| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#178
-
N. Korean citizen (11/17/2012) [-]
Well, you can't prove or disprove the existence of god, period. Religion on the other hand is a different story. Most religions are contridictions of one another so either all of them are wrong or all of them except one is wrong, in that situation we could never really know which is right so logically it would make sense not to believe in any ( since believing in the right one would be statistically unlikely anyways) since there is no evidence, equally, for any relgion.
Now, Many people think that life and the universe is "fine tuned" that is wrong and i could give you examples but the list is long. However i do believe this universe is special because it allows under special circumstances life and remarkably consciousness. However, i believe this is purley on the basis of natural means. In other words we only exist because the universe's laws allow us the possibility to exist..and since the universe is so massive, life is going to spring up somewhere. So, ultimately we only perceive our existence because we exist. Anything we believe about the supernatural world is wishful thinking at best.
Although, It is fine to believe in God, when you start "predicting" and stating facts about the natural world on the basis of those beliefs than that is when you start to have a problem with rational human beings. That is essentially what religion is. A man made concept about an abstract idea. Religion and science are no different in that they are both domains of professed truths. Science is just more rational and therefore makes rational people immune to Dogma.
Now, Many people think that life and the universe is "fine tuned" that is wrong and i could give you examples but the list is long. However i do believe this universe is special because it allows under special circumstances life and remarkably consciousness. However, i believe this is purley on the basis of natural means. In other words we only exist because the universe's laws allow us the possibility to exist..and since the universe is so massive, life is going to spring up somewhere. So, ultimately we only perceive our existence because we exist. Anything we believe about the supernatural world is wishful thinking at best.
Although, It is fine to believe in God, when you start "predicting" and stating facts about the natural world on the basis of those beliefs than that is when you start to have a problem with rational human beings. That is essentially what religion is. A man made concept about an abstract idea. Religion and science are no different in that they are both domains of professed truths. Science is just more rational and therefore makes rational people immune to Dogma.
#187 to #178
-
thewildcat (11/17/2012) [-] I will say this. No one has to disprove anything. If there is no evidence for it, then there is no reason to believe it in the first place. It is only reasonable to believe in things that there is evidence of.
You can't technically disprove fairies or unicorns either. But does that justify believing in them?
This is just my argument against people like thelastamerican that constantly tell my, "Well you can't disprove God therefore it's possible."
Is it possible that a God exists? Yes. Is it possible that fairies exist? Yes. But my reasons for not believing in God is the same for not believing in fairies
You can't technically disprove fairies or unicorns either. But does that justify believing in them?
This is just my argument against people like thelastamerican that constantly tell my, "Well you can't disprove God therefore it's possible."
Is it possible that a God exists? Yes. Is it possible that fairies exist? Yes. But my reasons for not believing in God is the same for not believing in fairies
#260 to #259
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] We only know 4% of the universe. If that.
But we have yet to see a "creator's" work in it. Thus the argument still stands. Without evidence there is no proof. I cannot disprove you've never killed someone, but if I did say you killed someone then I would be the one that has to supply evidence that says that you did.
That is the only logical way of thinking about it. So fare I think the only thing that's pitiful is humans who are unaware and yet they continue to supply answers to equations they don't understand instead of just saying, "I don't know."
I don't know if a God exists, but I actually have no reason to, unless there is no evidence. I reject the same claim not only of your god, but of all gods that are worshipped or believed in. Cause people even have their own perceptions on a God that suits them. I reject those claims because no one cans supply enough reason or evidence to PROVE otherwise
But we have yet to see a "creator's" work in it. Thus the argument still stands. Without evidence there is no proof. I cannot disprove you've never killed someone, but if I did say you killed someone then I would be the one that has to supply evidence that says that you did.
That is the only logical way of thinking about it. So fare I think the only thing that's pitiful is humans who are unaware and yet they continue to supply answers to equations they don't understand instead of just saying, "I don't know."
I don't know if a God exists, but I actually have no reason to, unless there is no evidence. I reject the same claim not only of your god, but of all gods that are worshipped or believed in. Cause people even have their own perceptions on a God that suits them. I reject those claims because no one cans supply enough reason or evidence to PROVE otherwise
#209 to #206
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] Faith is the belief without evidence. It's still not rational for me to believe that a god, or gods, or fairies exist without evidence.
If I said that I have a unicorn in a box would you believe me or would you ask me to open the box?
You would probably ask me to open the box. So I do, but you notice that the box is empty. You say, "See there is no unicorn."
And I respond, "No there is, but you can only see it if you believe that it is there."
