religion moulds the evidence around the theory.

Whoops, fixed.

And you're point that hasn't already been made on here a million times already is WHAT exactly, elfer?

At 1/10/08 02:34 PM, Grammer wrote: mmmmm, are you people really that in the dark about religion?

You atheists are pathetic, really. "Hey, let's try to convert all the believers so they won't bother trying to convert us!! I mean, how dare those Jehovah's Witnesses tell me what to believe!!"

You can't reply to that, that one was the cock up.

Who forced their beliefs to children in schools for centuries?...........Oh that's right, Religion. And it would still be like that in modern countries if they had their way. Hell, even I went to a public school yet we had to pray and sing wonderful, wonderful songs about God, Jesus, Moses etc. Who goes door to door to convert people? Go to Florida, Tennessee or any Bible belt and listen to the radio or watch TV then you tell me they're not trying to convert people. What is this asshole doing?

"Hey, lets convert Atheists because they're immoral bigots. How dare they try and use Science and evidence to back up their beliefs and opinions! It's not as if Science has done anything to help mankind anyway!...oh wait...."

Now who's being pathetic?

At 1/10/08 02:18 PM, Proteas wrote: And you're point that hasn't already been made on here a million times already is WHAT exactly, elfer?

To be honest this is more the beginning of a project on applied duck allegory.

At 1/10/08 02:56 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hell, even I went to a public school yet we had to pray and sing wonderful, wonderful songs about God, Jesus, Moses etc

Pray tell, what American school did you attend that did this my fine feathered friend from the United Kingdom?

Go to Florida, Tennessee or any Bible belt and listen to the radio or watch TV then you tell me they're not trying to convert people.

As someone who is actually FROM Tennessee, I can honestly say that you sir are full of shit. It is not God and Jesus on every television and radio channel around here twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. You don't see a big tent revival with fire and brimstone preachers in every empty field and parking lot regardless of the season. We don't have big huge Jesus parades through the streets on Sunday. We're actually no different than the rest of the United States.

"Hey, lets convert Atheists because they're immoral bigots. How dare they try and use Science and evidence to back up their beliefs and opinions! It's not as if Science has done anything to help mankind anyway!...oh wait...."

Hey, let's respect each other's opinions and go on and on about the joys of equality... but those Religious people are the most ignorant and biased people on earth and should be belittled and made fun of until they have absolutely no choice but to see things OUR WAY.

At 1/10/08 02:58 PM, Elfer wrote: To be honest this is more the beginning of a project on applied duck allegory.

I'll take that as "not a damn thing" then.

At 1/10/08 02:58 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/10/08 02:18 PM, Proteas wrote: And you're point that hasn't already been made on here a million times already is WHAT exactly, elfer?

To be honest this is more the beginning of a project on applied duck allegory.

;
I'm really glad you didn't use a loon for the small aquatic bird that got put into the box Elfer ! !
Who knows what could of happened.
Mass confusion on top of the already, he does exist , NO NO ! he doesn't exist, OR god exists but not how religions say , & then ducks & loons to muddy the waters even further.
Whew, we got luckey there!!!

At 1/10/08 03:27 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/10/08 02:56 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/10/08 02:34 PM, Grammer wrote: mmmmm, are you people really that in the dark about religion?

You atheists are pathetic, really. "Hey, let's try to convert all the believers so they won't bother trying to convert us!! I mean, how dare those Jehovah's Witnesses tell me what to believe!!"

You can't reply to that, that one was the cock up.

Who forced their beliefs to children in schools for centuries?...........Oh that's right, Religion.

Who's trying to force their beliefs on me and pointing to what happened hundreds of fucking years ago to justify that?...........Oh that's right, you.

Oh yes I forgot, when you do it, it's called saving, when we do it, it's called forcing. But there's nothing wrong with mandatory prayer is there? ;)

And have I tried to convert you? I said something, you bitched and I replied. Have I said "Convert to Atheism"?

Hey, remember the Trail of Tears? This event, which happened around 300 years ago or so, clearly points to what America is now, despite it being a completely different day and age.

