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

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds


Per page:
Order:
Latest users (5): aczzoh, drbrainbleach, gigamuffin, lulzfornigeriagirl, marinepenguin, anonymous(6).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #68700 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
**acemcgunner rolls 04** if dubs than praise the al mighty lord for his blessings
User avatar #68701 to #68700 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
close thank god anyway
User avatar #68687 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
Owl City - In Christ Alone (I Stand) his my cornerstone!!!
User avatar #68688 to #68687 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
In Christ Alone- Owl City lyrics this is lyrics
#68678 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
what do you think if this is Adam and eve? (bottom left of picture)
User avatar #68856 to #68678 - feelythefeel ONLINE (05/19/2014) [-]
I'm not sure whether to suspend my disbelief or not. I mean, on the one hand they're essentially prehistoric humans, so why aren't they freaking out? On the other, they're prehistoric humans in the bible, so this shit kinda happens all the time.
User avatar #68884 to #68856 - acemcgunner (05/19/2014) [-]
right ,one god and the other is a angle or they are gods
User avatar #68689 to #68678 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
what do you people think of this?
#68685 to #68683 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
your mother is best ass
User avatar #68682 to #68678 - eight (05/17/2014) [-]
Damn Nords always in my way.
User avatar #68684 to #68682 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
thanks lol however this board needs to be reformed into a new board, we must go on a god-like quest to bring back the funny here, instant of hurtbutt bate fags and science bullshit with all them forafags....and fucking discussing/trolling/debates
Jesus we need it back!!! this is funnyjunk, damn it!!!!!
User avatar #68690 to #68684 - eight (05/17/2014) [-]
Just pray harder. This time really mean it.
User avatar #68691 to #68690 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
are you saying that to be nice? cause I know you don't believe what I believe plus, the bible said that prayer sometimes take action, too...sometimes
User avatar #68692 to #68691 - eight (05/17/2014) [-]
Just poking fun.

I often say that one to family members that tell me they're going to pray for me for being an atheist.
User avatar #68695 to #68692 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
I do the same for my super retarded yet atheist brother-in-law...pot-head and a bad parent, plus if you met me, I promise you will agree that he will give atheist-ism a bad bad name... not on the nothingness part but on the science part...
User avatar #68693 to #68692 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
god doesn't even want us to force it.. he just wants to spread and say his word, I try not to force it on anybody however it's my way of life so, I guess you could walk away easily..i don't know
User avatar #68601 - ThatFatMummy (05/17/2014) [-]
Kemeticism is best ism
User avatar #68599 - finblob (05/17/2014) [-]
Joseph, Better You Than Me
User avatar #68653 to #68599 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
not bad
not really what i'd usually listen to but still not bad.
#68575 - thebestpieever (05/17/2014) [-]
You all motherfuckers need to give yourselves to God... zilla.
User avatar #68746 to #68575 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
the movie was so mehh... like really meh

Still don't get why Godzilla came to defeat them in the first place.
User avatar #68677 to #68575 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
that pun was a-ok..
User avatar #68577 to #68573 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
>Corrupt News Network
>Truth

pick one
User avatar #68588 to #68577 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
so the stories about MERS, the coal mine and donald sterling were fake too?
you are in denial my friend
User avatar #68647 to #68588 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
american news are bad
when a country allows 17 state to fuck with animals i need to know the truth from them
User avatar #68747 to #68647 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
Nice fallacy.
User avatar #68648 to #68647 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
so, if one thing is bad in a country that means everything is bad in that country? I understand.

you mean it's not possible to pick the good things and leave the bad?
User avatar #68649 to #68648 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
oh tell me the good thing that come out form a country that fuck their pets
User avatar #68650 to #68649 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
sam harris
lots of food
they work VERY hard for their money and stuff so they are dilligent
dude, I'm on fucking expert on the US but they are not all bad, you have to realize that.. just naive to assume otherwise
#68656 to #68650 - dehumanizer (05/17/2014) [-]
>jew fedora faggot
>actualy america imports lots of its food
>most big corporations earn money from wage slave labor in the 3rd world
User avatar #68748 to #68656 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
hahahaha that's a good comic
User avatar #68658 to #68656 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
>k
>they still have food that is basically their own, they just have a large variety
>uhm... the large corporations fuck over the people of the US too dipshit
#68659 to #68658 - dehumanizer (05/17/2014) [-]
>inb4 yellowstone
>good goys
#68661 to #68660 - dehumanizer (05/17/2014) [-]
**dehumanizer rolls 67**
User avatar #68662 to #68661 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
If you freeze frame, you can pinpoint the moment at which dehumanizer realizes he has no idea what to say next
no h8 bro but some of the things you say here are batshit insane
#68670 to #68668 - dehumanizer (05/17/2014) [-]
i dont even do this willingly anymore, send help
User avatar #68671 to #68670 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
at least you're not insane as guy below... -_-
#68672 to #68671 - dehumanizer (05/17/2014) [-]
>implying i dont multiacount
#68674 to #68673 - dehumanizer (05/17/2014) [-]
well your implications are wrong

just relax, everything will be ok
User avatar #68651 to #68650 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
no sorry, a people who fuck their pets i dont want them near me
they are like bad oranges, and will only make the good oranges bad oranges
User avatar #68652 to #68651 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
terrorists are middle eastern
therefore I should not interact with you because you are middle eastern
the mers virus comes from the middle east
therefore I should avoid you
that's the same logic
it. does. not. hold.
User avatar #68654 to #68652 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
quran.com
i brought proof before they fuck animals
now bring me a proof from my book we must be terrorist ^w^
oh by the way here is Syrian army fucking the free shit army terrorism supported by american zoophilian government

The Punishment - Bye Bye Terrorist - 33 - ביי ביי טרוריסטים GO ASSAD
User avatar #68655 to #68654 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
where is the proof that they fuck animals?
you have to prove that the entire country has intercourse with animals
and that them having intercourse with animals somehow makes them not be able to tell the truth
really, dude. there's no shame in agreeing with something a serial killer said, it is not automatically defiled because he said it unless it's something contradictory to his behaviour, then it's kinda hypocritical.
User avatar #68663 to #68657 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
1. they appeal to emotion. I see that this is a tragedy, but they are making the perpetrators seem like evil monsters when they are most likely just mentally ill. I don't like that. I'm not for this practice, not by a long shot, i had trouble finishing (no pun intended) the article but I do understand that these people are not by their right mind.
2. Zionism? This said nothing about the Jews
3. There were no links to the claims that 17 states allowed zoophilia and this is the only link you've posted. You need to give more sources in order for me to believe it. This is not sufficient
4. The american government does not control CNN. So what this has to do with CNN or the people of the US I have no idea. The american government does not really represent it's people, from what I've heard. I don't really know myself.
User avatar #68664 to #68663 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
still zoophilia bullshit is allowed
your argument is invalid
those people are bad with practice the most pathetic behavior in this universe
User avatar #68667 to #68666 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
>implying
User avatar #68589 to #68588 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
CNN never say the truth
User avatar #68593 to #68589 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
So are you saying no coal miner has died in Turkey?
User avatar #68600 to #68593 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
so are you saying that brainwashing is working ?
User avatar #68607 to #68600 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
No, you can't answer a question with another question?
User avatar #68641 to #68607 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
go post ad hominem on another user
lel
User avatar #68613 to #68607 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
well idk, CNN say the truth to you
User avatar #68590 to #68589 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
the stories about mers were everywhere
the stories about the coal mine was in the news in my country and surely other countries
go ahead and go to turkey and tell them cnn is lying about there being people who have died
donald sterling story is on youtube, you can check it out yourself
User avatar #68592 to #68590 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
no sorry if they are on other and came up to CNN then no please
User avatar #68594 to #68592 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
what do you mean?
User avatar #68596 to #68594 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
brainwashing news
User avatar #68627 to #68626 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
al jazera
BBC

OH LOL
User avatar #68629 to #68627 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
what about them, are they also brainwashing and lying?
sincere question, I don't read a lot of news.
User avatar #68632 to #68629 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
al jazera no .1 zionist middle east channel
we call it al khanzera which mean the pigs
User avatar #68636 to #68632 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
any proof that it's zionist..?
User avatar #68637 to #68636 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
testing my country news
LEL
User avatar #68640 to #68638 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
this is our news and you are saying you need evidence???
User avatar #68642 to #68640 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
yes.
that's akin to saying "this is my religion, I know it in and out, therefore I don't need to prove that it's true"
User avatar #68643 to #68642 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
then when i say something about my country or religion you put your hand on your mouth and listen and accept
you will never know the strawberry is sweet until you taste it
User avatar #68644 to #68643 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
if someone like my mother says "the strawberry tastes sweet" without me having tried it, I trust that person. you know? trust? that's a little bit like saying you never know lava is hot until you put your fucking hands in it, bs, dude. we have recorded experiences and knowledge in books and stuff like that, you just have to trust many of the things. many of them correspond with reality too, we can measure things. but you could easily prove to me that it's zionist by showing me some zionist news or that somebody jewish is owning it, but no. I have to take your word for it, right?

No, I don't, that's fucking stupid. That's as if I said "my country has proved every single god and religion wrong", are you supposed to accept that? WOULD you accept that? Hell to the fuck no, dish out evidence.
User avatar #68645 to #68644 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
you telling me this like you are going to teach your professor biology......
User avatar #68646 to #68645 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
stop with the analogies, bring me some damn evidence... I would trust any anthropologist over you any day of the week to be honest because you have a tendency to avoid responsibilities such as firm evidence
User avatar #68604 to #68602 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
im talking about the channel itself
the whole channel is like brainwashing people
User avatar #68610 to #68604 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
So, every single thing they say is a lie?
User avatar #68616 to #68610 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
Corrupt news network and truth
dont mix
User avatar #68620 to #68616 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
Answer my question, don't act muslim.
User avatar #68621 to #68620 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
2 brainwashed 4 me
User avatar #68624 to #68621 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
Are you refusing to answer my questions?
User avatar #68625 to #68624 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
because it is like talking to a robot
User avatar #68631 to #68625 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
So anyone who wants answers is a robot?
Your vision of reality is similar to those paranoid psychopaths.
User avatar #68633 to #68631 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
2 robot 4 me
User avatar #68608 to #68604 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
but if you look at the first ones. then look at the cnn one. then you can look for differences. if they all look about the same, then you can conclude they are not lying.
User avatar #68611 to #68608 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
i dislike the channel, they just brain wash people
User avatar #68615 to #68611 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
So you say they are brainwashing, but you can't explain it.
Good for you.
User avatar #68617 to #68615 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
yeah
thank to zionism for this beautiful channel
User avatar #68622 to #68617 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
What zionism
User avatar #68623 to #68622 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
be stupid in another place
User avatar #68628 to #68623 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
I want you to show me the example of the alleged manipulation.
User avatar #68630 to #68628 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
sorry when you finish your school and pass it and join the university come act like genius
User avatar #68634 to #68630 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
Ad hominem.
User avatar #68635 to #68634 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
yeah this is your only answer as always
User avatar #68639 to #68635 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
Not my only answer and the ad hominem is located here:
>sorry when you finish your school and pass it and join the university come act like genius
It's intended towards a person that is in the argument, not the topic itself.
User avatar #68586 to #68577 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
So, you are saying that their article is a lie?
User avatar #68587 to #68586 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
do you believe in the corrupt news network????
User avatar #68591 to #68587 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
For once in your life can you write a grammatically correct sentence?
And depends on the type of the information.
User avatar #68595 to #68591 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
please go away with your brain washing TV shows
im too busy for you
User avatar #68597 to #68595 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
Then why do you talk to me?
User avatar #68598 to #68597 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
why did you reply to me
go talk to the people who are brainwashed like you
User avatar #68603 to #68598 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
Because I want to see your reply.
Why am I brainwashed?
User avatar #68606 to #68605 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
I'm asking you.
User avatar #68609 to #68606 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
no ask your lovely truthful channel CNN
User avatar #68612 to #68609 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
I'm not saying they are objective every time.
User avatar #68614 to #68612 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
then what dehumanzer posted is bullshit
User avatar #68618 to #68614 - schnizel (05/17/2014) [-]
So, the article is false, what proof do you have to counter the article instead of using a strawman.
User avatar #68619 to #68618 - syrianassassin (05/17/2014) [-]
corrupt news network
truth

oh lel
User avatar #68554 - personalspace (05/16/2014) [-]
Anyone else find priests in shows kinda cool? m.youtube.com/watch?v=7-mpoZDWpzo
User avatar #68492 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
all the people on this list: thegrohltroll, acemcgunner, draaaaiven, revengeforfreeze, theugandanhero, kanadetenshi, dehumanizer, ipostcp are nothing but fedorafags and they love colorful talking horse!!!
they should know that there logic in Science is flawed..
and turn to real Science such as the bible and god..
User avatar #68562 to #68492 - feelythefeel ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
I'll admit, kind of dissapointed that I'm not on that list.
User avatar #68566 to #68562 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
cause you touch yourself
User avatar #68552 to #68492 - ThatFatMummy (05/16/2014) [-]
I really thought I was active enough on this thread to get mentioned.