You see where the irrationality of that is? Would you believe that there is a unicorn in the box because I said so? And even if you did for whatever reason say, "Yes I do believe there is a unicorn in the box." Would that make you right?
That's why I don't believe in a God(s) unless there is evidence.
If I said that I have a unicorn in a box would you believe me or would you ask me to open the box?
You would probably ask me to open the box. So I do, but you notice that the box is empty. You say, "See there is no unicorn."
And I respond, "No there is, but you can only see it if you believe that it is there."
You see where the irrationality of that is? Would you believe that there is a unicorn in the box because I said so? And even if you did for whatever reason say, "Yes I do believe there is a unicorn in the box." Would that make you right?
That's why I don't believe in a God(s) unless there is evidence.
#193 to #187
-
toosexyforyou ONLINE (11/18/2012) [-] I agree with you that we should think that way at least as a society; however, there's faith. When you believe in something that you simply can't prove, you can just feel that it's right. I believe in a god (my definition of "god" is a single being or a group of beings that created our universe) but I just can't see how there can be a single religion out there that is true or how people could willingly join a religion. I think that if you don't believe with every single thing that religion stands for then you're not truely part of that religion.
#197 to #193
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] Not criticizing your belief. you have the right to believe what you want.
My rational is that many people have that same feeling for different, God(s). Hinduism and even ancient religions chopped up to myth really believe that there were multiple gods. Some people like you believe in one god (which is understandable in a predominately monotheistic society and even world).
That comment is my reasoning for not believing in a God, but like I said it is possible there is a god, but I personally have reason to believe it.
A man in Iceland truly, truly believes in fairies. He made videos, and Thunderf00t on youtube used it as a comparison to religion. But like I said I'm not here to deter you from what yo choose to believe, only to explain why I don't believe
My rational is that many people have that same feeling for different, God(s). Hinduism and even ancient religions chopped up to myth really believe that there were multiple gods. Some people like you believe in one god (which is understandable in a predominately monotheistic society and even world).
That comment is my reasoning for not believing in a God, but like I said it is possible there is a god, but I personally have reason to believe it.
A man in Iceland truly, truly believes in fairies. He made videos, and Thunderf00t on youtube used it as a comparison to religion. But like I said I'm not here to deter you from what yo choose to believe, only to explain why I don't believe
#215 to #197
-
ludamat (11/18/2012) [-]
It is human nature to look for hope in a hopeless situation. Because of the intelligence humans know they have, the thought of humanity being wiped out is what religion provides hope for in the form of life after death. Science has continuously disproved many religious theories and if human beings continue to evolve, science will continue to disprove religion. At one point, religion will be a myth because understanding science will be a condition for life and survival in the event that human beings come into contact with aliens or find a way of extending their life expectancy or even achieving immortality through scientific methods like stem cell replacement of dead body organs..etc etc. It is at this point that humans will stop having blind faith to provide hope, and move on to the application of science for hope. Religion will totally be wiped out.
#220 to #215
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] I'm an atheist, I understand that I will no longer exist after I die. what you're referring to is people who are afraid of death.
This is understandable since most people come up with these ideas at a young age, and of course you fear death when you're young, because you're still young. But most old people who have lived a very long time no longer fear death. Why? My guess is because they actually lived their lives, but it's the young people who still struggle with the idea that their lives are going to one day end that generally create and manifest this.
What about animals? Do they get into heaven? Is there an afterlife for them? If not, then why not? There is no clarification in any religion that animals will also have an afterlife. But they are also afraid of death, and that's just the understanding of what death means
This is understandable since most people come up with these ideas at a young age, and of course you fear death when you're young, because you're still young. But most old people who have lived a very long time no longer fear death. Why? My guess is because they actually lived their lives, but it's the young people who still struggle with the idea that their lives are going to one day end that generally create and manifest this.
What about animals? Do they get into heaven? Is there an afterlife for them? If not, then why not? There is no clarification in any religion that animals will also have an afterlife. But they are also afraid of death, and that's just the understanding of what death means
#218 to #213
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] I didn't enjoy the read because the article is stupid.
It's stupid for the following reasons.
1. The author negates that I'm comparing two things I PERSONALLY don't believe in
2. The author fails to realize that by using unicorns I'm in fact making the judgement that I am comparing two things that don't exist, regardless of whether or not YOU believe in it
3. The article doesn't offer a solution, only tries to say the same thing over and over again, that I can't "disprove" even though that's not even the point of MY argument
4. You should actually go to a credible source rather than rely on some random asshole from the internet
It's stupid for the following reasons.
