Submitters of Words's definitions
Something which seems to have rendered the existence of a soul very, very unlikely, unfortunately.
Looks like this is the only life we're going to get folks.
Looks like this is the only life we're going to get folks.
Neuroscience
Recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head.
Recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head.
by Submitters of Words June 14, 2011
Get the Neurosciencemug. Cool people who, unlike their fundamentalist counterparts, don't need to turn their backs on modern science to keep their faith alive
The famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides once said that if science conflicts with Scripture, then it must be Scripture we have misunderstood.
It's sad these words of wisdom died out so long ago
Since creationists are likely to disagree with the idea that modern science like evolution is sufficiently supported, I'll go ahead and quote the renowned biologist Douglas Futuyma,
"The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."
Theodosius Dobzhansky had this to say in his famous paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",
"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."
He also wrote,
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."
The famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides once said that if science conflicts with Scripture, then it must be Scripture we have misunderstood.
It's sad these words of wisdom died out so long ago
Since creationists are likely to disagree with the idea that modern science like evolution is sufficiently supported, I'll go ahead and quote the renowned biologist Douglas Futuyma,
"The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."
Theodosius Dobzhansky had this to say in his famous paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",
"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."
He also wrote,
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."
Liberal/progressive Christians do not believe in a deceiving God. They know that, considering the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, to deny it would be equivalent to denying the existence of ancient Rome or Greece.
by Submitters of Words November 25, 2011
Get the liberal/progressive christiansmug. Another one of those antigovernment extremist morons, he wants to gut every social program on the planet and privatize everything so some big ass corporations can step all over us even more than they can now
Grover Norquist wants to shift the tax burden to the middle class even more, resulting in an ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor.
by Submitters of Words August 2, 2011
Get the Grover Norquistmug. a pejorative invented by conservatives so they can say whatever the hell they want without reprisal.
Kinda like a "get out of racism free" card. Go ahead and call Justice Sotomayor a spic on national radio, and when you get called out for it, blame the media for being too "politically correct".
Kinda like a "get out of racism free" card. Go ahead and call Justice Sotomayor a spic on national radio, and when you get called out for it, blame the media for being too "politically correct".
"All Jews are good for nothing penny-pinchers! I would know, considering I've met every single one of them. What's that? You say I shouldn't assume things? Rot in hell, you politically correct bastard!"
-Conservative
-Conservative
by Submitters of Words June 28, 2011
Get the politically correctmug. I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions people have about liberals and the death penalty. Many conservatives, with their usual black and white thinking, suppose that every single American liberal alive opposes the death penalty, and not only that, but feels sorry for the criminal to boot. This is balderdash however. We despise criminals just as much as you do, and only a very small but vocal minority of liberals actively opposes the death penalty.
To the main point: Why do some liberals oppose the death penalty?
A) It's very, very expensive. Yes, a lot more so than just shoving the bastard in prison for the rest of his life. Huge pull on our tax dollars
B) The number of people who have been wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and then found to be innocent is disturbingly high.
C) Statistically, minorities are far, far more likely to be put to death largely because of preconceived biases among the jury. Also, poorer minorities have to deal with shitty public defenders that can't put forth a good case, unlike far wealthier white criminals who can hire the best of the best.
To the main point: Why do some liberals oppose the death penalty?
A) It's very, very expensive. Yes, a lot more so than just shoving the bastard in prison for the rest of his life. Huge pull on our tax dollars
B) The number of people who have been wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and then found to be innocent is disturbingly high.
C) Statistically, minorities are far, far more likely to be put to death largely because of preconceived biases among the jury. Also, poorer minorities have to deal with shitty public defenders that can't put forth a good case, unlike far wealthier white criminals who can hire the best of the best.
If it were up to me, the death penalty would be applicable only in cases of definitive guilt (hard evidence that the perpetrator is the right dude). Also, he'd have to be at least 18, of course, and above a certain IQ threshold.
by Submitters of Words June 14, 2011
Get the Death penaltymug. Similar to neuroscience. The field of study where you learn how we're all just bags of chemicals walking around.
Neurobiology is different from neuroscience in that it's a subfield though, it's focused more on the activity of the neurons and glial cells.
by Submitters of Words July 11, 2011
Get the Neurobiologymug. by Submitters of Words June 30, 2011
Get the Latex Lovemug.