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

hide menu

MosKunas    

Rank #7256 on Subscribers
MosKunas Avatar Level 49 Comments: Sammich eater
Offline
Send mail to MosKunas Block MosKunas Invite MosKunas to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Date Signed Up:2/12/2010
Last Login:8/03/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 404 total,  585 ,  181
Comment Thumbs: 101 total,  222 ,  121
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 40 Content: Sammich eater → Level 41 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 49 Comments: Sammich eater → Level 50 Comments: Sammich eater
Subscribers:10
Content Views:19522
Times Content Favorited:19 times
Total Comments Made:150
FJ Points:512
I basically play anything and talk while I do it. Then put it on here. I try to provide the best content and be as original as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LilMoskyOfficial

latest user's comments

#5 - You should go do some research to understand what a theory is.…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/29/2013 on The gospel of I don't know +4
#7 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
sorry, i got angry. I didn't mean to sound hostile.
#6 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
I frankly could not give a shit less what science and elitist intellectuals call "fact". And my theory is that no one ever converted anyone else through an internet argument. so this should end where it stands.
User avatar #10 - awbs (12/05/2013) [-]
"I frankly could not give a shit less what science and elitist intellectuals call 'fact'."
Because trained scientists and learned philosophers are so often wrong about understanding the complexeties of the universe, while your scientifically illiterate preacher and a multithousand-year-old series of novels about morality are far superior...
How lovely.
#9 - awbs has deleted their comment.
#8 - jaguarjam (10/12/2013) [-]
I gotta back anon up. I would first like to clarify that I'm in no way christian so you guys don't get flipping excited. First of all, the point I think anon is trying to make is that scientific evidence is only relevant as evidence from the atheistic (a certain kind of atheist I might add) standpoint, just as much as a lot of things can be interpeted as evidence of something transcendental from that standpoint. Your counterargument was that "science opposed to religion works". Well, of course it does, just as much as you can make religious belief-system work (please don't rage b4 you read the next segment).

Let's make an example with the laws of physics. These were entirely created to intepret the world around us, mind you, not the other way around. We create hypothesis based on occurent events, which we then back up by experiments. We then try to integrate the proven theories together, creating some sorts of paradigms. We have to suit the theories to the way world behaves. Lot of times, our theories are proven wrong and we have to re-evaluate (inb4 - similiar proccess occurs in non-fundamental religious belief system).

Also, science alone does not disprove metaphysical god. Maybe the biblical one, but then again I find it silly when people criticise religion, basing their whole argumentation on fundamental part of that religion ("people who say Bible is 100% true are wrong THEREFORE the whole of christianity is wrong").

Last and least, the ethics of determinism (which I would assume as your atheist belief-system) are fucked up the same way fundamental religion is (in short, it negates the possibility of free will the same way an existence of omniscient and omnipotent being does, therefore ethics has no meaning). I have a post entirely about this in this section called "I would like to see what you can make of this", you can check it out.

Sorry bout the long post, hope I won't piss you off too much, don't mean Cheerio.
#2 - Care to explain further? You are wrong, but I just want to see…  [+] (7 new replies) 09/28/2013 on The gospel of I don't know +3
#4 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
my "Bad" logic comes from him saying that religion is arrogantly certain of it's correctness, and in that regard it is arrogant. But the same could be also said of anyone irreligious who is absolutely certain that they are correct and refuse to acknowledge that there theories could be flawed or incorrect in any way. (like a religion) Hypocrisy is the bullet point i guess.
User avatar #5 - MosKunas (09/29/2013) [-]
You should go do some research to understand what a theory is. A scientific theory is taken as fact. Evolution is a theory, as well as gravity. But I doubt you think one day you are going to float off into the atmosphere, would not thinking that be considered arrogance in your standards? Because that is what you are telling me.

The reason "arrogance" on the scientific side is not truly arrogance, and the religious side is are many reasons. But mainly because science bases its ideas on evidence, and doesn't assert to know anything that it hasn't learned about yet.

