Home > Uncategorized > Deep Questions of Science and Religion

Deep Questions of Science and Religion

Here at the Herald’s northwest branch office, our days are generally filled to the brim spreading communist propaganda, supporting the homosexual agenda, trampling the precious courthouse grass, scaring the horses and cooking dinner.

But the unexamined life is a life not worth living, so from time to time we feel the need to step back and ponder the deep questions of the universe.  When these questions come up, our instinct is not to go to the experts, or the pointy-headed local professariat, or even the local librarian.  No, being of fine superficial populist and democratic instincts, we seek out you, the Herald readership, for your opinions.

This will be the first in a series, by God’s grace a continuing series, of discussions into deeper questions than those we confront day to day.  The Herald will pose the question, and YOU, the Herald community, will make it all clear.  Thank you in advance.

To start the series, we proudly present Deep Question of Science and Religion #1:

DQSR#1:  In a legitimate assault and battery, can one get a concussion or has the LORD designed mankind’s brain to emit a protective secretion?

Discuss.

1,000 bonus salvation points and a chance to win a time-share at Camp Lejeune if you can answer the following bonus question to the nearest five:  What is the average number of neurons in a Tea Party congressman’s head:  a)10, b) 20, c) 30, or d) 40?

  1. What Now
    August 21, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    uuuum, “square root of purple”?

  2. Mitch
    August 21, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    That’s the answer to DQSR7, What Now. Excellent, but please don’t jump the gun.

  3. Father Nutjob
    August 21, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    Legitimate Christians are protected by Jesus Power, which prevents a rape from producing a pregnancy, unless Jesus, er, I mean Yaweh, did the raping. In those limited cases, when Holy Rape results in a god being born, then Jesus Power cannot stop Jesus, er I mean Yaweh, from impregnating the woman because the impregnation is ordained by the LORD as just and proper. During Holy Rape, it is acceptable to ‘enjoy it’ because the pleasure you are feeling is the Holy Spirit.

  4. Ted Haggard
    August 21, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Ha!! Trick question. Theres no such thing as illegitimate assault and battery, nor unprotective secretion, and I know a thing or two about secretions. God ain’t dumb. Praise b.

  5. Goldie
    August 21, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    I would suggest that slugs have the best protective secretions making them most favored by god. That being said there is a good article on the deeper depths of the secretion statement at Truthout http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11689-if-men-became-pregnant-when-anally-raped-there-d-be-no-restrictions-on-rape-abortions.
    There is a culture different from ours in a forest not so far away where people take seriously the privilege and authority of the White Male. A mixture of presumed authority, protected ignorance and a clinging to the past make him a creature to be watched.

  6. August 21, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Obviously, one cannot sustain a concussion unless the assault is legitimate. Same with broken bones, noses and teeth. And even then, let’s face it, she probably deserved it. Praise the Lord.

  7. August 21, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    Mitch, that was disappointing. Great headline, but silly sarcastic if not rhetorical question? Why?

    Here is question I have, regarding science and religion. Why have republicans historically spend more on science then democrats? Isnt that a odd irony? Considering the politicians of the GOP tend to pander to the Christian base, they have the audacity to turn around and spend big money on scientific development and other blasphemous acts? I for one, see this as ever increasing evidence that religion is losing relevance it the modern political theater. Furthermore, religion has clearly not kept stride with other cultural advances, and it is very clear that good morals are not exclusive to the faithful.

  8. August 21, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Why have republicans historically spend more on science then democrats?

    Please provide evidence that supports your claim.

  9. Just Saying
    August 21, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Will you accept Neil deGrasse Tyson as an authority? Science funding increased under George W. Bush, and decreased under Clinton (despite Clinton being president in boom times).

  10. Plain Jane
    August 21, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    Bush was trying to force the cancellation of society’s contract with government by increasing spending while cutting taxes and Clinton was trying to balance the budget.

  11. Just Saying
    August 21, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    Tyson also states that, historically, Republican administrations have supported public science funding better than Democratic administrations. There are a number of Youtube videos where he states this, and he opines that the reason is that Republicans understand that scientific discovery fuels economic growth. In essence, science is good for business.

    Remember, there is a vast income disparity between the Washington elite (both parties) and us average everyday voters. We are fed stories we want to believe. In the case of Republicans, they are pandered to along anti-science religious lines, but when it comes time for votes in Washington, the GOP chooses science.

