I don't know if it's necessary the medication here or the mis-diagnoses and pill-happy people (I'm sick. I need a pill!... I'm depressed. I need a pill!).
It's gotten to the extent that some medical practitioners I know have told their patients things to do - eat better, exercise - and they turn around and ask "Can't I just take a drug?"
When people WANT to take drugs - who cares about side and even long-lasting effects [like liver damage...] - a placebo is likely going to have a lot more effect. Especially in "mental" health things.
It's worth noting that homeopathy != all natural remedies nor does it mean the only medication that works come from pharmaceutical companies and doctors.
Or maybe it's not worth noting. I had to look what homeopathy actually was though, since a lot of "natural" remedies get lumped into it as well. Even vitamins/minerals or probiotics tend to be looked on as non-traditional medicine and thus highly suspect.
I think there's more to it than that, personally... in the case of Muslims, some of them adopt interpretations that differ. That's not just believing it more fully, it's interpreting it differently and thus believing something different. And it doesn't even mean the interpretation makes logical sense. Just look at all of the wacko English-major interpretations of every major literary book out there.;)
actively goes around try to persuade others to believe in the existence of imaginary beings.
Ah-ha. Hey, there's this tree in my backyard that's green. Do you believe me? You haven't seen it. It's appealed to none of your senses. Is it imaginary? You won't "know" for sure until you come to my backyard and make sure it's nowhere in my backyard. How is it you can say with complete authority (in your own mind) that these beings are imaginary? Or are you deeming someone else extremist because they actively persuade others to believe in what they believe to be true, while reserving your own right to judge them as extremist because you have proven that those beings actually do not exist? Or perhaps you simply think they don't exist because you have never personally been convinced that they exist... but then you are no better than they, because you have already deemed them imaginary without any proof... ?
I'm being serious and I'm not trying to belittle or whatever. It's a conundrum that I'm interested in someone expressing. I can't see how anyone can truly be an atheist unless they've actually proven the non-existence of God. Sure, I can understand someone not believing the Bible and all that, and I can understand someone believing there is not a God, but I can't understand someone so sure about it as you seem to me.
Another word might be "lunatic", but that would unkind to lunatics. Lunatics don't necessarily go around trying to persuade others to get on board with their insanity. Extremists do. The rest is just a question of degree, isn't it?
Lunacy implies something wrong with their brain and intelligence. If you are trying to insinuate that those who believe in God are insane and unintelligent, I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent and smart people that would love to talk to you. In fact, there are quite a few dead intelligent people that believed in God. Christians? No, not necessarily. But believed in the existence of God.
And what right do you have to tell me that it's wrong? On what authority and why am I accountable to that authority?
I actually agree with your "rule" but I'm interested in knowing why you think it's a valid rule and not simply a suggestion for society to mutually agree to in order to preserve order.
All these and things similar are there for is to start to funnel people into their religions.
That is what you believe.
As for the rest, that depends. If someone accepts the Bible as truth, then why is it you require them to have some other basis in order for them to be actually well-meaning, well-intentioned, and honest? You are basically saying that my beliefs, in order for me to think they are good for people, have to have the same basis as yours do otherwise they aren't good enough. That's fine for you to think that, of course, and fine for you to vote for and against what you want. That is the beauty of democracy.
But you're basically asserting that I can't have a different basis for my reasoning than you. Interestingly enough, you mention two things that have been highly debated and are not something that I have heard are really being fought FOR, but more fought AGAINST; e.g., NO prayer in school but mandatory sex-ed in school (what if I don't want that for my kid as a parent?).
I'm thinking more about abortion, though. Sure, maybe my basis for thinking abortion is wrong is the Bible. Your basis for thinking it's not wrong is what? Perhaps logic or some sort of science used in some strange way. Great, so we have two different bases of thought. You, in your post, are simply asserting that my basis doesn't count and yours does, simply because you don't think mine is a trustworthy basis and start deciding things about my intentions based on your blanket assertion. I guess I'm not allowed to doubt yours, though, as that would be obviously ignorant...
"Evangelical Christianity" is also a "brand" sort of thing, though, and can refer to a broad spectrum of people... e.g., polls talk to "Evangelical/Born-Again Christians." It's a label.
Look at the wikipedia page for Evangelical Christianity. It actually doesn't have a whole lot to do with public evangelism.