But then again, I don't fit that description.
User avatar #68565 to #68552 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
lies from a fat ass!!
User avatar #68506 to #68503 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
god is watching you do bad against him
#68499 to #68492 - draaaaiven (05/16/2014) [-]
>real science
>god
User avatar #68501 to #68499 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
draaaaiven is true worshiper of pinkie pie and the mane 6!!!
#68502 to #68501 - draaaaiven (05/16/2014) [-]
all hail our new overlord Ponkie Poe
User avatar #68505 to #68502 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
heresy
User avatar #68493 to #68492 - revengeforfreeze (05/16/2014) [-]
you post mlp yourself
User avatar #68495 to #68493 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
pinkie is best pony, silly!!
User avatar #68487 - revengeforfreeze (05/16/2014) [-]
life is dead

reality is the goal the universe set for life

life's meaning is different for every god as well as not god

I am not part of life

I am with life
#68490 to #68487 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
that was shit and your logic is flawed..   
Science isn't even real, you non-believer!!
that was shit and your logic is flawed..
Science isn't even real, you non-believer!!
#68509 to #68490 - dehumanizer (05/16/2014) [-]
your shitposting stinks
#68511 to #68509 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
geez!!!! #R00d, that's really mean!!!
yelp!! it's a internet bully!!!
User avatar #68474 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
hey, thegrohltroll, ipostcp, acemcgunner, dehumanizer, kanadetenshi, revengeforfreeze, theugandanhero, princessren, personalspace, Fiction, how are you? lets be friends and if not, well then you are the greedy Jews who took my foreskin to hell to eat!! we should totally have a orgy and do satanic worship to our awesome dark lord!! and dance around a camp fire with baby heads on sticks... that's how we should make friends with a awesome party like that
#68482 to #68474 - dehumanizer (05/16/2014) [-]
isnt that what atheists do

>inb4 fedorafags
User avatar #68483 to #68482 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
yes during sex they yell out "oh! my logic!!! ohh~" lol
User avatar #68478 to #68474 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
dammit man now I imaging myself eating foreskin.
#68480 to #68478 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
everyone's face when they see this madness
User avatar #68486 to #68480 - theugandanhero (05/16/2014) [-]
Definitely not what madness looks like but keep trying asshat.
User avatar #68488 to #68486 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
why such a little bich bro?
User avatar #68533 to #68488 - theugandanhero (05/16/2014) [-]
Explain to me how you came to that conclusion about myself.
Also, you're one to talk.
User avatar #68564 to #68533 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
you sooo silly mr.nutter
User avatar #68418 - teoberry (05/16/2014) [-]
I'll bring the smackdown on your beliefs here's my record: 14 christians defeated, 9 muslims conquered, 6 jews clobbered, 2 buddhists buttwhooped, even showed an agnostic loser which side to take. bring on the fight buddy I go to yale.
unless you're a rastafarian in which case I can't resist a poen, nicely rolled joint with a fella' like you
User avatar #68470 to #68418 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
you can't destroy me foolish warrior
0
#68469 to #68418 - acemcgunner has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #68430 to #68418 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAH no shitposts pls
User avatar #68426 to #68418 - silverzepher (05/16/2014) [-]
communism is best ism
User avatar #68427 to #68426 - revengeforfreeze (05/16/2014) [-]
islmk gommjunism
User avatar #68424 to #68418 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
Never forget the 6 jews.
#68422 to #68418 - dehumanizer (05/16/2014) [-]
I killed 6 million atheists.
User avatar #68468 to #68422 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
holy shit?
User avatar #68421 to #68418 - syrianassassin (05/16/2014) [-]
you wanna show muslims defeat???
User avatar #68567 to #68421 - teoberry (05/17/2014) [-]
no lol, it's a copypasya
#68420 to #68418 - princessren (05/16/2014) [-]
and a partridge in a pear tree
and a partridge in a pear tree
User avatar #68400 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
This is my first post here, so hi.
I always wonder, how can atheists be certain that there is no God? I'd love to argue with an atheist about this.
Where do they think the universe came from? The Big Bang, ok, but what caused the Big Bang?
And what is the origin of life on earth, namely Humans? As a religious person, I still believe in evolution for animals, but I don't think that humans and apes have the same ancestor, because we are far more advanced than every animal in the world, I don't see why wouldn't some animals evolve to be at least as intelligent as us, or a little bit less if evolution made us. Animals rely basically on instinct, whereas we have intelligence. So I believe that the creation of Man was a special case, where God gave us a unique gift/responsibilty which is our Mind.
My last point is the representation of God, atheists think that we believe that God has the form of a man who lives in sky, which is rediculous, God is a supernatural being, He's omnipresent, above the laws of nature, above everything that He's created. It is a habbit to look to the sky while praying, that's because we look up to God.
So if you're an atheist and would like to argue about this I'm all ears.
User avatar #68834 to #68400 - thebritishguy (05/18/2014) [-]
The vast majority of atheists aren't certain, I take the position of "I don't know so I don't believe".

I don't know what caused the big bang or whether it has a cause, as the law of cause and effect has only been observed in our universe and we don't know whether it can be applied to the universe itself.

I don't think we are that advanced biologically, we have only made such great progress recently, for the vast majority of our time here we were illiterate, had a life span of about 30 years if we were lucky, didn't know about germs, dinosaurs, galaxies, atoms, basic hygiene etc. we are advanced because we are standing on the shoulders of giants, I don't think our genetic make up had much to do with it. The gap between human and animals is non existent, I mean there were "animals" such as neanderthal, homo erectus, homo flesis, etc. which were just as intelligent as us and made complex tools, it's even thought that they taught us a thing or two.

God is very anthroporphic, he has human emotions and characteristics such as love and jealousy.
User avatar #68560 to #68400 - christmouth (05/17/2014) [-]
Most atheists I know aren't sure if there is a god or not, but they don't believe there is.

How can you believe evolution is occurring, but not for humans? That's irrational. We are part of nature, whether some like it or not, and saying that we're not evolving is like saying that humans aren't part of nature, which is wrong.

"...atheists think that we believe that God has the form of a man who lives in sky"

This is not strictly for atheist. It says in the bible, that God made man in his own image, and it wouldn't be preposterous to think that God looks like a man according to that. The thing with him being a man in the sky? I think it's fair to assume that it has something to with that Jesus ascended to heaven.
User avatar #68504 to #68400 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Well, I'm not certain there is no god, but the rational assumption when there is no evidence for a scientifically unfalsifiable claim is to assume that it does not exist. If you do not understand what I mean, then read the following link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

There is a big difference between not believing in something, and believing something does not exist, even if both could be classified as Atheists.

I don't know where the matter in the universe came from. I think it's foolish to claim to know, whether on a scientific or religious basis, because according to our current scientific theories it's impossible to know or find out.

Well, you can believe that humans and apes don't have the same ancestor, and you would be entirely incorrect. Science is true whether you believe it or not.
User avatar #68441 to #68400 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
The most simple answer I can make?
When you hear me say "The universe is created from the big bang" you don't think I'm correct. You feel it. You can not understand why I think that way? Well, that same exact feeling happens when you say the world is created by god. An atheist gets that same feeling you do. That same doubt. That same lack of understanding of your viewpoint. So if you can answer WHY you don't understand, or WHY you believe what you do, then you have already answered that question for the other person as well.

We are all human, and so we tent to follow the same thinking patterns. It's really a case of "Put myself in their shoes"
User avatar #68481 to #68441 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
this post taste like bullshit
User avatar #68425 to #68400 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
1. Most atheists aren't certain there is no god, just that they don't believe in one.

2. Quantum fluctuations can violate the conservation of energy allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles out of nothing. Quantum Mechanics is evry odd like that.

3. The evidence that we have the same ancestor is overwhelming, it's in our DNA, fossil record, chromosomes, ERV's, Vestiges and many other independent scientific fields that verify it. Chimpanzees, Gorrila's and Urangutans have shown identical cognitive skills and intelligence as humans, they can solve problems at a very fast rate, learn sign language and build/use tools. To say that we're special because we are more advanced is complete nonsense and ignores the massive evidence that shows how we got so intelligent in the first place.
0
#68475 to #68425 - draaaaiven has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #68477 to #68475 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space.

Hence quantum fluctuations violate the conservation of energy.
#68484 to #68477 - draaaaiven (05/16/2014) [-]
Energy is always conserved. The thing that makes quantum fluctuations appear to have violated the conservation of energy is because it changes eigenvalues of the hamilitonian of the system.
#68479 to #68477 - draaaaiven (05/16/2014) [-]
It only appears to be violated for a dissipatingly small time frame.
User avatar #68485 to #68479 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
Yes it's only around 10-23 seconds, but it's still a violation.
User avatar #68489 to #68485 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
When i mean 10-23 seconds i meant it in regards of 10-23rd of a second.
User avatar #68432 to #68425 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
2) I agree, but you have to think about the reason why this happened, physics isn't my field of study so I can't argue about the facts. And what you said actually makes my faith stronger, since God said that He created the universe from nothing, this may as well be the explanation or part of it.

3) I understand that, but as smart as they get they will never be as smart as us, I'm not taking anything from them. Apes have proved to be one of the smartest animals on earth. So it's very likely that God took there "model" enhanced it, and gave us our intelligence. After all a human is an animal, biological and genetical similarities are sure to be found but our ability to create complexe social norms, to create, to question morals, to question our existence is what makes us human, It's not just our skills.
User avatar #68433 to #68432 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
I don't know about the reason, it has to do with very abstract concepts of quantum mechanics. If that makes your faith stronger fine by me but there is no reason to invoke god into a scientific mechanic that doesn't need a god, a natural cause is much more plausable.

Our "enchancement" is the result of natural selection, many factors come into play such as our dependence of tool use, our invention of writing down our idea's and the increase in brain size caused by our meat diet. All apes have complex social norms, they encompass moral behaviour, they mourn and questions things, almost everything humans have can be found not only in other apes but also other mammals and even in some bird species. To say that just because our intelligence is more sophisticated that it means we aren't great apes contrary to all evidence is akin to saying that god must've made ants seperate from all other insects because they have a much more sophisticated colony than all other insects.
User avatar #68436 to #68433 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
Why are separating God from science?
To me, religion and scirnce are the tools to understand this world.
User avatar #68437 to #68436 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
Same reason i'm seperating unicorns from science.

