such doge. . brutally murdered my entire family?.' ''i" i" a' isc 3: 225: "quatkins to thank for that.. Last year, a mailman murdered my neighbours and burned their house Too bad they didn't have a doge Cars crashes seperate by comm kaas
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (115)
[ 115 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #50 - votafak
Reply +73 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Last year, a mailman murdered my neighbours and burned their house
Too bad they didn't have a doge
User avatar #78 to #50 - millhouse
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Did they have a dog?
User avatar #83 to #78 - sanguinesolitude
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
they didnt
#84 to #50 - unotouchzetaco
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Here have a dog so it wont happen again
Here have a dog so it wont happen again
#10 - Jesusnipples
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#22 to #10 - vilememory
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
User avatar #82 to #10 - wizzerdofaus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
That's a hand right?
User avatar #96 to #82 - Jesusnipples
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
No, dogs have paws
#18 - muralriver
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#36 - neznanc **User deleted account**
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Mailman used frisbee. It's super effective.
#35 - nazashiii
+23 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#3 - AnonymousDonor
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(09/06/2013) [-]
the reason dogs bark at all is because of their evolutionary memory
there was a time not long ago when their masters actually needed a dog as a defense - a noble, valiant, and fearsome creature whose bark alone was enough to ward off assailants
you couldn't really see the bark, nor could any master who had been way out in the field all day hear or detect any trace of the times when that dog's voice alone scared would-be-thieves ******** and made them rethink their life; the master came home and there was no evidence - just a dog happy to see the master they loved

can you really confidently say prayer is that much different? nowadays it's easy to laugh at people who believe in its effectiveness, especially when our crude means of understanding ("advanced" though they may be) cannot detect any trace of it actually working
can you really say, given all the old-world accounts of 'gods' and 'deities' (most likely alien-species) that interacted with humans on a daily basis and did in fact respond to prayer, that there is no possible way that the patterns of brainwaves could possibly resonate characteristically in a way that allows a higher being with much more sensitive technology to read it and choose whether or not to do something about it?

it's simply too easy to dismiss possibilities on the notion fact that other people are "just stupid" and not as smart as you - in mathematics, we call that a trivial solution, and it means absolutely nothing
(literally: when you're trying to converge a wave function and you can't figure out the quadratic [or higher power] and you're just looking for the easiest way out, you set it equal to zero, an outcome which is meaningless and useless to everybody)
User avatar #6 to #3 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
tl;dr agnosticism ftw (?)
#12 to #3 - beautifull
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #19 to #3 - srskate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
If the gods and deities of old are aliens, where are they now?

It's much more likely that they were bad ways of explaining the world.
User avatar #20 to #19 - priestoftheoldones
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
If our race gets to the point of personal inter-solar travels, I would find a small planet with intelligent life, but not very intelligent life, and I would make them think of me as a god.
User avatar #94 to #20 - srskate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
and then leave and never come back or show any signs of actually existing.
User avatar #135 to #94 - priestoftheoldones
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Yes, it would be hilarious.
User avatar #26 to #3 - gammajk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Just because there isn't "no possible way" of it existing, doesn't mean it actually exists.
User avatar #30 to #3 - revanmal
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Except there are ways to gather data about a dog's bark in terms of effectiveness. We have confessions on record from thieves that homes with barking, aggressive dogs are less appealing to rob, because of the danger inherent in there being an angry wolf-creature on the premises.

We aren't using miraculous energy detectors or somthing to gauge the effectiveness of prayer - it's all statistical analysis. Prayer has had little to no effect in any non-biased study beyond what could reasonably be explained as the placebo effect or confirmation bias. I don't denounce prayer because I think I'm smarter than everyone who does, I denounce it because it has never been proven to work in any sort of practical way. I don't believe in homeopathy, crystal energy healing, or chakras, either. Yeah, maybe those things DO work in some capacity in ways we don't understand, but it's a waste of time to do them if the effects are so minute or so random that they cannot be reliably reproduced.
User avatar #92 to #3 - ningyoaijin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I'm a Physics student, and what?
User avatar #13 to #3 - beautifull
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Dogs=/=Gods

Unless you're dyslexic
#27 to #3 - tbeaz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
So what I got from that was that Dog = goD, I always knew my hypothesis was correct.
User avatar #89 to #3 - asongulol
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
wow
such opinion
very intellect
-fav
#33 to #3 - dcj
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Take all the possible answers, and the simplest one is usually the correct one.