As for the evolution bit, I'd rather not comment. It will derail this completely. Generally, though, if schools' science curriculum change due ONLY to the Bible, I'd actually tend to agree with you... that's really not what Christians should be using the Bible for. While I do believe it is scientifically accurate, I don't think it's a science textbook and it should not be used that way. If it's a scientific argument because someone looked in that direction due to their beliefs, I'm ok with it. That belongs in the science area. Of course, I don't know if origins of the universe is "science." At best, seems to me like history or archaeology of some sort, hehe. On the other hand, I have some other ideas you would likely think are extreme, so I won't mention them;) hehe.
You are making a mistake in thinking that anyone who says "I'm a Christian group" believes the same way. There are "Christian" groups who don't even believe Christ was God. Mormons believe significantly different in the area of theology.
You're basically making the same mistake I would be if I insinuated that all Democrats support abortion. It's simply not true. Just because one or even a group or even a LARGE group does simply does not mean they all do.
Christianity is extremist because christian groups attempt to force people to share their beliefs. I'm sure it's hard for a christian to see the problem with this, because the beliefs are already believed inside the christian head.
Hmmm. This would imply that non-Christians inherently see the world more clearly than Christians. Of course, the argument works both ways and it is entirely subjective. It even works in politics. A conservative can't see a liberal's POV because of the conservative's bias; therefore a liberal is more open. Of course, a liberal can't see the conservative's POV because of the liberal's bias, therefore the conservative is more open...
As a nonchristian, any christian attempts to make me follow what are silly christian rules (don't abort pregnancies, don't buy liquor on Sunday, don't have sex outside of marriage... and so on) are ridiculous because such rules have no basis in logic, just beliefs that I don't share.
You're right. And any Christian that tells you that you need to follow those rules - ESPECIALLY if they tell you that's what you do if you want to be "saved" - is dead wrong. Yes, Biblically, there are things that are "wrong"... i.e., "sin." You sound like you have been mostly influenced by a particular group of Christians - e.g., your "liquor on Sunday" comment - who tend to define "sin" in very social terms... i.e., a "social" Gospel. But you're actually right, and I agree with you; me telling you not to sin (or not to do bad things, whatever you want to call it) is absolutely ridiculous, and it's even ridiculous Biblically. Biblically, you keeping from sinning does absolutely nothing for what the Bible would say your eternal welfare is. Living "like a Christian" is for Christians, not non-Christians. If you aren't a disciple of the one the Bible refers to as the Christ, then why should you be told you need to live like one? Makes no sense to me, either.
Unfortunately, the "social Gospel" got into Christianity; in other words, using the Gospel/Bible to "clean up society." And I agree with you; that's absolutely ridiculous. And, I might add, un-Biblical...
Hence, extremism. I don't have to please your god, and any attempt to make my life conform to rules that have such an aim is wrong on every level.
Yup. And incidentally, if someone thinks you CAN please God by doing or not doing something, they're also wrong. It's stated very clearly in the Bible: without Christ, it is impossible to please God.
I might sound like I'm arguing against "my religion." Maybe you'll get confused as to why I'm agreeing with you. I happen to think you are more correct, in some ways, about a lot of those who claim to be Christians than they are. That doesn't mean I agree with you about God. That just means I agree with you about some very big problems in modern-day Christianity.
They both expect their rules to apply to everyone else and will try to subvert the government to ensure it. And if that doesn't work, they start killing people.
Not true... or if they do start killing people, they are flatly going against what they claim they believe in. Look at what is referred to as the "early church." They were slaughtered by the Romans. And they apparently didn't really even fight back. They "got it." The Crusaders didn't "get it."
As for abortion, some people believe that that is basically murder. And many people believe a lot of the... "morals" that come from the Bible are in fact good things for society. That's not forcing "their rules" on everyone; that's believing something is good for society or bad for society and trying to influence the government in those respects. Just like most other people try to do with their beliefs. Which is the whole point of a democracy.
Perhaps it's the "modern" qualifier that is the issue then. I would argue that most "modern" Christians have the same misunderstanding of the Bible. Especially based on what ends up on TV and what kind of churches get the biggest.
That's the entire premise of contemporary evangelical Christianity and other extremist religions.
Please define "extremist."