Science is about emperical, falsifiable evidence. God is not emperical nor is he falsifiable, he's therefor unscientific. Religion cannot be a tool of understanding the world because religion doesn't make accurate predictions about natural phenomena and provide evidence for it.
User avatar #68440 to #68437 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
I'm not saying that God is scientifical, He is above nature therefore above science. He created religion to guide us morally and science so that we can understand how this world works.
You're reasoning only by using exact sciences, and as important as they are, they're not enough to explain the human nature.
User avatar #68442 to #68440 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
False, science is more than enough to explain human nature, religion doesn't explain anything, it just gives "what if" scenarios without evidence.
User avatar #68445 to #68442 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
I specifically said "exact" sciences, you're leaving out social and human sciences (such as philosophy, sociology...) that rely heavily on morals. Religion's first purpose was to establish morals, ethics would then come to question these morals and how could we apply them in our society.
By saying that exact sciences are enough to explain human behaviour and nature you are reducing humans to simple machines.
Science relies as well on a paradigm adopted and decided by us, the minute that paradigm stops being relevant , the register of the questions that are asked and the ways of interpretation will change, so what we know now may be proven false in the future.
User avatar #68448 to #68445 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
Social science has been more and more relying on natural science such as evolutionary psychology and anthropology. Philosophy is pretty much useless in this day and age. Religion cannot factually or logically claim what is moral or not since they don't have evidence, you can say that god tells us what's moral or not but that is an insufficient reason since we don't know whether he exists or not.

Mathematics relies on a paradigm adopted and decided by us, but that doesn't make them untrue. The reason science works is because it provides evidence for it's claims. And all evidence shows that we are simply biological organisms, just as any other animal.
User avatar #68452 to #68448 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
That doesn't make them true either, we don't know the exact truth, we can only see a fragment of it, this is why theories exist. All the scientific discoveries are relevant now, but once there is a shift in the paradigms they may become useless.
Philosophy and ethics are necessary to separate what's good from what's bad, every profession needs to incorporate these 2 in its practice.
I can't argue your questioning of the morals because that will brings us back to the main idea which is whether God exists or not.
User avatar #68453 to #68452 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
So you're saying 1+1=2 is not true? Thanks for the perspective. Science is self-correcting, there are shifts in paradigms but they always lead towards the truth. Like Isaac Asimov said "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together"

Science can easily determine what's good and what's bad through logic and reasoning, most animals even show morals, empathy and altruism and they don't need religion or philosophy for it.
User avatar #68457 to #68453 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
You're taking very specific examples, our main subject is far more broad, we're talking about the origin of life. Humans have been able to see that the earth is closer to spherical than flat, and 1+1 is 2, but we haven't seen how and why we were created .

Animals have some sense of right and wrong, they have some morals that is rooted in their instinct. We have a conscious therefor we can question our morals.
User avatar #68465 to #68457 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
We can literally see organisms evolving today, we have seen experiments where non-organic molecules can develop into organic molecules, we can see the very background radiation that caused the big bang. We know how the universe formed and how life developed.

Our sense of right and wrong and our conciousness are also rooted in instinct, everything we do can be traced back to instinct. Many animals have conciousness, in fact the african grey parrot's conciousness is nearly identical to human complexity.
User avatar #68467 to #68465 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
btw if I'm annoying you you can simply tell me to shut up, I don't want to come off as a dick
User avatar #68466 to #68465 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
I'm not saying the whole idea of evolution is a lie, that would be stupid, all I'm saying is that the case of human beings is different. Same goes to the big bang, it just may be how God created the universe.
Depending on what you mean by consciousness, cognitive consciousness? Yes the parrot may as well be capable to understand what's around him and see some near consequences to his acts. But that's only because of instinct and habits.
However a human is not only aware of his surroundings, he studied them and understood their nature. The complexity of human consciousness is explained best by doubt, a human can doubt his beliefs and morals, unlike animals that are very static in that field.
User avatar #68471 to #68466 - kanadetenshi (05/16/2014) [-]
Saying that humans are magically different and not related to other great apes is just as stupid as denying evolution altogether.

Our conciousness is also the result of instinct and habits, our ability to doubt an examine is also based around instinct and has been linked by various neural networks within the brain.
User avatar #68476 to #68471 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
it is but it's not just instinct. Instinct is the lowest form of intelligence, we are far more than that, a kid will rely on instinct of course but as we grow up each one of us develops his own way of thinking, of understanding things, and I'm sure as hell not saying that the brain has no role in it. Creativity, doubt, and all the complex feelings such as being proud and optimistic show that our mind is far more superior to anything this nature has.
0
#68428 to #68425 - thegrohltroll has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #68417 to #68400 - revengeforfreeze (05/16/2014) [-]
I'm not certain at all. Look, I don't even really believe in 'knowledge'. There is subjective knowledge but there is no objective knowledge is my take on it, not exactly sure what it implies but I mean that you can never really say "something is something" because it's different on the quantum scale, for example. Maybe if you took the entire universe into consideration it would also be different, not sure. I mean, there's said to be higher dimensions too.
User avatar #68423 to #68417 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
Idk man, there is a difference between saying there is no knowledge and saying what we think we know can be false. If you mean that you can never be sure about something, I'm with you, after all we don't know the ultimate truth, we only have a register of theories that may or may not be true, but they are the best that we can have at the moment.
This is where religion kicks in, the only being that can know this ultimate truth is God, He is the all knowing being, and He will only reveal this truth to us once we meet Him.
User avatar #68581 to #68423 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
What I mean is even though we may call it true we may never confirm so, so we could callit true from our point of view but not universally true.. I guess?
User avatar #68401 to #68400 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
First I would like to say I'm not an atheist

The Divine Mover cause is an argument I actually like, but atheists usually reply 'well that caused God' or something to that effect

Second that's not quite how evolution works. Evolution just dictates survival of the fittest. So when our ancestors -- some random ape in some random jungle -- first picked up a rock and made it into a tool or weapon, that was the first sign of intelligence or whatever.
I won't pretend I fully understand how evolution works, but it does.

Thirdly, most atheists tend to use this straw mans interpenetration [the big bearded dude in the sky] to their advantage. It's easy to pick apart.
User avatar #68404 to #68401 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
I believe that what you described there is Natural Selection, while evolution is really the biological process where organisms evolve under the influence of the environnement, that involves as well genetics and epigenetics.
User avatar #68405 to #68404 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
I haven't read fully enough on evolution. I just know it works.
I've mostly been reading about physics and religion for the past 5 odd years
Though I do have a few books on evolution somewhere, I just gotta get around to reading them.
User avatar #68406 to #68405 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
Evolution works there's no question about that, even humans evolved, we are not the same as the humans that existed thousands of years ago. My main point was that, we didn't evolve from a simple animal
User avatar #68407 to #68406 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
So you think God guided evolution? Or something like that?
User avatar #68408 to #68407 - thegrohltroll (05/16/2014) [-]
Of course, it's a natural phenomenon so it is under the authority of God.
User avatar #68370 - KINGOFTHESTARS (05/15/2014) [-]
I did some brief research and the Christian Heaven includes animals. Which animals exactly, idk.

Sweet
User avatar #68473 to #68370 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
my friend told me animals have no souls
User avatar #68403 to #68370 - theluppijackal ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Doncha know?
all dogs go to heaven
User avatar #68402 to #68370 - syrianassassin (05/16/2014) [-]
there are some animals will go to heaven according to my religion.
the whale of younes peace be upon him [jonas]
the hoopoe of suliman peace be upon him [solomon]
the dog of the people of the cave
the buraq which Muhammad peace be upon him flew [pegasus which some call it in english]
and many more
User avatar #68396 to #68370 - personalspace (05/16/2014) [-]
I don't worry about stuff like that. The Lord decides who is and who isn't allowed in Heaven; not me.
User avatar #68392 to #68370 - thebritishguy (05/16/2014) [-]
Hopefully not bloody chihuahuas or flying ants
User avatar #68472 to #68392 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
or flying spider ;D
User avatar #68414 to #68392 - teoberry (05/16/2014) [-]
For once I agree with you.
0
#68341 - lulzfornigeriagirl has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #68311 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Atheism cannot claim science, because nothingness is an abstract and unproven concept. I'm not saying you can't be atheist, I'm just saying the proof of nothingness isn't ANYWHERE in science, so stop trying to grab the science book and claim it proves your belief, because it certainly does not.
User avatar #68569 to #68311 - leightonsolomon (05/17/2014) [-]
Of course not. Does everyone forget about Agnosticism? That is exactly what you described. It's the "religion" of choice by Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Einstein, Bill Nye, and other great scientists. It gets lumped in with atheism a lot tho.
User avatar #68582 to #68569 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
Nye and Tyson haven't really contributed anything to science with the exception being they are popularizers
User avatar #68737 to #68582 - leightonsolomon (05/17/2014) [-]
Which is extremely important. If it wasn't for them, a lot of wouldn't be interested in science or know anything about it. They're both still extremely intelligent also
User avatar #68738 to #68737 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
>extremely
I'd say extremely intelligent is like, the level of.. uhm... hmmm.. not sure, but that guy who.. something curved space .. forgot his name... ah yeah, gauss. gauss and possibly that logician... what the fuck was his name bertrand russell, he was pretty cool

i see the importance of it, but let's not heap it with people who make actual contributions
User avatar #68571 to #68569 - kungfulouie (05/17/2014) [-]
I did not forget about agnosticism. That is not what I was saying by any means. Only simply that science does not hold favor toward atheism in any way.
User avatar #68463 to #68311 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
god bless you bro
User avatar #68462 to #68311 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
dude you are awesome
#68399 to #68311 - ipostcp (05/16/2014) [-]
Even I'm a creationist and I still recognize the amount of evidence that seems blasphemous.

Forgive me for defeating you down, I mean, I don't believe it. Also I apologize in advance for not really being familiar with the terms.

In Black holes, the farther you're in the more gravity there is, the more gravity there is the slower time moves, eventually to the point where it stops all together. Steven Hawking suggests that the Big Bang was more or less a black hole that just got too heavy. Where did the weight come from to make it more heavy? Particles come in and out of existence all the time apparently. So it got to heavy and couldn't sustain its self any more. Exploded causing the Big Bang. Steven Hawking suggests that since the universe was a black hole in the beginning then there was no "Before" the Big Bang since time was stopped. He believes that if there wasn't a before then how could a God make it happen?

