Religious People taking "The Onion" seriously...

[TheAdvocate]

I blame obama.

 

[Jeff7]

Story of Onan. It's not exactly the same, but the idea is the same. Preventing life is against the bible.

It's also why you go to hell for using condoms or birth control of any kind. Oh and jacking off is a sin too. Basically you should kill yourself if you believe the bible; life would suck that much.

This strikes me as one item on the long list of design flaws in our species, assuming there was anything to the intelligent design argument, particularly with respect to being designed by God.

Your lower brain functions and associated autonomic responses can't tell the difference between a woman's vagina and your own hand.
"Well shit, that's got to be a vagina! Splooge awaaay!!!"
"(Hey, is anyone paying attention to what Brain is telling Right Hand to do?)"


So God built us with a strong sex drive, and with a reproductive system which has this design flaw which even permits masturbation to work - then he gets all on our case for using this design flaw that he himself put there.
Lead us not into temptation?
But if I were to take 75 tons of gourmet food to a village in a starving nation, and then forbid the people there from eating it, I'd look like a real asshole.
God gets a free pass.


Fun stuff.

 

[ShawnD1]

A gas station run by god would be interesting. The pump only works if you drive up in a really nice car, or in an ugly car when it's dark and hard to see. The nozzle needs to bang around in the filling tub for a while before any gas comes out and it can't fill more than 200L at a time (actually that's already true at gas stations). When no cars are around, diesel randomly spills all over the ground and the whole fuel station smells a bit off. The diesel somewhat dries up but it doesn't really go away until you wash the ground with detergent.

D:

 

[Jeff7]

^ And on occasion, one of the pump sensors acts up at night, and some gas ends up squiring out.

Plus, thanks to the shape of the end of the gas pump, it helps remove any competitors' gasoline that might be in the tank.

 

[Joseph F]

"America is going to hell! MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

My personal favorite.

 

[Train]

Yes.

you might want to tell that to these guys:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

 

[Judgement]

lmfao

omg, gotta remember to breathe

hahahaha

 

[CZroe]

OP FAIL for thinking that pro-life equals religious or even that being against government spending on Planned Parenthood equals being pro-life.

Like secular people aren't fooled by The Onion often too? He'll, I knew a coworker who thought that the MacBook Wheel was real and tried to bash Apple for it in conversation (one of the most epic Onion vids ever).

This strikes me as one item on the long list of design flaws in our species, assuming there was anything to the intelligent design argument, particularly with respect to being designed by God.

Your lower brain functions and associated autonomic responses can't tell the difference between a woman's vagina and your own hand.
"Well shit, that's got to be a vagina! Splooge awaaay!!!"
"(Hey, is anyone paying attention to what Brain is telling Right Hand to do?)"


So God built us with a strong sex drive, and with a reproductive system which has this design flaw which even permits masturbation to work - then he gets all on our case for using this design flaw that he himself put there.
Lead us not into temptation?
But if I were to take 75 tons of gourmet food to a village in a starving nation, and then forbid the people there from eating it, I'd look like a real asshole.
God gets a free pass.


Fun stuff.

And you fail at explaining why it's not an evolutionary defect just the same. Also, for assuming that Christians and Jews agree that God forbids contraception and masturbation. It isn't in the 10 Commandments and it is not a fundamental belief of either Biblical religion like your perspective assumes. Like I said earlier, it's based on a story where a man was struck dead for having sex and then ejaculating on the ground but there were extenuating circumstances. It was actually due to him essentially robbing the woman of the child he was obligated to provide and commuting sexual fraud (in a way, rape). Most do NOT interpret it to have anything to do with contraception and most base their pro-life stance on the same factors as Godless pro-lifers (every life is sacred).

 

[halik]

Trollolollolol


"Because christians are fucking stupid!"

 

[Murloc]

murrikans enjoy your religious nutjobs hurr durr

 

[halik]

murrikans enjoy your religious nutjobs hurr durr

Ha the nice germans have spoken...

 

[Nebor]

you might want to tell that to these guys:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

They're just confused.

 

[SlowSpyder]

lmfao

omg, gotta remember to breathe

hahahaha

I know, I want to laugh too. But then I remember that these people vote. They are among us. Pathetic.