If you wanted to apply that word to a "brand" of Christianity, I suggest the extreme wrongness of the views held by those participating in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Unless, of course, you are simply using "extremist" to refer to beliefs that are very different. But typically, people think of people killing each other when you talk about "extremist religions." Most evangelical Christians are not killing each other.
Furthermore, the ends-justifies-the-means is not a Biblical concept whatsoever. The Bible is full of statements, in fact, that deal very much with how you go about doing the "right thing." And, in fact, the Bible calls doing the "right" thing with the "wrong motive" sin - because the Bible mentions the fact that God very much cares about intents and motives, not outward/external acts.
Before judging "evangelical Christianity" - unless you are simply trying to judge particular groups that you have studied and not the entire group as if they all believe the same way - I'd suggest getting to know what they actually think and how much difference there is amongst the various groups in it. It would seem to me to be a fallacy to assume that just because a bunch of people claim the same name that they believe the same thing. Unless you really want me to go about pointing out that "atheists admit they are faith-based." Some do. And maybe another atheist doesn't think that way. It would be wrong of me to simply assume he actually thinks he has no concrete evidence in his mind for it, just because he shares a label...
You have a distinct misunderstanding of what "slogging through 70 years of life" is all about in Biblical Christianity. I'm not saying there aren't people/"Christians" who support your statement, of course. There are also people out there that support my statement that "atheists are worse people than Christians" and that "Scientists are liars" and that "Democrats support communism."
What's best would be to compare the US to other SIMILAR countries without a large and active military... are there any? The problem is the current "brand" of terrorism comes along with fanatical Islam, it seems. I'm not saying Islam == Terrorism, I'm saying that at the moment, there are a lot of terrorists - it seems - that ascribe to a fanatical belief in Islam. And that particularly fanatical belief appears to hate Western culture. And at the moment, one of THE biggest "homes" for western culture, religion, belief, freedoms, etc., is America. And the UK. And they seem to have some of the most problems with terrorism.
Give me a "bastion" of western culture, religion, and freedoms that fanatical Muslims despise that does not have a military, and I'll compare the US to it. Comparing it to a small South American country whose main source of income is tourism is not a fair comparison.
Then be glad you live in the US which has a very strong and active military, still.
Other countries are significantly less fortunate.
I didn't say terrorism was a huge threat; but at the very least, the perceived physical threat of terrorism is significantly greater than the perceived physical threat of the RIAA.
Also, it would be interesting to know not just successful "terrorism" - however the statistician defines it - but the ones that were caught, as well. Those contribute to the perception.
But it's far less personally dangerous. Most people are not killed by the *AA nor by DMCA or ACTA. People ARE killed by terrorists (and war, etc). Thus it is most definitely a more personally dangerous threat.
And most people care more immediately about their personal welfare than their freedom, if it comes down to it.... I think.
Maybe they check their work before they commit it.;)
On the serious side, I doubt most of them were working on this full time. You may look at it more like this: every 10 days, they had time to actually commit something they were working on while working on other [I presume?] full time jobs?
In general, I agree with you. The problem I have is that it seems a lot of Linux users look down their noses at Windows users, as though they are stupid and ignorant and if they REALLY were intelligent they would use Linux... because it's intelligent people that care about their computer that are interested in dealing with the issues in order to run a superior operating system.
I guess it's the "superiority complex" issue that seems to be what I take issue with. I know people that are quite happy with Windows. To many, I think the difference between Windows and Linux would be like asking them to drive a car on the left side of the road with the steering wheel operated by their feet and the "pedals" with their hands. It's just completely different - at first/to them - and I don't think the Linux community should look down on them for that.
This coming from a Linux user.:) But I also use Windows. Depends on what I'm doing and waht I want to do.
In other words, an "intelligent" being was behind the experiment, making sure the necessary components were there.
I am not a theistic evolutionist by any means. I do find it interesting that apparently, experiments HAVEN'T shown this yet (or this would not be news at all!), and yet so many people say they believe it because it's science...
Slashdot Mirror
Auto insurance is mandatory. What makes you think your example of auto insurance won't still happen?
Cheering for bank robbers depends on whether or not your money was in said bank... :P
It's a Monkey Island reference... or, well, at least a Monkey Island demo reference.
Whatever, it's quite easy. Just give it a red herring.
