Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - anonymous (10/25/2013) [-]
User avatar #172 to #1 - warioteam (10/26/2013) [-]
Um, like just trying to put something out there, there are trillions upon trillions of galaxies, and just by sheer chance/percentage its practically impossible for us NOT to exist.
Who the **** made this?
Like, not trying to say Christians are bad, but who ever made this seems like an asshole.
#108 to #1 - SunilCCXXXVII **User deleted account** (10/26/2013) [-]
Not to join the religion wars here but I noticed this;

"something cannot be created by nothing"

So in this content it says the universe must have been created by "god", as something must be created by something.


So who created god?
#80 to #1 - anonymous (10/26/2013) [-]
User avatar #63 to #1 - guanyu (10/26/2013) [-]
Wow, even while mocking atheists, you managed to just tiptoe around a difficult question; Where did God come from?
#62 to #1 - mayormilkman (10/26/2013) [-]
>66 thumbs down
What is this?
User avatar #168 to #62 - yetiyitties (10/26/2013) [-]
Don't sit there and say that 4chan trolls are all handsome get the **** out of here 4chan is full of incest loving autistic neckbeards. Reddit is full of people who jump on the next bandwagon meme and to make a new "meme" they say "CAN THIS BE A THING NOW?" they're both cringeworthy as **** .
#67 to #62 - nefarian ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
4chan 'trolls' are about as immature as general Twitch Dota/League chat
#68 to #67 - mayormilkman (10/26/2013) [-]
But Quentin is very mature.
User avatar #61 to #1 - eddio (10/25/2013) [-]
I'm a Christian and I think you're a ******* moron.

Though I have my beliefs, im not stupid enough to discount science in any way. Next to that, there are a plethora of Christian scientists that have made invaluable contributions to science in its entirety. Your argument is flawed in that it leaves out so many details about the big bang that make it plausible.

This argument goes both ways too, I ******* hate militant morons on either side.
User avatar #51 to #1 - strelokkk (10/25/2013) [-]
To the guys who thumb this down ; I'm pretty sure (at least, I hope...) that this picture has been made in a sarcastic way in order to mock the religious people's point of view.
User avatar #43 to #1 - ompalomper (10/25/2013) [-]
the beliefe that we exist due to anything other then coincidence is folly and a desperate attempt to find meaning in the wast void that is the universe. we exist because we exist, nothing more, nothing less.
#41 to #1 - imofcnotharveydent (10/25/2013) [-]
look at that guy, now look back at me  IF you have to comment, then you have been trolled    
   
 So have some funny in all this junk
look at that guy, now look back at me IF you have to comment, then you have been trolled

So have some funny in all this junk
0
#40 to #1 - kanadetenshi has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #38 to #1 - mostlyshits ONLINE (10/25/2013) [-]
"Something can not be created by nothing"
Where did god come from?
He was always there yet the universe couldn't be?
Sound logic

User avatar #30 to #1 - sockswithsandals (10/25/2013) [-]
atheism isn't a religion
User avatar #34 to #30 - amegaara (10/25/2013) [-]
some people make it so...
User avatar #35 to #34 - sockswithsandals (10/25/2013) [-]
those are called idiots, my friend
User avatar #66 to #26 - guanyu (10/26/2013) [-]
This is the best thing ever.
User avatar #187 to #66 - tmgrskat (10/26/2013) [-]
His ******* face is glorious.
User avatar #25 to #1 - rainbowhead (10/25/2013) [-]
Those are ideas of deism in general though.
#24 to #1 - anonymous (10/25/2013) [-]
User avatar #21 to #1 - adu (10/25/2013) [-]
Both sides are strawmanned in this argument. I can only assume this was made to subtly make Christians look bad.
User avatar #20 to #1 - godtherapist ONLINE (10/25/2013) [-]
You are stupid for this many reasons:

1. No where in the big bang does it stipulate that there was an explosion. It was a rapid expansion.

2. No where in the big bang does it stipulate that there was nothing before the rapid expansion.

3. Matter and energy are the same thing. All of matter didn't get created "out of nothing" but rather formed from the energy that was already there.

4. "The universe did not create itself" is a claim. A claim that has not been proven.

5. You are arguing from a claim instead of giving up a falsifiable hypothesis.

6. Atheism is just as much of a religion as NOT skiing is a hobby.

7. Life and the origin of the universe are two totally different things.

8. There does not have to be a purpose to everything. As much as you want there to be the universe needs no "mystery" to exist. It is already explained through the laws that define our reality.

