Homer destroys God. . Homer destroys God
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (321)
[ 321 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#31 - dehumanizer
Reply +405 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #38 to #31 - bigmanfifty
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Might be wrong, but isn't that stetson, not a fedora?
#43 to #38 - zaywoot
Reply +62 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Actually thats a proper fedora, where the neckbears wear trilbys
#46 to #43 - inuares
Reply +46 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Neck bears....
#110 to #46 - blokrokker
Reply +112 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #213 to #110 - wimwam
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
w- why do you have this?
#311 to #213 - blokrokker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Because there's nobody who can stop me!
#177 to #110 - adifferentjones
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I'm saving this, you can't stop me.
I'm saving this, you can't stop me.
User avatar #180 to #177 - blokrokker
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I would never try to.
User avatar #182 to #180 - adifferentjones
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Well thank you, sir.
#125 to #110 - inuares
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I love it.
I love it.
User avatar #47 to #46 - zaywoot
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
haha oh sorry, my mistake

But now I can't help but picture a fat bear wearing a trilby with only the neck part shaved
User avatar #48 to #47 - inuares
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I envisioned a live bear attached to someone's neck.
#136 to #43 - guanyu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Because the difference actually matters, doesn't it.
User avatar #139 to #136 - zaywoot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
not at all, seen neckbeards wearing actual fedoras...

It just kinda bothers me that they call trilbys fedoras...
Also I feel like they're ruined both, I think trilbys and fedoras (when worn correctly) could be cool
User avatar #140 to #139 - guanyu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Times sure have changed, huh?
#323 to #43 - anon id: d092b2d8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
it's a hat
#254 to #43 - anon id: 47c29485
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
OK, I get that neckbeards/neckbears, bronies, and other beta fags all where trilbies, but just because someone has one, it shouldn't make them synonymous with any of the above. Both my little brother and I own one. We exclusively wear them in winter, and only on occasion. While I am single (by choice, most of the "girls" I know are sluts or friends) he has a girlfriend, we both hate my little pony, and are both very fit, we even fight taijutsu. I just think people shouldn't hate the hat, just the aforementioned fags who do.
User avatar #276 to #254 - zaywoot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
If you look at my other comments Mr. Anon, you'd see I do like the hats...

Also, saying "we even fight taijutsu..." taijutsu just means body technique.

What kinda naruto wannabe are you? do you practise bujinkan? do you practise judo or jujutsu? maybe karate?... Or do you just play fight in a garden?
Nothing wrong with practise in a garden as long as it is actual proper training...
User avatar #187 to #43 - captainrattrap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I've seen many more people look good in "trilby"s and just indiana jones look good in a fedora. However I don't think this picture is accurate.
User avatar #195 to #187 - zaywoot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
sure, plenty of people can look good in trilbys, they just have a horrible reputation...
but wearing a trilby or fedora with a ******* hoodie is just wrong... a shirt with unbuttoned collar and maybe a vest? sure that can work... but hoodie? hell naw
User avatar #209 to #195 - captainrattrap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
It's more of a beach party kind of thing.
User avatar #51 to #43 - galaxyguy
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Oh, thank goodness.

Couple years ago, I regularly wore a fedora. You just alleviated my fear that I might once have been one of those people.
User avatar #97 to #51 - theblondefetus
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
It's not the fedora on your head that makes you one of them

It's the fedora in your heart
User avatar #127 to #97 - merrymarvelite
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That and the neckbeard.

Fedora's I can understand even if they're totally ruined now but I can't stand having a hairy neck.
User avatar #52 to #51 - smokedmeatlog
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
[SPOILER ALERT] you still are
#54 to #52 - galaxyguy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #118 to #54 - sabcy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
nooooooooooooooo.com/ was one "O" short.
#115 to #54 - sabcy
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #87 to #52 - dontdeletemyuser
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
lol i even almost considered buying a fedora once. so i googled fedora and went through the pictures. neckbeards everywhere never again
User avatar #42 to #38 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I'm not sure but it's definitely not a trilby. which is the hat most associated with 'edgy' atheists.
User avatar #39 to #38 - dehumanizer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Probably but there wouldnt be a better simpsons "tip fedora" pic unless they push the joke in purpose in a plot of some episode.
User avatar #119 to #31 - warzon
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
looks like a cowboy hat.
User avatar #167 to #119 - vashford
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You mean a stetson?
User avatar #248 to #167 - warzon
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Y...Yes?
#2 - CommonJoo
Reply +171 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
It's amazing how big of a difference 50 IQ is
#8 to #2 - kez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
explain?
#145 to #8 - mutantpanda
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
In that episode they removed a crayon from Homer's brain which boosted his IQ by 50 points. Homer discovers that he cannot enjoy life when he is so much smarter than everyone around him (except Lisa), causing him to yell out "Is there no place for the man with the 105 IQ." He then gets Moe to reinsert the crayon into his brain.