I don't know if it's necessary the medication here or the mis-diagnoses and pill-happy people (I'm sick. I need a pill! ... I'm depressed. I need a pill!).
It's gotten to the extent that some medical practitioners I know have told their patients things to do - eat better, exercise - and they turn around and ask "Can't I just take a drug?"
When people WANT to take drugs - who cares about side and even long-lasting effects [like liver damage...] - a placebo is likely going to have a lot more effect. Especially in "mental" health things.
Humor taken. Still, if that's your best answer, you're on the same level as those you criticize. You just believe differently. ;)
With that said, homepathy, like religion, although it can help people, technically it's still fraud.
Homeopathy can be tested and results viewed (e.g., bacterial counts). You've actually proven all religions and any religion to be frauds?
It's worth noting that homeopathy != all natural remedies nor does it mean the only medication that works come from pharmaceutical companies and doctors.
Or maybe it's not worth noting. I had to look what homeopathy actually was though, since a lot of "natural" remedies get lumped into it as well. Even vitamins/minerals or probiotics tend to be looked on as non-traditional medicine and thus highly suspect.
I think there's more to it than that, personally... in the case of Muslims, some of them adopt interpretations that differ. That's not just believing it more fully, it's interpreting it differently and thus believing something different. And it doesn't even mean the interpretation makes logical sense. Just look at all of the wacko English-major interpretations of every major literary book out there. ;)
actively goes around try to persuade others to believe in the existence of imaginary beings.
Ah-ha. Hey, there's this tree in my backyard that's green. Do you believe me? You haven't seen it. It's appealed to none of your senses. Is it imaginary? You won't "know" for sure until you come to my backyard and make sure it's nowhere in my backyard. How is it you can say with complete authority (in your own mind) that these beings are imaginary? Or are you deeming someone else extremist because they actively persuade others to believe in what they believe to be true, while reserving your own right to judge them as extremist because you have proven that those beings actually do not exist? Or perhaps you simply think they don't exist because you have never personally been convinced that they exist... but then you are no better than they, because you have already deemed them imaginary without any proof... ?
I'm being serious and I'm not trying to belittle or whatever. It's a conundrum that I'm interested in someone expressing. I can't see how anyone can truly be an atheist unless they've actually proven the non-existence of God. Sure, I can understand someone not believing the Bible and all that, and I can understand someone believing there is not a God, but I can't understand someone so sure about it as you seem to me.
Another word might be "lunatic", but that would unkind to lunatics. Lunatics don't necessarily go around trying to persuade others to get on board with their insanity. Extremists do. The rest is just a question of degree, isn't it?
Lunacy implies something wrong with their brain and intelligence. If you are trying to insinuate that those who believe in God are insane and unintelligent, I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent and smart people that would love to talk to you. In fact, there are quite a few dead intelligent people that believed in God. Christians? No, not necessarily. But believed in the existence of God.
I comment too much. :)
And what right do you have to tell me that it's wrong? On what authority and why am I accountable to that authority?
I actually agree with your "rule" but I'm interested in knowing why you think it's a valid rule and not simply a suggestion for society to mutually agree to in order to preserve order.
All these and things similar are there for is to start to funnel people into their religions.
That is what you believe.
As for the rest, that depends. If someone accepts the Bible as truth, then why is it you require them to have some other basis in order for them to be actually well-meaning, well-intentioned, and honest? You are basically saying that my beliefs, in order for me to think they are good for people, have to have the same basis as yours do otherwise they aren't good enough. That's fine for you to think that, of course, and fine for you to vote for and against what you want. That is the beauty of democracy.
But you're basically asserting that I can't have a different basis for my reasoning than you. Interestingly enough, you mention two things that have been highly debated and are not something that I have heard are really being fought FOR, but more fought AGAINST; e.g., NO prayer in school but mandatory sex-ed in school (what if I don't want that for my kid as a parent?).
I'm thinking more about abortion, though. Sure, maybe my basis for thinking abortion is wrong is the Bible. Your basis for thinking it's not wrong is what? Perhaps logic or some sort of science used in some strange way. Great, so we have two different bases of thought. You, in your post, are simply asserting that my basis doesn't count and yours does, simply because you don't think mine is a trustworthy basis and start deciding things about my intentions based on your blanket assertion. I guess I'm not allowed to doubt yours, though, as that would be obviously ignorant...