I'm sorry, I never meant hundreds of years ago, I actually meant decades ago. If memory serves they reviewed the issue in the early 90's

Now now, don't get logic get in your way, because you're an atheist, and science provides all the answers

And it would still be like that in modern countries if they had their way. Hell, even I went to a public school yet we had to pray and sing wonderful, wonderful songs about God, Jesus, Moses etc. Who goes door to door to convert people? Go to Florida, Tennessee or any Bible belt and listen to the radio or watch TV then you tell me they're not trying to convert people. What is this asshole doing?

Solution: Don't live in the fucking Bible belt. I live in New Jersey. I recently got a call from a Jehovah's Witness, I told him my father wasn't home, but I guarantee you if he tried to shove his denomination's beliefs down my throat I'd tell him to shove off, just like I am you.

That's not nice, I had mormons at my door not to long ago. I told them to go away but at least I was polite in doing so.

I got a panphlet. And I actually read it before throwing it in the trash.

"Hey, lets convert Atheists because they're immoral bigots. How dare they try and use Science and evidence to back up their beliefs and opinions! It's not as if Science has done anything to help mankind anyway!...oh wait...."

Now who's being pathetic?

Well, since you're putting those words in my mouth, you. Anyone who knows me on these forums know I follow what Science tells me. I believe in evolution, because carbon dating says the Earth is billions of years old. I believe violent media (especially including video games) foster violent tendencies, because the APA says so. So don't tell me I don't follow the scientific community, k?

You believe in Evolution? Erm....poor choice of words. Or maybe I'm just using my Canadian Ignorance again.

At 1/10/08 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/10/08 02:56 PM, Brick-top wrote: Go to Florida, Tennessee or any Bible belt and listen to the radio or watch TV then you tell me they're not trying to convert people.

As someone who is actually FROM Tennessee, I can honestly say that you sir are full of shit. It is not God and Jesus on every television and radio channel around here twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. You don't see a big tent revival with fire and brimstone preachers in every empty field and parking lot regardless of the season. We don't have big huge Jesus parades through the streets on Sunday. We're actually no different than the rest of the United States.

Now, that's not quite fair. You took what he said and magnified it to an extreme (I can not remember what word there is for this). He never implied that that was the only thing on TV or radio. However, those types of shows are more prevalent in the areas known as the "Bible Belt".

At 1/10/08 03:27 PM, Grammer wrote: I believe violent media (especially including video games) foster violent tendencies, because the APA says so.

I think that saying that kinda detracts from the whole "Hey, I use science and logic too!" argument.

But that is not what the argument is about.

Okay I got one:

God makes man. It takes eons, but eventually the organism come to be known as man begins his reign. Mans reign is due to his awesome reasoning ability. After all, pussies like the Dodo and Manatee don't last long on God's eternal playground.

Since existance itself doesn't appear to have a "reason" for being what it is, what assumptions can we draw?

Any?

Maybe God has seen what we're capable of, and is somewhat impressed. Maybe we're exhibiting some of God's characteristics by following logic, reason and emotion. Maybe that's enough.
Why wouldn't it enough? I dunno, why does existance exist?

Anyways, if I created something with a 50 trillion year timeline, I'd have some sort of pregnancy test, a pass/fail, ready for the potential ascension once it finally came.

What better way to test faith in a higher order than by inserting chaos everywhere, and LETTING logic and reason bore their own path.

I dunno. It sounded better in my head.

At 1/10/08 04:53 PM, reviewer-general wrote: He never implied that that was the only thing on TV or radio.

Yes, he did. If he thought otherwise he would have addressed me himself by now.

However, those types of shows are more prevalent in the areas known as the "Bible Belt".

More prevalent my hairy white ass. You have to get up before 5 AM to see most televangelists on tv during the week, or listen to AM radio.

At 1/10/08 05:48 PM, Proteas wrote: More prevalent my hairy white ass. You have to get up before 5 AM to see most televangelists on tv during the week, or listen to AM radio.

Yeah, and how dare they broadcast to a target audience! Just like the golf channel, how dare they force golf down my throught, cant they tell not everybody likes golf?