Season 12, Episode 9, HOMR if anyone is interested, it's a good episode.
#178 to #145 - kez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
cheers
#9 to #8 - winterguy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I think that in that episode, they pulled something out of his brain (like nail or some ****) and it boosted his IQ.

But I dont think that a 50 IQ boost will make you that kind of genius from a complete idiot.
#15 to #9 - FatherPedobear
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
It may have been a crayon that got shoved so far into his nose, it got lost in his brain. I remember a particular episode where that happened.
User avatar #12 to #9 - iwasawa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I think 50 points can make quite a difference, if I would to suddenly gain 50 points.. Well okay, weird phrasing, IQ points aren't actual things so I guess you could say my brain improved in a manner meassured by the equivellant of 50 IQ points. I most certainly think there'd be a great difference in capabilities. My classes would surely become easier, haha
#14 to #12 - winterguy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
yeah, but from Homer Simpson dumb, to Undeniable proof that god doesnt exist genius, takes a lot more then 50 points.
Lets say I have 90-110 (which is higher then Homer) and I gain smarts of 50IQ boost. I get to a level of 140-160 somwhere around Hawking who didnt exclude existence of god.
#16 to #14 - ripgeckosncherios
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
yes but he did do soem pretty smart otehr things
still from 80 IQ to 130IQ (which i think would be much more realistic), you probably wouldnt figure something like that out.
stil the orignial comment (how big a difference 50IQpoints is) is still silly because 50 points is pretty much the difference from normal to genius and normal to "to dumb to poo"
#13 to #2 - anon id: 7df47270
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
The average IQ tends to be betweeen 90 and 110, give or take.

150 is a genius.

So yeah, a pretty big difference
#63 to #13 - xplosevdiarrhea
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure the average IQ is 100.  Well, maybe just theoretically, since we don't actually change the number after every test.  But I'm pretty sure the average person is set to an IQ of 100, then everyone is compared to that.  Did this have a point?  I forget.  So I guess I'll try to improve this comment a little with a funny gif of russians killing a boar with a sink.
I'm pretty sure the average IQ is 100. Well, maybe just theoretically, since we don't actually change the number after every test. But I'm pretty sure the average person is set to an IQ of 100, then everyone is compared to that. Did this have a point? I forget. So I guess I'll try to improve this comment a little with a funny gif of russians killing a boar with a sink.
#96 to #63 - internetshakespear
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Psych grad reporting in. It used to be the average, with a standard deviation of 15. IQ is measured like so: (mental age / chronological age) x 100. So in theory, if a 20 year old had the intelligence of a 20 year old, they would have an IQ of 100. However, the average IQ is actually going up by about 3 points every 10 years - this phenomenon is known as the Flynn Effect.
Psych grad reporting in. It used to be the average, with a standard deviation of 15. IQ is measured like so: (mental age / chronological age) x 100. So in theory, if a 20 year old had the intelligence of a 20 year old, they would have an IQ of 100. However, the average IQ is actually going up by about 3 points every 10 years - this phenomenon is known as the Flynn Effect.
User avatar #304 to #96 - rokkarokkaali
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
According to that logic my IQ is 200+
User avatar #220 to #96 - serotonin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I think that all mental age/cho. age was abandoned long time ago
#86 to #63 - existacne
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Fukken lost it, pretty sure these are Ukrainian dudes.
Fukken lost it, pretty sure these are Ukrainian dudes.
#204 to #86 - captnnorway
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I just happened to have another of gif matching yours, thought you might enjoy them as much as me
I just happened to have another of gif matching yours, thought you might enjoy them as much as me
#205 to #204 - existacne
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Thanks, here, have this.
User avatar #88 to #86 - xplosevdiarrhea
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Hunting With Sink and Car a Wild Boar in Russia [New / HQ] I wouldn't know. Video says russian, but who knows.
User avatar #90 to #88 - existacne
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Fukken lost it again.
Well, they are clearly talking in Russian and street named in Russian as well, so that must be in Russia indeed.
User avatar #232 to #63 - linktheherooftime
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
So then what's an IQ of 135?
#228 to #63 - anon id: 497ec996
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
but we do "change the number" after each test you uneducated moron
#80 to #63 - hillbillypowpow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
An IQ is your mental age divided by your chronological age (that's why the Q is for quotient), so the average is theoretically 100, that would mean that your mental and chronological ages match up. So if everyone in an area, let's say a country, had a low mental age then their actual average would be below the theoretical average.
User avatar #295 to #13 - meganinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Being a genious doesn't mean all that much. It's not like one of those things you'd see on TV where you'd be an amazing inventor or whatever. My IQ is 160 and all that gets me is top of the class and pretty interesting philisophical debates. For instance, I can't even spell philisophical without looking it up, just because I'm a "genious" doesn't make me hyper intelligent.

