What are the worst misconceptions you know of?

[moretimethansense]

EPIC SNIP!

First I read every word op that rant and while much of it went over my head what I could understand was quite interesting and I thank you for posting it.

Second, when I said that I simply meant that Atheism by it's very definition is a lack of belief and religion, through I agree that Fundamentalist atheists are amongst the biggest jerks out there, I'm an agnostic, meaning I believe that we don't and for that matter CAN'T know for certain what created the universe and if there is a life after death.

On your rant I'd like to quote a comedian who I can't remember at the minute:
"Science doesn't know everything, it knows that it doesn't know everything, if it thought it knew everything it would stop!"
Though I agree that some people become too enamoured with the science they've been taught, it does annoy me when people just ignore the evidence we do have.

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

Vaccines causes Autism.

No. No. No. No.

And on a lighter note.
All welsh people shag sheep.
Come on England, give us something we can take the piss out of you with. Tea isn't really English, not much of "Englishness" is. However I do like saying the English language is a scrapbook language.

There was a thread titled "Should you have a license to have kids" or something like that and my immediate reaction was "no, that's ridiculous, thousands of years of procreation blah blah blah".

And then I remembered the MMR scare...

So either parents have to have a basic grip of critical reading and scepticism before they have kids or the media really has to stop printing utter bullshit.

But yes, thank you for bringing that up.

And sorry, but we're mongrel nation. If I think of anything about our language or culture that isn't stolen from someone elses I'll let you know. We're sorry that we made it harder for you fictional-language people to take the piss but you know... c'est la vie.

 

[DTWolfwood]

All nerds are smart.

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

Actually, Pedophilia does not have to be sexual. Popular misconception, but Philia only means an Obsession with a part of the world without a reason to. Pedophilia can be Artistic, Cultural, Scientific etc. and of course the MUCH rarer sexual obsession with children.

YES. Someone who actually knows what Philia means. Albeit with a slightly off description but, good enough. You are credit to team.

And, Welcome to The Escapist. Stay away from the basement. Seriously, it's not a fun place.

 

[your evil twin]

EPIC SNIP!

First I read every word op that rant and while much of it went over my head what I could understand was quite interesting and I thank you for posting it.

Second, when I said that I simply meant that Atheism by it's very definition is a lack of belief and religion, through I agree that Fundamentalist atheists are amongst the biggest jerks out there, I'm an agnostic, meaning I believe that we don't and for that matter CAN'T know for certain what created the universe and if there is a life after death.

On your rant I'd like to quote a comedian who I can't remember at the minute:
"Science doesn't know everything, it knows that it doesn't know everything, if it thought it knew everything it would stop!"
Though I agree that some people become too enamoured with the science they've been taught, it does annoy me when people just ignore the evidence we do have.

Haha, yes that comedian hit the nail on the head! And yeah, agnostic seems to be one of the most "rational" world views, more rational than true athiesm.

If 95% of the universe is dark energy and dark matter, then we are literally "in the dark" about 95% of what makes up the universe. It could just be some unimportant heavy particles and quantum flucations, in which case no big deal. But it could be that we are only seeing three or four dimensions or a 100 dimensional universe. The extra mass and energy could be heavn and hell, or some horrible hypdimensional chaos.

I'd consider myself a sort of "spiritual agnostic". I refuse to believe that life could just come about from inanimate matter. If you can have a primordial soup with all the right "building blocks of life", and zap it with lightning like Frankenstein's monster, it won't spontaniously start feeding and reproducing. I can believe that evolution can cause bacteria and plants and lizards and cats and dogs and people to all evolve from a basic form of life, but I think some extra spark is needed that you can't find in a chemistry set.

The fact that I'm thinking and having a philosophical debate sets me apart from rocks and water and dust. I don't care how complicated a system gets, I don't believe it can get complicated enough to have a sentient existance and question its own nature!

Unless all matter itself - even "inanimate matter" has some sort of life force in it, like the force in Star Wars or something. But that means there is still an "extra spark", some sort of soul , but that extra spark is in everything. That would allow God or some other supernatural force to just "throw the switch" and cause the big bang, and the universe would take care of itself.

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

All English people love tea and crumpets, and won't consume anything else.....

When i forced my brother to drink some tea, he spat it right back out. And the crumpets?..... let's not go there.

I'm going to have to take your word on this one. When I went to Manchester everyone I was staying with had about 6 cups a day and gorged on the crumpets.

Brother speaks truth, heed his wise words, not all of us like crumpets. I live in Manchester and I don't know anyone who would go near the things.

As far as tea goes I won't comment.

 

[Foryn Gilnith]

Which is ridiculous, there are plenty of people out there who have no opinion one way or the other.

Then those people are called agnostic atheists.
Atheist: They lack a belief in any god(s).
Agnostic: They lack knowledge of any god(s)

Why? Their lack of belief and lack of disbelief automatically means disbelief?[/quote]
No; to the best of my understanding, the divisions break up as follows:

Gnostic Atheist: There IS no God; this can be proven with facts. The sort of people "your evil twin" was ranting about.
Agnostic Atheist: There's enough doubt about the topic that I see no particular reason to believe.
Agnostic Theist: There is no 100% hard proof for God, but that is why all religions have urged faith.
Gnostic Theist: God has made himself manifest and accessible through human logic.
Most people: I don't care about philosophy. I might express preference either way but I don't really think about it and almost certainly don't attend a church. I resemble one of the "last men" Nietzsche spoke of in opposition to the ubermensch.

 

[Aphex Demon]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

No, im sorry, but no. If a hetrosexual molests a child, then its FACT that he is classed as a paedophile.

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

No, im sorry, but no. If a hetrosexual molests a child, then its FACT that he is classed as a paedophile.

