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

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#166 - sposadox ONLINE (11/17/2012) [-]
I used to think Chuck Norris was awesome and the jokes were funny, but then two things happened.

1) I grew up
2) Most importantly, I found out that Chuck Norris is a raging homophobe, religious zealot, and an all-around total idiot.
#201 to #166 - Duststorm (11/18/2012) [-]
I used to think Chuck Norris was awesome and the jokes were funny, but then one thing happened-

I watched Breaker, Breaker.
#177 to #166 - cabbagemayhem (11/17/2012) [-]
I'll go with that, if by homophobe you mean Chuck Norris tells people they are fags, and by religious zealot you mean Chuck Norris makes people pray to their God, and by "all-around total idiot", you mean "Chuck Norris had sex with my mom"
User avatar #175 to #166 - tubbyjones (11/17/2012) [-]
Walker, from walker texas ranger is the badass. His movie characters are badass. He is a black belt but other than that yes, he is quite a zealot.
#167 to #166 - pandadiablo (11/17/2012) [-]
Respect, good sir.   
   
thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/139604/chuck_norris_seems_to_think   
   
^ That is the article if you gentlemen wish to read it.
Respect, good sir.

thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/139604/chuck_norris_seems_to_think

^ That is the article if you gentlemen wish to read it.
User avatar #152 - guenane (11/17/2012) [-]
WARNING ! WARNING ! BIGGEST ********* EVER MADE ! DON'T SCROLL DOWN OR YOUR MIND WILL BLOW !!!
#150 - longboarding (11/17/2012) [-]
...And that's how the epic of Gilgamesh happened children!
User avatar #161 to #150 - dtox (11/17/2012) [-]
It's so hard to come by people who actually know that story....
0
#136 - jalthelas has deleted their comment [-]
-1
#121 - cerealisticbeing **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#112 - sweatyasains (11/17/2012) [-]
its a repost
#111 - zumzizeroo (11/17/2012) [-]
What if in the future, people think that comic book heroes are our gods. they will inevitably find idols (action figures), records of festivals in honor of these gods (comicon etc), and various myths and legends that were ubiquitous in our ancient times (comic books and movies).
User avatar #98 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
I think God can be scientifically proven. (Not the Bible, God)
Only if you want me, I'll start posting information.
#171 to #98 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
<--When I comment funny stuff. (Enlarge)
#172 to #171 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
<---When I post science stuff. (Enlarge)

User avatar #183 to #172 - theswagmobile (11/17/2012) [-]
This community that worships science like a god is a bit gilded. I am sorry for such wasted efforts.
User avatar #163 to #98 - pokemonstheshiz (11/17/2012) [-]
God is metaphysical, the metaphysical cannot be proven.
User avatar #153 to #98 - theswagmobile (11/17/2012) [-]
Thomas Aquinas went about using logical reasoning to prove the existence of God, believing religion is still compatible with science, if that helps any.
User avatar #155 to #153 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
Yes, it helps. What did he accomplish?
User avatar #157 to #155 - theswagmobile (11/17/2012) [-]
Look up his 5 proofs, which conclude the existence and nature of God. I can't really remember the specifics myself, but I remember some like the Prima Causa on how all chain-reactions were started by the first mover, or God.
User avatar #174 to #157 - roninneko (11/17/2012) [-]
All 5 theses have been defeated.

(1) The First Movement: defeated by the fact that God would need a creator as well, because otherwise He would be self-creating, which is an arbitrary and baseless assumption.

(2) The First Cause: see (1), and replace "create" with "cause".

(3) Contingency: defeated by the fact that God is simply thrown in as a "being without contingency" to allow for the universe to be formed.

(4) Degree: defeated by the fact that the logic of "God is perfect, and therefore must not be imaginary or would be less than perfect" cannot be applied to a concrete example, and so is not valid.

(5) Design: defeated by evolution, chemistry, and physics that demonstrate that design is not necessary for something to operate in a certain way.