Personally, if the 7 days and the world was made is wrong, then I believe that The Lord is omnipotent he could just as easily made the big bang happen regardless if there was a before or not.
User avatar #68553 to #68528 - ipostcp (05/16/2014) [-]
Yet here I am talking and understanding advanced physics.
User avatar #68508 to #68399 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Dude, you're a creationist?
User avatar #68522 to #68508 - ipostcp (05/16/2014) [-]
I'm going by as personal space for a reason and I'd appreciate it if you didn't spread it around for obvious reasons. Can I trust you to do that?
User avatar #68525 to #68522 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
No problem, dude. Some things are private matters, I was just surprised is all.
User avatar #68527 to #68525 - ipostcp (05/16/2014) [-]
Most people are.
User avatar #68464 to #68399 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
I like to believe god isn't effected by time at all
User avatar #68507 to #68464 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
That doesn't make that true though.
User avatar #68510 to #68507 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
time is made up by man...are we sure there is even time at all?
User avatar #68512 to #68510 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Time in the form of seconds and our units of measuring it is made up, but the thing itself is very real.
User avatar #68515 to #68512 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
I meant the made up of measuring of it, plus it was never was proven to me...i've asked why and my teacher said "just cause"
User avatar #68516 to #68515 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Well that wouldn't apply to it, but it would still be subject to the effects of time and the inevitable heat death of our universe. However, I am not a strong enough physicist to try to tell you everything about time, so I'd suggest to read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Physical_definition
User avatar #68520 to #68516 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
and thanks, I take the links
User avatar #68519 to #68516 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
heresy!!!
I still believe in god!!
you can't stop me!!
User avatar #68521 to #68519 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
I'm not trying to, I'm just saying that god would have to be subject to the effects of time if it existed in our universe. No problem, I hope the links answer your questions.
User avatar #68524 to #68521 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
lol...if that the case then~ that his time is greater if a day to him is a million years to us
User avatar #68572 to #68524 - kungfulouie (05/17/2014) [-]
There is no inevitable heat death. What we can currently perceive is only a tiny speck of all that exists. We are surrounded in literally every direction by the unknown, which appears to be endless, as our current technology only sees so far. All of our theories are based around this tiny speck, so to say with any certainty that the entire concept of existence is going to eventually be destroyed is impossible. No one knows, because that is the meaning of the unknown, which seems to be far greater than what we currently can comprehend. Only time will tell in these kind of things, so keep an open mind.
User avatar #68669 to #68572 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
you are so deep..
User avatar #68429 to #68399 - revengeforfreeze (05/16/2014) [-]
bluenebula
is he right about black holes
i think he is, can't confirm it though
could you come in with some enlightening physics?
#68434 to #68429 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
I respect Steven Hawking more than anyone else, because he had the balls to stand up (No pun intended) and admit he was wrong, rather than waste years of his life defending it like Einstein did. This person has a lot of things right, but a few wrong as well. It's tough to be spot on with the science of black holes because all of out known laws of physics break down and stop working when we reach the center of a black hole. What we do know is that partials do in fact phase in and out of existence, much like what would have happened during the big bang. The connection is easy to make, but unfortunately, black holes do not work in the way the big bang would have needed them to. Black holes are pinpoints of matter that pulls in everything with its massive gravity. Even the curious particle/wave of light itself cannot escape it. However, anything that goes into a black hole is not lost. It is saved, and will be free of that black hole with time. All particles that go in will inevitably phase into existence outside of the black hole at some point. This leads us to believe that black holes DO in fact have a lifespan, and though they will be the last remaining things in the conceivable universe, they will also inevitably die to entropy.
#68435 to #68434 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
I don't usually like dipping into religious debates that fight science rather than address it. So I'll leave you with this. When Issac Newton created a whole new math to explain the orbits of the planets and the stars, he could only go so far. He could not explain EVERYTHING, and so there were a lot of questions he did not know the answers to. So how did he answer those questions? He said they were the work of God.

God is, to some people, an explanation of the unknown, and there isn't really anything wrong with that. After all, it's the unknown. We as scientists can not claim to know everything for sure either. Though we may have an explanation, it may take us years or even decades to find out that we are only slightly off. Just before Einstein, we believed that we had solved all scientific mysteries that there were. Physics would no longer be a science of discovery and venture. Then, Einstein kicked down our understanding of everything, and now we can't even see the top of what we might be able to learn.

However, defending something as "the work of God" that is proven wrong is where people start to get angry. And rightfully so. It implies ignorance of the subject and a resistance to learn. At the same time, I see many very intelligent people think themselves above those in the religious community just because of their beliefs. There are far more than one adaptation and understanding of god. To my girlfriend, God is not a person in the sky telling you not to masturbate. He is the collective goodness of the human race. God does create wonderful miracles, or rather, the good of mankind creates wonderful miracles. Religion is not inherently bad. It's just easier to see the bad sometimes. Science has fallen victim to that same evil many times as well.
User avatar #68529 to #68435 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
The purpose of this post was not to fight science, but to reclaim it for everyone, just to be clear. I have felt that recently a lot of people in the atheist community (not the good ones, but still a lot) have tried to claim science back their beliefs, which it does not. It lacks proof like any other.

The reason, I believe, and you touched on briefly, is man's seemingly arrogant inability to admit when it simply doesn't know something. Theories abound, some of them brilliant, but it's when people hold their beliefs as absolute, and condescend others either outwardly or passively, that knowledge becomes stifled. As Socrates said "only the truly wise man can admit he knows nothing at all", and while that may seem incredulous to some, I believe that the reason for that disregard of that is because of man's arrogance as previously discussed. Regardless of what we know now, it's the open mindedness in believing anything and everything could change in an instant through a new understanding of a particular concept or idea, regardless of the source. I too am fascinated by quantum particles and black holes. As I said earlier, I understand the theory of them creating and dispersing, on the very cusp of matter and energy. We don't know where specific ones go, perhaps because they are nonspecific, simply changing form to move and be perceived again elsewhere. What I was saying is that they certainly do not go into nothingness, because nothingness doesn't exist. I never agreed with the concept of black whole being a sort of epitome of nothingness, as regardless of what's at the very pinpointed epicenter, that thing can still be quantified, and therefore is not nothing. The point being, if a black whole is in fact not nothing, then it is something, and therefore exists outside the concept of nothingness. So if the universe were to start from a black hole, every part of that black hole is something, and therefore it is not nor ever was nothingness.
User avatar #68534 to #68529 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
In 1993, the Pope wen't on record for the first time, and admitted that the Earth was in fact NOT the center of the universe. 300 years late. Today, some religions believe that dinosaurs do not exist despite irrefutable evidence supporting them. There are not black holes. They are not a mystery. We know how they lived, and how they died. Everyone knows about the dinosaurs, and yet, some would claim they are not real. That their religious 'bad guy' out them there to trick us. Or that the government somehow hid all of these bones to trick them. Science may not have every answer, but to claim it is still wrong in the face of evidence is stupid, and that's when we start to see backlash.

I don't like zealots of anything. Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Feminists, Dr.Who fans, any zealot that goes too far with what they think gives a bad name to the ones they claim to represent. Anti religious nut jobs are no exception. So anyone trying to pull the mostly unrelated idea of science into their argument does not know how to debate religion. It's a debate on human nature, not science. The only time science applies is when religion is used to explains the unknown, and then science discovers that unknown. People don't like that, for some reason. You would think the unknown would be even more terrifying.

We have a good idea of where those particles go. They don't go anywhere. They become pure energy in the black hole, and then from that state of energy, they become matter. E=MC^2 at work. We do not know how or why, yet, but we know what happens, and that's a good step forward. You solve one question, you create ten more. Such is science and discovery.

What is in the space between galaxies? What occupies that void? Nothing. Absolute nothing. Not even space itself. It's such a hard thing for humans to grasp, much like the number 0 when it was introduced to the Greeks. 0 is my favorite number because of how scary it is. There's true nothingness out there, and we're stuck in it.
User avatar #68536 to #68534 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
I do not wish to discuss specific religious or non-religious beliefs, as that gets off topic.

Basic physics agrees that there is no nothingness. The space between galaxies is just that, space. It is measurable and quantifiable. It can lack a specific thing, ie matter, but it is never nothingness. There is no nothingness, as far as science is concerned. I posted the wiki earlier as well.
User avatar #68540 to #68536 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
We can measure a two dimensional distance, even though we know that's not possible. Nothing is a hard concept to wrap your head around. Not many people are fond of it. But even so, the idea that the universe is depleting due to entropy implies something is taking the place of that lost matter and energy. That's the problem though, we think of it like we do air. As if there is some vacuum out there. There is not. There is nothing. True nothing the likes of which scare people to this day. The space between galaxies and stars can be measures with distance. It can be measured with speed. But what is there, can not. Sure, as of now, those place have small amounts of light in them. Light from all of those galaxies. but they won't be there forever. That light will fade, and only the nothing will remain. All that will be left for the last saga of the universe is the black holes, making sure everything is cleaned u and removed. Everything will be a pure blank slate. Then, those black holes die, and everything is gone forever. The end. Reality as we know it has a time limit. Reality itself. Who ever would have though?
User avatar #68583 to #68540 - revengeforfreeze (05/17/2014) [-]
Oh look, my yuugen is returning. Fuck.
User avatar #68543 to #68540 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
This is becoming circular, and stating the same things repeatedly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing#Physics

There is no nothingness because everything that exists is quantifiable. Also, please do not insinuate fear and misunderstanding, as I do not hold either of these traits. Nothingness is abstract, solely and completely.
User avatar #68544 to #68543 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
Then what will remain when entropy is finished?
User avatar #68546 to #68544 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
Who is to say that entropy is simply something we perceive as being an inevitability, when in fact is simply the things which we perceive to be entropic, not all of existence itself. If there was never nothingness, then we cannot return to it.
User avatar #68549 to #68546 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
Furthermore, who's to claim there is a finishing point. Which is to say, as something was created originally, theoretically from a source as nothingness is unproven, that that source will not maintain.
User avatar #68561 to #68549 - bluenebula (05/17/2014) [-]
What was here before the big bang? If you are going to be open to the idea of something like than, you have to question what comes after.
This is not a theory anymore. The universe will experience a heat death, and everything WILL be gone. Black holes being the last of those things.
User avatar #68570 to #68561 - kungfulouie (05/17/2014) [-]
You do realize that what we can see is not the entirety of the universe right? As in the infinite unknown that surrounds us in literally every conceivable direction. We can only see a fraction of a speck of all that exists, and now you're claiming you are positive of all that happens, or will happen within it. How is that not wrong to do?
User avatar #68675 to #68570 - bluenebula (05/17/2014) [-]
We are sure of the death of the universe. Cosmic entropy. A heat death. We know just as well as we know how out sun will die, and how the Andromeda galaxy will collide with our. We know these things even though they will not happen until long after we are extinct. These are not random guesses shot into the dark, they are well thought out and proven laws of physics.

To question out current understanding of physics is great. That's the thinking that helps us move forward and discover when we;re wrong. However, you can only take it so far. There is only so much that can be fought before you lose. Einstein found that out the hard way when he spent the last remaining years of his life trying to debunk Chaos Theory because he believed it was wrong. You can not fight some things, it's just silly. You can not fight entropy, or the death of the universe. There are not simply guesses.

If you want to believe in some kind of partial or wave that will take up the space where there were once galaxies, then please, tell me about about your findings and what you think is out there. Tell me why there can't be nothing.
User avatar #68698 to #68675 - kungfulouie (05/17/2014) [-]
You cannot be sure of something you do not know exists. That is literally the concept of the unknown. All we know is what we see, and what we see is a universe that reaches far beyond our current technology, past the furthest distance we can squint at. Again, science's standpoint on this is "we don't know" and here's a theory. But just as you cannot take a single drop of water, then claim to be all knowing about the entirety of the unexplored ocean, so too can we not observe our single speck of space, then claim for certainty the outcome of the entire unknown universe.
User avatar #68721 to #68698 - bluenebula (05/17/2014) [-]
Can you SEE an atom? Can you see the planets we have mapped out around far away stars? Can you see a black hole? Can you see the super-massive black holes that reside at out galaxies center? No. We can't. We only know they are there and that they exist through testing, and math, and more of both over and over. We are not banging rocks here. This is high grade stuff. You don't have to SEE a star to calculate its mass. You don't have to SEE a black hole to map its position. You don't have to SEE an atom to split it.