The reason people who have an evidence based mind say there is no way there can be a God is because no scientific evidence in the history of modern science has ever created a necessity for any theistic "God." So why insert one in a setting that clearly can run well on its own?

While scientists are doing this form of reasoning, religion tells us that we already know everything we need to know about the universe, and how everything works. So there is no need to question. Which is truly the definition of arrogance, not the way you described the understanding of scientific theory that I mentioned previously.

With all that said, that is all just coming from the standpoint of theories and evidence, and what that contributes to the validity of the statements on both sides. We could have a whole other discussion of why God doesn't work from a moral and ethical standpoint.
#7 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
sorry, i got angry. I didn't mean to sound hostile.
#6 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
I frankly could not give a shit less what science and elitist intellectuals call "fact". And my theory is that no one ever converted anyone else through an internet argument. so this should end where it stands.
User avatar #10 - awbs (12/05/2013) [-]
"I frankly could not give a shit less what science and elitist intellectuals call 'fact'."
Because trained scientists and learned philosophers are so often wrong about understanding the complexeties of the universe, while your scientifically illiterate preacher and a multithousand-year-old series of novels about morality are far superior...
How lovely.
#9 - awbs has deleted their comment.
#8 - jaguarjam (10/12/2013) [-]
I gotta back anon up. I would first like to clarify that I'm in no way christian so you guys don't get flipping excited. First of all, the point I think anon is trying to make is that scientific evidence is only relevant as evidence from the atheistic (a certain kind of atheist I might add) standpoint, just as much as a lot of things can be interpeted as evidence of something transcendental from that standpoint. Your counterargument was that "science opposed to religion works". Well, of course it does, just as much as you can make religious belief-system work (please don't rage b4 you read the next segment).

Let's make an example with the laws of physics. These were entirely created to intepret the world around us, mind you, not the other way around. We create hypothesis based on occurent events, which we then back up by experiments. We then try to integrate the proven theories together, creating some sorts of paradigms. We have to suit the theories to the way world behaves. Lot of times, our theories are proven wrong and we have to re-evaluate (inb4 - similiar proccess occurs in non-fundamental religious belief system).

Also, science alone does not disprove metaphysical god. Maybe the biblical one, but then again I find it silly when people criticise religion, basing their whole argumentation on fundamental part of that religion ("people who say Bible is 100% true are wrong THEREFORE the whole of christianity is wrong").

Last and least, the ethics of determinism (which I would assume as your atheist belief-system) are fucked up the same way fundamental religion is (in short, it negates the possibility of free will the same way an existence of omniscient and omnipotent being does, therefore ethics has no meaning). I have a post entirely about this in this section called "I would like to see what you can make of this", you can check it out.

Sorry bout the long post, hope I won't piss you off too much, don't mean Cheerio.
#370 - Religion in now way accurately explains how the world works. G…  [+] (13 new replies) 09/24/2013 on yes +2
User avatar #381 - balloketchup (09/24/2013) [-]
You lost me, English please? I said Religion doesn't explain how the world works, it explains why it works, or for what purpose. Science explains how.
#382 - rodion (09/24/2013) [-]
Religion attempts to explain why the world works as it does, but that doesn't mean it has any foundation that isn't, at the very least, extremely contentious. Authority hardly counts.

Science ignores considering why things happen, in favour of why we are owed any justification and intrinsic meaning to begin with. That's mainly because science fails to ground the former in much at all. Some might call that a "win". Others would quite decisively not.
User avatar #383 - balloketchup (09/24/2013) [-]
People are different man, I prefer Religion to Science anyday. And I'm a math major.
#386 - rodion (09/25/2013) [-]
Nobody ever said you weren't free to choose, but it was just something worth noting. Personal preference has nothing to do with facts, after all.
User avatar #387 - balloketchup (09/25/2013) [-]
But how can you say it is FACT that Science dwarfs Religion? You can't. There is no foundation for such a claim, other than spite and arrogance. I'm sure you're one of those Atheists that hides behind the claim that religion (namely Christianity) is intolerant, but look at you man. Hit me with these 'facts' you speak of, or just stop.
#388 - rodion (09/25/2013) [-]
No need to put words in my mouth, buddy. That will doubtless achieve little. Same to the personal attacks. Anyway, I'm refering to that which is measurable and repeatable when I speak of facts. Facts give credence to theories. There are no religious theories that are not replaced by scientific ones when enough evidence comes to light. Everything else is not well enough understood yet by humanity.