Granted, Aquinas had no knowledge of the natural sciences of today; however, these "Proofs" are widely regarded as defeated and irrelevant.
User avatar #179 to #174 - theswagmobile (11/17/2012) [-]
I wouldn't say defeated but more so contested. Of course, there are flaws in the argument but this really whittles down to the person's own philosophy and depends on that which they already hold true. I personally think it still has a lot of potential.
User avatar #184 to #179 - roninneko (11/17/2012) [-]
Not particularly. What potential are we talking about?

The first three are all defeated by the fact that God is arbitrarily gifted with exceptions to their rules, and are therefore not logically sound.

The fourth rule is defeated by the fact that it cannot be applied anywhere else in the universe (e.g. a "perfect unicorn"), and so is not logically valid.

The fifth rule is defeated by the fact that it makes an uninformed assumption about the nature of the universe that has since been proven to be incorrect, and so is also not logically valid.
User avatar #185 to #184 - theswagmobile (11/17/2012) [-]
I'm not looking for an argument or anything, so I'm just going to stop right here.
#186 to #185 - roninneko (11/17/2012) [-]
But arguments are fun, and people get to learn 						****					!
But arguments are fun, and people get to learn **** !
User avatar #188 to #186 - theswagmobile (11/17/2012) [-]
Tis' true, but this is on a topic I know little about and I just really came to drop a suggestion.
#160 to #157 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
Thank you.
Thank you.
User avatar #138 to #98 - anssi (11/17/2012) [-]
God has not been scientifically proven. That's not a matter of an opinion, it's just a fact.
User avatar #103 to #98 - lovepain (11/17/2012) [-]
post info im interested

bump
User avatar #109 to #103 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
"For those two scenarios, yes; I am talking about a few
orders of magnitude. You wish a better example? Very well.
Stars, of course, must strike a balance between the
gravitational force of their own mass, which tries to make
them collapse, and the electromagnetic force of their own
outpouring of light and heat. There is only a narrow range of
values in which these forces are in sufficient equilibrium to
allow a star to exist. At one extreme blue giants are
produced, and at the other red dwarfs form—neither of
which are conducive to the origin of life. Fortunately, almost
all stars fall in between those two types—specifically
because of an apparent numerical coincidence in the
values of the fundamental constants in nature. If, for
instance, the strength of gravity were different by one part in
—give me a second; I must convert to your decimal system
—by one part in 1040, this numerical coincidence would be
disrupted, and every star in the universe would be either a
blue giant or a red dwarf; no yellow suns would exist to
shine down on Earthlike worlds."

This is being said by an alien. It's a science fiction novel, I ain't gotta explain **** .
User avatar #108 to #103 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
This is taken form Robert J. Sawyer's novel "Calculating God".

"Your science knows of four fundamental forces; there
are actually five, but you have not yet discovered the fifth.
The four forces you know about are gravitation,
electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong
nuclear force; the fifth force is a repulsive one that operates
over extremely long distances. The strengths of these
forces have wildly varying values, and yet if the values were
even slightly different from their current ones, the universe
as we know it would not exist, and life could never have
formed. Take gravity as an example: were it only somewhat
stronger, the universe would have long since collapsed. If it
were somewhat weaker, stars and planets never could
have coalesced."
#119 to #108 - CIS White Male (11/17/2012) [-]
I read that book, it was pretty cool.
User avatar #115 to #108 - mechaemperor (11/17/2012) [-]
Sawyer is a novelist... not an astrophysicist.
He makes some good points, but he's lacking in the scientific literature.
User avatar #151 to #115 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
Yet I have seen scientific facts about our universe that make me think "are we really THAT lucky?". I'm posting these from the novel because it's what i'm reading at the moment (I started yesterday, I didn't even finish the book yet). And I don't wan't to do much research just to "prove" (if that word can be said) the existance of a Creator over the Internet.
I know people will defend their ideas and beliefs with all they've got, and that's what I love the most about human kind.
Sorry for loosing everyone's time.
User avatar #118 to #115 - mechaemperor (11/17/2012) [-]
Then again, neither am I. I'd still need to research in order to debate those quotes. But that quote is not very convincing.
User avatar #114 to #108 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Really? Just one part in ten to the fortieth?”

