| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
LOL History - Famous author
- I'm 252 months old
- Like some people on-
- Why i love John Len-
- It all makes sense
- Women need to know
- Flower Mail
- trying to hook up w-
- Holocaust in a nuts-
- Macaroni being made
- Hippie.
- it all makes sense
- Flash
- 404 - content not f-
- To Addy -Anon
- I like Ducks
- 9000
- Personal Gatling Gun
- The ABC's of EA
#116 to #32
-
N. Korean citizen (05/08/2012) [-]
hahaha! thats the sad part about atheism, you guys think you're so much better and different than the morons that go around forcing beliefs down others throats, while blatantly acting in the exact same manner.
"We're not a religion" you say. Orly? Then why act like every other Jehovahs witness and fanatical christian nutjob out there.
"you don't believe in God? Let me tell you why you're an idiot who's gonna burn in hell" and "you believe in a God? Let me tell you what a blind dumbass you are"
What's the difference? No, don't answer, likely you're gonna list a whole load of scientific crap to make yourself feel smart. I don't want to hear another pointless "my beliefs vs yours" war.
Just wish you bloody morons would shut the hell up. And yes, my Jimmies are rustled.
"We're not a religion" you say. Orly? Then why act like every other Jehovahs witness and fanatical christian nutjob out there.
"you don't believe in God? Let me tell you why you're an idiot who's gonna burn in hell" and "you believe in a God? Let me tell you what a blind dumbass you are"
What's the difference? No, don't answer, likely you're gonna list a whole load of scientific crap to make yourself feel smart. I don't want to hear another pointless "my beliefs vs yours" war.
Just wish you bloody morons would shut the hell up. And yes, my Jimmies are rustled.
#126 to #123
-
N. Korean citizen (05/08/2012) [-]
yeeeesss... but tell me good sir, where does it end?
Lemme tell you something.
Since mankind started,
Theists have lived by faith, believing that there are higher beings out there beyond the comprehension and explanation of mankind, science and logic. This is why it's so hard to convince them otherwise by science alone.
Atheists have lived by sight, believing like you that everything has a logical or scientific explanation. This is why it's so hard to convince them otherwise through talk about spirituality and faith alone.
both just find the other completely close minded and impossible to relate to.
Seeing as both are likely to scorn and insult the other, while all the while being completely unable to relate to one another, isn't it better that everyone just shut the hell up?
Lemme tell you something.
Since mankind started,
Theists have lived by faith, believing that there are higher beings out there beyond the comprehension and explanation of mankind, science and logic. This is why it's so hard to convince them otherwise by science alone.
Atheists have lived by sight, believing like you that everything has a logical or scientific explanation. This is why it's so hard to convince them otherwise through talk about spirituality and faith alone.
both just find the other completely close minded and impossible to relate to.
Seeing as both are likely to scorn and insult the other, while all the while being completely unable to relate to one another, isn't it better that everyone just shut the hell up?
#121 to #73
-
captaincabinet **User deleted account** (05/08/2012) [-] But then again, to use the opposite end of the spectrum, you would have to prove a supernatural being absolutely doesn't exist.
A philosopher (whose name escapes me) once said "In order to prove that there is no God, one must first become God."
What he meant was that one must become omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent in order to be able to conclusively prove that God cannot be found in any place, yet in turn one becomes the god.
A philosopher (whose name escapes me) once said "In order to prove that there is no God, one must first become God."
What he meant was that one must become omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent in order to be able to conclusively prove that God cannot be found in any place, yet in turn one becomes the god.
#131 to #121
-
semisane (05/08/2012) [-] No, I don't have to prove a supernatural being doesn't exist.
I don't have to prove that unicorns don't exist, and I don't have to prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Why? Because the burden of proof is NOT on me. Anyone who says something exists has to prove it (see for example, an atom).
I don't have to prove that unicorns don't exist, and I don't have to prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Why? Because the burden of proof is NOT on me. Anyone who says something exists has to prove it (see for example, an atom).
#141 to #137
-
semisane (05/09/2012) [-] That's different, because it questions our ability to observe.
All of science is based on the assumption that we can observe the world around us.
If you're going to say "no we can't", you can't even attempt to understand anything, and ANYTHING could be considered true. It's a pointless way to look at reality.
All of science is based on the assumption that we can observe the world around us.
If you're going to say "no we can't", you can't even attempt to understand anything, and ANYTHING could be considered true. It's a pointless way to look at reality.
#144 to #141
-
N. Korean citizen (05/11/2012) [-]
You sir, have a very good grasp on scientific ideas. The reason we make this first assumption is because it's the best way we've found to improve our knowledge and understanding. The reason that is good is because that's the best way we've found to improve the quality of life.
#132 to #120
-
semisane (05/08/2012) [-] Anon isn't going to read this, but for other people:
The fact that both people claim they are right does not make them both right.
If you claim something and have no proof for it, you are NOT right. It doesn't matter how much you argue or how many of you there are, claiming something exists with no evidence is just not right.
The fact that both people claim they are right does not make them both right.
If you claim something and have no proof for it, you are NOT right. It doesn't matter how much you argue or how many of you there are, claiming something exists with no evidence is just not right.
