| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
How to Win Every Fi- - Everything went bet-
- The Sun vs Marines
- The Perfect Drug
- Does Radio Shack st-
- Consoles in 2050
- Curveball
- stupid sun
- Neil Patrick Harris
- Not weird at all
- So here's an idea...
- Rainbow road of bro-
- Oh no this is not g-
- This kid is deep
- Rage
- Unique drinking game
- EA Logic
- Har har
- Airline Rules
- The advantage of in-
#642
-
N. Korean citizen (05/07/2012) [-]
I just think it's funny that Atheists only bash on Christians. I have no religious preference, but there's more religions out there that in all seriousness believe some RETARDED SHIT. Like Muslims have to stop everything their doing 5 times a day to face a certain direction and bow down
WTF?
The only thing I can agree with is reincarnation. That makes sense because science has proved energy rotates in a cycle, and is neither created nor destroyed.
WTF?
The only thing I can agree with is reincarnation. That makes sense because science has proved energy rotates in a cycle, and is neither created nor destroyed.
#748 to #658
-
tanfapstick (05/07/2012) [-] seing as replying to that last comment was unavailable ill continue here i agree with evolution not disproving a god but whats to say that reincarnation was not the law of conservation of energy applied to human life before they knew what the law was and that they are actually one in the same thing to doubt that its a viable theory to reincarnation is one thing but to out right say that he dead wrong is a bit presumptuous
#749 to #748
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] All I'm saying is, that the current form of the law of conservation does not support the religious concept of reincarnation.
I might be wrong, and reincarnation could be true, but it still has little to nothing to do with the law of conservation.
I might be wrong, and reincarnation could be true, but it still has little to nothing to do with the law of conservation.
#751 to #750
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] I'm saying it doesn't support it, since reincarnation has nothing to do with the kind of energy that the law is about.
As of right now we don't know jack shit about reincarnation.
Therefore, I don't know.
As of right now we don't know jack shit about reincarnation.
Therefore, I don't know.
#715 to #666
-
N. Korean citizen (05/07/2012) [-]
That's not what anon said at all you fucking retard.
He said energy recycles and that's the entire theory behind reincarnation.
People just warp it into a bunch of stupid shit about becoming different animals because they teach you it in 3rd grade and you're retarded.
He said energy recycles and that's the entire theory behind reincarnation.
People just warp it into a bunch of stupid shit about becoming different animals because they teach you it in 3rd grade and you're retarded.
#717 to #715
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] Oh for crying out loud...
Seems I need to go all caps on this one
SPIRITUAL ENERGY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
SPIRITUAL ENERGY IS A RELIGIOUS INVENTION, IT HAS NOTTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL SCIENCE.
And the anon was talking about spiritual energy.
Seems I need to go all caps on this one
SPIRITUAL ENERGY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
SPIRITUAL ENERGY IS A RELIGIOUS INVENTION, IT HAS NOTTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL SCIENCE.
And the anon was talking about spiritual energy.
#753 to #752
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] There is a major difference.
One of them we can measure, the other we cannot,
We know something about one, we know nothing about the other.
Therefore it makes no sense to apply theories, regarding the kind of energy we know, to the kind of energy we don't know.
One of them we can measure, the other we cannot,
We know something about one, we know nothing about the other.
Therefore it makes no sense to apply theories, regarding the kind of energy we know, to the kind of energy we don't know.
#754 to #753
-
tanfapstick (05/07/2012) [-] are you kidding theory aka idea hypothesis notion a fucking inkling of why something is or isnt so it wouldnt make sense to take any guesses educated or not as to why reincarnation happens and thats a literal translation of what you just said i do believe im not putting words into your mouth or anything
#724 to #717
-
N. Korean citizen (05/07/2012) [-]
OP anon here. I can smell your butt hurt from here first off.
Second off, what I did was compare scientific evidence with an ancient belief system.
I never said shit about spiritual energy, you're just a fucking idiot and assume shit because you think you're some sort of internet prophet.