InB4 thumbed down for 'bragging'
#36 to #2 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
IQ doesn't make anyone smart.

If he was smart like this when the doctors cast the IQ buff on him, he was smart before too, if only unable to process his thoughts properly.

Some people with high IQ can't do the most basic math.
User avatar #50 to #36 - kallesyndrom
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
IQ is one factor of measuring intelligence... So yes, it does measure how smart you are, it just doesn't measure EVERYTHING about your intelligence. Also you can score extremely high in almost every category and very low in one and still get a high average...
User avatar #194 to #50 - lyiat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
IQ does not measure intellect, it measures the ability of someone to learn and process information. You can have a really high IQ and be dumb as a ******* brick if you don't actually apply yourself to learn anything. There are plenty of people with learning disorders with sky high IQ's that find it impossible to focus long enough to learn well.
User avatar #200 to #194 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
It's not about memorization of facts no, if that's what you mean... But I fail to see how it doesn't measure intelligence? Being quickwitted, is that not being intelligent?
User avatar #206 to #200 - lyiat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That is being keen, not intelligent. Intelligence is the degree of information that you know, not your ability to gain new information.
User avatar #207 to #206 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving"
Looking at other places it says intelligence doesn't have an exact definition, since people like to define it differently
Also IQ stands for intelligence quotient
User avatar #212 to #207 - lyiat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Look, I'm not getting invested into a battle about this as I have better things to do and you're just outright unwilling to listen. If you want a good example, take a look at savants. Gigantic IQ, massive capacity for learning, incapable of it due to learning defects. They typically only capable of learning one specific thing, nigh perfectly, and that is all. IQ is your ability to learn, not your actual level of intellect. There are leagues of people with high IQ scores who still haven't figured out PEMDAS.
User avatar #215 to #212 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That still doesn't change the fact that intelligence has different definitions... Sure you might use it one way, but other people use it differently
If you want your way to be the defined definition, you should appeal to some big dictionary
I'm not saying what you're saying about these people is wrong, I'm just saying intelligence obviously means something different to, for example, the people who thought of the "Intelligence Quotient" scale. Since that's what they found intelligence to be
#59 to #50 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I think you misunderstand IQ and what it means.
User avatar #62 to #59 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
No, I don't don't... It's a scale to measure intelligence. That's really all it is. But you're not "smart" in every way just because you can solve hard mathematical equations, also you're not smart in every way just because you understand all the inner workings of society or can write like Shakespeare. Different meanings of clever or smart. IQ is one way to test that, with tests, obviously
#78 to #62 - kez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Its a way of measuring academic intelligence.

There are 9 forms of intelligence I believe.
#64 to #62 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You're not smart if you score high on an IQ test either. That means you were good at taking the IQ tests.

What you're getting tested for on an IQ test doesn't translate into other sciences.
User avatar #65 to #64 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
So you're also not strong if you can bench press 700 pounds, you're just good at bench pressing?
And you're not smart if you can solve crazy mathematical theorems but you're just good at solving them?
Please.
I never said IQ was perfect, but it's pretty good... That's why it's so widely used
#67 to #65 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
No, exactly what you're saying now is proving how pointless an IQ test is.
User avatar #69 to #67 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
No it's not... It's a measurement. Like a thermometer. Or a history test. OR ANY OTHER ******* TEST. But IQ is more of an average than just doing a single thing, that's why it's good, because it doesn't just test one single thing... If it tested one single thing it would be about experience in the field and not general intelligence
#72 to #69 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Tests are generally useless, because they can never accurately represent how good someone is at something.