At 1/10/08 02:34 PM, Grammer wrote: You atheists are pathetic, really. "Hey, let's try to convert all the believers so they won't bother trying to convert us!! I mean, how dare those Jehovah's Witnesses tell me what to believe!!"

Yeah. Damn us for not wanting laws taking away our freedoms being made because of a book of ancient fables.

Yeah you're basically trying to explain to a monkey how to assemble a car. Religious people have a habit of not wanting to be wrong after a lifetime of devotion to a cause.

The only religious people who I hear turn atheist are either young ones with annoying parents or those who have been oppressed all their lives and finally escape their religious regime.

I mean, if you can't prove me wrong about my wizard aliens, why the fuck should I just go "yeah I guess I have been wrong in the last 20 years". People only change their views when it starts to be really embarrassing and inconvenient to them.

At 1/10/08 02:18 PM, Proteas wrote: And you're point that hasn't already been made on here a million times already is WHAT exactly, elfer?

Let the man speak about his ducks and wizards, fool!

At 1/10/08 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/10/08 02:56 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hell, even I went to a public school yet we had to pray and sing wonderful, wonderful songs about God, Jesus, Moses etc

Pray tell, what American school did you attend that did this my fine feathered friend from the United Kingdom?

Did I say America? No. But I did referr to the American states so the American users understood what I was talking about. If I started talking about places like Birmingham, Wellingborough or Bristol you're not going to know what the hell I'm talking about. And those two states are a better example.

Go to Florida, Tennessee or any Bible belt and listen to the radio or watch TV then you tell me they're not trying to convert people.

As someone who is actually FROM Tennessee,

Reviewer pretty much said it for me.

"Hey, lets convert Atheists because they're immoral bigots. How dare they try and use Science and evidence to back up their beliefs and opinions! It's not as if Science has done anything to help mankind anyway!...oh wait...."

Hey, let's respect each other's opinions and go on and on about the joys of equality... but those Religious people are the most ignorant and biased people on earth and should be belittled and made fun of until they have absolutely no choice but to see things OUR WAY.

Respect each others beliefs and opinions? If we did that this forum would have about 3 people using it.

Atheists know they're right because of intense revelations of the century have proven it so... and they feel the need to spread their enlightenment to those who are thrown into the shade of the brilliance they have discovered.

, Christianity in the 1st century AD [followed by killing], islam in the 6th century AD [followed by moar killing] and now...

Well... What was that saying;

History repeats itself.

At 1/11/08 12:44 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/10/08 04:22 PM, Brick-top wrote: And have I tried to convert you? I said something, you bitched and I replied. Have I said "Convert to Atheism"?

"Science moulds the theory around the evidence, Religion moulds the evidence around the theory."

An unfair criticism aimed at getting believers to abandon their thoughts. I never said atheism is inherently flawed (though I do believe so), but you have said Christianity is flawed. Believe what you want, tell me what you think is right, but don't impose upon me why you believe I'm wrong.

In terms of the Christian science movement, what he's saying is correct. Much like conspiracy theorists, Christian apologists start with their predetermined conclusion and try to gather together scraps of evidence that are consistent with it, while ignoring everything else. Science, on the other hand, looks at the evidence and tries to extract a conclusion from what we can observe.

If you do think there are inherent flaws in atheism, I'd like to hear them. Of course, I'm only interested in hearing criticism against the general case (that is, "no belief in god") as opposed to the extreme case (that is, "belief in no god"), as it's readily apparent that the extreme case has flaws that are similar to many religions.

At 1/11/08 12:54 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 08:29 AM, Elfer wrote: If you do think there are inherent flaws in atheism, I'd like to hear them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRqu vI

Richard Dawkins vs. O Reilly

O Reilly asks Dawkins how everything came to be, how everything just came into existence. Look at his answer to that, kinda weak I might add.

A weak argument against atheism. Atheism itself doesn't even try to answer how everything just came into existence. It's like asking a vegetarian everything just came into existence and saying that vegetarianism is flawed because he can't answer.