“Yes. Likewise the value of the strong nuclear force,
which holds the nucleuses of atoms together even though
the positively charged protons try to repel each other: if that
force were only slightly weaker than it actually is, atoms
would never form—the repulsion of protons would keep
them from doing so. And if it were only slightly stronger than
it actually is, the only atom that could exist would be
hydrogen. Either way, we would have a universe devoid of
stars and life and planets.”

I ****** up the order of the comments, sorry.
User avatar #117 to #114 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“How do you know that these aren’t the only values
those constants could possibly have?” I said. “Maybe they
are simply that way because they couldn’t possibly be
anything else.”

The alien’s round torso bobbed. “An interesting
conjecture. But our physicists have proved that other values
are indeed theoretically possible. And the odds of the
current values arising by chance are one in the number six
followed by so many zeros that if you could engrave a zero
on each neutron and proton in the entire universe, you could
still not write out the number in full.”
User avatar #120 to #117 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Maybe all the possible values
for those constants do exist,” I said, “but in different
universes. Maybe there are a limitless number of parallel
universes, all of which are devoid of life because their
physical parameters don’t allow it. If that’s the case, there’s
nothing remarkable about us being in this universe, given
that it’s the only one out of all the possible universes that we
could be in.”
User avatar #123 to #120 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“I see,” continued the alien, “the source of your
misunderstanding. In the past, the scientists of my world
were mostly atheists or agnostics. We have long known of
the apparently finely tuned forces that govern our universe; I
form the impression that you were already somewhat
familiar with them yourself. And that same argument—that
there are perhaps an infinite number of universes,
manifesting continuums of alternative values for the
fundamental constants—was what allowed previous
generations of Forhilnor scientists to dismiss the notion of
a creator. As you say, if all the possible values exist
somewhere, there is nothing noteworthy about the
existence of one universe governed by the particular set of
values that happens to make life possible."
User avatar #127 to #123 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“But it turns out that there are no long-term parallel
universes existing simultaneously with this one; there
cannot be. The physicists of my world have attained what
those of yours presumably currently seek: a grand unified
theory, a theory of everything. I could find little on human
beliefs about cosmology in your television and radio, but if
you hold the belief you just stated, I will guess that your
cosmologists are currently at the stage where they consider
a hot, inflationary big-bang model to be the most likely
scenario for the origin of the universe. Is that correct?”
User avatar #128 to #127 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Yes,” I said.
Hollus bobbed. “Forhilnor physicists cherished the
same belief—many reputations depended on it—until the
fifth interaction, the fifth fundamental force, was discovered;
its discovery was related to the energy-production
breakthrough that allows us to accelerate ships to within a
tiny fraction of lightspeed, despite the relativistic fact that
their masses increase enormously as we approach that
speed.”
“The hot, inflationary big-bang model requires a flat
universe—one that is neither open nor closed, one that will
essentially last an infinite amount of time; it does, however,
allow for parallel universes. But accommodating the fifth
force required modification of that theory in order to
preserve symmetry; from that modification came the
coherent, grand unified theory, a quantum theory that
embraces all forces including gravity. That grand unified
theory has three important provisions."
User avatar #129 to #128 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“First, that this universe is not flat, but rather that it is
closed: it did indeed start with a big bang and will expand
for billions of years more—but it will eventually collapse
back down to a singularity in a big crunch.
“Second, that this current cycle of creation follows no
more than eight previous big-bang/big-crunch oscillations
—we are not one in an infinitely long string of universes but,
rather, are one of the very few that have ever existed.”
“Really?” I said. I was used to cosmology presenting
me with infinities or with values that were precisely one.
Eight seemed an unusual number, and I said so.
User avatar #130 to #129 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“And the third provision
of the grand unified theory is this: no parallel universes exist
simultaneously with ours or any of the previous or
subsequent ones, save virtually identical universes with
exactly the same physical constants that split briefly from
the current one then almost immediately reintegrate with it,
thus accounting for certain quantum phenomenons."
User avatar #131 to #130 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Even if maybe, perhaps, the four—excuse me, the five
—fundamental forces have seemingly wildly improbable
values,” I said, “that still is only five separate coincidences,
and, although granted it is hugely unlikely, five coincidences
could indeed occur by random chance in just nine
iterations.”
Hollus bobbed. “You have intriguing tenacity,” he said.
“But it is not just the five forces that have seemingly
designed values; many other aspects of the way the
universe works appear likewise to have been minutely
adjusted.”
User avatar #132 to #131 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“For instance?”
“You and I are made up of heavy elements: carbon,
oxygen, nitrogen, potassium, iron, and so on. Practically the
only elements that existed when the universe was born
were hydrogen and helium, in a roughly three-to-one ratio.
But in the nuclear furnaces of stars, hydrogen is fused into