Yet that doesn't make the term correct. You can have sexual intercourse with someone who is 5 minutes before the legal age and still be classed a Pedophile.

The issue is, a more correct term would be Hebephile or Ephebophile(even if it is not a primary attraction to either age ranges). Laws need a massive rewriting.

 

[Aphex Demon]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

No, im sorry, but no. If a hetrosexual molests a child, then its FACT that he is classed as a paedophile.

Yet that doesn't make the term correct. You can have sexual intercourse with someone who is 5 minutes before the legal age and still be classed a Pedophile.

The issue is, a more correct term would be Hebephile or Ephebophile(even if it is not a primary attraction to either age ranges). Laws need a massive rewriting.

I agree with you on this actually.

Technically I could be classed as one, I was legal, she wasnt by a few months. Yes the law DOES need re-writing, but only to distinguish the difference between 'sick fuck' and 'rules are rules, buddy, she aint legal yet, Warning for you'

I dont know, all too confusing for me.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

There are three reasons people say that riding a motorbike is suicidal: One, the rider is not wearing a seat belt; Two, the vehicle is designed to freaking disintegrate on impact and, unlike cars, do not have an airbag; and Three, many motorbike riders out there are stupid enough not to wear a helmet. Not all are, that's true. But I have seen a good majority that don't, and do stupid things like rear back on one wheel behind my car and burn rubber right when a light changes.

Three responses from a biker.

1: A seat belt on a bike is a stupid idea, the best thing you can do in the event something goes badly wrong is jump off and aim for the softest thing you can.

2:It is designed to disintegrate to protect other people. A bike is a heavy thing, I've seen a small 4 door car cut cleanly in half by a motorbike landing on it.

3: In my country at least a helmet is a legal requirement.

Yes there are stupid bikers but I think they are in a massive minority compared to stupid car drivers. In that regard it could be argued that bikers are more selfless. If something goes wrong with me on the bike I will almost always come off worse, if something goes wrong in a car any number of passengers could also be involved.

Most people who dislike or claim motorbikes are dangerous/irresponsible have never actually experienced it for themselves or have seen a crash where the biker has come off worse. Almost none of them have actually ridden.

You can have an opinion on something without having tried it, but it helps and in my experience bikers have always been better drivers on bikes or in cars because they know how vulnerable you can be. The sense of immortality and arrogance car drivers can develop is infinity more dangerous.

 

[Geekosaurus]

That Avatar was a good film.

 

[oldskoolandi]

That Jack Daniels is a bourbon. To quote Mike Patton ...'It shouldn't bother me - but it does'

 

[Father of Worlds]

Basically, anything that an anti-theist has to say about religion.

I would dispute this. Most anti-theists are ex-theists, myself included.

I apologize on the behalf of the sane for whatever abuse you withstood at the hands of the crazy.

Basically, anything that an anti-theist has to say about religion.

I would dispute this. Most anti-theists are ex-theists, myself included.

As am I.

You as well.

That ex-theists left their theism behind because of emotional or psychological abuse of some form. I'm sure there are some, but most become convinced for primarily intellectual reasons that their beliefs are wrong, and therefore change them.

 

[qeinar]

that jesus was born in december.

 

[Nocola]

That people in the Army are uneducated, or "grunts" for lack of a better word.

 

[qeinar]

The idea that the word 'theory' in the context of The Theory of Evolution, or even Theory of Relativity is synonymous with 'hypothesis' or even 'guess'

just some kewl info: gps satelites actually use the theory of relativity to tell the time. (if they used normal clocks they would be off after a while..)

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

No, im sorry, but no. If a hetrosexual molests a child, then its FACT that he is classed as a paedophile.

Yet that doesn't make the term correct. You can have sexual intercourse with someone who is 5 minutes before the legal age and still be classed a Pedophile.

The issue is, a more correct term would be Hebephile or Ephebophile(even if it is not a primary attraction to either age ranges). Laws need a massive rewriting.

I agree with you on this actually.

Technically I could be classed as one, I was legal, she wasnt by a few months. Yes the law DOES need re-writing, but only to distinguish the difference between 'sick fuck' and 'rules are rules, buddy, she aint legal yet, Warning for you'

I dont know, all too confusing for me.

It goes into my head asplode territory.

 

[qeinar]

Here's another one:

"All books written before 1900 are dull".

Anyone who's said this has obviously never read Jane Eyre, or Gulliver's Travels, or 20000 Leagues under the sea.

never heard anyone say that. most litrature nowadays are based on things written earlier. reading old books makes reading never ones more enjoyable, since there are alot of references from older works in just about any book.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

....
Only an atheistic-normative perception results in the default position of 'no god', an objective view has no default position for complete uncertainty to return to.

No, the default position is always "x doesn't exist" if there is no evidence for the existence of x.

2000 years ago in Europe the default position was: "There is no America." And at that time that was the correct default position, because there was no evidence for America's existence. Therefore right now the rational default position is "There is no god.".

LONG RANT BEGINS

......The cop-out is to say that time itself was created in the Big Bang...
......The idea that "God or some other supernatural force created the Big Bang and the universe" seems no less plausible than the universe created itself throuhg time travel or the entire universe popped out existance due to a quantum fluctuation in a timeless void.

It is not a cop-out. But it is definitely too much stuff to explain here.

And now on to the second sentence: No, it is not "no less plausible". God is another hypothesis that you don't need if the universe created itself, therefore Occam's razor applies. Besides god causes an infinite regression: Who created god? And the answer to that is that god doesn't need a creator. But why does the universe? Why is it so hard to accept that the universe didn't need a creator if you already think that god didn't need one??? Oh, right, because you just can't let go of your *************** assumption.

Haha, yes that comedian hit the nail on the head! ....

Your whole post is nothing but "I can not imagine it, therefore it can not be".