More over, none of this has to do with nothing. You can't see nothing, because it is quite literally nothing. That is the idea of nothing. There is nothing there. A void of everything. You simply can't handle that idea, because you can't see it. You have no real concept over absolute 0. I can't blame you though, it's not something humans should be able to do yet. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you believe. The truth of all matters are out there just waiting to be discovered. You can hold fast to your ideas, or discover it for yourself. I see no reason in continuing this conversation. We're only repeating ourselves now.
User avatar #68743 to #68721 - kungfulouie (05/17/2014) [-]
The complexity of the science does not change the fact that it is still insufficient. Again, please do not arrogantly accuse that I cannot understand a concept, as it is not the same as disagreeing with you, which is what I'm doing. Sight was not my point, but the unknown that is beyond what we can measure, and the nothingness which, by it's very definition, we cannot. It's the acceptance of not knowing I'm asking you to admit to, as the unknown surrounds us, and nothingness is nowhere, all personal beliefs aside. If you cannot, then this conversation is truly at a standstill.
User avatar #68785 to #68743 - bluenebula (05/18/2014) [-]
Do you ever get the feeling.... that you're being watched? I can't shake this feeling, that there's something watching me.... something strange.... something, BRITISH.
User avatar #68880 to #68785 - revengeforfreeze (05/19/2014) [-]
what le could that possibly be
User avatar #68788 to #68785 - kungfulouie (05/18/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF6rG4uGOrI

Relevant today more than ever.
User avatar #68753 to #68743 - kungfulouie (05/17/2014) [-]
I must admit though, I'm am somewhat confused, with all due respect, by your refusal to accept that basic physics claims there is no nothingness, being as well studied as you are, and has had that standpoint for ages, repeatedly proving it.
#68781 to #68753 - bluenebula (05/18/2014) [-]
Some space for your face.
User avatar #68780 to #68753 - bluenebula (05/18/2014) [-]
The ancient Greeks refused he existence of the number 0. They said that 0 can not be real, because there is no such thing as no numbers. Back then, they didn't have the mathematical concept of no numbers. 2+2=4, and 2-2= the end of the conversation. There was no counting 0, there was no multiplying 0, there was nothing involving it. It was alien. Much like the introduction of the imaginary number, i, the square root of -1. People had no concepts over these "Numbers" or how hey worked. We, having lived life with i and 0, are used to their existence. To me, the number 0 is a reminder that there can be nothing, even if we can't understand what that means.

I'd like to clarify that I do not mean the word.I am not trying to say you don't know what the word nothing means, I'm trying to say that you don't know what nothing is, because it is not anything. We can't measure nothing. We need something to measure with, and that measuring device would be something. We are not measuring the nothing at that point, we are measuring that measuring tool through the nothing. If there is light, then it is not nothing anymore. It is a measurable space of light waves and particles. But as I've said, there was a time and WILL be a time where the universe falls to its heat death, and even the black holes fade and die. The universe will be true nothingness, just like it was before the big bang.

For as well read as you are, I'm surprised you don't want to accept the idea of nothingness in reality. Try not to make the same mistakes the Greeks did.
User avatar #68699 to #68698 - kungfulouie (05/17/2014) [-]
Hubris is what holds progress back, and I say that from a neutral standpoint.
User avatar #68837 to #68699 - kungfulouie (05/18/2014) [-]
I'm not denying the concept of nothingness, I'm saying it's not proven anywhere. Again, there can be 0 apples in my hand, but there is never nothing in my hand, because we are literally surround by things, space, particles, and obviously things like air, moisture, etc. I don't know why we're still on this, science is positive it has never found nothing, because nothingness literally cannot exist, as it's an abstract concept according to both science and philosophy. And, if you're going to post this opinion again, I would suggest not sneaking it in out of order so I it doesn't show up on my feed, in a spot I can't directly reply to. That seems to lack honor and integrity. In fact, you keep stating the same beliefs over and over, regardless of obvious proof (which I've linked). I understand it's hard to keep an open mind, but you really should, if not for the sake of science, then for your own.
User avatar #68840 to #68837 - kungfulouie (05/18/2014) [-]
What you're discussing is your beliefs, not science. As I said at the beginning of this post, do not get them confused.
User avatar #68839 to #68837 - kungfulouie (05/18/2014) [-]
Again, and for the last time.
Stop insinuating you know more than me, because you clearly do not. You make brazen assumptions and non sequitur analogies, like insinuating misunderstanding by talking about the introduction of zero to the Greeks. Your not fooling anyone. That arrogance may work on some people, but you'll eventually learn that all it does is make you look arrogant about your own ignorance. I can tell now that you don't want to discuss this as equals, what a waste.
User avatar #68537 to #68536 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
Also, that is what I said regarding quantum particles being at the very cusp of matter and energy.
User avatar #68538 to #68537 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
Though again, my one and only point of this entire concept was that there is no proof of nothingness. It is an abstract concept.
User avatar #68542 to #68538 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
0 is a concept. Nothingness is not. It's just hard to understand, because we have no real concept over nothing. Even 0 is something to us. It has a shape, a meaning, applications in day to day life. Nothing has never been seen before. Never been lived. Never touched or created. You can't catch it, or study it. In a way, you are right. It is a concept. However, it is also a reality. One we can not fully understand.
User avatar #68547 to #68542 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
To say nothingness is a reality is a belief, not a fact. It could exist solely in your mind.
User avatar #68548 to #68547 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
And as of right now, factually speaking, that is the only place it exists.
User avatar #68443 to #68435 - revengeforfreeze (05/16/2014) [-]
interesting. yeah i think i kind of get that, that if particles move out of it, it would mean they are falling apart so that they can even escape at all
User avatar #68444 to #68443 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
The most simple and not to be cited way I can explain it is that matter goes in, get's ejected through the top and bottom as energy, and suddenly and for no explained reason become matter once more outside of the black hole's event horizon. It's far more complicated than that, but that's the best way I can sum it up.
User avatar #68411 to #68399 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
Well, if you were to quote Hawking, you may be surprised to learn he recently changed his concept of black holes, which would include things passing through them. And particles pop into and out of our perception, not existence, which is to say that because we don't know where they go, does not mean they go into nothingness. For if they were to become nothingness, they theoretically couldn't continue to exist, as nothingness cannot be in time or space, as those are both quantifiable things. For all we know, they simply move to a different place, which to me seems far more likely. Again, there are thousands of theories on the beginning of existence, whether if was created by a greater force, transported through a black hole, or poofed into existence from an abstract nothingness, the debate rages on. Though that is certainly not my point, to claim which is correct. My point is that, according to science, anything quantifiable is not nothingness. A black hole is positively not nothing, as it is not only measurable in the force it creates, but is also plainly visible, has certain causes and effects, etc etc. There has never been anything but theories about the concept of "nothing" because as far as we know, it's only within our minds. At least as far as scientific proof is concerned.
User avatar #68438 to #68411 - bluenebula (05/16/2014) [-]
The most popular theory of the particles phasing in and out is that they go from being pure energy, to becoming pure matter. E=MC^2 naturally occurring inside and outside of a black hole. This, and other things like Antimatter, and what's thought to have happened during the big bang. This is what makes black holes so intriguing. They could very well unlock the secrets to the creation of the universe.
0
#68841 to #68438 - kungfulouie has deleted their comment [-]
#68838 to #68438 - anonymous (05/18/2014) [-]
So you admit that there is no proof of nothingness. Excellent.

You are free to believe that we came from nothing and will return to nothing, you can believe whatever you want. All I was asking was for you to admit that science doesn't claim it. That took a really long time.
User avatar #68879 to #68838 - bluenebula (05/19/2014) [-]
If you want me to crack down your everything, there is NO PROOF of anything. Not even your own existence. We can hop on the science fiction train and say you are nothing but an AI in a simulation. We can go the Einstein rout and say that all of your understanding of modern science is wrong and you haven't found out yet. We can claim anything and everything is wrong. So always remember that just because YOU don't believe it, that doesn't mean it's not a real thing. Just because you don't have a concept over the subject, that doesn't mean that there is no proof. Don't twist my words, kid. You're 100 years too young for that.
User avatar #68393 to #68311 - thebritishguy (05/16/2014) [-]
Atheism is the claim
"I don't believe in God"
that is the only claim that I as an atheist make, so I don't need science to prove it because I already know to a high degree of certainty what I personally believe and do not believe.
User avatar #68394 to #68393 - thebritishguy (05/16/2014) [-]
In fact I am infallible as to my knowledge of my personal beliefs and opinions.
User avatar #68395 to #68394 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
Infallible is a strong word, but you are free to believe whatever you like.
User avatar #68398 to #68395 - thebritishguy (05/16/2014) [-]
I think this is the only case in which I can be infallible, there is no way that I can believe in God without knowing that I believe in God.
User avatar #68412 to #68398 - kungfulouie (05/16/2014) [-]
Simply believing something does not make the belief infallible.
User avatar #68579 to #68412 - thebritishguy (05/17/2014) [-]
If the belief is whether or not you believe something then I think it is, "I don't like Justin Bieber" for instance, there's no way that I am mistaken on this as I know already that I dislike him, at this moment in time.
#68349 to #68311 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
Until you understand how quantum mechanics, heisenberg's uncertainty principle and vacuums work i don't think you can talk about nothingness.

Also the lack of belief in a god doesn't equal coming out of nothing nor is it a lack of belief in the supernatural as a whole. The thing about a lack of belief is though that it's an inevitable result of scientific skepticism as the god hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefor useless to science.
User avatar #68353 to #68349 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
You're insinuating my ignorance, which is not only rude, but also unfounded. You've claimed a nothingness, in this case my understanding of specific principles, which was an assumption based towards your own perceived superiority. You cannot have a neutral discussion if you stand on the table rather than sit down at it with everyone. If you would like to discuss specific principles, I would be happy to. Although, again, this seems to be somewhat off topic from my original statements. I do not want this to devolve into individual beliefs, as that is not scientific.
User avatar #68358 to #68353 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
There's nothing rude about acknowledging reality, if i'm ignorant about something i want to be pointed out that i'm ignorant and become corrected regarding the statement so that i learn more from it.

You made a very oversimplified version of nothingness hence why i do not think you're qualified to talk about it. Your idea of nothingness assumes a linear act of cause and effect, but quantum mechanics acts in very unpredictable ways that defy causality. Virtual particles in empty space can pop in and out of existence through quantum fluctuations, thus the principle of nothingness in physics is scientific.

Another problem is that you have a very scewed idea of what atheism is, the lack of belief in a god isn't a statement of belief, it's a statement of skepticism. The reason atheists don't believe in a god is not because they believe we came out of nothing, but because we LACK a belief, a belief in god which has no evidence whatsoever.

The reason why science supports atheism is because science is based around the principle of evidentialism and falsifiability, if a proposed hypothesis cannot hold onto these principles then they are unscientific, hence the lack of belief in a god is inherently scientific.
User avatar #68360 to #68358 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
My idea of nothingness does not assume such things. My idea of nothingness is that it's purely abstract and unproven. Particles do not pop into "empty" space, they pop into space. Space is never empty, it always exists. It can lack a specific thing, but it is never nothing, as if it were, we couldn't perceive it.

And that is not my idea of atheism. You're making vast assumptions on my belief of what atheism is. I've simply stated that science doesn't prove it, and no more. Again, I was referring to the people who claim science is in favor of atheism, which it is not.