heavier elements, producing carbon, oxygen, and so on up
the periodic table. All of the heavy elements that make up
our bodies were forged in the cores of long-dead stars.”
“I know. ‘We are all star-stuff,’ as Carl Sagan used to
say.”
User avatar #133 to #132 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Precisely. Indeed, scientists from your world and mine
refer to us as carbon-based lifeforms. But the fact that
carbon is produced by stars depends critically on the
resonance states of the carbon nucleus. To produce
carbon, two helium nucleuses must stick together until they
are struck by a third such nucleus—three helium nucleuses
provide six neutrons and six protons, the recipe for carbon.
But if the resonance level of carbon were only four percent
lower, such intermediate pair-bonding could not occur, and
no carbon would be produced, making organic chemistry
impossible.” He paused. “But just producing carbon, and
other heavy elements, is not enough, of course. Those
heavy elements are here on Earth because some fraction
of stars—what is the word? When a large star explodes?”
User avatar #134 to #133 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Supernova,” I said.
“Yes. Those heavy elements are here because some
fraction of stars become supernovas, spewing their fusion
products into interstellar space.”
“And you’re saying that the fact that stars do go
supernova is something that also must have been designed
by a god?”
“It is not as simplistic as that.” A pause. “Do you know
what would happen to Earth if a nearby star became a
supernova?”
“If it were close enough, I suppose we’d be fried.” In the
1970s, Dale Russell had favored a nearby supernova
explosion as the cause of the extinctions at the end of the
Cretaceous.
User avatar #135 to #134 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Exactly. If there had been a local supernova anytime in
the last few billion years, you would not be here. Indeed,
neither of us would be, since our worlds are quite close
together.”
“So supernovas can’t be too common, and—”
“Correct. But neither can they be too rare. It is
shockwaves made by supernova explosions that cause
planetary systems to start to coalesce from the dust clouds
surrounding other stars. In other words, if there had been no
supernovas ever anywhere near your sun, the ten planets
that orbit it would never have formed.”
User avatar #137 to #135 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Do you see the quandry? Some stars
must become supernovas in order to make heavy elements
available for the formation of life, but if too many do, they
would wipe out any life that got started. Yet if not enough
do, there would be precious few planetary systems. Just as
with the fundamental physical constants and the resonance
levels of carbon, the rate of supernova formation again
seems precisely chosen, within a very narrow range of
possibly acceptable values; any substantial deviation would
mean a universe without life or even planets.”
User avatar #139 to #137 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“That could just be a coincidence, too,” I said.
“It is either coincidence piled on top of coincidence,”
said Hollus, “or it is deliberate design. And there is more.
Take water, for instance. Every lifeform we know of evolved
in water, and all of them require it for their biological
processes. And although water seems chemically simple—
just two hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen—it is, in fact,
an enormously unusual substance. As you know, most
compounds contract as they cool and expand as they heat.
Water does this, too, until just before it starts to freeze. It
then does something remarkable: it begins to expand, even
as it grows colder, so that by the time it does freeze, it is
actually less dense than it was as a liquid. That is why ice
floats instead of sinking, of course. We are so used to
seeing that, whether it is ice balls in a beverage or a skin of
ice on a pond, that we usually give it no thought. But other
substances do not do that: frozen carbon dioxide—what
you call dry ice—sinks in liquid carbon dioxide; a lead ingot
will sink in a vat of molten lead."
User avatar #140 to #139 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“But water ice floats—and if it did not, life would be
impossible. If lakes and oceans froze from the bottom up,
instead of the top down, no sea-floor or lake-bottom
ecologies would exist outside equatorial zones. Indeed,
once they had started freezing, bodies of water would
freeze solid and remain solid forever; it is currents moving
unfettered beneath surface ice that promotes melting in the
spring—that is why glaciers, which have no such currents
beneath them, exist for millennia on dry land adjacent to
liquid lakes.”
User avatar #141 to #140 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“But this strange
expanding-before-freezing is hardly the only remarkable
thermal property water has. In fact, it has seven different
thermal parameters, all of which are unique or nearly so in
the chemical world, and all of which independently are
necessary for the existence of life. The chances of any of
them having the aberrant value it does must be multiplied
by the chances of the other six likewise being aberrant. The
likelihood of water having these unique thermal properties
by chance is almost nil.”
0
#159 to #141 - diaperfacederp has deleted their comment [-]
#154 to #141 - CIS White Male (11/17/2012) [-]
What is happeninggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggergajdjgn jkdzsdag
User avatar #144 to #141 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
Well, that's it for the momment.
User avatar #143 to #141 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“I could go on,” he said, “talking
about the remarkable, carefully adjusted parameters that
make life possible, but the reality is simply this: if any of
them—any in this long chain—were different, there would
be no life in this universe. We are either the most incredible
fluke imaginable—something far, far more unlikely than you
winning your provincial lottery every single week for a
century—or the universe and its components were
designed, purposefully and with great care, to give rise to
life.”