At 1/11/08 12:54 PM, Grammer wrote: Richard Dawkins vs. O Reilly

O Reilly asks Dawkins how everything came to be, how everything just came into existence. Look at his answer to that, kinda weak I might add.

How could Dawkins say anything? He bearly got a word in.

At 1/11/08 12:54 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 08:29 AM, Elfer wrote: Christian apologists start with their predetermined conclusion and try to gather together scraps of evidence that are consistent with it, while ignoring everything else. Science, on the other hand, looks at the evidence and tries to extract a conclusion from what we can observe.

So, in summary of what Elfer says here, those Christians who use science to attempt an explanation of God, are starting with an assumption and piling on evidence that fits it. True science does not start with an assumption. It makes a conclusion based on evidence. FIRST COMES THE EVIDENCE, THEN THE CONCLUSION!

I'm not in with that group of Christians who think God put dinosaurs on the Earth to confuse everybody, k? I follow what the mainstream scientific community says.

Good, then you should understand what I just said: FIRST COMES THE EVIDENCE, THEN THE CONCLUSION!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRqu vI

Richard Dawkins vs. O Reilly

O Reilly asks Dawkins how everything came to be, how everything just came into existence. Look at his answer to that, kinda weak I might add.

Wait a minute, you just said that you follow what most mainstream science says yet you clearly demonstrate here that you don't even know what science is. Richard Dawkins could not answer the question of where everything came from because he follows and actually understands (unlike you, apparently) scientific teaching. FIRST COMES THE EVIDENCE, THEN THE CONCLUSION!
The reason he can't say how the universe came to be is because we haven't got enough scientific evidence to draw a conclusion, yet. To believe in God is to assume a conclusion without supporting evidence. This is FAITH! To not yet have an answer because we haven't yet done the testing and compiled the evidence is SCIENCE! Science is incomplete. Faith is flawed because it assumes complete knowledge from the start without evidence.

At 1/10/08 08:28 PM, poxpower wrote: Yeah you're basically trying to explain to a monkey how to assemble a car. Religious people have a habit of not wanting to be wrong after a lifetime of devotion to a cause.

The only religious people who I hear turn atheist are either young ones with annoying parents or those who have been oppressed all their lives and finally escape their religious regime.

I'm an atheist and that has absolutely nothing to do with why i changed...

I should correct myself, I'm an atheist when i need to be.

If i was an atheist by the time i was old and sick and dying i would be hysterically insane, completely fearing obvlion and being overwhelmed in total guilt over not being able to do enough in the world and not having the time to fix my mistake, i would die miserably.

Science already has suitable theories as to HOW humans got here... But why is an unecessary thing to ask if the universe itself has no proven capacity for deliberate action. Dawkins is not a physicist; it would make sense that mathematical theories on the creation of matter are alien to him.

The one thing that always bothers/confuses me is How my uncle can talk so casually about 'universe creation science' and yet remain a devout catholic... Strange indeed.

Clearly, the final discovery of science shall be that of something which makes no sense to humans.

At 1/11/08 04:03 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 01:13 PM, Drakim wrote: It's like asking a vegetarian everything just came into existence and saying that vegetarianism is flawed because he can't answer.

People like Richard Dawkins claim that science disproves religion. But he can't explain how we all got here. HMM?

Neither can religion. Religion can only guess at the very best, which does not count as explaining anything.

Guess what, a scientist can guess too, and it would be equally valid to whatever religion said, but science tends to be a bit more honest, not throwing random claims out like divine truth, but rather, theories and ideas.

At 1/11/08 04:07 PM, Grammer wrote:

To believe in God is to assume a conclusion without supporting evidence.

To assume God doesn't exist is a conclusion without supporting evidence.

No, to assume something doesn't exist when you can't detect it in any way and there is absolutely no evidence for it's existence, is simply the default position.

You aren't agnostic for "Blurps", a spirit race that lives on the moon, you are atheistic to them. It's the default position, the lack of belief. (although there exists strong atheism which specifically poses disbelief, but strong atheism is actually very rare)

At 1/11/08 04:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

Neither can religion. Religion can only guess at the very best, which does not count as explaining anything.