Science's standpoint on God isn't "prove it or it's bullshit", because that isn't neutral. It's standpoint is "insufficiant data", or "I don't know yet".
User avatar #68361 to #68360 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
Ofcourse you'd assume your idea of nothingness is unproven since your idea of nothingness is simply a completely wrong version of what most scientists and atheists refer to. Empty space is completely devoid of matter. In QED vacuum, the electric and magnetic fields have zero average values making it literally nothing by definition. In fact empty space cannot even detected if it weren't for mathematical models. The only thing that can make empty space not a value of zero are virtual particles which like i said pop in and out of existence from NOTHING.

Not only is this principle scientific, but it also solved the dilemma of how a universe can come without a god. So whether it follows your bad definition of nothingness is irrelevant, as long as there if a scientific model that can account from a universe without god it can back up atheism.

Ofcourse science doesn't "prove" atheism you can't "prove" a skeptical position. When a person says that there is a god the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person who is skeptical of said claim.

Science standpoint on god is. "If there is no evidence there is no valid reason to believe he is true". Also note that believing and knowing are too different concepts. I don't know if there is a god but i don't believe in him due to a lack of evidence.
User avatar #68364 to #68361 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
If you can measure something, it is something.

And again, science is always neutral. Your "if there is no evidence there is no reason to believe" is a skeptic's standpoint, thus a sort of personal belief. Science doesn't have beliefs, or feel a specific way about anything. It's neutral. It's only standpoint is "not enough information". It factually admits that it doesn't know.
User avatar #68366 to #68364 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
Again you don't understand the proper scientific definition of something and nothing. Nothingness isn't an abstract concept, it's a mathematical quantum state. Until you can disprove quantum fluctuations then your claim that nothing is unscientific is a false notion.

Being skeptical isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief, being skeptical simply means having no reason to belief a claim until it has evidence, which is again not a belief, if i told you that i have a pink hippo and you say you're skeptical then does that mean that you just created a belief out of the non-existence of the hippo? No. Skepticism makes no statement regarding beliefs and it's the very foundation of the hypothetico-deductive model that created the scientific method.
User avatar #68369 to #68366 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
I do not need to disprove quantum fluctuations, they exist within space. Space, being a tangible and quantifiable thing is not nothingness. If it was, particles (or whatever object is or is not there) couldn't exist, because they would not be surrounded by it.

And yes, skepticism is a belief, as it is doubt of a specific claim. It is a feeling. Science does not feel. It only accumulates data, in order to accumulate more data.
User avatar #68374 to #68369 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
Quantum fluctuations don't exist within space, virtual particles do but only for an extreme small amount of time, they pop out of nowhere, not even from empty space, so even if i where to grant your completely wrong definition it still remains a fact that virtual particles came from nothing. Space is described as a three dimensional extend in which objects have relative position and direction. Due to the heisenberg principle and the wave-particle duality in quantum physics empty space is a devoid mathematical state without any position or direction thus by definition it is not space.

But all of this is irrelevant because you're ignoring the fact that there is a SCIENTIFIC model that allows a universe to arise WITHOUT god.

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true". Skepticism is by definition the opposite of belief.
User avatar #68376 to #68374 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Basic physics agrees that the concept of nothingness does not exist, as all things can be measured. You can look it up if you like. Lacking a specific thing is not nothingness, as without that thing being perceived as lacking, it is still a quantifiable space. Nothingness is as abstract concept, as all things that can be perceived exist, space included.
That being said, we are WAY off topic of my original statements, and this conversations seems to be going in circles. You can be skeptical if you like, that is your right, but at the end of the day, science doesn't know, and would never ever say for certain it did, because then it wouldn't be science.
User avatar #68378 to #68376 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
I posted the link now
User avatar #68357 to #68353 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
You completely ignored his second paragraph.
User avatar #68359 to #68357 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
I responded to it.
#68342 to #68311 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Jesus fucking christ. I don't know what retards you have been talking to but atheists are atheist because there is no reason or proof for them to believe in a religion. No shit you can't prove nothing and no one here has tried.
The so called "science book" is the rules we follow in an argument for belief to determine what is evidence and not.
User avatar #68458 to #68342 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
that's retarded cause the bible does the same thing...plus, the rules are better
and killing things is wrong and so is other things
you most think it's ok to sleep with 10 other guys, eh?
User avatar #68530 to #68458 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
"that's retarded cause the bible does the same thing...plus, the rules are better
and killing things is wrong and so is other things "
what the fuck are you even saying? how does this relate to what i said?

"you most think it's ok to sleep with 10 other guys, eh?"
Again where the fuck did this come from? And I'm not a fag but if someone wants to do that I ain't gonna stop them.
User avatar #68563 to #68530 - acemcgunner (05/17/2014) [-]
you have poor morals if you think the bible is bad... read the laws of god..
User avatar #68679 to #68563 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
yeahhhhh ok....
User avatar #68415 to #68342 - teoberry (05/16/2014) [-]
Aren't you deist? Or were you feeling like a spechuul snowflaek again and changed it?
User avatar #68431 to #68415 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
ad hom and no I've always called myself either an "agnostic deist" or "agnostic theist".
User avatar #68568 to #68431 - teoberry (05/17/2014) [-]
Fallacy fallacy.
User avatar #68680 to #68568 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
le i can prezent muh argumentzz deh waey i wwant faec
User avatar #68696 to #68680 - teoberry (05/17/2014) [-]
So can I.
User avatar #68345 to #68342 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
I am not arguing your right to believe whatever you want, I'm just saying your beliefs are not proven by science. Though I will say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that MANY atheists try to claim science is on their side, which it certainly is not.
User avatar #68347 to #68345 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
I'm not an atheist and NO SHIT THEY AREN'T, that's what I've been trying to fucking tell you. Science is the baseline for judging an argument/evidence. Science is on the side of reason. Atheists use reason to say that they believe God doesn't exist because there is no reason to believe so. Don't forget the term "believe" and "reason"
User avatar #68351 to #68347 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Again, please remain calm. Nothing gets accomplished through emotional hostility, it raises walls instead of words with understanding. And again, I am not trying to discuss specific beliefs, or sides, or what have you. I am simply stating that, as happens frequently, atheists attempt to claim they are science based, which they are not. Atheism is a belief like any other, unsubstantiated all the same.
User avatar #68382 to #68351 - theugandanhero (05/15/2014) [-]
Your demeanor on here signifies that you're trying to preach for the Guantama Buddha himself. And showing emotional hostility is a lot better than holding your tongue and listening to some false prophet BS.
User avatar #68384 to #68382 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Actually, I'm just trying to stay calm and neutral, as that's the most practical and progressive way to discuss things. I'm not preaching any specific religion, at all.
User avatar #68385 to #68384 - theugandanhero (05/15/2014) [-]
So what convinced you to come here and crap up this board with your nonsense about science not going hand in hand with atheism?
Plus, some of the greatest debates would have never reached grand consensus without both parties losing steam over it.
User avatar #68386 to #68385 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
This was a religion board, which includes my topic, which was based upon what I wrote.
User avatar #68387 to #68386 - theugandanhero (05/15/2014) [-]
You still haven't explained to me as to why you came here and started spewing all of this shit.
User avatar #68352 to #68351 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Stop fucking being a little shit and trying to ad hom me with "pls remaine calm", I can talk however the fuck I want. You're stupid replies just cause me to inevitably be un-nice to you because you bring up something that is so obvious and expect people to go "wow!!!1111". Read what the fuck kanadetenshi said.

He explains it better then I do.
User avatar #68355 to #68352 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Until you act peacefully, I will not discuss things with you.
User avatar #68381 to #68355 - theugandanhero (05/15/2014) [-]
And you acting peacefully is the only way that you're going to be able to get any argument on here to swing in your direction, on your terms.
User avatar #68459 to #68381 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
yes that's how it works
User avatar #68356 to #68355 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
I don't care, you're an idiot. Go read kanade's post and admit you're wrong. Bye bye.
User avatar #68460 to #68356 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
you're wrong and possibly a whore
User avatar #68332 to #68311 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
i like you
User avatar #68320 to #68311 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
What specific claim of nothingness are you speaking of? And what does the rejection of deities have to do with science?
User avatar #68333 to #68320 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
yes eight feed us!! the trolls!!!
User avatar #68322 to #68320 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
The entire concept of nothingness, how it's abstract, and possibly only in your mind.

And absolutely nothing, which is why I was referring to the fedoras who claim science is what backs atheism.
User avatar #68325 to #68322 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
I don't have a concept for nothingness. Even when I try to have a concept of nothingness and I picture some vast empty black void, the black void itself is something.

What does science have to do with nothingness or atheism though? I guess I just don't understand your point.
User avatar #68327 to #68325 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
My point is that so many atheists claim that science is on their side. So many. But it's totally not. It doesn't have a side, it's for everyone. Atheism is just claiming the one is a zero, while others claim the one is called something else, while still others claim the one is actually nine different entities. But science isn't on any side, it's simply science.
User avatar #68362 to #68327 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
Atheism is not a claim, it's a skeptical position.
User avatar #68363 to #68362 - skeptical (05/15/2014) [-]
I can confirm this, I am skeptical
User avatar #68334 to #68327 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
Science doesn't take any sides. Correct. It's just a tool. The reasons atheist use it in arguments is because of many of the arguments that religious people use to support their God..

"If God doesn't exist then explain the oceans..."
"If God doesn't exist then explain the sunrise..."

These are just some of many examples for their belief that many religious people today still use. And they use it because they aren't aware of actual explanations for the phenomenon. If they were aware, they might not turn to the god of the gaps answer.

Science has uncovered a lot of Earths history that isn't in The Bible, like dinosaurs, or the age of the Earth which isn't under 10,000 years, stuff like abiogenesis, and Evolution.

User avatar #68337 to #68334 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Well, my point here isn't to discuss specific religious beliefs, as that will turn into something unintended and possibly off topic. My only point here was that atheists cannot claim science backs their beliefs, which they often do.
User avatar #68340 to #68337 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
Science can back the reasoning that Atheists use to reject religions and God's, which is why science turns up in a lot of arguments. But does it support Atheism itself? No, because it's just a rejection. It makes no assertions about something, it's just saying that they don't believe something to be true.
User avatar #68343 to #68340 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Kind of. Though again, not really my point. My point was more "see, we now know that rain falls from the sky because of how evaporation works, therefore Atheism" is ridiculous. How something works, and what it is as a meaning are not only separate concepts in and of themselves. Saying one thing is wrong does not prove the other is right. Science just explains how things work, not what they are. In example, rain is made up of water, but water is an important part of life. Therefore, just because we know how it falls, does not prove atheism.
User avatar #68365 to #68343 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
Okay. It sounds like the atheists you surround yourself with probably don't know what atheism actually is. I don't think I know a single atheist that thinks like that. I know plenty of religious though that feel if they could disprove Evolution that it would make God exist.
#68367 to #68365 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
I do not surround myself with them, I had posted this in an attempt to put an end to their false ownership of science, nothing more.
I do not surround myself with them, I had posted this in an attempt to put an end to their false ownership of science, nothing more.
User avatar #68368 to #68367 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
You're speaking very generally and certainly not for all atheists. I'd probably say not even most, because again, I haven't encountered that kind of thinking since middle school where some people were atheists because they thought it was cool and not because they understood what it meant.
#68371 to #68368 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
I am most certainly not speaking for all atheists. Just toward some.
User avatar #68380 to #68371 - theugandanhero (05/15/2014) [-]
You mean the fedora-enlightened-retards that atheists themselves don't want to associate themselves with? You can keep those motherfuckers.
#68383 to #68380 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
I don't want them.  Man, do I not want them.
I don't want them. Man, do I not want them.
User avatar #68336 to #68334 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
they never happens....
User avatar #68328 to #68327 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
And even the concept of a "void" is itself abstract. There is no "void of everything" (which I think is what you said). Everything is something, there is no void, no nothingness.
User avatar #68312 to #68311 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Science and atheism are completely separate.
User avatar #68344 to #68312 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Wow really? Well consider this, science is what we use to determine what is right/wrong, what can be evidence and what can't.
It's the fact that atheists and non-believers use it much more then religious people do.
User avatar #68346 to #68344 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
That is prejudice, and I can tell you're very aggressive. Please remain calm and neutral.
User avatar #68348 to #68346 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
sounds like an ad hom?
User avatar #68335 to #68312 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
i love you
User avatar #68379 to #68335 - theugandanhero (05/15/2014) [-]
Wow you must be riding this guys dick REAL hard.
User avatar #68461 to #68379 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
sorry if you are gay..
User avatar #68456 to #68379 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
you a penis!
#68339 to #68335 - kungfulouie (05/15/2014) [-]
Thank you
Thank you
User avatar #68298 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
What would be the implications of having a surrogate mother give birth to a Neanderthal baby? Obviously, we could learn a lot about Neanderthals this way, it would be beneficial to the field of science, but what about the moral implications?