Fuck your shit.
Second off, what I did was compare scientific evidence with an ancient belief system.
I never said shit about spiritual energy, you're just a fucking idiot and assume shit because you think you're some sort of internet prophet.
Fuck your shit.
#671 to #666
-
tanfapstick (05/07/2012) [-] thats unrelated and besides in a way you do get reincarnated through the carbon cycle not instantly but eventually c'mon man
#676 to #671
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] Sure, your atoms get reused, but that's not what the anon is talking about.
He's talking about the religious form of reincarnation, where some of your supernatural energy moves on to another body or some shit like that.
And it was very much related.
I backed up my crazy claim with random science that in some way relates to the topic.
He's talking about the religious form of reincarnation, where some of your supernatural energy moves on to another body or some shit like that.
And it was very much related.
I backed up my crazy claim with random science that in some way relates to the topic.
#684 to #676
-
tanfapstick (05/07/2012) [-] no because your claim could be dis proven easily while anons cannot and why are u arguing against the law of the conservation off energy anyway its a scientific law
and any type of energy super-natural or not doesnt just go away
and any type of energy super-natural or not doesnt just go away
#693 to #684
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] I'm not arguing against it.
I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the religious concept of reincarnation.
Just because something cannot be disproven, doesn't mean it has any more value than something that can be disproven.
I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the religious concept of reincarnation.
Just because something cannot be disproven, doesn't mean it has any more value than something that can be disproven.
#711 to #693
-
tanfapstick (05/07/2012) [-] also your retarded because the scientific laws are unvirsally accepted because they cant be disproven along with alot of religions though that has more to do with faith but say something like ancient roman and greek religions that can be disproven are not accepted anymore
#719 to #711
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] Saying that scientific theories cannot be disproven....
You don't understand science at all.
An alien coming down showing us proof that he actually made humans would disprove evolution (of humans)
Therefore it can be disproven.
You don't understand science at all.
An alien coming down showing us proof that he actually made humans would disprove evolution (of humans)
Therefore it can be disproven.
#730 to #719
-
N. Korean citizen (05/07/2012) [-]
No, no, no you've got it all wrong.
Science is only THEORY.
These theories are only accepted as universal once the scientific community has bashed it into nothing, but still can't prove that it may be possible.
You're right about science only dealing with natural energy and not supernatural energy but all I was doing was comparing the two, even though they can't be compared scientifically, but expand your mind for one fucking second and THINK. It may be fucking true you retard. Maybe they were onto something thousands of years before we discovered it was actually true.
Science is only THEORY.
These theories are only accepted as universal once the scientific community has bashed it into nothing, but still can't prove that it may be possible.
You're right about science only dealing with natural energy and not supernatural energy but all I was doing was comparing the two, even though they can't be compared scientifically, but expand your mind for one fucking second and THINK. It may be fucking true you retard. Maybe they were onto something thousands of years before we discovered it was actually true.
#734 to #730
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] I never said science was anything beyond theory.
I am always open to possibilities, but as a true scientist would say:
The time to believe a claim is when there is sufficient evidence to back it up.
Saying it might be true, holds no more value to me than saying that we might be in the matrix.
And I'm certainly not gonna base any of my actions on a possibility.
I am always open to possibilities, but as a true scientist would say:
The time to believe a claim is when there is sufficient evidence to back it up.
Saying it might be true, holds no more value to me than saying that we might be in the matrix.
And I'm certainly not gonna base any of my actions on a possibility.
#744 to #734
-
N. Korean citizen (05/07/2012) [-]
Nope, once again you are wrong.
Theories are not proven by evidence proving it true, but by lack of evidence against it.
I could get plenty of evidence saying that all dogs attack people. Dogs attack people all of the time.
The reason this can't be scientifically accurate is because I could show you my dog and it's instantly dis proven because it is not absolute.
Theories are not proven by evidence proving it true, but by lack of evidence against it.