Anyway, as we all know, disproving a negative is impossible, so the "no foundation" accusation, whilst accurate, only paints a pretty picture of what science readily ADMITS it has no clue about (but may well do in the future).
User avatar #389 - balloketchup (09/25/2013) [-]
The only fact you just said was 'fact gives credence to theories',which is true. But you can't replace religion with science. This is pointless, you've veered off onto the 'I'm an atheist so I'm automatically superior in my beliefs' train, and I'm done with it. Believe what you want, I don't really care.
#392 - rodion (09/25/2013) [-]
Much of humanity once believed that the world was flat and that the sun orbited around it. Now we do not. Some of humanity believed that the world was created roughly 6000 years ago (give or take a few thousand). Thanks to mountains of evidence in the contrary, science can conclude that either it is VASTLY older...or that some (miraculous?) contrivance has made the world appear many millions of years younger than the cumulative efforts of all modern science has understood it to be. Science does not deal in certainties; only in likelihood. Guess which of the above is more likely, by current standards. Looking into the future, perhaps one day, we will have a strong answer to the problem of abiogenesis, or even the origins of our quaint little universe. Science has replaced tradition and faith on innumerate occasions. I'm betting that this trend carries on.

You know what the funniest part in all of this is? It was never about belief to begin with. You can believe what you want; that doesn't mean you have the right to be free of scrutiny, when you assert that they are correct. You said that religion gives us an understanding of why the world works. How can you even begin to justify that? Belief? On what grounds? I'm DESPERATE to hear a valid response!
User avatar #393 - balloketchup (09/26/2013) [-]
What else would Religion try to answer? It's obviously not how. Any religious text is about why we're here, that's evidence enough. And what you said about people believing the world was flat is true; that was a wrong scientific belief. Science changes every day. And if you choose to limit yourself from religion based on a few outdated or poorly preached Scriptures, that's on you. The message Genesis conveys is 'why are we here?' not 'how did we get here'. Sure, some people choose to believe that God created everything in 7 24 hour days, I choose to believe otherwise, based on scriptural evidence, and the fact that he most likely spoke in terms that the people of those times would understand. Continue this please, I'm actually enjoying it.
#395 - rodion (09/27/2013) [-]
I think we are very much at ends with many different concepts. The definition of evidence, for instance, we do not agree on for one. Roman and Greek mythology has plenty of literature relating to the supernatural powers of their Gods. More modern examples include the holy texts of every religion out there, including Islam and Judaism (the three abrahamic religions, having plagiarised one another to death and back, along with pilfering much of their "original" material from older religions). The Bible is no more valid or authoritative a resource than any other holy book.

If you want to talk about Genesis and it's discussion of why we are in this state of affairs, it bears mention that original sin is one of the most disgusting concepts ever devised. Christopher Hitchens sums it up far better than I ever could in "The God Delusion", so I recommend you start there, if you want to look into it.

Okay, onto the topic of the flat world, again. First off, I'd like to point out that science doesn't necessarily believe anything. "Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence", after all. With that being said, allow me to point out that whatever form of reasoning was used to come to the conclusion that the earth was flat all those years ago, as soon as it was debunked by rationally minded people, it was completely abandoned...but not by everyone. Religion is well documented to be one of the greatest suppressive forces against scientific progress. The catholic church, in centuries gone by, would actively seek out and destroy anything that threatened the worldview it provided for the masses. Though not as extreme, religion still plays quite a hefty role in retarding science in so many critical areas. Stem cell research being one, which has untold potential for improving the lives of all people on this planet.