1. What about if the child survives our diseases and bacteria and grows to be a man?

2. Would we allow interbreeding between our species?

3. It's suggested that Neanderthals, despite the 'stupid' stigma, were actually intelligent and they'd probably probably be capable of learning everything an average human could. So would it be moral to deprive this humanoid of modern civilizations pleasures just because he's different?

4. Should we treat it like any other Earth species and keep it cooped up in a zoo of some sort?

5. If these concerns are valid should we clone more of the species so that he could have a mate or would that itself be immoral to bring back a dead species and then to jump start it again?

I ask this here because morality is probably the biggest part of religion and since most of the world is religious, I'd think this would end up being a decision based on peoples religious beliefs.
User avatar #68555 to #68298 - satoshileex (05/16/2014) [-]
Sorry I'm late to the party but what would be the point aside from just doing it?

I mean what could we possibly learn from them considering it is not in the same culture and everything as it was in the past?
User avatar #68557 to #68555 - eight (05/17/2014) [-]
No idea really. It's probably relevant to a biologist though.
User avatar #68558 to #68557 - satoshileex (05/17/2014) [-]
I suppose so...but if we mapped their sequence I'm not sure what else we could really gain from doing that. Perhaps their reaction to our diseases....
User avatar #68559 to #68558 - eight (05/17/2014) [-]
Or maybe seeing what exactly their intelligence level would have been. That might give us more insight into their movements and motives in the past. It would also be a good social experiment. Bringing back an old, intelligent species and putting them in modern society.
User avatar #68500 to #68298 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
plus, just like us wouldn't they worship a monkey god?
User avatar #68388 to #68298 - marinepenguin ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Well that would be interesting, we know it's possible to do it, as we can easily resurrect passenger pigeons, mammoths, a species of hen (can't remember what it's called, died out in the 30's), the thyaciline and many more species. And I'm sure we could find a suitable candidate, as there was evidence of interbreeding between our two species and we actually can trace 5% of our genes directly to neanderthal ancestry.
User avatar #68372 to #68298 - KINGOFTHESTARS (05/15/2014) [-]


I say we would let em live because its intelligent and spawned from one of us
#68331 to #68298 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
they will turn on us!! plus, this is flsgged
User avatar #68310 to #68298 - thebritishguy (05/15/2014) [-]
Another point from Jurassic Park is that one of the reasons why the velociraptors were so violent is that they had no parents to teach them how to be pack animals or to bite them on the back of the neck when they got out of hand, so they were uncivilised. So although we would clone a neanderthal it would lose the culture and social norms which it's parents would have taught it and which would have been part of neanderthal identity and supposedly learn ours if it has human parents.
User avatar #68316 to #68310 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
The current idea is that a mother would act as a surrogate. She'd carry the baby to term and give birth. So I guess it would have a mother, at least a birth mother, just not blood. But I don't know if the mother would want to care for the child.
User avatar #68309 to #68298 - thebritishguy (05/15/2014) [-]
I think we should first see what the mentality of the neanderthal would be like, if a women is as strange enough to want to have a child with a neanderthal and if the neanderthal is into that then I don't see why not. If they act just like humans then I don't see why we wouldn't treat them like humans. With overpopulation though it seems a bad idea to bring numerous amounts of them back. Also there are specific regulations for humans such as human rights, the geneva convention, not testing drugs on humans in the same way that you test them on animals etc. which you would want to extend to the neanderthals. That's actually one of the problems in the second Jurassic Park book, companies want the dinosaurs so that they can test drugs on them without regulations.
#68307 to #68298 - dehumanizer (05/15/2014) [-]
and how do you propose we do that?
User avatar #68314 to #68307 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
Do what?
#68409 to #68314 - dehumanizer (05/16/2014) [-]
bring back the neaderhals
User avatar #68446 to #68409 - eight (05/16/2014) [-]
Cloning and stem cell research. They could do it tomorrow if they wanted to (i think). If not, then we're very close to be able to do it.
#68447 to #68446 - dehumanizer (05/16/2014) [-]
you know Jurrasic Park is fiction right?
User avatar #68449 to #68447 - eight (05/16/2014) [-]
It's fiction because we don't have any Dino DNA, or at least not enough of it to clone anything. We do have Neanderthal DNA and as I understand the structures have been fully sequenced. Which is why we're now starting to consider cloning Neanderthals.
#68450 to #68449 - dehumanizer (05/16/2014) [-]
I was not aware of that.
I was not aware of that.
User avatar #68451 to #68450 - eight (05/16/2014) [-]
Neither was I, until recently.
User avatar #68300 to #68298 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
the hell you talking about now?
User avatar #68303 to #68300 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
He's asking how we would treat Neanderthals if we managed to revive them.
User avatar #68304 to #68303 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
treat all god's creatures with love and respect that they deserve...
User avatar #68313 to #68304 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
But...we don't do that now. At least, not all of us.
User avatar #68315 to #68313 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
mmm, then I don't know even since this time, then again you're right ,however not everything has a soul ,too...mmm, I guess, we'll treat them like others people (like black people)
User avatar #68317 to #68315 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
I think they'd be shunned from society, especially where sex is concerned, because of the stigma that Neanderthals are stupid. Who wants to breed with a caveman? Can you imagine though, being born for the purpose of a science experiment and then no one amongst your peers would ever accept you. Sounds horrible.
User avatar #68318 to #68317 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
I guess, where do they come from? do we play god and make them?
User avatar #68319 to #68318 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
Pretty much. They've sequenced Neanderthal DNA. And they are currently humoring the idea of cloning it through Stem Cell research and using a surrogate mother to give birth to one. I don't know what they'd do from there though.
User avatar #68321 to #68319 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
slave at first then they rise up then again I am sure it'll be outlawed I hope..
User avatar #68323 to #68321 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
I hope we never enslave anything again. This reminds me though, can't wait for the new Planet of The Apes movie.
User avatar #68324 to #68323 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
<.<'; I'll that movie comment pass even if it's not on the right board...so no flag
User avatar #68326 to #68324 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
Well, it's sort of on topic in context of the discussion. What would happen if Neanderthals were brought back in full. Would our species conflict or would we find some measure of peace. Granted, I don't think we'd ever allow them to return to coexist. Only to poke and prod in labs and zoos.
User avatar #68330 to #68326 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
what if they enslave us, and yeahh~ this belong on the science board
User avatar #68338 to #68330 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
I don't think most scientists are too concerned with moral issues. They just want knowledge. Because it might help to benefit humanity more that it would by harming just a few creatures. Kill one, save a million idea.

Which is why the controversies exist over concepts like cloning. Because other people are concerned with the moral repercussions. I'd take this to the science board only if I wanted a science lesson on the mechanics of cloning or the testing that would be done to a cloned animal.
User avatar #68454 to #68338 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
this has nothing to do with damn religion nutter...
and they are bad people..
User avatar #68496 to #68454 - eight (05/16/2014) [-]
I explained what it has to do with religion in the first post, morality. Morality tends to be a base argument in favor of religion. And considering the majority of the world believes in religion and thinks they get their morality from a religion, any action for the future of this topic will probably be based on the morals of people who believe in religion. As you can see, the two are inseparable.

On a second note, why do you find trolling so entertaining? What exactly about it gives you pleasure?
User avatar #68498 to #68496 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
as you can see, you are the devil and full of hate and sin for monkeys and humans..
#68497 to #68496 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
you give me pleasure
plus I know what Morality is..it's something you or them will ever have...
picture related to all this..
User avatar #68513 to #68497 - eight (05/16/2014) [-]
Moral people don't troll. Sadists do.
User avatar #68526 to #68513 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
"Just yesterday I raped 5 nuns"
ok ok you are a funny guy
#68532 to #68526 - eight (05/16/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #68517 to #68513 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
it's not Moral to troll others, lol and I ain't trolling you non-believer of scum..
Moral people don't troll. Sadists do someone like you without morals can't say that cause people like you believe it's ok to kill things and rape thing..etc. etc. etc.
User avatar #68523 to #68517 - eight (05/16/2014) [-]
Just yesterday I raped 5 nuns. They had it coming with those skimpy long black skirts and their irresistible grey wigs.
User avatar #68290 - revengeforfreeze (05/15/2014) [-]
lulzfornigeriagirl
when's lulzforturkeymine coming?
User avatar #68248 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
old testament doesn't matter, I believe in new testament, I worship Jesus, praise him!! the savior of us!!
User avatar #68350 to #68248 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Based on the way you type and your arguments, I'm pretty sure you are a troll.
User avatar #68455 to #68350 - acemcgunner (05/16/2014) [-]
nope, how is believing in a real person Jesus related to trolling?
User avatar #68416 to #68350 - teoberry (05/16/2014) [-]
>that is literally you
User avatar #68261 to #68248 - alecbaldwinning ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Why is it included then?
User avatar #68262 to #68261 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
cause it's just stories of faith and other stuff...etc.
or it'll be messed up with we lost it
User avatar #68263 to #68262 - alecbaldwinning ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Then why did they leave the other books out?
User avatar #68264 to #68263 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
I wasn't there I am sure since it was "back then" it will be, a money issues, I guess
since books and paper was hard to come by..
#68215 - desacabose (05/14/2014) [-]
So do you guys believe in predestiny or freewill.

I mean technically speaking someone would have had to be Judas
User avatar #68556 to #68215 - satoshileex (05/16/2014) [-]
I believe that humans can have free will and God does not conflict with that. Why? because while God is all-knowing he does not directly influence humanities will, at least not normally perhaps their are some cases in which God does. But if humans did not have a free will you would not be able to make moral choices, they would just have choices. And we wouldn't blame criminals for choosing to act out on their "wrong" choice as opposed to their "good" choice.
User avatar #68518 to #68215 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
I'm an Atheist, but if the Abrahamic god were to exist, predestination would be a requirement for it. Free will can not exist under an omniscient god since that god would know where you will end up before you even are created. For free will to exist, god, as many people know it, could not.
User avatar #68397 to #68215 - personalspace (05/16/2014) [-]
There is no such thing as predestiny.