It can show if you're incredibly stupid, but it can't show if you're good.
User avatar #73 to #72 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
IQ is pretty accurate though, because it's not something you can practice for. It's just off your personal skills and the way and how well your brain solves problems
#74 to #73 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You can practice for an IQ test, just like you can for every other test.
User avatar #77 to #74 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You could practice for IQ tests by taking A LOT of IQ tests, true, but as long as it's the first few IQ tests you take, it will give you a pretty good result
User avatar #76 to #74 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
But you have no idea what'll come up as questions... So not really... Not the offcial IQ tests anyways. An internet test won't show you anything, that's true
#79 to #76 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Official IQ tests can be practiced for as well. You're thinking too highly of IQ tests for some reason.

I'll tell you that some of the smartest people I know wouldn't score high on an IQ test, and some of the dumbest people I know scored very high on it.
User avatar #81 to #79 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That depends what you classify as dumb... Socially inept? Bad at maths? The IQ test will be very general
#82 to #81 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
"Will be very general"

Generality is the most useless thing imaginable when it comes to intelligence.
User avatar #83 to #82 - kallesyndrom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Not for telling general intelligence, no... If you're only smart in one area, you won't score high on an IQ test no. But you might score very high on a maths test. IQ isn't specifict intelligence. If you're great at maths but suck at english, you may be seen as stupid by other people and smart by others, but if you score low on an IQ test even though you're really good at something, that's not unusual. You're just not a jack of all trades
#93 to #83 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Nobody is a jack of all trades, but the point is that the IQ test is useless.

The IQ test will not check how good you are at english. It doesn't tes how good you are at concentrating. It doesn't test how good you are at studying. It doesn't test how good you are at understanding math.

I don't get why you'd ever defend it though. Nobody I know would ever tell you that the IQ tests can be used for anything. I scored to be in the top of the 1% and nothing good ever came of that. It's something stupid people use to brag, because they're insecure about their mediocrities.

The smartest people aren't the ones who score the highest on an IQ test. The smartest people are the ones who find something they like and stick with it.

Just to make it clear, believing that the IQ test (and tests in general) can prove anything is hurtful to society around you. Some of the smartest people won't be accepted into college because they're not good at taking tests and nobody should ever be considered smart because they scored high on an IQ test.

TL;DR: The IQ tests are useless and can show absolutely nothing of any value.
#144 to #93 - anon id: 08b23a81
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
www.sciencedump.com/content/10-people-highest-iq-world-infographic

Yet, people that have very high iq's seem to do very well. If propensity doesn't prove it nothing will. If you say that those people aren't intelligent, then you are completely ignorant. You aren't smart because you have a high iq, you have a high iq because you are smart.
#150 to #144 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
"Oh, he has a high IQ and went on to be successful, he must be truly smart."

"Oh, he has a high IQ and didn't become anything, he must not have lived up to his potential."

"Oh, he doesn't have a high IQ and went on to be successful, he must have worked hard."

"Oh, he doesn't have a high IQ and went on to become nothing, it was fate."
#152 to #150 - animeanimeanimoo
0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
There is no tendency for those with higher IQ to become more successful. It's false confirmation.
#137 to #93 - anon id: 6123dfb5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You're the one who doesn't understand what an IQ test is. An IQ test measures a person's mental capability. It doesn't measure what you know. Say a young child took an IQ test and received a high score - this doesn't mean the child can write theorems or understand complex ideas and go straight to college. It just means that this child can do more challenging work in school if he applies himself.


Also, you cannot study to try to get a higher score on an IQ test. Think of an IQ test more as testing your brain, not your skills.
#148 to #137 - animeanimeanimoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
That's the thing. It doesn't show their mental capability. It shows whether or not they excelled in concluding correctly whatever problems the tests proposed. That's the delusion that IQ tests put up. (Not to mention that it only tests for a very limited set of mental capabilities, but that's a completely different thing.)

You can study to get a higher score on an IQ test. One of the key things that people who believe IQ tests work believe in, is that understanding problems of one type will show that you can solve all other problems of the same type.