"Evangelical Christianity" is also a "brand" sort of thing, though, and can refer to a broad spectrum of people... e.g., polls talk to "Evangelical/Born-Again Christians." It's a label.
Look at the wikipedia page for Evangelical Christianity. It actually doesn't have a whole lot to do with public evangelism.
As for the evolution bit, I'd rather not comment. It will derail this completely. Generally, though, if schools' science curriculum change due ONLY to the Bible, I'd actually tend to agree with you... that's really not what Christians should be using the Bible for. While I do believe it is scientifically accurate, I don't think it's a science textbook and it should not be used that way. If it's a scientific argument because someone looked in that direction due to their beliefs, I'm ok with it. That belongs in the science area. Of course, I don't know if origins of the universe is "science." At best, seems to me like history or archaeology of some sort, hehe. On the other hand, I have some other ideas you would likely think are extreme, so I won't mention them ;) hehe.
You are making a mistake in thinking that anyone who says "I'm a Christian group" believes the same way. There are "Christian" groups who don't even believe Christ was God. Mormons believe significantly different in the area of theology.
You're basically making the same mistake I would be if I insinuated that all Democrats support abortion. It's simply not true. Just because one or even a group or even a LARGE group does simply does not mean they all do.
Christianity is extremist because christian groups attempt to force people to share their beliefs. I'm sure it's hard for a christian to see the problem with this, because the beliefs are already believed inside the christian head.
Hmmm. This would imply that non-Christians inherently see the world more clearly than Christians. Of course, the argument works both ways and it is entirely subjective. It even works in politics. A conservative can't see a liberal's POV because of the conservative's bias; therefore a liberal is more open. Of course, a liberal can't see the conservative's POV because of the liberal's bias, therefore the conservative is more open...
As a nonchristian, any christian attempts to make me follow what are silly christian rules (don't abort pregnancies, don't buy liquor on Sunday, don't have sex outside of marriage... and so on) are ridiculous because such rules have no basis in logic, just beliefs that I don't share.
You're right. And any Christian that tells you that you need to follow those rules - ESPECIALLY if they tell you that's what you do if you want to be "saved" - is dead wrong. Yes, Biblically, there are things that are "wrong" ... i.e., "sin." You sound like you have been mostly influenced by a particular group of Christians - e.g., your "liquor on Sunday" comment - who tend to define "sin" in very social terms... i.e., a "social" Gospel. But you're actually right, and I agree with you; me telling you not to sin (or not to do bad things, whatever you want to call it) is absolutely ridiculous, and it's even ridiculous Biblically. Biblically, you keeping from sinning does absolutely nothing for what the Bible would say your eternal welfare is. Living "like a Christian" is for Christians, not non-Christians. If you aren't a disciple of the one the Bible refers to as the Christ, then why should you be told you need to live like one? Makes no sense to me, either.
Unfortunately, the "social Gospel" got into Christianity; in other words, using the Gospel/Bible to "clean up society." And I agree with you; that's absolutely ridiculous. And, I might add, un-Biblical...
Hence, extremism. I don't have to please your god, and any attempt to make my life conform to rules that have such an aim is wrong on every level.
Yup. And incidentally, if someone thinks you CAN please God by doing or not doing something, they're also wrong. It's stated very clearly in the Bible: without Christ, it is impossible to please God.
I might sound like I'm arguing against "my religion." Maybe you'll get confused as to why I'm agreeing with you. I happen to think you are more correct, in some ways, about a lot of those who claim to be Christians than they are. That doesn't mean I agree with you about God. That just means I agree with you about some very big problems in modern-day Christianity.
They both expect their rules to apply to everyone else and will try to subvert the government to ensure it. And if that doesn't work, they start killing people.
Not true... or if they do start killing people, they are flatly going against what they claim they believe in. Look at what is referred to as the "early church." They were slaughtered by the Romans. And they apparently didn't really even fight back. They "got it." The Crusaders didn't "get it."
As for abortion, some people believe that that is basically murder. And many people believe a lot of the ... "morals" that come from the Bible are in fact good things for society. That's not forcing "their rules" on everyone; that's believing something is good for society or bad for society and trying to influence the government in those respects. Just like most other people try to do with their beliefs. Which is the whole point of a democracy.
