Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:1/30/2010
Last Login:11/27/2015
Location:Athens Georgia
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 33 total,  56 ,  23
Comment Thumbs: 3520 total,  4164 ,  644
Content Level Progress: 62.71% (37/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 19% (19/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Content Views:1163
Total Comments Made:948
FJ Points:3226

latest user's comments

#37 - This was a great , interesting post up until you ****** it up …  [+] (15 new replies) 12/04/2012 on Progress Report +21
User avatar
#91 - cullenatorguy (12/04/2012) [-]
B-but they are mutually exclusive.
Science is grounded with real world observations, tests, and studies.
Religion is grounded by faith and faith alone.

Science makes the discoveries, religion tries its best to keep up and lose credibility.
Can you imagine if flat-earth creationists still existed today (some do, I'm talking big numbers)? They'd be ridiculed to no end. Why do you think they no longer exist? Science (and mathematics really) took the step and found out the world isn't flat, religion followed when it realized its credibility would be in trouble if it stuck to what it formally taught.
User avatar
#94 - MattSwan (12/04/2012) [-]
Saying that they need to exclude each other simply because they aren't based on the same things is like saying that fish and bats can't coexist because one swims and the other flies. Sure, if you try to apply the same rules of logic that govern the existence of science to faith, they won't apply. It would be like tossing a fish out of a building and saying, "Ha, see, it doesn't work."
User avatar
#96 - cullenatorguy (12/04/2012) [-]
The whole point of science is to exclude faith. Can you imagine what would happen if scientists couldn't figure something out for the life of them, so they just said, "God must have done it."? It would be terrible! Religion as no place is science. Science is finding out how the world works in the absence of a deity. Science, however, can be in religion.
User avatar
#99 - MattSwan (12/04/2012) [-]
That is simply not true. Your definition of science is entirely inaccurate. Science is simply the search for a truth and proving it, thereby expanding your grasp of knowledge. Things don't exist to prove others wrong. Man didn't invent fire because some asshole said wood wouldn't burn. He did it because he was fucking cold. I don't ask my surgeon to preach to me for the same reasons I don't ask my pastor to give me a quick appendectomy.
User avatar
#103 - cullenatorguy (12/04/2012) [-]

Tell me, good sir, how you can systematically prove god's existence through a series of observations and studies. You can't. And yes, science (we're talking about enlightenment period, Galileo, Newton) was invested in because people didn't like the, "Because god did it" answer. Granted, some pursued to find the existence of god, but all were ventured upon to find an alternative reason for why shit happened.
User avatar
#107 - MattSwan (12/04/2012) [-]
I can't systematically prove God's existence because it's a fucking religion you asshole. You are ignoring my previous points entirely. When you try to take a system based on faith, like religion, you cannot prove it with a system based on ration, like science. For the same reasons that no one believes you when you publish a scientific report because you "felt very strongly of it." Unintelligent people use faith to determine cause and effect and the same dickwads use science to determine purpose.
User avatar
#110 - cullenatorguy (12/04/2012) [-]
Then you understand that faith and science are entirely separate.
"you cannot prove it with a system based on ration, like science." - MattSwan

yep, because they are completely different.
User avatar
#113 - MattSwan (12/04/2012) [-]
Of course they are entirely different. Thank you for proving my thesis, cunt.
User avatar
#118 - cullenatorguy (12/04/2012) [-]
That's what I said from the top, asshat. Commas then derogatory words are fun, faggot!
User avatar
#126 - MattSwan (12/04/2012) [-]
"B-but they are mutually exclusive."

Mutually exclusive - adj, being related such that each excludes or precludes the other.

Mutually exclusive means one can't exist while the other does. You've changed your argument over time. What you've ended up arguing for is a subset of my original argument. Learn yourself some rhetoric.
User avatar
#128 - cullenatorguy (12/04/2012) [-]
God damn it, I didn't mean to put that, honest. I'm terrible with vocabulary. I haven't changed my argument, I fucked up my wording. Sorry.
User avatar
#47 - noblexfenrir (12/04/2012) [-]
They are mutually exclusive when ones reality is derived from evidence and the other is derived from faith.
#61 - brenton (12/04/2012) [-]
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
User avatar
#64 - noblexfenrir (12/04/2012) [-]
I can quote Einstein to

>To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

>Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.

>A conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs.

On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

>It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.
User avatar
#79 - brenton (12/04/2012) [-]
#14 - His body hit the ground like a Hefty bag full of soup. 11/29/2012 on Kids these days... +8
#36 - I was drive car when snow 11/18/2012 on After one massive snow +13
#11 - The cancer that is killing /b/. 11/16/2012 on Cancer 0
#4 - Anyone can see...  [+] (4 new replies) 11/16/2012 on Nothing matress +25
#14 - armenia (11/16/2012) [-]
Nothing really matters to meeeeeeeee
#28 - dominikq (11/16/2012) [-]
Anyway the wind blows....
#36 - anon (11/16/2012) [-]
we will rock you!
#26 - anon (11/16/2012) [-]
Mama just killed a man.
#7 - Don't laugh. This is what you do for fun in a country where th…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/16/2012 on Repeat After Me +6
User avatar
#10 - ubergoatman (11/16/2012) [-]
>staring blankly into the wastes
It's not all wastes! Some of it is desolate forest and tundra....
just kidding, it's all wastes
#25 - Picture 11/16/2012 on Nostalgia +1
#73 - Picture 11/16/2012 on How come he don't want me +11
#66 - Picture 11/15/2012 on Wow +24
#3 - Horses be trippin. 10/29/2012 on Horse Accident +1