  12. Mitch
    August 21, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Just Sayin,

    Tyson says Clinton decreased funding for NASA. NASA is well-known as pork-barrel central, not as a home for science (which is not to say that parts of NASA don’t accomplish useful science, just that funding for NASA does not correlate with support for science.)

    As for Clinton’s funding of science:

    Federal funding for scientific research. Under President Clinton Congress increased funding for the National Science Foundation by more than 30 percent, boosting university-based research and investments to train the next generation of scientists and engineers, and the annual budget for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science nearly doubled to $2.8 billion.

    Strong support for the National Institutes of Health. In the eight years before Clinton took office, the National Institutes of Health spent an average of $9 billion a year, but under President Clinton Congress boosted NIH funding by 40 percent to average $12.7 billion annually. By 2000 federal NIH funding had surpassed $15 billion a year, a 50 percent increase over NIH spending when he first took office, and the highest level of research funding ever spent on research on health and disease.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2011/10/28/10405/power-of-progressive-economics-the-clinton-years/

  13. Mitch
    August 21, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Mitch, that was disappointing. Great headline, but silly sarcastic if not rhetorical question? Why?

    Anger management, Bolithio. Anger management.

  14. Albert Einstein
    August 21, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    Don’t republicans pay scientists to disprove science? Didn’t we pay for some scientist to tell us that ketchup and pizza are vegetables? That women who are raped, legitimately, don’t concieve? Maybe that explains it.

  15. Sigh
    August 21, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Consider your source Mitch.

  16. Just Watchin
    August 22, 2012 at 5:24 am

    Some people never miss a chance to blame Bush for everything. Here’s a topic for discussion…… The state of California, after one month, is already 470 million behind budget, and your legislators are banking on the Facebook IPO to bail them out. It’s granolaland – fruits, flakes and nuts.

  17. Mitch
    August 22, 2012 at 6:48 am

    Sigh,

    Are you referring to my quote from the Center for American Progress? It consists of budget numbers. They are public. If you think CAP is wrong you can easily check the numbers yourself against government web sites. If CAP is using false numbers, I’d like to know. But I’m very (very, very) confident they are not.

  18. August 22, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Since we are quoting Neil; here is my favorite lecture that underscores the point I was trying to make:

  19. August 22, 2012 at 9:51 am

    Hey Mitch, you’re closing in. One of these days, God willing, you’ll figure out that science has nothing to do with Believers and religion has nothing to do with thinkers. Can you guess which one correlates to a Democrat or a Republican?

  20. retired guy
    August 22, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Gee, there aren’t too many comments by our Conservative friends here. I wonder why? I especially like the comment above from JB. Any comment from the conservative side is welcome–whether legitimate or illegitimate.

  21. Felix
    August 22, 2012 at 10:43 am

    I’m with Einstein there. Repugs spend more – to disprove science. May look like spending on science on a profit and loss sheet. But it doesn’t represent a quest for knowledge anymore than current corporations are spending to support democracy.

  22. August 22, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Gee! I wonder what it is that makes me sound like a “Conservative”?* Just can’t seem to get away from the name calling.

  23. legitimate assault and battery
    August 22, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Have you seen the battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Does Allah protect them from concussions from the Infidel’s bombs?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

  24. Mitch
    August 22, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Wrong god, lab. Allah’s just BS compared to JiHEEZus.

  25. August 22, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    Repugs spend more – to disprove science.

    That may the prerogative of some politicians, however the fact that science is being conducted will back fire on their plan. The promotion of using the scientific method as a way of understanding the world will transform the way people interpret and implement policy.

  26. Anonymous
    August 22, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Bolithio, in comment #7, uses the word then when he clearly meant to use the word than.

    Pardon me. I cannot take anything Bolithio writes seriously from this point onward.

  27. Mitch
    August 22, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    bolithio,

    I’ve watched the United States go backwards on policy for more than thirty years now. The lunatics in charge are perfectly capable of accepting science when it comes to navigating ICBMs and enhancing marketing and propaganda efficiency while simultaneously denying it when it comes to evolution, the specifics of soul-body entry, etc…

    I don’t understand how it’s done; I think my head might explode if I tried it out.