That's now what our archeological findings have presented....

At 1/11/08 04:04 PM, Grammer wrote: Or maybe Richard Dawkins didn't have an answer because what he gave was fucking weak.

Oh yes, except for the part when he couldn't talk and then the guy ended the arguement.

"We're working on it."

Okay, when you can explain to me how everything came into existence scientifically, I'll become an atheist.

But there's the thing, this is why Science will always be superior to Religion because Science will always seek answers. And they will always draw conclusions based on the evidence, where as Religion already has the conclusions and seeks evidence to support it.

Also, that arguement works backwards, explain to me scientifically how everything came into existience how the Bible says and I'll become a theist.

At 1/11/08 04:48 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Oh yes, except for the part when he couldn't talk and then the guy ended the arguement.

Case and Point: You didn't watch the video.

But there's the thing, this is why Science will always be superior to Religion because Science will always seek answers. And they will always draw conclusions based on the evidence, where as Religion already has the conclusions and seeks evidence to support it.

And religion has the help of... here it comes... as it is largely ignored in these types of debates... Historical accuracy/evidence (ie. archeology).

Not all, but in particular (since it's the religion you most hate): Christianity. Though CHristianity is just a name for the various religions under that name.

Also, that arguement works backwards, explain to me scientifically how everything came into existience how the Bible says and I'll become a theist.

FANTASTIC! You figured it out. Now shut the fuck up and leave people alone.

At 1/11/08 04:33 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 04:15 PM, Drakim wrote: No, to assume something doesn't exist when you can't detect it in any way and there is absolutely no evidence for it's existence, is simply the default position.

For an atheist. There is no "default" position, and to claim you have moral standing when you're just as much in the dark as anyone else, is irresponsible and you should apologize for claiming atheism = science

First of all, I never intended to even remotely claim that atheism is science.

Secondly, there is some trouble with using the word atheism, since people put so much different in what it means.

But, as I see it, there is theism and there is atheism. Theism is when you believe there is God(s), and atheism is when you don't believe there is God(s)

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist, if you are not an atheist, you are a theist. There is no middle ground, since you cannot believe that there is a God and that there is not a God at the same time, nor can you not believe in both claims, since they are polar opposites.

It's like favorite colors, either you have a favorite color, or you don't have a favorite color. There is no middle ground. You either hold belief in God, or you don't hold belief in God. (you could argue about the person not knowing what he believes, but that is a state of confusion, not a stance).

So, atheism has to be the default position. People, when they are born, does not start with a belief in God. They don't even know what God means, making them completely atheistic. They do not hold a belief in God, and is therefore not theists.

That was my point, nothing else.

You aren't agnostic for "Blurps", a spirit race that lives on the moon, you are atheistic to them. It's the default position, the lack of belief.

If I choose to believe in them I could, then that would be my default position for me, until it was proven otherwise.

May be so, but you were atheistic to them to this very second that I told you, since you had never heard about them until then. You did not hold a belief in Blurps, just like I do not hold a belief in Gods.

There is no single "default" position.

The thing to note here is that I'm not trying to promote atheism as the basic reasonable thing and labeling theists as the bad people who comes and makes you believe otherwise.

In fact, atheism is a dumb word, since it's a negative term, for which little useful can come from. We are both non-Blurg-ists, and everybody else who hasn't heard about it is too, and all babies that was just born is that too, and people who are about to die is that too.

But that doesn't really tell anything about us, or say that we have anything in common.

It's just like, people who doesn't have a hobby isn't on the same "team" in the way those who collect stamps are.

I think you atheists are retarded, honestly. Arguments like this is why the vast majority of the world is religious. Who the fuck are you to tell me what to believe and what the official "default" position is? Fuck off.

Man, you sure showed those evil atheist how bad they are. With our smug arguments and attitude, we sure put those suicide bombers to shame, don't we?

Try to pretend that the "vast majority of the world is religious" because the arguments for theism is strong and atheism is weak, but you know it's false. The vast majority of the world NEVER even had an argument on what they believe at all, they just took the same as their parents, and now believes it.