9. We are not separate from animals.

10. Humans have superior cognitive abilities because it is how we survived as a species. It is equal to a Stag's horns or a walrus' fat sacks (Speaking of fat, that is what our brains are made out of).

11. Atheists don't care about you preaching a bible, they care about you trying to shame and condemn them.

12. Atheism is not based on science.
User avatar #84 to #20 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
1. A rapid expansion is an explosion twat.

2. Where did all that **** come from?

3. Where did that **** come from?

4. "God is not real" is a claim, a claim that has not been proven

5. You are arguing a claim instead of giving up a falsifiable hypothesis

6. Atheism has all the parts of religion that people mock it is a belief system that people have certainty in that isn't/can't be proven and drives people to do asinine and often evil things and just lacks the mythology most religions use to teach morality

7. No one said they weren't

8. What if one of those "laws that define our reality" is the existence of a God.

9. No one said we were. Unless you consider the huge gap in intelligence and ability to improve the quality of life for further generations, then we're mentionably separate.

10. Our advantage is noticeably better than horns or fat. Why are we the only ones with it?

11. Christians don't care about you not believing in God, they care about you trying to shame and condemn them.

12. Religion is not based on mythology.

I figured when I stated this I'd just skip any where you have a point, but you ******* don't. Not that I believe in God, but I ******* hate people who think atheism is somehow more "logical" or "better" than religion. In every relevant way atheism is the same as religion. It's less like "not skiing" is a hobby and more like "not liking to ski" is an opinion on the best way to ski.
#93 to #84 - anonymous (10/26/2013) [-]
I got cut off.
7. He denied that we originated from the big bang.
8. They don't, there is no reason for them too.
9. He likely mentioned that because most religion argue that we are completely different. Namely in the soul area.
10. Evolution, and the fact that past a certain point DNA isn't compatible enough for reproduction.
11. Nay, they care about us believing in their god. Many atheists were exiled or killed because of their disbelief of god.
12. You said that it was.
User avatar #107 to #93 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
7. You're twisting this pretty bad. He denied the big bang (which is stupid, no reasonable christian at least would deny the big bang, just claim it was done by God, im less informed for other religions) without which human life never could have been created. So in this instance the origin of matter and the origin of life are not two different things, since the latter relies completely on the former.

8. You can't prove that, there's no reason for them not to. It takes as much faith to deny God as to believe in him.

9. Most religions don't argue that, the one's that do just tend to be more vocal.

10. Then why are there so many animals with horns and teeth and claws?

11. And many believers in religion were exiled or killed because of their belief in God. Numerically more religious people were killed than atheists, but that's because the atheist backed genocides have been more recent.

12. No I said mythology is part of religion, it's not based on it. Kind of how atheism isn't based on science even though it's based on the idea that scientifically speaking God is unlikely. See, totally not based on science, atheists are so superior for their logic and objectivity. Yup.
#159 to #107 - frazn ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
10. Human beings also have teeth and claws/nails. The reason why we have superior cognitive abilities is because the pre-historic humans that were more clever were more likely to live and thus to reproduce, while also having a nice balance of physically threatening traits (overall good cardio, sharp teeth and nails, etc.)   
   
The reason why other animals did not do this is because there was no reason. They survived and thrived with what they had. in many cases, this was physical attributes, but no in every case. There are plenty of intelligent animals. Ravens, for example, are extremely clever. The reason why they have not become as clever as us is probably because of the social aspect of things. We use our brains to interact with each other on a very complex level(so that trait was expanded upon through evolution) , while animals (In most cases) interact in much simpler levels.
10. Human beings also have teeth and claws/nails. The reason why we have superior cognitive abilities is because the pre-historic humans that were more clever were more likely to live and thus to reproduce, while also having a nice balance of physically threatening traits (overall good cardio, sharp teeth and nails, etc.)