IQ is a delusion, put up by arrogant people so that they can convince thsemselves that they're smarter than other people. Now you're trying to send me some link that would supposedly "prove" that IQ tests work. If anything, it should prove that IQ tests show nothing, because Garry Kasparov won chess early, but proceeded to use the rest of his life to prove just how mediocre he truly was.
#324 to #148 - anon id: 750201cd
0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Sorry for the late reply - I didn't have internet access.

First of all, I didn't give you any link. That was a different anon.

Second, it sounds like you assume that IQ is something made up, like astrology. There is actual science behind testing IQ, and it's still being researched. IQ tests have evolved and improved as we have learned more about the human brain. We know that there is more than one type of intelligence, so IQ tests don't test for a single type of intelligence (academic), like you assume.

You cannot study for an IQ test. It doesn't give you equations to solve and such. It gives you ideas that you must understand. Having a wider range of knowledge will definitely help you understand some concepts and ideas, but you cannot study a few specific topics and call that "studying for an IQ test."

I don't understand where your hatred for IQ is coming from. It's not perfect, we know they aren't, but that's why they're being improved.
#259 to #148 - fregler
0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
#255 to #148 - anon id: 47c29485
0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #61 to #59 - epicpoke
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
OH! I know! Intelligence Quotient!
#75 to #2 - kresskh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Well yeah, it's like saying how big of a difference is 50 cm in height or 50 kg in weight.
User avatar #143 to #2 - niggernazi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
i love the feeling when i walking in to a room and raise the average iq with 50 points
User avatar #247 to #2 - onewithpokerface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
This might be completely wrong, but I heard IQ is logarithmic, like the pH or Richter scale. So the difference between a 150 IQ and 100 IQ might be the parallel to the difference between a 7 and an 8 on the Richter scale, in that it's a much higher value in spite of linear numerical ascension.
#1 - clownsrock
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
but they have also proved he is real
#5 to #1 - fukitidk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
#18 to #5 - clownsrock
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
let me modify my statement "in the simpsons world in one form or another (movie episode or game) there has been a few times where they have met him im the simpsons game you dance dance revolution battle him and I one or two episodes he has appered"


Sudoku marcuss shunkahawolf (just letting yall know I explaned my comment more)
User avatar #21 to #18 - fukitidk
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
oh in that way....sorry about that then
#23 to #21 - clownsrock
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
its ok that's why y I elaborated
#20 to #1 - samoaspider
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
was it the "If god isn't real, then who wrote the Bible" statement?
was it the "If god isn't real, then who wrote the Bible" statement?
#22 to #20 - clownsrock
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
look below for my newer comment
User avatar #27 to #1 - logicstrike
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
don't thumb him down there is actually a symbolic mathematical that suggests the existence of god it was covered on an episode of QI
#28 to #27 - clownsrock
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I was referring to the Simpsons not real life
User avatar #29 to #28 - logicstrike
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
but the funny thing is there actually is a mathematic proof for god it's called Gödel's ontological proof and it's ******* weird
#32 to #29 - clownsrock
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
ya I stay away from religion in general because most of it doesn't seem logical and I honestly don't care enofe to care
User avatar #34 to #32 - logicstrike
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
that is a wise religious stance
#25 to #1 - mrturferpop
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I don't know why this comment is thumbed down.
#26 to #25 - clownsrock
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
who knows
#4 to #1 - sudoku
Reply +68 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
May I ask how? If yes, how?
User avatar #6 to #4 - marcuss
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Its simpsons crying out loud. you feel comfortable that a flax tax proposal in comic is enough to prove it wrong . and i think it is quite simple how they proved it also true . maybe a buss ticket ? or saw him
#7 to #6 - sudoku
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You're flying off the handle. I just asked how have they proved it's existence. It has neither been proven, or diproven. I was told there was proof, and I was merely curious at to what it was.
User avatar #112 to #7 - oceanfrank
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Wasn't there a fact compilation that said, "In the simpsons God is the only person with 5 fingers on each hand?"
#19 to #7 - ExorArgus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
He has appeared a couple times and in fact in the only one in the simpsons world who has 10 fingers.
User avatar #10 to #7 - shunkahawolf
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
i think he appeared in an episode or something but it may have been a dream or a couch sequence.
User avatar #238 to #7 - JwBread
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I think he meant that is has been proven that he is real in the Simpson's world.
User avatar #121 to #4 - screamy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Pretty sure Homer met God in one of the episodes.
User avatar #55 to #4 - angelious
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
well-for instance homer went to heaven at one point.and talked to god.even trashed heaven.

he has actually met god on multiple occasion.
#264 to #4 - baditch
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I was actually reading up on this the other day. Evidently, (I'm only going off of the the things I've read so be advised) Scientists have been studying quantum physics for some time now.