Running low on characters. The ball is in your court. =D
#398 - rodion (09/30/2013) [-]
Oops. Hitchens' book is "God is not Great". The other is also worth a read.
#396 - balloketchup (09/30/2013) [-]
This has gone on far too long. You believe that you shouldn't believe in something without evidence. The mere statement 'you shouldn't believe something that you can't prove scientifically' is illogical; you can't prove you shouldn't believe something that you can't prove scientifically.

As far as recommending a book with a cynical (and biased) religious view, I think I'll pass.

Onto the 'flat world' point; new evidence emerges constantly, and scientific beliefs change substantially every century. Our modern age is no exception.

And finally, yes, the Catholic Church is well known for it's ex-communications, the brutal onslaught of the Crusades, and rapin' lil boise. I'm not gonna defend this, not because I'm not Catholic but simply because the sin mentioned in Genesis corrupted absolutely (to my non-scientifically proven belief), and it includes the Church, of whatever form. It wasn't God or the Bible leading them to become 'holier than thou' or commit murder, it was those who abused the Bible, going in with their own beliefs and trying to find verses to back it up. That's how a cult is born. The Bible is supposed to speak to you, not the other way around.

The scariest people in my eyes are those who pray a prayer or recite a verse and think they're 'saved'. The Bible is against this belief, yet it I've heard it preached dozens of times. Biblically, Christians are called to live a holy life, holy meaning 'set apart for a purpose'. If you pray a prayer and keep doing...whatever it is you did that landed you in a place to ask for forgiveness, what's the point? Anyhoo my point in that; I fear less for the Atheists' soul than I do for those that fool themselves with this skin-deep belief.

I'm done man. I really enjoyed this; you had many valid points. Not gonna lie, I don't have a decent answer for them all. Last thing I'll say: I was you 2 years ago.

Aaaand now I'm gonna use this site for it's intended purpose...mediocre humor..
#397 - rodion (09/30/2013) [-]
One small point, and then I'll leave you in peace:
A belief in drawing conclusions from that which is observable and reproducible is not at all unsound, logically; having NO empirical basis for one's assumptions has the potential to be extremely dangerous, though. The fact of the matter is that science has been getting things wrong ever since the advent of the scientific method, but not because of hard-nosed and defiant resistance to new ideas. The two things that often stand in the way of accurate conclusions are 1) a lack of understanding and presently inadequate explanations of current evidence, and 2) an inadequate amount of evidence to support theories that fit well with current facts. No true scientist would be ashamed to admit such things, since they are perfectly intellectually honest...unlike trying to defend the inability to disprove a negative as a valid response.

This has indeed been entertaining. It seems we both got some practice out of this. Should we meet again, lets hope the circumstances are more friendly. Until next time.
#20 - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. … 09/06/2013 on Atheism +1
#18 - I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what …  [+] (2 new replies) 09/06/2013 on Atheism +1
#19 - masterboll (09/06/2013) [-]
>I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what faith is.
or alternatively, faith is having complete trust or confidence in someone or something before evidence is acquired. it can be used as motivation to work towards gaining scientific evidence and developing further scientific understanding of the universe

>I am not convinced that Religion is detrimental to society, I know it is.
nice try, but ending a sentence with "I know it is" doesnt make it any less of an opinion than it is. there are plenty of people (including myself) who know that religion as a whole isnt detrimental to society

>This type of belief in something is toxic, and in fact like I said before, detrimental to society.
nice try again, this time using the word "fact" in an attempt to sound like you have the irrefutably correct understanding of faith. if you examine closely, you'll realise that you arent referring to faith in general (like you claim to be doing) but instead, referring to the Christian faith and using that as a representation of "faith" in general.