The reason why other animals did not do this is because there was no reason. They survived and thrived with what they had. in many cases, this was physical attributes, but no in every case. There are plenty of intelligent animals. Ravens, for example, are extremely clever. The reason why they have not become as clever as us is probably because of the social aspect of things. We use our brains to interact with each other on a very complex level(so that trait was expanded upon through evolution) , while animals (In most cases) interact in much simpler levels.
#89 to #84 - anonymous (10/26/2013) [-]
1. A rapid expansion is not an explosion, it is an expansion. Duh.
2. There are theories abound, none of them involve a god.
3. Same question as the previous one
4. It is a counterclaim to the claim that a god is real. Atheists have the upper ground here because the reason the claim that god exists cannot be disproved is because it's supposedly an omnipotent being that can control us entirely, and cannot be found. That is not a testable hypothesis. The only way you can prove that your god exists is for it to come out and make it's presence painfully obvious, which it won't do.
5. We're arguing a counterclaim, because we cannot form a hypothesis for an experiment for your claim. Your claim is impossible to disprove, due to its very nature.
6. No, it doesn't. Mythology was a bad word to use, you should look up the 'myth'. From all evidence, most of your mythology is used to teach you to fear a nonexistent god, and to be moral so you aren't thrown in hell.
User avatar #103 to #89 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
1. I think it's safe to say this rapid expansion could be considered violent, so therefore it is, in fact, an explosion.

2. None of them involve a God? What about the whole "God created the universe" theory? I've heard that one once or twice...

3. Yup.

4. So what you're saying is that "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both claims that cannot be proven?

5. So what you're saying is that you've put forth a claim that you cannot prove only suggest?

6. Being raised as a Roman Catholic, most of the myth I was presented with basically boiled down to "Behave morally or bad **** will happen, btw this is what behavior is moral and why". You should probably look up the 'myth'.

Unless "do good or be punished" doesn't qualify as teaching morality, in which case u wot m8?
User avatar #112 to #103 - hermaeousmora ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
1 - The rapid expansion was not an explosion. To make a real world analogy, find a balloon. Draw some dots on said balloon. Now blow air into the balloon. The rubber that has now stretched has forced the dots further away from each other, but it was not an explosion. In the big bang theory, the dots are energy and matter, and the Balloon is Space.
2/3 - You confuse Theory with Hypothesis. A Hypothesis says "What if...", a Theory says "Here is what we have found through experiments, from it, we can deduce..."
4/5 - Go look up the 'Burden of Proof'. In all things scientific, legal, and philosophical, the person who claims a positive must provide the proof, because it is impossible to prove a negative.
6 - Raised as a protestant christian, I was taught that God created everything, and if you're good and you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour, you get gumdrops and lollypops after you die. If you're bad, or don't accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour, you get tortured beyond mortal imagining. I was also taught that I should tell other people about this, because then I could save them from the punishment beyond reckoning. I was taught that the world was created in 7 days, and that god loves you, but will only save you from torture that he set into motion if you believe in him. That is the Mythology. You tell me if that's moral.
User avatar #115 to #112 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
1. Except there was no wall of a ballon to hold the air in. It's more like if you super-condensed some matter of any sort, like air in a can of condensed air, then released the walls holding it in.

2/3 So what you're saying is there is no theory for the creation of matter? (ie the **** before the big bang)

3/4 There are a lot of(like 4 billion) people out there who consider there to be adequate proof of God, at this point you're just raising unreasonable doubt

6 I'm not a big fan of any religion that tells you force itself on other people, but the point is it's teaching you a morality, no matter how questionable that morality is.
User avatar #122 to #115 - hermaeousmora ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
1 - The wall of the balloon is Space itself. That's where the expansion comes in. SPACE Stretched, that's expansion. The Big Bang is really a horrendous name too, because it's really the Everywhere Stretch.

2/3 - There are numerous hypotheses, and some theories that have been formulated based on the evidence we do have. Some think that the Universe had no 'beginning' and is simply a continual state of expansion and contraction. There's also M-Theory, or Membrane Theory which is... confusing, but does have an idea of where energy may have come from.
4/5 - But the thing is, none of that is ACTUAL proof. It's all anecdotal evidence, which has been repeatedly shown in studies and court cases, to be unreliable. It's not unreasonable doubt to say "You've proposed something that cannot be proven, therefore, the position I'm taking is that it doesn't exist... unless you have proof?"
6 - I'm not a big fan of religion period. I'm an Atheist now. I do acknowledge that Religion can have a good moral code, but why do you need Religion to teach that code? Why can't you simply explain to the young children that pain hurts, so don't inflict it.

Really, the thing that separates Science's theories and Hypotheses from Religion, is the fact that Scientists are CONSTANTLY revising theories based on new evidence. When something is shown to be false, it's discarded because it's wrong, and we move on to something more plausible. If something cannot be proven, it remains in a state of Hypothesis, it can't be accepted as fact but is acknowledged as a possibility.
I don't believe in a deity of any kind, but if I'm not claiming that I'm 100% right, I could be wrong.
User avatar #127 to #122 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
Space isn't an object, it's emptiness, hence the name. When Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells you "space is expanding" he means the general outline of where matter is is expanding, not the void expanding into the nothingness surrounding it.

