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

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#78 - roflstorm (09/24/2011) [-]
"Religion has actually convinced people that theres an invisible man....living high in the clouds who watches everything you do of every minute of everyday. And the invisible man a a list on 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you were to do any of these things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forvever and suffer an burn and scream til the end of time! but he loves you. he loves you and he needs MONEY! all knowing, all powerful, but *tok* he just cant handle money"

George Carlin
1936 - 2008
0
#116 to #78 - nerdsrule **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#93 to #78 - Womens Study Major (09/24/2011) [-]
1.Hes not a man
2. hes everywere therefore thats how hes watching you
3.he doesnt need your money lol

Atheism actualy convinced people that nothing made nothing so nothing can nothing itself therefore it can nothing its way to nothingness for all the nothings in the nothingness
User avatar #278 to #93 - defender (09/24/2011) [-]
god created homosexuality since he created everything
User avatar #119 to #106 - Cambro (09/24/2011) [-]
what did he say that was so unintelligent?
User avatar #126 to #119 - renjilonefox (09/24/2011) [-]
Atheism actualy convinced people that nothing made nothing so nothing can nothing itself therefore it can nothing its way to nothingness for all the nothings in the nothingness

Athiesm (I'm not btw) is not a religion about nothingness, and it doesnt convince people that nothing created nothingness. Athiesm, for one, leads people to make new discoveries because they arent bound by thier holy book or their god, so they can find the actual truth.

And most athiests don't believe nothing makes nothing, they believe in science, which means they probably believe in the big bang and the law that says energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The universe came from a small ball of matter that was dense beyond human comprehension, that exploded into a large haze of hydrogen dust that eventually has created the universe as we know it today.

Atheism actualy convinced people that nothing made nothing so nothing can nothing itself therefore it can nothing its way to nothingness for all the nothings in the nothingness

That statement makes no ******* sense to me at all
#142 to #126 - Womens Study Major (09/24/2011) [-]
where did the ball of matter come from  
NOTHINGNESS??  
Whats the point of science if at the end of the road we all die and our mind becomes NOTHING  
  
you see aithiesm doesnt make sense
where did the ball of matter come from
NOTHINGNESS??
Whats the point of science if at the end of the road we all die and our mind becomes NOTHING

you see aithiesm doesnt make sense
User avatar #282 to #142 - defender (09/24/2011) [-]
neither does religion
User avatar #159 to #142 - renjilonefox (09/24/2011) [-]
It's just always been there. It's hard to comprehend, but it must have always just been there. It CAN'T materialized out of the nothingness of space
User avatar #136 to #126 - Cambro (09/24/2011) [-]
matter cannot be created nor destroyed. There was nothing before the Big Bang, so where did the small ball of matter come from?
User avatar #150 to #136 - renjilonefox (09/24/2011) [-]
It's always been there. There's also a theory that after an extremely long time the force of gravity in the universe will cause everything to condense again into that same ball of matter. By that logic, this could be the 15th universe, or the 9,527th.
User avatar #429 to #150 - Cambro (09/25/2011) [-]
except the theory doesn't make sense, because we know and can see through telescopes that the universe is collapsing OUTWARD daily, not coming back inward via gravity. Rather, the energy is expounding until the galaxy burns out.
User avatar #432 to #429 - renjilonefox (09/25/2011) [-]
yeas, that's what proves the big bang theory, but the other theory says that eventually after an extraordinary amount of time, the gravity of all the combined matter in the universe will pull everything back into that one, same ball.
User avatar #434 to #432 - Cambro (09/25/2011) [-]
but the theory makes no sense. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so if it were all going to condense again from the gravity of matter it would already have happened. Gravity can only increase as matter increases. We know matter doesn't increase, therefore the theory can never come to fruition.
User avatar #435 to #434 - renjilonefox (09/25/2011) [-]
it actually can, when the force of gravity forces a planet to smash into another planet their mass will be added, minus whatever debris from the collision is sent off into space. I personally believe that if this would happen, black holes would contribute most to this.
User avatar #436 to #435 - Cambro (09/25/2011) [-]
...but that's still the same amount of matter. And there is little to no reason that planets would run into each other with their precise orbital patterns. Perhaps moons and large meteors, but not entire planets. Blackholes would allow the gravity to be more focused and thus increased in a WAY (just made more dense in an area) but they have never produced any matter that is observable and there is nothing telling us that black holes could do such a thing with this ball of energy. Another hole in the theory is that black holes (we assume) rips apart matter. For the small but dense ball of energy and matter to occur, the matter and its energy would have to be reharnassed and I don't see how that could ever be possible.
User avatar #437 to #436 - renjilonefox (09/25/2011) [-]
it would take an extraordinarily long time but eventually it should happen. As i was taught in school, Black holes occur when a neutron star (i think?) becomes so dense that it collapses in on itself, and creates (by Einstein's theory) Infinite gravity in it's center, which should probably be impossible though, so idk.
User avatar #144 to #136 - duckbro (09/24/2011) [-]
But the thing is we don't know that there was nothing before the big bang, and besides that we are still doing a large amount of research. We have no idea what actually happened at the beginning of existance which is why we are researching it. But based off of what we have found so far many scientists have deduced that blindly following faith is just a waste of time. Sure it is a nice safe haven for most people, but it's just not for some people
User avatar #430 to #144 - Cambro (09/25/2011) [-]
I assure you, no religion survives that is of blind faith alone unless it is based on oppression from culture/family. Plus, humans exercise blind faith daily. Yes, even atheists do. What is there telling you that your reason is correct? You could be in a dream. You could be a brain in a vat with a computer simulating a life for you. In other words, life isn't real. You cannot actually prove that you are living a reality. What if, in actual reality, two plus two was five? Then you would be wrong, and your reason useless. In this way, we put "blind faith" in reason and reality itself every single day.
User avatar #443 to #430 - duckbro (09/25/2011) [-]
what you are talking about is Subjective Idealism, I followed that for a while but I found it to be absolute ******** . I follow an old saying "I think, therefore I am." in other words, so long as I am able to think I exist. That is not blind faith, that is logical thought.
User avatar #446 to #443 - Cambro (09/25/2011) [-]
No, you're misunderstanding me. I know what Descartes said. His point was we may know we exist, but that is where certainty ceases with only one exception (one can be absolutely certain that nothing is absolutely certain). While you know that you exist, how do you know I exist? You don't. I could be a reflection of your subconscious. Again, I say that you could be a brain in a vat. You still exist, but how do you know with any certainty that everyone and everything else does? "I think therefore I am" how do you know I think? You cannot. So again I pose to you, we put blind faith that we live in reality constantly.
User avatar #447 to #446 - duckbro (09/25/2011) [-]
and once again you are describing Subjective idealism. The very notion that you are claiming that I am a brain in a jar imagining that you exist so that I can have this conversation is the basis of subjective idealism. Besides that, I do not hold your existence based off faith. Through countless hours of science and research people have found reasoning behind how our bodies work. You may claim that to be a faith based thing but there is no way that is possible. Yes the human brain can be very powerful but not powerful enough to create an existence this vast and specific. Everything in the universe meshes in a way that a human brain could not conceive of creating. I do not put a blind faith in the concept of reality as reality is only defined by how you think. Your reality claims that we may be a brain in a jar. I believe that to be absolute ******** and so my reality claims that to be ******** . This is not blind faith, this is logical thought
-5
#102 to #93 - roflstorm has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #118 to #102 - Cambro (09/24/2011) [-]
...no he's saying God is a genderless being and is more an essence than any "man" shape or form. God doesn't hate humanity in the first place, but definitely for no reason. How is God supposed to react to people constantly denying him, breaking his laws (which are few) and making fun of everyone who believes in him. He could have and maybe should have just destroyed everyone, but instead he sent Jesus and you know the rest.
God doesn't need money, but the world requires money to help people. Charities actually uses the money to help people. Sure, there are some corrupt Christian organizations but EVERYONE is greedy and corrupt. it's not a reflection of all Christians, its a reflection on those Christians. I'd go in depth about the evolution debate, but I don't think you could formally produce an argument. But in any case, evolution doesn't disprove God. It's actually more likely that a God would have guided the natural selection process and caused the Big Bang than any non-Deistic theory out there. Evolution describes survival and progression, not creation. That leaves room for God.
#114 to #102 - Womens Study Major (09/24/2011) [-]
1.hes is neither (are you really this ******* stupid )
2.why does he hate hats lol
3.There man made