Start looking at my comment number if you keep reading, I can't reply to other comments than this becuase then, Spiderman would have a ******** of purple lines.
User avatar #142 to #141 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
“Almost,” I said
Hollus ignored me. “Nor does water’s unique nature
end with its thermal properties. Of all substances, only
liquid selenium has a higher surface tension than does
water. And it is water’s high surface tension that draws it
deeply into cracks in rocks, and, of course, as we have
noted, water does the incredible and actually expands as it
freezes, breaking those rocks apart. If water had lower
surface tension, the process by which soil is formed would
not occur. More: if water had higher viscosity, circulatory
systems could not evolve—your blood plasma and mine
are essentially sea water, but there are no biochemical
processes that could fuel a heart that had to pump
something substantially more viscous for any appreciable
time.”
User avatar #99 to #98 - mechaemperor (11/17/2012) [-]
For something to be scientifically proven, it must be done following the scientific method. I doubt you can prove the supernatural with such a method.
User avatar #107 to #99 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
I mean I can post stuff like this:

Gravity: were it only somewhat
stronger, the universe would have long since collapsed. If it
were somewhat weaker, stars and planets never could
have coalesced

And a lot more like that, I don't know. I'm not a smart man, but i like science.
User avatar #110 to #107 - mechaemperor (11/17/2012) [-]
Exactly, but there's no reason to believe it's finely tuned consciously. It just is, the probability existed that the universe would come up as it is now, and that probability is what happened.
User avatar #113 to #110 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
Keep reading my other comments to know what i think.

(Im not trying to say thats the ultimately true or that everyone must believe it, i believe it and thats it, at least for the moment)
User avatar #122 to #113 - mechaemperor (11/17/2012) [-]
Yeah, its most definitely interesting. Still, it doesn't really help the proving of anything other that describing how the universe is and behaves.