Free will was given unto humans the day Adam and Eve took a bite out of the apple. It is preposterous that The Lord gave the 10 rules for us to follow when there are millions are doomed to fail.
User avatar #68514 to #68397 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
God knows all, which means he knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. He's known since it has existed. For predestination to be false, God could not be God.
User avatar #68531 to #68514 - personalspace (05/16/2014) [-]
It is unbelievable that The Lord would make a list of rules for people to follow if it wasn't needed. Man is made in the image of god, man can predict events that will transpire, such as rain and hurricanes. Much the way that god can predict the future. He doesn't make the future, although I'm sure he could.
User avatar #68535 to #68531 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Being able to predict things is not the same as knowing all. It says very clearly that god is omniscient, which means he knows everything. What I will eat for dinner tonight, what the fate of the universe is, and whether I will go to heaven or hell. Nothing I do can change what god knows to be fact, or else god would no longer be god.

Job 37:16: Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.

Psalm 147:5: Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

1 Samuel 2:3: Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Psalm 139:4: Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

1 John 3:19-20: By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

You ask why god made a list of rules, and I do not know. I do know, however, that god knows without question whether we are going to hell, or else it would not be god.
User avatar #68539 to #68535 - personalspace (05/16/2014) [-]
Don't mistake all knowing with predestination. Predestination implies if you were to try to change something by going back I'm time it would still happen the same way either with a slight vary between.

God is all knowing because he can predict what will happen, not because it's engraved in his notebook.
User avatar #68541 to #68539 - nigeltheoutlaw ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
That's exactly what it means, since god would know if you were trying to change something, and would know the outcome of what you did. God knows what you are going to do, when you are going to do it, and when you go to hell. You couldn't change anything, as that would mean that god was wrong, which is impossible. Hell, John 3:20 says that exact thing, "God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything."

Then he is not all knowing. The definition of omniscience is: "the property of having complete or maximal knowledge. Along with omnipotence and perfect goodness it is usually taken to be one of the central divine attributes." By your definition, god is not all knowing, just good at guessing, and is therefore not a god by the Abrahamic standards laid out in the Bible.
User avatar #68244 to #68215 - payseht (05/15/2014) [-]
I have never understood the concept of free will so I just googled it... I, of course, heard about it and it was explained to me, but always in the context of religion.

"Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors."
In this case, under no circumstance, do I believe in free will. Nobody lives in a void. Everything and anything will influence you. You are constrained by the world that surrounds you. The people you talk to, the culture you grew up in, the new information being fed to you, the old information refusing to adapt or go away, the people in your life and social obligations, your biology, etc.

Free will as I understood it within the context of a god existing, as he/she/it was explained by most people I've talked to would be pointless. An all knowing god would know every action you'll take and where you'll end up after death before the creation of the Universe.

Just to go as far as I can, I believe in a predetermined Universe. The second it popped into existence, every single quark had a direction and speed, every law guiding it was there, and with enough understanding of the fundamentals of our Universe, enough processing power, and the value of all the variables, we could potentially know exactly who's going to do what from their birth to their death, and exactly what happened any given time in history (and to some extent, the future. Like throwing a ball, you understand enough to predict it will fall and not go down but on a much more complex scale). There is the uncertainty principle, but I just believe (possibly wrongly, it's just a belief, maybe from lack of proper understanding) we're not clever enough or advanced technologically enough to understand the cause behind it. Maybe I lack imagination and can't fathom a result without a cause. Maybe we'll never be able to truly understand everything because we're restricted to this niche of space and dimension.

tl;dr: predestiny
User avatar #68287 to #68244 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
"every single quark had a direction and speed"
I agree with you on predestiny but that's impossible
User avatar #68329 to #68287 - payseht (05/15/2014) [-]
I just thought of the smallest thing I know and used that. It's been at least 5 years since I touched any physics books.
User avatar #68354 to #68329 - lulzfornigeriagirl ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
If you're interested you can check out Brownian motion to begin with.
#68266 to #68244 - dehumanizer (05/15/2014) [-]
b-but muh atheisms!!!
User avatar #68241 to #68215 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
this is how I see things: "yes, we have free-will" however...
two-sides of free-will:
we fellow gods path that he wants for us..
or
we fellow our path like not believing in him, I guess
or maybe, we just have freewill but it's our job to seek out god instant...

I believe in god's plans if I know I am following it or truly truth I am fellowing his plan for me or my own to him
User avatar #68227 to #68215 - Cambro (05/15/2014) [-]
Prepare for a complex answer:

Ultimately, i believe in libertarian free will. Ultimately, we have a choice in things. However, we have a huge tendency to be influenced in one direction or another. This can be through things like culture, biological make-up, family, friends, past experiences, etc. God knows the past 100%. Included in that, he knows every one of your tendencies. Because of this, he predict what you are most likely to do. This allows God to, if he so wishes, to provide you situations in which you are more likely to make a decision that he would like you to make. It is, however, your completely free decision. It is only that you are structured in such a way that he is making an offer that you, for lack of a better term, would have a hard time refusing. I advocate ultimate free will.
#68226 to #68215 - vanityfair (05/15/2014) [-]
There's a valid argument behind the science of hard determinism, which would mean free will is void.
User avatar #68228 to #68226 - Cambro (05/15/2014) [-]
There is a valid argument if:
1. You assume materialism
2. Assume behaviorism
3. and under that assumption, you also assume both egoism and ethical egoism.

All three (possibly five) of which are hotly contested.
User avatar #68269 to #68228 - kanadetenshi (05/15/2014) [-]
Well the first two are backed up by evidence. The third can be biologically debatable.
User avatar #68219 to #68215 - eight (05/14/2014) [-]
Isn't there a banned gospel that explains Jesus asked Judas to turn him in?
User avatar #68243 to #68219 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
didn't Judas turned in Jesus for coins or something?
User avatar #68281 to #68243 - christmouth (05/15/2014) [-]
Aren't you Christian? You need to know this. According to the bible he betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
User avatar #68282 to #68281 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
ah! that's right..
User avatar #68221 to #68219 - desacabose (05/14/2014) [-]
I think there's a verse where Jesus says something along the lines of "Do what is you came here to do" meaning Jesus knew it would happen and who would do it
User avatar #68242 to #68221 - acemcgunner (05/15/2014) [-]
I'll need to look up that one
User avatar #68223 to #68221 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
Yeah, that's the general story. But there is a gospel in existence from the perspective of Judas where it shows Judas being the victim rather than the betrayer. Jesus practically forced him to tell the Romans so that he could be crucified and yadda yadda. I can't remember exactly why it was rejected from the canon at the council of Nicea, but probably because they needed a villain in the story and Judas fit that role.
User avatar #68225 to #68223 - Cambro (05/15/2014) [-]
The Gospels that were selected for canon had to meet criteria. These criteria were a high number of copies in circulation, accuracy between these copies, accuracy of message (not only straight facts) in correspondence with the other Gospels and Christian teachings and traditions, and these last two were most important: verification of authorship and its ties to an apostle, and the age of the manuscript being closest to Christ.

Now based on this you can look at the Gospels that are canon. There are 2000 copies of Matthew and Mark. The Gospel of John seems to be the earliest written between 40 AD and 70 AD, but not reaching final form until later. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all date around 60-70 AD which would be only 30 years after Christ.

In comparison, the Gospel of Judas contains theological teaching that did not surface until at least 180 AD. However, the text language has been linked to writing in 280 AD. That's a 100-200 year separation from Christ and is known to contain a theological teaching that is not in the other Gospels, which are known to be more accurate on the other criteria of what should be canonized. Any author is also unknown of the Gospel of Judas. The Gospel of Judas has absolutely no credibility. Its not some propaganda, there was a process that both the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas fail miserably.
User avatar #68229 to #68225 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
It's my understanding that almost all of the gospels were submitted anonymously. We don't know hardly any of the authors if any at all. It's best guess. We don't even have original documents and what shards we do have tend to differ greatly from the text of today. Or so I gathered from Bart Ehrman.

We already know that the current cannon includes forgeries, inconsistencies, mistakes and some are written many years after the events that are recalled, sometimes hundreds (like the Gospel of Judas). So I don't see why the church would suddenly find it inappropriate to include when taking this into regard.

I prefer the Judas gospel to be in The Bible because it would have made it far more interesting rather than the typical cliched, 'guy betrays friend for ___ reason.'
User avatar #68230 to #68229 - Cambro (05/15/2014) [-]
I don't think you understand how ancient historical documents are graded. It is not by original documents because there are hardly any ancient manuscripts that have original documents. Its graded similarly to how the canon was graded, actually. It is by number of copies found and accuracy between the copies. Each Gospel is graded within its own manuscript and not compared to the other 3 for the scale to be successful. Again, there are 2000 copies three synoptic Gospels and there is 97% accuracy on average between all of them, thus debunking anything about forgeries or inconsistencies (I ask you to cite any actual inconsistencies between manuscript copies because you're posing the positive claim of their existence). By comparison, there are only 600 copies of the Iliad. And as I cited in the last comment, all 4 Gospels were written between 60 and 70 AD, all of which is only 30-40 years after Christ. The difference between the 4 Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels is huge.
User avatar #68233 to #68230 - eight (05/15/2014) [-]
"Again, there are 2000 copies three synoptic Gospels and there is 97% accuracy on average between all of them, thus debunking anything about forgeries or inconsistencies (I ask you to cite any actual inconsistencies between manuscript copies because you're posing the positive claim of their existence). "

I have no interest in getting into any of that, as it's quite pointless to debate when I don't accept the context to begin with. But you'd be a fool to deny inconsistencies, forgeries and mistakes. Even many church leaders acknowledge the existence of forgeries, inconsistencies and mistakes, as do biblical scholars, the people who are supposed to be the authorities on the subject. But if you want a source, see one of Bart Ehrmans lectures on Misquoting Jesus (probably on youtube?). He turns up a lot of examples between versions, some that do have big implications on how the stories are interpreted. Maybe all of that is in the 3% you mentioned. But that wasn't my point was it? I shouldn't even have to cite anything, as it's (or so I thought) largely accepted I mean, when you have one gospel talking about an open tomb and another talking about a closed tomb, that's an obvious discrepancy and just one of many. Do I really need a citation for that? Anyone who's read The Bible probably noticed that themselves.

" By comparison, there are only 600 copies of the Iliad. And as I cited in the last comment, all 4 Gospels were written between 60 and 70 AD, all of which is only 30-40 years after Christ. The difference between the 4 Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels is huge. "

I'm not sure what point you're making by throwing in The Iliad into the mix. Do the versions of the Iliad greatly differ?

30-40 years, 100-200 years, not much of a difference when they weren't eyewitnesses of the main event to begin with.

User avatar #68234 to #68233 - Cambro (05/15/2014) [-]
If its 30-40 years its much more likely that they were eye witnesses and removes the assumption that the Gospel writers weren't eye witnesses.

No no no. You've confused me. I asked you for inconsistencies between manuscript copies of ONE Gospel. You must prove not that the 4 Gospels aren't always consistent with each other, you must prove that the manuscripts of ONE Gospel isn't consistent with itself. Why? Because 1. Unless there are inconsistencies within the manuscripts, each individual Gospel is valid, and 2. the Gospels, aside from Luke, were not written with historical accuracy in mind but rather had much more of a focus on narrative structure and literary movements as a whole. The inconsistencies are quite minor between 3 of them, and a little more in the 4th. But even so, those inconsistencies don't very much matter because a strict recording of facts wasn't the focus of Matthew, Mark, or John. Again, each individual Gospel is valid without any forgeries involved unless you can find inconsistencies between copies of Matthew, or copies of Mark, or copies of Luke, or copies of John in their own sphere.

Furthermore, the issues of forgery would be of theological importance, NOT of things like where Jesus went at what time. It makes very little difference to Christianity if Jesus went to Gilead before or after crossing the Dead Sea. His teachings matter much more. And there is, as far as I can, no inconsistencies there.
 Friends (0)