A quantum Physicist named Robert Lanza proved, usuing his famous double-split experiment that time is not linear and thus, death cannot exist in any real sense, "proving" the existence of an afterlife.

It may seem farfetched, but wait, there's more.

Lanza's theory of biocentrism claims that life and the universe are interconnected and that life created the universe, not the other way around. He explains biocentrism with this analogy: The universe around us is only as we perceive it. We are told that the sky is blue when theoretically, our cells could be modified to cause the sky to appear green or red. Evidently, (Again, evidently) Lanza's experiments prove this and are generally becoming more accepted by the science community.

But it goes deeper.

Evidently, further experimentation has found that everything in the universe is made up of the same stuff. And I'm not talkijg about atoms either. The energy and matter is all consistent with itself in one way or another on the quantum level, implying that we are all from the same source. This is consistent with the Big Bang theory, the idea that everything is constantly expanding from one partical which was set into motion by some unknown external force. Quantum scientists agree that the chances of such an occurrence without an external influence are astronomically small if not impossible.

So there you go. I may not be the best person at explaining it but that's the condensed version as I understand it. If anyone's interested, I encourage you to check it out independently.

TL;DR Science proved the existence of God more or less.
Scientists are baffled and the religious community is all like "Told you so"
#294 to #264 - anon id: 880ce1cf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Your "therefore, God" arguments are not actually convincing, and your TL;DR is misleading. Some guy supposes biocentrism, sure, that's nice. They're supposedly becoming more accepted by the scientific community, but that's an unsupported assertion, and even if it weren't, that doesn't make it true.
Universe is made of the same elementary bits. That's great. Do we know what caused it? No. Does that mean that God did it? No. Can we know? Probably not. The existence of the universe is incredibly strange and maybe unlikely, but we can't know that for sure, either, since we're bound to this universe. Maybe universes are incredibly common and maybe they're not. Jumping to conclusions like "some exterior intelligent force probably did it!" is unwarranted.
User avatar #309 to #294 - RADDDDs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
As I see it:
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." -Mt 7:7
Search for God (but not by physical means) and you shall find Him. (just be careful not to stumble with the enemy impersonating Him)
User avatar #296 to #294 - baditch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Yea my explanation is pretty much ****. But damn, when I was reading it it seemed convincing, or at least interesting. That's why I encourage others to look more into it if they're interested.
User avatar #266 to #264 - baditch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I just realized we are talking about this particular episode of The Simpsons, not "we" referring to people in general.

My bad.

User avatar #33 to #4 - olmesy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Oh, I read about that once. He's not wrong. This mathematics dude once decided to show that anything can be proven correct through mathematical logic, so he proved god to be true

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof
User avatar #108 to #33 - vos
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Impressive, But the crux of the argument relies on a dubious assumption of all-encompassing positivity being 'necessarily existent,' to paraphrase a very complex exercise in logic.
#217 to #108 - boylan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I know some of these words
User avatar #223 to #33 - mathematics
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
are you talking about me?
User avatar #257 to #223 - olmesy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Bitch I might
#307 to #4 - RADDDDs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
AFAIK recent (not very known) scientific studies have agreed that there is some kind of "superior intelligence" which has handled the whole process of existence (or at least the big bang).
Also, same or similar (not well known) studies show that evolution is impossible without external "help", main reason:
1. mutation is usually "destructive"? and not helpful for the creature (therefore natural selection will kick it out)
2. (i'm unsure of this one) mutation is not hereditary? (or if it is, it's not beneficial) (I think the example for this was cutting the lab-rat's tail off, for 10 generations, but even so the offspring still had their tail)