Umm explain why the big bang was made, out of nothingness?
User avatar #135 to #114 - duckbro (09/24/2011) [-]
I could slap you I really would, you are the epitome of what I hate about organized religion. You claim that nothing can come from nothing and yet you can't explain where "God" comes from. I don't mind someone having a faith, but if you can't take a ******* joke and would rather bash Atheists because they would rather question creation than blindly follow a ******* book than you can just go jump off a cliff. **** you and your hypocritical faith, you're not a true Christian
User avatar #431 to #135 - Cambro (09/25/2011) [-]
Most religious people don't have to explain where God came from, and I don't understand why atheists never understood this doctrine. Christians, Muslims, Jews, some Hindus and many many others believe their God is eternal. He always was and he is detached from natural laws. There is no time to him, and he just always has been. The world is finite, it comes to an end and has a beginning. He has no beginning and he also has no end, not theoretical infinity, ACTUAL infinity.
User avatar #442 to #431 - duckbro (09/25/2011) [-]
and yet the universe cannot have an actual infinity? Only god is allowed to have an infinite existence? That right there makes absolutely no sense to me, especially given the fact that we've barely scratched the surface as far as how our universe works.
User avatar #445 to #442 - Cambro (09/25/2011) [-]
God isn't apart of the universe, so he doesn't have to follow natural laws. God can be infinite. The universe can't be infinite because we can see its not, we KNOW the universe is ending and scientists have watched it. It is only logical that a finite universe had to be created by an infinite creator.
User avatar #448 to #445 - duckbro (09/25/2011) [-]
I see no logic in that argument, only a basis to believe in a Deity. You can believe what you wish, but claiming it to be the one and only logical path is just hubris
#157 to #135 - Womens Study Major (09/24/2011) [-]
have you tried any psychedelics, trust me there is more then just the 5 senses lol and atleast religion trys to explaine this stuff, why do anything in life if we all just die and i dont know where god came from lol aithiesm is the one saying nothing
User avatar #168 to #157 - duckbro (09/24/2011) [-]
Science is trying to explain it as well. But rather than using speculation and stories based on faith we use cold hard science and facts. Hours upon hours of research that has not and will never end. I am more than aware that we have more than 5 senses and yet you still have not explained why faith is better than lack of faith. Truth is neither is better and it's all based on opinion but you are essentially forcing your way onto others with your mindless ******** . So kindly go the **** away, Atheism has never said that nothing came form nothing. We don't know what happened at the beginning of creation, and at least we are willing to admit that rather than running around saying "GOD DID IT!"
#79 to #78 - restrictedaxcestwo (09/24/2011) [-]
Possibly my favorite quote ever...
User avatar #80 to #79 - roflstorm (09/24/2011) [-]
he rest in peace

"theres too much ******** in this world anyway'
 Friends (0)