But those aren't theories any more than "God did it" is a theory. So if "God did it" isn't a theory than those aren't.

No, but it is unreasonable to say "You've proposed something that doesn't have proof therefore the position I take is that you cannot take the position of your proposal...unless you have proof"

Because some people are too selfish for that. The only way you can get them to think about other people is by telling them that thinking about other people benefits them.


I agree with that, but the thing I like about religion a subject which i'm very on the fence about, I just hate anyone who thinks one answer is inherently better than the other is that when you get to the inevitable ends of scientific response, the last part in a series of answers, God is there to be the meta-super-reality breaking be-all end-all. Because in the creation of the universe eventually something had to be created from nothing and any being or phenomenon that can create something out of nothing qualifies as God to me.
User avatar #134 to #127 - hermaeousmora ONLINE (10/26/2013) [-]
No, space really is expanding like the surface of a balloon. Go look up 'Dark Energy'. Space is a property of our universe as much as gravity is.

There are dozens of them Traelos. I'm not well versed enough in them to give you a detailed description off the top of my head, but there are plenty of youtube videos on the subject. SOME of them are theories because they are supported by evidence. Some are simply hypotheses like 'God did it' is a Hypothesis. However, most of those hypotheses are based on already proven science.

I'm glad we agree on that. And not necessarily. Like I said, some of the theories have alternate explanations that would in fact mean that god didn't have to exist. And there's also the possibility that time, space, universes, all of those, ALWAYS existed, and always will. They could be eternal constants that were never created, didn't have a beginning, and will have no end. That concept often makes people recoil saying 'But it had to have a beginning!'... but what if it didn't? What if the universe is a cycle of infinitely recurring expansion and contraction that had no beginning? It's a concept that humans find hard to wrap our heads around, but it's possible, just like god is possible.

I'd also like to thank you for being mature in this discussion. I'm thumbing you up because I'm honestly quite enjoying having an intelligent conversation with you.
User avatar #82 to #20 - psykojet (10/26/2013) [-]
2. Forever universe Theory or something like that. The universe always was and always will be, and with or without the Big Bang and Big Crunch happen(ed) are just a way that effects the current state if the universe.

3. But where did that energy come from? And yes, that is sarcasm. We don't know where it came from or why, but it did.

4. The origins of the Universe will always be a theory unless we meet which ever God/gods created the universe, or if there is even an afterlife.

5. Isn't a Claim and a Hypothesis interchangeable?

6. So can I go around pointing out things that are anti-Sking? Because it seems like that is what happens.

7. True.

8. Arguable. On Earth it is at least. And for proof of that read The Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury. As for universe. "Why was it created?" I don't know, and I doubt there is a reason. But you have to make the most of it for now.

10. Evolution. We have to adapt to our environment no matter how. Through wit or strength.

11. I have meet some on both ends of this spectrum. The former (care about preaching) were complete assholes. The latter (didn't care) were very kind and had some of the greatest minds I know of.

12. Some argue this, but these are assholes who who Atheism as their scapegoat and don't actually care about religion or any activism.
#76 to #20 - ryuryu (10/26/2013) [-]
"Atheism is as much of a religion is abstinence is a sex position."
-Richard Dawkins
If I remember correctly.
User avatar #75 to #20 - rhiaanor (10/26/2013) [-]
don't forget the biggest flaw with "something cannot be created from nothing" is if that is the case where is god from then
#18 to #1 - KungFuZerO (10/25/2013) [-]
This was the funniest thing Ive seen all day. Thanks JB fan.
#11 to #1 - bobbysnobby (10/25/2013) [-]
We take it back a step. Why does the universe need a cause, but god does not?
#4 to #1 - anonymous (10/25/2013) [-]
I find it really funny the Christian in this is making way more logical fallacies than the atheist.
User avatar #79 to #4 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
If God isn't real than where does all the pre big bang matter come from?

Admittedly that picture does a **** job of saying it but basically atheism requires as much faith as religion.
User avatar #135 to #79 - sirwolfcat (10/26/2013) [-]
Before the big bang, all matter, and possibly even the universe, was condensed into a singularity. Now, this is the whole universe, so anything outside of this is not our universe, and thus, does not have to follow the logic and laws of this universe. So, since the laws of this outside area is unknown, so it is reasonable to consider that perhaps, matter can be created from this emptiness; perhaps even, a whole universe, condensed into a singularity.