  28. Anonymous
    August 22, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    Republicans support white-collar welfare. So, they tend to support the defense industry, big technical scientific projects, and other areas that reward the upper middle class and wealthy. That means pulling the plug on the arts, humanities, and education (unless it leads back to the white collar welfare). Medical research is supported but not preventative care. Science is supported but typically not social science and areas of social implication such as mental health. As governor, Regan shut down mental health hospitals but kept up the subsidies for the aerospace industry in So Cal. This isn’t about supporting the teaching of evolution or climate studies. This is about supporting the status quo.

  29. tra
    August 22, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Unsure if you’ve been “legitimately” raped?” Yes, it can be confusing — but fear not, this little number is all you need:

    http://www.upworthy.com/this-song-is-legitimately-the-best-thing-to-come-out-of-all-this-misogyny?g=2&c=upw1

  30. retired guy
    August 22, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    JB–I was not thinking you were a conservative at all. Just the opposite, as a matter of fact. that was a compliment re: your statement concerning “Believers” vs. scientists.

  31. 713
    August 22, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Perhaps they aren’t the same people, Mitch.

  32. yeah, right
    August 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    “The promotion of using the scientific method as a way of understanding the world will transform the way people interpret and implement policy.”

    Bolithio, boy, you be dreamin…

    Science is there. Been there long time. Policy based on science? Yeah, right.

    Where? When?

  33. August 23, 2012 at 7:05 am

    Well here for starters: http://www.aaas.org/

    Science has always been there, but it is only recently (60 or so years?) that the core of the mass public has been educated in science. This is leading to the gradual cultural shifts we are seeing today, where people are rejecting many of the previously held cultural ideas, many of which have been perpetuated by religion; racism, homophobia, gender equality, etc…

  34. Mitch
    August 23, 2012 at 7:26 am

    bolithio,

    Your statement is true — of Western Europe. Merica? Not so much.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx

  35. August 23, 2012 at 7:43 am

    Western Europe had a centuries long ‘dark age’, fueled by religion which purged their society of free and innovative thought. They have recovered. It is unlikely that even Merica could plunge into such a horrific and lengthy age – mainly due to a more or less educated public. It may not seem like the prefect situation now, as you watch corruption in DC. But we are much more better off as humans than we ever have been – largely due to the advancement of scientific thought in the mainstream.

    I dont think that is going away, and if anything is continuing to grow in influence and practice.

  36. Mitch
    August 23, 2012 at 8:04 am

    Well, Bolithio, as you know we disagree about being better off as humans than ever before. I suppose if you don’t mind driving your kids off a cliff, as long as the road to the cliff is well-paved and smooth and everyone gets to ride in an air-conditioned Cadillac complete with leather seats and the latest glitzy toys, we’re all doing spectacularly well.

    Look! They just raised the speed limit to 80! Floor it and listen to that beautiful engine note.

  37. August 23, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Mitch, you’ve lost all hope. I have children, so I have to have to have hope. And honestly, since I made the transition from cynicism to optimism, Ive been less stressed-out, depressed, and find life much more enjoyable. Good perpetuates good. Is that not the best we can do? I for one am over the doom and gloom perspective. Were all going to die, so Im going to enjoy myself, try to limit my impact on my neighbors, and attempt to improve things for my children.

  38. Mitch
    August 23, 2012 at 8:43 am

    It’s a good point, Bolithio, made especially well by Lily Tomlin’s partner Jane Wagner:

    “Since I put reality on a back burner, my life has been jam-packed and fun-filled.”
    (Trudy — Lily Tomlin — in The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe.)

    http://www.whysanity.net/monos/searchfor.html

    This is a digression, but I’d forgotten how brilliant that monologue is. Just like Trudy, we are each standing at the corner of “Walk” and “Don’t Walk,” every moment of our lives.

  39. Mitch
    August 23, 2012 at 8:46 am

    …and I have four biological nieces and nephews, so my genes want some hope too…

    Good perpetuates good. Is that not the best we can do?

    Having hope or not having hope has nothing to do with good. Good does not take the form of hope — it takes the form of action. Enjoy the Cadillac ride, which is pretty nice when you get right down to it, but you can also go what our propaganda outlets call “negative” and start clambering for the emergency brake. Sounds awfully stressful. The choice is yours.

  40. August 23, 2012 at 9:14 am

    I was wrong – No hope. Still confusing “thought” with “belief,” “thinkers” with “believers.” What’s the matter Mitch, too gutless to answer my question?

  41. Mitch
    August 23, 2012 at 9:16 am

    “Can you guess which one correlates to a Democrat or a Republican?”