What people do to use those arguments as a reason for the existence of a higher conscious power is an inference. As I said before, it's probability, there may be an intelligence involved (if so, I highly doubt it's like any deity humans can come up with), or random chance led to events that led up to everything as it is.
User avatar #126 to #122 - vycanismajoris (11/17/2012) [-]
I agree
#96 - deadmuerto (11/17/2012) [-]
**deadmuerto rolls 09**
#91 - CIS White Male (11/17/2012) [-]
A black woman shoots bond on a moving train, he survives ofc and lives at a beach with a hot woman and he drinks every night, then MI6 is attacked and her returns to help out. He has to go through some tests to see if he is still fit to be an agent, he fails, but he doesnt know because M lets him become an agent again anyway. he kills some guy in a skyscraper with fancy colors in Shanghai and goes to a chinese party where he meets a prostitute he then ***** on a boat on the way to an island owned by the main villain who is called Silva he is an old agent, bond uses a radio to call reinforcements and they come and pick them both up at the island. Then later Silva escaped cus it was all part of his plan, Bond and M hides at Bonds old house in a place called Skyfall. We learn bonds dad was Andrew Bond and his mother had a stupid ass french looking name, and that bond's parents died because he is batman. Then silva tries to kill them in the house but they get away and the house burns. Then they run to a church and Bond kills Silva and then M dies. Later they are on the office and we learn that the ****** from earlier is actually moneypenny or whatever the **** she is called. And some paper pusher man becomes the new M.

****** is moneypenny.
M dies.
A man becomes new M.
Bond's parents died.
Silva is an old agent.
Q is a DYEL faggot.
User avatar #148 to #91 - godoftheanons (11/17/2012) [-]
Your God disapproves Anon..
#102 to #91 - swagbot (11/17/2012) [-]
shut the **** up anon.

And Naomie Harris isn't a ' ******* .
User avatar #100 to #91 - sloff **User deleted account** (11/17/2012) [-]
Jokes on YOU, I already watched it.

Movies was K
User avatar #101 to #100 - sloff **User deleted account** (11/17/2012) [-]
movie*
+7
#89 - cpthaze **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#87 - baine (11/17/2012) [-]
User avatar #165 to #87 - lemanrouste (11/17/2012) [-]
....

It makes me sad that this has less thumbs then "hurr durr, religion is dildos fake".

What the **** ?
User avatar #71 - Lambda (11/17/2012) [-]
Well, look at The Odyssey. Historians theorize that the events and people in that story were based on things that actually happened, exaggerated by centuries of storytelling.
#73 to #71 - CIS White Male (11/17/2012) [-]
People are not reading the Odyssey like it's some ancient all knowing book of law.
User avatar #75 to #73 - Lambda (11/17/2012) [-]
No, I was referring to the Chuck Norris thing, not the Bible. I probably should have clarified that.
#70 - Pyrollamas (11/17/2012) [-]
To Bill Brasky!!
User avatar #74 to #70 - Endofzeeworld (11/17/2012) [-]
BILL BRASKY!
#62 - alucardshellhound (11/17/2012) [-]
**alucardshellhound rolled a random image posted in comment #34 at The great debate **
#58 - theredheadbadass **User deleted account** (11/17/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #72 to #58 - Lambda (11/17/2012) [-]
That's a VU meter. It measures the amplitude of audio signals in dB, a logarithmic scale where 0 is a normal value, and you don't truly have no signal until -∞. Currently it's indicating -20dB, so technically you ARE giving a ****** you're just doing it very quietly.
#76 to #72 - CIS White Male (11/17/2012) [-]
thatsajokeson.jpg
Weird. I could have sworn that was a ******************* , telling me that theredheadbadass was giving less than zero ***** ...
User avatar #77 to #76 - Lambda (11/17/2012) [-]
Well, I know what it means- I was humorously pointing out a technicality.
User avatar #56 - scorponok (11/17/2012) [-]
So you're telling med he can't do all that stuff?
 Friends (0)