Just something I have been thinking about lately as one of many possible origins of this universe.
#83 to #79 - anonymous (10/26/2013) [-]
The matter came from a singularity, a point that is infinitely dense, like a black hole
User avatar #85 to #83 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
Where did that come from?
#111 to #85 - sonoriti (10/26/2013) [-]
Where would a god come from, then? I don't understand your reasoning.
Where would a god come from, then? I don't understand your reasoning.
User avatar #119 to #111 - traelos (10/26/2013) [-]
My reasoning is that thinking atheism is the answer but religion is ridiculous is stupid and arrogant.

Because they all fall prey to the same failures and questions.
#156 to #119 - ennemi (10/26/2013) [-]
hmmm, theoretically speaking you can have matter and negative matter emerge from nothing, because they are in equilibrium.

Also energy can emerge from nothing (and does everywhere in the universe) IF the lifetime of this energy is extremely small.
#128 to #119 - lamarisagoodname (10/26/2013) [-]
He's right you know, the way people stick with their science books undoubtedly isn't that far off from sticking to the word of the bible etc. Science is love and life but it only provides more questions, not answers
User avatar #142 to #128 - sirwolfcat (10/26/2013) [-]
The main problem with using the bible as a source is the fact that none of what it says testable, so you'd have to take their word for it, which isn't the most reliable way of gaining information. With a physics textbook, most, if not all, of the material is testable is repeatable. So a history book is much more like the bible than a physics book would be. However, it is wise to not to believe just any information a book tells you, nor to immediately disregard it.
User avatar #174 to #142 - lamarisagoodname (10/26/2013) [-]
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's true (I'm muslim myself) and the contradictions in the bible disprove it's divinity from a philosophical standpoint (someone or something capable of making the universe, stars, galaxies, quasars and humans would know well enough not to base a set of rules entirely on faith and human interpretation) but there are a lot of similarities between explaining something through science and the other through religion
User avatar #173 to #142 - lamarisagoodname (10/26/2013) [-]
Some things are in fact relatable. If you follow the personal limitations and respect others around you as is prescribed in the bible would you not in fact (in your view) be a better person?

We have laws and we don't need a holy book to tell us how to not be a dick of course but it's not all dismissable.
User avatar #176 to #173 - sirwolfcat (10/26/2013) [-]
I understand what you're saying in terms of how reliable religious text can be in explaining something, but what you described is more about morality and social norms than understanding the origins and workings of our universe.
User avatar #179 to #176 - lamarisagoodname (10/26/2013) [-]
I'm using social norms and morality because we can now see and explain it using science and philosophy. At one point we will be able to explain everything with science but the time has not come. For example, there are scriptures in the Qur'an that reference layers in the ocean, each with their own waves not corresponding to the others above or below it, and these were brought down 1400 years ago with people not understanding a word of what it meant. NOW with oceanography and other related research, we can prove that this scripture was in fact correct, and perhaps 1400 years from today people will be able to prove all the scriptures end to end.

What I'm trying to say is that just because we can't prove it now doesn't mean it never happened. You can't dismiss religious theories to the origin of the world because they're "wierd or unlikely" because as we've encountered all throughout our scientific advances as humanity, the universe is extremely unpredictable
User avatar #181 to #179 - sirwolfcat (10/26/2013) [-]
Well that falls in line with my original statement of not immediately disregarding any ideas or hypothesis, no matter the source.

And morality is perhaps an example you shouldn't have used when comparing the similarities of scientific and religious thought because science can't directly answer any moral questions, while religion can.
User avatar #182 to #181 - lamarisagoodname (10/26/2013) [-]
Well I said philosophy not science but you do have a point and you're very correct, you can't prove or disprove religion... yet

And that "yet" is the reason why I went on that (unfortunately) irrelevant rant
#123 to #119 - sonoriti (10/26/2013) [-]
Mmm, don't worry. I'm not on either side of this. I respect everyone's opinions unless they're plain wrong in facts or they're being massive dicks about it. Carry on.
Mmm, don't worry. I'm not on either side of this. I respect everyone's opinions unless they're plain wrong in facts or they're being massive dicks about it. Carry on.
#117 to #111 - rdnyan (10/26/2013) [-]
Don't worry, he's just a flaming christian.
Don't worry, he's just a flaming christian.
User avatar #192 to #117 - mayormilkman (10/27/2013) [-]
He said explicitly otherwise above.
User avatar #45 to #4 - admiralen (10/25/2013) [-]
you mean ozymandias?
0
#44 to #4 - admiralen has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)