Don't you see? Science is only for people who *think* they're smart. Real smart people know science and religion are equally valid.

No, I'm describing Atheists. While I think we get in the weeds trying to drill down to a specific label for everyone, I will say a common misconception is that Agnostics are some middle ground between Atheists and Theists. But it's not spectrum that works like that.

Maybe that's true, a lot of people believe a lot of things, but the problem of people rejecting the evidence for global warming is more pressing, by orders of magnitude, than the small set of people who might accept it, but also believe that technological innovation will "solve" it. In other words people rejecting…

True, too many people misunderstand the scientific method, what constitutes evidence and science in general. Which is why so many people deny evolution, the evidence for human caused global warming, and believe in the christian God.

Atheists - like me, might be annoyed with that comment, but we don't hate when you "point this out," because it's demonstrably false. Atheists do not assert that there is no God, we reject the positive claim of a God's existence, due to lack of evidence.

Sorry, no. Science is a process and is antithetical to faith. Also, Atheism and Theism are not equivalent.

Science is a Religion? I don't think Katie Rife knows what those two words mean.

You're right to observe that if we expect to continue this standard of living and indeed increase the standard of living for those living in the developing world, it will be extremely energy intensive.

I think you're talking about a situation that doesn't really happen, or at least is much more nuanced than offered.

To be fair, I haven't seen the movie and was only going by the description I read above. So your clarification is that everyone has 26 years, then they die?  Are you able to extend your life in any manor other than zero sum interactions where you gain what time take from someone else?  If not, then my point still…

Except that it's a pretty bad analogy in that it perpetuates the "zero sum fallacy" If we use time as a currency, it's finite and diminishing; any time I gain is at the direct cost of someone else. By contrast, in a market based system wealth is created by mutually beneficial interactions, so that participating…

Poontango and Cash?

Yes, Bob Dylan is really known for his earnestness, especially when he was a 20 year old.

So Ebert wasn't helping, he certainly wasn't hurting. Seems to me people could agree with him, or if they're sensitive about it, ignore it. The anger at Ebert is misdirected.

I love Magera saying, "I just lost my best friend, I have been crying hysterical for a full day and piece of shit roger ebert has the gall to put in his 2 cents.."

Every comment in this thread could swap out "twitter" and put in "AV club comment section" and nothing would change except Ebert probably doesn't have an account here.

Hey! I agree with you.

I meant what I said, but I didn't mean it twice.

Michelle Forbes, really?
She has been shrill, unconvincing, and one of the worst parts of "The Killing," not that there haven't been other things to be annoyed with about that show

Michelle Forbes, really?
She has been shrill, unconvincing, and one of the worst parts of "The Killing," not that there haven't been other things to be annoyed with about that show