You suppose that gods/aliens/superfish answered prayers at some point, and the echoes of that have filtered down our genes, the way that the bark did for dogs. At least, if I'm understanding you correctly.

But that's the thing. It's supposition. 'Maybe' has no practical scientific meaning. Evidence or no evidence for your theories, that's how it works.

If you uncover evidence supporting your theory, cool. If you prove it, even better. The status quo will change, and science reflects the new set of evidence.

Until then, we can only assume that our current evidence, supplied by our current means of getting it, gives us the best view of the truth. And we soldier on, as sure as we can be.

It's a cool idea, even if my athiest fedora despises it. But Occam's Razor, sir. It stands.
#128 to #33 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
i too sir am a scientist (assuming your response is indicative of the same) and i absolutely despise occam's razor
partly because "simplest" is a highly subjective term but mostly because everything that we do know is evidence against it - perhaps occam was trying to explain the path down a potential energy surface but even then....

that being said, never forget how strong a place supposition holds within science
there must always be supposition before there can be proof (because if you don't begin with a hypothesis, how in hell are you going to be able to experiment on it?)
i could go further, pointing out the quantum bayesian aspects of experimentalist (yano the whole "changing the outcome by observing it" detail?) but i'm quite hung over this morn
#34 to #33 - jackassalope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
While i agree with you for the most part, invoking Occam's Razor is not generally a good idea when debating. It relies on the assumption that the simpler explaination is in fact better, there is no way to prove such a thing. You then need to actually determine which explaination is simpler, and except in very specific domains that cant truly be done. "Simplicity" in a philosophical sense is often determined by the language you are speaking in. The Tibetan language has single words for spiritual concepts that take paragraphs in english to describe.

As far as the assumption that the simpler answer is better, science is constantly doing the opposite. Orbits were once thought to be circular, and eliptical orbits are far more complicated. We assumed these elliptical paths were 3 dimensional, but then found them to be far easier to explain in spacetime. Eventually quantum mechanics have us assuming there are in fact 11 dimensions. Quantum physics by the way debunked the idea that electrons "orbit" and instead has them modeled mathematically in a way that fits all observations but so abstract that no one can truly explain mechanically, we can only tell you the probability of an electron being in a certain area.

Occam's razor stands. Until it doesn't. You can never dismiss an idea with it.
User avatar #86 to #34 - baaltomekk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
No Occam's Razor relies on the observation, that in most cases, the simplest answer is the correct one. So in the end, it is a matter of probability. Occam's Razor could be rewriten like: "If you really have no clue what the right answer is, pick the simplest answer and hope for the best"
#134 to #86 - jackassalope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
That just makes occam's razor an approximation. Its a razor that can't actually cut. At best it says "this probably isn't true" and at worst is based on an assumption that cant be made.
And the fact is, in formal environments, it simply isn't an accepted argument. Because it isn't an argument, its a guess based on trends in unrelated fields.

To quote better minds: "Aristotle [...] chided Plato for hypostatizing The Good. You see, Plato was always running around asking what makes for a Good Musician, or a Good General. By using the word Good in all these inquiries, he came to believe that all these activities have something fundamental in common, that there is a general concept of Good that gets instantiated in being a good musician, general, etc. But that, of course, is nonsense on stilts, since what makes for a good musician has nothing whatsoever to do with what makes for a good general.
Analogously, suggests Sober, the various uses of Ockham’s razor have no metaphysical or logical universal principle in common — despite what many scientists, skeptics and even philosophers seem to think. Williams was correct, group selection is less likely than individual selection (though not impossible), and the cladists are correct too that parsimony is usually a good way to evaluate competitive phylogenetic hypotheses. But the two cases (and many others) do not share any universal property in common."