 

[Jeff7]

...
And you fail at explaining why it's not an evolutionary defect just the same. Also, for assuming that Christians and Jews agree that God forbids contraception and masturbation. It isn't in the 10 Commandments and it is not a fundamental belief of either Biblical religion like your perspective assumes. Like I said earlier, it's based on a story where a man was struck dead for having sex and then ejaculating on the ground but there were extenuating circumstances. It was actually due to him essentially rinning the woman of the child he was obligated to provide and commuting sexual fraud (in a way, rape). Most do NOT interpret it to have anything to do with contraception and most base their pro-life stance on the same factors as Godless pro-lifers (every life is sacred).

My post was based on the idea of God-based intelligent design, and was made within that framework, thus alternatives were not addressed. If God had created and designed all of the Universe, then his engineering work would seem to have numerous design flaws, ranging from severe to minor. (And he also sucks at decent documentation, both in terms of providing some basic specsheets, as well as an errata sheet.)
If it's evolution behind it all, then it's an undirected process that just happens to produce self-perpetuating systems which we call life. Without any real direction beyond simple laws of physics, they're liable to have some strange abnormalities, but if those abnormalities don't severely inhibit operation and reproduction of the life form, then they will persist. For example, a fair number of people will sneeze when suddenly exposed to a very bright light. It's in no way related to expulsion of foreign particles from the nasal cavity. If that kind of behavior were in a software system, it would be considered a bug. But sneezing from sunlight exposure apparently isn't a severe enough defect that it was eliminated from the gene pool, so it's still present.

Other things would seem to be more severe, such as choking. Put it this way - choking to death is actually possible. A human engineer would likely face lawsuits or jailtime for having such a dangerous flaw in a design. In order to live, you must take in solid, liquid, and gaseous substances. And yet they all initially enter through the same passage. Accidental introduction of solid or liquid materials into one of the connecting sub-passages can be fatal, and this is prevented only by a small flap of cartilage whose action can even be controlled semi-voluntarily. This would seem to be a rather serious oversight on the part of a designer.
Evolutionarily though, well, again, it's apparently not so severe of a design flaw that it resulted in the removal of this trait from the gene pool, at least not at this time in history.


Or else God really enjoys placing easter eggs absolutely everywhere within his designs.

 

[LumbergTech]

God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

LOLOL!!!

tide comes in tide goes out

 

[Jeff7]

tide comes in tide goes out

Cows go in, burgers come out. You can't explain that.

 

[CZroe]

My post was based on the idea of God-based intelligent design, and was made within that framework, thus alternatives were not addressed. If God had created and designed all of the Universe, then his engineering work would seem to have numerous design flaws, ranging from severe to minor. (And he also sucks at decent documentation, both in terms of providing some basic specsheets, as well as an errata sheet.)
If it's evolution behind it all, then it's an undirected process that just happens to produce self-perpetuating systems which we call life. Without any real direction beyond simple laws of physics, they're liable to have some strange abnormalities, but if those abnormalities don't severely inhibit operation and reproduction of the life form, then they will persist. For example, a fair number of people will sneeze when suddenly exposed to a very bright light. It's in no way related to expulsion of foreign particles from the nasal cavity. If that kind of behavior were in a software system, it would be considered a bug. But sneezing from sunlight exposure apparently isn't a severe enough defect that it was eliminated from the gene pool, so it's still present.

Other things would seem to be more severe, such as choking. Put it this way - choking to death is actually possible. A human engineer would likely face lawsuits or jailtime for having such a dangerous flaw in a design. In order to live, you must take in solid, liquid, and gaseous substances. And yet they all initially enter through the same passage. Accidental introduction of solid or liquid materials into one of the connecting sub-passages can be fatal, and this is prevented only by a small flap of cartilage whose action can even be controlled semi-voluntarily. This would seem to be a rather serious oversight on the part of a designer.
Evolutionarily though, well, again, it's apparently not so severe of a design flaw that it resulted in the removal of this trait from the gene pool, at least not at this time in history.


Or else God really enjoys placing easter eggs absolutely everywhere within his designs.

Fundamentalists believe that everything was perfect until the fall of man corrupted the world/universe and forced us all to redeem ourselves in a "fallen" world. They believe that EVERYTHING changed. They don't even believe that animals ate eachother before that.