I could get plenty of evidence saying that all dogs attack people. Dogs attack people all of the time.
The reason this can't be scientifically accurate is because I could show you my dog and it's instantly dis proven because it is not absolute.
#747 to #744
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] Once again you're wrong.
"Theories are not proven by evidence proving it true, but by lack of evidence against it."
This makes god exist.
And the tooth fairy.
And the invisible pink unicorn
Burden of proof bro.
"I could get plenty of evidence saying that all dogs attack people. Dogs attack people all of the time. "
No you couldn't.
You could get evidence that dogs attack people, not that all dogs do this. (Seeing as all dogs don't attack people)
"Theories are not proven by evidence proving it true, but by lack of evidence against it."
This makes god exist.
And the tooth fairy.
And the invisible pink unicorn
Burden of proof bro.
"I could get plenty of evidence saying that all dogs attack people. Dogs attack people all of the time. "
No you couldn't.
You could get evidence that dogs attack people, not that all dogs do this. (Seeing as all dogs don't attack people)
#775 to #770
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/08/2012) [-] Not countering any of my points
Calling me a faggot
/thread
Calling me a faggot
/thread
#726 to #722
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] This should explain everything.
The THEORY of evolution explains why the LAW of evolution happens.
And yes, they only become laws after a fuckhuge amount of evidence supporting, and no evidence to the contrary.
BUT
And this is important,
Nowhere does it say that a law cannot be disproven at a later time.
This is the most important thing about science.
Nothing is ever 100% true.
Science does not deal in absolute truth.
The THEORY of evolution explains why the LAW of evolution happens.
And yes, they only become laws after a fuckhuge amount of evidence supporting, and no evidence to the contrary.
BUT
And this is important,
Nowhere does it say that a law cannot be disproven at a later time.
This is the most important thing about science.
Nothing is ever 100% true.
Science does not deal in absolute truth.
#710 to #707
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] I'm saying that the theory he claims to back it up, doesn't back it up.
Hence the "religious reincarnation" part.
The theory is valid, but it doesn't support his argument. (He is misinterpreting it)
Did that clear up what I meant?
Hence the "religious reincarnation" part.
The theory is valid, but it doesn't support his argument. (He is misinterpreting it)
Did that clear up what I meant?
#721 to #714
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] That has nothing to do with anything.
He said
Reincarnation is cool, because energy cannot be destroyed not created.
Reincarnation is when your spirit moves on to the next life.
The scientific law says NOTHING about this.
He said
Reincarnation is cool, because energy cannot be destroyed not created.
Reincarnation is when your spirit moves on to the next life.
The scientific law says NOTHING about this.
#738 to #732
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] Well, then we have two very different ideas of the word reincarnation
Let's see what the internet says:
Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical belief that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions.
This is what reincarnation is.
Not what you are saying it is.
And nice to see you blow off some hate at the end there, it really helps your argument.
Let's see what the internet says:
Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical belief that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions.
This is what reincarnation is.
Not what you are saying it is.
And nice to see you blow off some hate at the end there, it really helps your argument.
#731 to #729
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] I wouldn't even go as far as calling it life force.
Because that carries a meaning.
Call it atoms.
Basic elements.
That's all there is to it.
Calling it "energy" gives people religious thoughts about it.
Because that carries a meaning.
Call it atoms.
Basic elements.
That's all there is to it.
Calling it "energy" gives people religious thoughts about it.
#746 to #745
-
mrgreatnames **User deleted account** (05/07/2012) [-] Nothing.
Nothing at all.
My problem is when someone tries to use science to support something that it doesn't support.
It's like saying evolution disproves a god.
** It simply isn't true.**
And I generally have a problem when people say something that isn't true.
Nothing at all.
My problem is when someone tries to use science to support something that it doesn't support.
It's like saying evolution disproves a god.
** It simply isn't true.**
And I generally have a problem when people say something that isn't true.