#25 to #3 - hailarty
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Hi,

About the dog's barking. First thing to know about dog's evolution, is that in the beginning they were wolves, which were domesticated by humans, and then bred favoring certain genes in order to get most useful companions. Barking of the dog was not meant to "scare of the intruders" rather then alert the owner that some human, or creature has entered the property, so that the owner could greet the visitors, fight the intruders or hunt down animals that come near by. (I haven't read many researches on that so that's only my opinion, based on few articles I've read"
About the power of prayer: I see your point, that prayer can somehow affect some "higher beings" and they can then effect your life based on the prayer. But this is a bit to much theoretical and holds to many assumptions to be applied in practice. Reason: you are assuming that there is a higher power(aliens,god, ect), you are assuming it's close enough to hear you, you are assuming it cares enough to help, you are assuming it has the ability to help/interfere. Based on the logic, that we should pray because there MIGHT be somewhere who can hear you and wants to help you, is a very long shot. Following the same logic, it would be a good idea to dance a "rain-dance" whenever you are thirsty because "it MIGHT work". In the end prayer applied in practice becomes a superstition which isn't based on anything else then speculations, therefore I don't really see the point putting this idea into practice. Even though when I was a kid (when I was religious) I used to pray a lot, now when I stopped I can conclude the results: statistically the amount of good/bad things happening does not change whether I prayed or not. Sometimes **** just happens, sometimes good thins happen, ratio hasn't really changed when I stopped praying.
#131 to #25 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
and yano that's fair

personally the only reason i believe in prayer as much as i do is because it's actually worked with a ~74% success rate ever since i was a kid
and usually within minutes of my asking for it
not to mention that it literally costs nothing - a mere 10 seconds of a mental message to my God asking "please do __ for ___ if it's not too much trouble" is entirely harmless and, given the chance (as you agreed) that it MIGHT actually work, the cost/benefit ratio is off the charts

i will warrant that sometimes people go overboard - they hold prayer as a higher power than the actions of actually doing something about it and so end up ensuring their prayer is never 'answered' (because seriously, if a God was listening, how the hell do you think the prayers are answered? through the actions of yourself and others...)

but yano if you tried it as a kid and you didn't see results (or, possibly, you simply didn't recognize them) then i mean i'm not gonna go ******* on you for it
it takes a "leap of faith" if you will to be able to rationally accept something with such low probability
but for what it's worth, much less probable things have happened... and frequently
#43 - whydidimakethis
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
#85 to #43 - unotouchzetaco
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
#24 - guyandface
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
#52 - josieabby
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#51 - anon id: 3f151abc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
ohforf just went down and thumbed down every doge picture.

What the ****, bruh??
User avatar #59 to #51 - Ohforf
Reply -17 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
I don't like doge pictures. That's why. Do feel free to continue anonymously bitching about how I don't share your interests, though.
#62 to #59 - infernis
+11 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #137 to #62 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
BUTTFACE
#138 to #137 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #139 to #138 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
DONT YOU HAVE SOME DICK TO EAT WITH YOUR AASSHOLE
#140 to #139 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #141 to #140 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
>liked doge
>not a fag

u sure there maity
#142 to #141 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#143 to #142 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
i dunno m8 hows 2011 going for you?
i dunno m8 hows 2011 going for you?
#144 to #143 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #145 to #144 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
i like you

liking doge cancer AND repeating jokes from 2011 that I've only heard 10000 times before

get new material bby <3
#146 to #145 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#147 to #146 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
loving that &quot;hurr durr poni gay&quot; is the only insult you have   
   
   
i dont even like mlp any more
loving that "hurr durr poni gay" is the only insult you have


i dont even like mlp any more
#148 to #147 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#149 to #148 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
you know a lot about the show for a person who talks ****
#150 to #149 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #151 to #150 - twi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/01/2014) [-]
pony =/= furry


lel
#152 to #151 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #63 to #62 - Ohforf
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
No, I don't like those, either. Doge does not consist of all humor on Funnyjunk.
User avatar #130 to #63 - guto
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/07/2013) [-]
at least it's not a freaking cat just my opinion I ******* hate cats they are not funny nor cute