Also, I've never understood why people keep using the sneezing in the light example. Sneezing in the light is an OBVIOUS evolutionary advantage (fail-safe). You see, most airborne particulate irritants irritate BOTH the eyes AND the respiratory system. Therefore, the eyes can serve as an early warning system possibly before something poisonous can be absorbed through the lungs. By being able to trigger a sneeze to evacuate the lungs before the possibly-deadly irritant could kill you, you gain an evolutionary advantage. It just so happens that bright light also "irritates" the eyes causing eye-fluttering and watering EXACTLY the same as an airborne irritant so the response is exactly the same. It's not an flaw any more than dropping something on your keyboard and having it type something is a flaw. It triggered the same response via the same mechanism like it should.

 

[Jeff7]

..
Also, I've never understood why people keep using the sneezing in the light example. Sneezing in the light is an OBVIOUS evolutionary advantage (fail-safe).

Well because, under the intelligent designer hypothesis, the more reasonable solution would seem to be a rapid blink response - just close your eyes under bright light. Done. (Or have a secondary tinted eyelid that would rapidly close, like built-in sunglasses.) The rapid expulsion of air with sneezing is utterly unnecessary.
Secondly, the proposed mechanism by which the bright-light sneeze response occurs appears to be some manner of crosstalk from the optic nerve. The optic nerve gets overstimulated, it screws with the nerves that trigger sneezing, and you sneeze. Design flaw.

You see, most airborne particulate irritants irritate BOTH the eyes AND the respiratory system. Therefore, the eyes can serve as an early warning system possibly before something poisonous can be absorbed through the lungs. By being able to trigger a sneeze to evacuate the lungs before the possibly-deadly irritant could kill you, you gain an evolutionary advantage. It just so happens that bright light also "irritates" the eyes causing eye-fluttering and watering EXACTLY the same as an airborne irritant so the response is exactly the same. It's not an flaw any more than dropping something on your keyboard and having it type something is a flaw. It triggered the same response via the same mechanism like it should.

I generally don't see anything that's problematic before sneezing; maybe it's just me. I'm also not typically in environments with excessively high amounts of very visible dust.

Using your keyboard example, sneezing from sunlight exposure would seem to be more like a wireless keyboard outputting Ctrl+Alt+Del when you use your cellphone nearby, due to induced interference in the keyboard's circuitry. It's pickup of crosstalk that produces anomalous output, and this would be an undesirable effect.
(Ever have a cellphone near computer speakers? Some phones will put some odd signals on the line, creating weird noises.)

 

[Lonbjerg]

Religious People taking "The Bible" seriously...

This +1

 

[CZroe]

Well because, under the intelligent designer hypothesis, the more reasonable solution would seem to be a rapid blink response - just close your eyes under bright light. Done. (Or have a secondary tinted eyelid that would rapidly close, like built-in sunglasses.) The rapid expulsion of air with sneezing is utterly unnecessary.
Secondly, the proposed mechanism by which the bright-light sneeze response occurs appears to be some manner of crosstalk from the optic nerve. The optic nerve gets overstimulated, it screws with the nerves that trigger sneezing, and you sneeze. Design flaw.

How does a rapid blink or inner eyelid expunge irritants from your lungs? It doesn't appear to be cross-talk at all but a response activating both systems . They are linked to the same reflex because the same irritants often affect both. Tear gas causes burning in the eyes AND the respiratory system. Read any allergy medication label and see what symptoms they treat... eyes and respiratory symptoms (itching, running, burning, etc)

I generally don't see anything that's problematic before sneezing; maybe it's just me. I'm also not typically in environments with excessively high amounts of very visible dust.

Sneezing doesn't ONLY happen when your eyes water, burn, and flutter.

Using your keyboard example, sneezing from sunlight exposure would seem to be more like a wireless keyboard outputting Ctrl+Alt+Del when you use your cellphone nearby, due to induced interference in the keyboard's circuitry. It's pickup of crosstalk that produces anomalous output, and this would be an undesirable effect.
(Ever have a cellphone near computer speakers? Some phones will put some odd signals on the line, creating weird noises.)

I don't know how you could say that it would be more like that when it would, in fact, be more like what I am saying. It's not "cross talk" if it is simply responding the way it is meant to respond to outside stimulus. Just because we consciously know that it isn't an atmospheric irritant doesn't mean your brain and it's reflexes do just like a keyboard doesn't know if a finger is deliberately pushing the key or not. The key was pushed and it responded accordingly. It's not a defect.

It's like sickle-cell anemia in Africans. The defective cells resisted Malaria and, thus, were an evolutionary adaptation even if they caused other undesireable effects. Sneezing in the light is undesireable, but it is better than dying because you had no reaction when walking into a prehistoric cloud of poisonous spores.