    Joe, I’m going with What Now’s answer: “the square root of purple.” But I readily confess that’s pretty darned gutless. Sorry.

  42. August 23, 2012 at 9:35 am

    Thank’s Mich. Since stupid is as stupid does, I guess it was way too much to expect you to ask a question? But then, that would imply tacit recognition and that’s way beyond your capacity as a “free thinker/believer.”

  43. What Now
    August 23, 2012 at 11:48 am

    Mitch, it’s always nice to have anoither believer.
    I believe the square root of purple philosohy is negated by the deniers, millenialists, dominonists and reich wingers because all of their attemts ate reasoning always include “divded by zero”.
    This is amply represented by some previous posters as you’ve experienced.
    To paraphrase Master Yoda in addresssing such world views:
    “Believe that crap you do? Pathetic that is.”
    I look forward to DQSR#2, Zues willing and the oppressed don’t arise.”

  44. Felix
    August 23, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    And which Blowhard was it said earlier in this very thread “Just can’t seem to get away from the name calling”?
    Sheesh.

  45. August 23, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Who’s calling names? Stupid is as stupid does, right? What you do is what you are. What you say is you, right. There’s a difference, but then I wouldn’t expect some to know that.

  46. Aesop
    August 23, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    JB, How about this one; how you do anything is how you do everything?

  47. August 23, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Aesop, Sounds good to me.

  48. Mitch
    August 24, 2012 at 7:55 am

    Comedian Bill Maher recognized that Todd Akin’s secretions are not an anomaly — just part of the Republican’s willingness to spin fantasy where it makes them feel better:

    How do they get away with it? They know that, because we’re already such a religious country, our minds are primed for magical, fantasy thinking. The gullibility comes factory-installed. They’ve learned that you appeal not to an American’s head, but to his gut — it’s a much bigger target. But here’s the problem: life is complicated. I mean, I know we know some things for sure, like why Jesus put us here on Earth: to watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo on a 50-inch TV screen. But what about the Chinese slaves who made the TV? What about carbon from the coal that generated the electricity? What about the Walmart where we bought it, where the workers don’t have health insurance? What about racism, or the oceans turning into nail polish remover? The grown-up answer is: identify problems scientifically, prioritize and solve. The Republican answer is: there isn’t a problem. And anyone who tells you different is a liar who hates America. We don’t have to make hard choices. We just have to ignore the science and the math — that’s why God gave us values.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/todd-akin-republicans_b_1826617.html

  49. Mighty right
    August 24, 2012 at 8:40 am

    “…spreading communist propaganda, supporting the homosexual agenda, trampling the precious courthouse grass, scaring the horses and cooking dinner.”

    Obviously you won’t be voting for Romney. Being he appears to be a heterosexual monogamous capitalist. Most liberal rapists I know are smart enough not to leave DNA evidence behind, let alone a child. Oh!…that’s right. Your a homosexual so you can’t get pregnant from rape, that explains it! Bath houses rejoice!!!

  50. Mitch
    August 24, 2012 at 9:02 am

    “Most liberal rapists I know”

    Quoted without comment.

  51. Mighty right
    August 24, 2012 at 9:33 am

    Don’t you hate it that my avatar is so much more majestic, profound and cleaner than yours? Probably due to my increased rectal integrity.

  52. Mitch
    August 24, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Election bombshell from the British newspaper The Telegraph: the guy Akin got his secretions theory from is also active with Mitt Romney:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9493653/US-election-Mitt-Romney-met-Todd-Akin-doctor-John-Willke-during-2012-campaign.html

    Special congratulations to “mighty right” on his rectum which, remarkably, has the apparent ability to type.

  53. Felix
    August 24, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Point – Mitch! ROTFL

  54. Anonymous
    August 24, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Typing hemorrhoids.

  55. What Now
    August 25, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Mighty RIght, your “rectal integrity” is a result of having used your head as a permanent suppository your entire life.
    You’ve come accutomed to viewing life through fecal goggles.

  56. Mitch
    August 26, 2012 at 9:53 am

    tra posted this youtube video at Eric’s Sohum web site. It responds to DQSR#1 better than anything else I’ve seen or heard to date, especially in the last few seconds.

  57. August 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    I’ve looked at the unexamined life. Believe me. It wasn’t worth the trip.

  58. Mitch
    August 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    I don’t know what took the Kinsey Sicks so long:

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s