1. The author negates that I'm comparing two things I PERSONALLY don't believe in
2. The author fails to realize that by using unicorns I'm in fact making the judgement that I am comparing two things that don't exist, regardless of whether or not YOU believe in it
3. The article doesn't offer a solution, only tries to say the same thing over and over again, that I can't "disprove" even though that's not even the point of MY argument
4. You should actually go to a credible source rather than rely on some random asshole from the internet
#253 to #218
-
N. Korean citizen (11/18/2012) [-]
4. You should actually go to a credible source rather than rely on some random asshole from the internet
He made you mad didn't he?
Anyways it wasn't supposed to offer a solutions you retard. He's just pointing out the gaping holes in your delusional pseudosceptic argument...
TL;DR: You're mad cause your argument sucks cock.
He made you mad didn't he?
Anyways it wasn't supposed to offer a solutions you retard. He's just pointing out the gaping holes in your delusional pseudosceptic argument...
TL;DR: You're mad cause your argument sucks cock.
#257 to #253
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] If you CANNOT provide evidence for your God, just like I require anyone making the same claim, be it unicorns, Krishna, Allah, Zeus, to the same standards.
Crying like a little bitch saying, "I believe in God and it's not the same as a unicorn. And you can't disprove God because there is evidence." DOESN'T WORK!
No matter how much you cry and bitch. Where is this evidence? Does it coincide with the scientific process? No. It's simply "I believe."
Sorry I don't care what you believe, until you can provide rational, empirical evidence that hasn't already been disproved by science, or already has an explanation then I will not take your argument seriously. No matter how much of a little bitch you choose to act.
FYI I'm blocking you as an anon. You want to talk, use your account instead of being a little bitch
Crying like a little bitch saying, "I believe in God and it's not the same as a unicorn. And you can't disprove God because there is evidence." DOESN'T WORK!
No matter how much you cry and bitch. Where is this evidence? Does it coincide with the scientific process? No. It's simply "I believe."
Sorry I don't care what you believe, until you can provide rational, empirical evidence that hasn't already been disproved by science, or already has an explanation then I will not take your argument seriously. No matter how much of a little bitch you choose to act.
FYI I'm blocking you as an anon. You want to talk, use your account instead of being a little bitch
#256 to #253
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] Sounds like you're more of a troll but my point still stands. Again he's not a credible source in the slightest. At all. This is not an academic, this is not someone who I can take seriously if he can't even argue the same point.
"He made you mad didn't he?"
No this article is a joke, as much of a joke as you are hiding as an anon. Why? I mean why? Do you think I care about what your username is? No. I would respect you more if you debated me to my face. But clearly you're too much of an over sensitive pussy in you beliefs to do that.
Yes he should offer a solution. He should off a reason to why my argument is wrong instead of advocating the preemptive stance that a God exists. I'm not arguing a God exists, I'm comparing two entities that are can actually be compared.
TL;DR I'm actually laughing that you're saying that I'm mad when clearly your the one acting like a little bitch because you can't take criticism that your God quite possible doesn't exist. Then again this behavior is not uncommon amongst Christians
"He made you mad didn't he?"
No this article is a joke, as much of a joke as you are hiding as an anon. Why? I mean why? Do you think I care about what your username is? No. I would respect you more if you debated me to my face. But clearly you're too much of an over sensitive pussy in you beliefs to do that.
Yes he should offer a solution. He should off a reason to why my argument is wrong instead of advocating the preemptive stance that a God exists. I'm not arguing a God exists, I'm comparing two entities that are can actually be compared.
TL;DR I'm actually laughing that you're saying that I'm mad when clearly your the one acting like a little bitch because you can't take criticism that your God quite possible doesn't exist. Then again this behavior is not uncommon amongst Christians
#267 to #262
-
thewildcat (11/18/2012) [-] You're a text book fundie
There is no such thing as pseudosceptic, I hate to tell you. All science is skeptic, but here's the difference. Your on a computer which is a result of science. Religion caused a woman to die in Ireland because she was denied an abortion. That's the difference.
There is pseudoscience, which is what people like you and the author of that article rely on. Considering I'm an academic, and I'm guessing you're just some over religious teen I can't take you seriously. That's probably why you have to rely on trolling.
If you could supply a decent argument you would
There is no such thing as pseudosceptic, I hate to tell you. All science is skeptic, but here's the difference. Your on a computer which is a result of science. Religion caused a woman to die in Ireland because she was denied an abortion. That's the difference.
There is pseudoscience, which is what people like you and the author of that article rely on. Considering I'm an academic, and I'm guessing you're just some over religious teen I can't take you seriously. That's probably why you have to rely on trolling.
If you could supply a decent argument you would