This was an attempt in giving a different viewpoint (even though I'm not very into it). Don't ask about it, I stumbled upon that info (not only once).
Cheers.
Might not be important for you 1: I believe in God. 2: I'm not a christian, though I could be "classified" as one. 3: Real christians/believers are into relationship with God, not by religion and with rules 4: Those that come from God, are like Him or at least try to be (lack of love=not from Him)
#11 - theblackcrow
Reply +51 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I just believe in one god and saviour, oh great and merciful ************, we wholeheartedly rejoice in your blessing
#70 to #11 - deadmansdope
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #17 to #11 - manofbeardliness
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
May your coffee and adderall run plentiful.
User avatar #104 - daentraya
Reply +40 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I have to give the Simpsons credit for balancing out the ignorant religiousness of Flanders with Flanders being a good person. Kinda cancels each other out and prevents **********, as far as i can tell
#158 - anon id: c98df8d5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Anyone know a reliable place to watch the classic episodes?   
 I don't trust half the sites on Google.
Anyone know a reliable place to watch the classic episodes?
I don't trust half the sites on Google.
User avatar #272 to #158 - furiousmarshmellow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
#300 to #158 - bloodangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Project free tv
User avatar #256 to #158 - yaybacon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
It's the World Wide Web I dont know but I do have the source for your gif
#160 to #158 - testaburger
+35 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#163 to #160 - shadownigga
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
#171 to #163 - anon id: e7cf1b61
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Pirate Gulf?
User avatar #174 to #171 - shadownigga
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Technically, it's a bay.
#165 to #163 - testaburger
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#210 to #160 - anon id: 3a11c118
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
i-is it safe to use the bay of pirates without a proxy?
#214 to #210 - testaburger
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#316 to #214 - anon id: ae201c05
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
southern california
User avatar #128 - murrlogic
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
At least Ned acknowledged that Homer might be right but doesn't wanna ruin his day or the mood of his children
#267 - catchamp
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
**catchamp rolled a random image posted in comment #9 at Sky ** what the hell is with all the ponies?
I needed a random picture
User avatar #274 to #267 - linktheherooftime
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
**linktheherooftime rolls 72** check em'
User avatar #275 to #274 - linktheherooftime
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
**linktheherooftime rolls 2** divided by this
#277 to #275 - linktheherooftime
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
**linktheherooftime rolls 4** square root this
**linktheherooftime rolls 4** square root this
User avatar #278 to #277 - linktheherooftime
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Which equals 72 again.
User avatar #305 to #278 - keithspike
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
**keithspike rolls 43** loser....
User avatar #268 to #267 - catchamp
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
HOLY F HOW AM I THAT LUCKY IS THAT ROLL
#270 to #268 - xtiggerx
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
you cheated somehow
you cheated somehow
#269 to #267 - saltyfries
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
and it happens to be Simpsons... Well ****
#216 - xxTheJesterxx
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Can someone please cut out Homer's face from the 4th panel. I would but I'm too ******* lazy
Can someone please cut out Homer's face from the 4th panel. I would but I'm too ******* lazy
#312 to #216 - birthdaybrony
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Like this?
#315 to #312 - xxTheJesterxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/03/2014) [-]
Yes, thanks m8y
Yes, thanks m8y
#229 to #216 - testaburger
+12 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#233 to #229 - xxTheJesterxx
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I immediately regret my choice of words
#218 to #216 - hudis
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
#219 to #218 - xxTheJesterxx
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
You ************
You ************
#68 - toguro
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Any fans of QI answer this for me, didn't they feature an equation which does prove the existence of a God?   
   
gif unrelated
Any fans of QI answer this for me, didn't they feature an equation which does prove the existence of a God?

gif unrelated
User avatar #71 to #68 - theguythatisnotyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
I think that gif is appropriate.
User avatar #92 to #68 - CaptalnPlanet
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
IS THAT A ******* YELLOW GALLON OF MILK? WHY?
#169 to #92 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
It keeps light from getting in and... uh... removing the nutrients... or something. For real, that's the reason I heard,
User avatar #89 to #68 - noblexfenrir
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Don't know what QI is, but they most likely used Godel's theory, and to sum it up it basically says "If god can be conceptualized, he must exist". It doesn't prove anything.
#185 to #89 - brawndotheseadrago
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/02/2014) [-]
Qi is this sick British trivia show, where comedians come together and learn about the general ignorance of society, and all the facts most people are wrong about.
It's really Quite Interesting. That's the title