Perhaps it's the "modern" qualifier that is the issue then. I would argue that most "modern" Christians have the same misunderstanding of the Bible. Especially based on what ends up on TV and what kind of churches get the biggest.
That's the entire premise of contemporary evangelical Christianity and other extremist religions.
Please define "extremist."
If you wanted to apply that word to a "brand" of Christianity, I suggest the extreme wrongness of the views held by those participating in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Unless, of course, you are simply using "extremist" to refer to beliefs that are very different. But typically, people think of people killing each other when you talk about "extremist religions." Most evangelical Christians are not killing each other.
Furthermore, the ends-justifies-the-means is not a Biblical concept whatsoever. The Bible is full of statements, in fact, that deal very much with how you go about doing the "right thing." And, in fact, the Bible calls doing the "right" thing with the "wrong motive" sin - because the Bible mentions the fact that God very much cares about intents and motives, not outward/external acts.
Before judging "evangelical Christianity" - unless you are simply trying to judge particular groups that you have studied and not the entire group as if they all believe the same way - I'd suggest getting to know what they actually think and how much difference there is amongst the various groups in it. It would seem to me to be a fallacy to assume that just because a bunch of people claim the same name that they believe the same thing. Unless you really want me to go about pointing out that "atheists admit they are faith-based." Some do. And maybe another atheist doesn't think that way. It would be wrong of me to simply assume he actually thinks he has no concrete evidence in his mind for it, just because he shares a label...
You have a distinct misunderstanding of what "slogging through 70 years of life" is all about in Biblical Christianity. I'm not saying there aren't people/"Christians" who support your statement, of course. There are also people out there that support my statement that "atheists are worse people than Christians" and that "Scientists are liars" and that "Democrats support communism."
What's best would be to compare the US to other SIMILAR countries without a large and active military... are there any? The problem is the current "brand" of terrorism comes along with fanatical Islam, it seems. I'm not saying Islam == Terrorism, I'm saying that at the moment, there are a lot of terrorists - it seems - that ascribe to a fanatical belief in Islam. And that particularly fanatical belief appears to hate Western culture. And at the moment, one of THE biggest "homes" for western culture, religion, belief, freedoms, etc., is America. And the UK. And they seem to have some of the most problems with terrorism.
Give me a "bastion" of western culture, religion, and freedoms that fanatical Muslims despise that does not have a military, and I'll compare the US to it. Comparing it to a small South American country whose main source of income is tourism is not a fair comparison.
Then be glad you live in the US which has a very strong and active military, still.
Other countries are significantly less fortunate.
I didn't say terrorism was a huge threat; but at the very least, the perceived physical threat of terrorism is significantly greater than the perceived physical threat of the RIAA.
Also, it would be interesting to know not just successful "terrorism" - however the statistician defines it - but the ones that were caught, as well. Those contribute to the perception.
But it's far less personally dangerous. Most people are not killed by the *AA nor by DMCA or ACTA. People ARE killed by terrorists (and war, etc). Thus it is most definitely a more personally dangerous threat.
And most people care more immediately about their personal welfare than their freedom, if it comes down to it.... I think.
Maybe they check their work before they commit it. ;)
On the serious side, I doubt most of them were working on this full time. You may look at it more like this: every 10 days, they had time to actually commit something they were working on while working on other [I presume?] full time jobs?
In general, I agree with you. The problem I have is that it seems a lot of Linux users look down their noses at Windows users, as though they are stupid and ignorant and if they REALLY were intelligent they would use Linux... because it's intelligent people that care about their computer that are interested in dealing with the issues in order to run a superior operating system.
I guess it's the "superiority complex" issue that seems to be what I take issue with. I know people that are quite happy with Windows. To many, I think the difference between Windows and Linux would be like asking them to drive a car on the left side of the road with the steering wheel operated by their feet and the "pedals" with their hands. It's just completely different - at first/to them - and I don't think the Linux community should look down on them for that.
This coming from a Linux user. :) But I also use Windows. Depends on what I'm doing and waht I want to do.
In other words, an "intelligent" being was behind the experiment, making sure the necessary components were there.
I am not a theistic evolutionist by any means. I do find it interesting that apparently, experiments HAVEN'T shown this yet (or this would not be news at all!), and yet so many people say they believe it because it's science...