>Faith has no context outside of religion ...faith has no weight outside of religion.
right, because if i had faith that my vet could save my dog's life then that is directly/indirectly linked in with religion

>Saying I have faith that my favorite team will win this game, is different from saying; I have faith that God loves me or that Adam & Eve were real people.
oh, wait. are you now saying that a type of faith can exist outside of religion?

>I am not against religion because It promotes what I disagree with
1/10, poor attempt in trying to sound like you take an unbiased perspective of religion

>I agree with science, and evidence. Neither of which agrees with Religion along with faith.
because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science
User avatar #20 - MosKunas (09/06/2013) [-]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Remember that. It's something people like you need to remember.

I'm not going to waste my time giving rebuttals to your badly formed responses. And I see you didn't create an answer for the "46%" part of my argument. You must have realized there was no arguing that point, even though you are trying to defend Religion you realized how embarrassing that statistic is.

I will however respond to your last point, because it is too ridiculous to not give attention

>because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science

You would never be able to start a religion doing so, for the reason that no science that has ever been done, ever, has produced evidence for God, or that the universe needs one at all.
**

Explain to me why Religion does not need extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims that it holds, like I said earlier. Tell me why friend. Tell me why they are allowed to claim something that no one could possibly know. Then once they are done doing so, their beliefs are held above scrutiny. And if someone comes along and challenges those views (Which deserve challenging because they hold zero weight and evidence.) they are immediately bombarded with people like yourself that think Religion deserves a free pass at the modern table of ideas.

I want to let you know that it does not have a free pass. Nothing does.

We are on this Earth for maybe a little less than a century if we are lucky. Maybe not if we were born in sub-Saharan Africa and starving everyday, but nonetheless we are here. (But hey God loves us, so starve on in his name!) To truly believe in a God of the scriptures is sadomasochism.

**Nothing is above scrutiny.


I've tried my best to show you how misguided you are. Remember my two quotes that were in bold at the beginning and end here.
#16 - Religion is based off of faith, faith is the endorsement of ig…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/06/2013 on Atheism 0
User avatar #17 - masterboll (09/06/2013) [-]
if your definition of faith puts an emphasis on "ignorance" and "belief without evidence" then its hardly surprising that youre convinced religion is detrimental to modern society

having faith can have many benefits in life, regardless of whether its influenced by religion or not. if youre against religion for promoting beliefs which you dont agree with then i dont really think its faith that you should be trying to demote
User avatar #18 - MosKunas (09/06/2013) [-]
I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what faith is. Faith is at it's core is caring to believe in something without evidence. I am not convinced that Religion is detrimental to society, I know it is.

46% of Americans perceive the bible to be true, coming from "God". There is no evidence to support anything that came from the bible as fact. Other than the writers, etc. So anything from the bible that isn't also in a history book (mostly nothing) is therefore believed to be true by that 46% by faith. That is irrefutable. This type of belief in something is toxic, and in fact like I said before, detrimental to society.

Faith has no context outside of religion, so it can only be a subsidy of it. So you can't say "by religion or not." Because faith has no weight outside of religion.

Saying I have faith that my favorite team will win this game, is different from saying; I have faith that God loves me or that Adam & Eve were real people.

And I am not against religion because It promotes what I disagree with. I agree with science, and evidence. Neither of which agrees with Religion along with faith.
#19 - masterboll (09/06/2013) [-]
>I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what faith is.
or alternatively, faith is having complete trust or confidence in someone or something before evidence is acquired. it can be used as motivation to work towards gaining scientific evidence and developing further scientific understanding of the universe

>I am not convinced that Religion is detrimental to society, I know it is.
nice try, but ending a sentence with "I know it is" doesnt make it any less of an opinion than it is. there are plenty of people (including myself) who know that religion as a whole isnt detrimental to society

>This type of belief in something is toxic, and in fact like I said before, detrimental to society.
nice try again, this time using the word "fact" in an attempt to sound like you have the irrefutably correct understanding of faith. if you examine closely, you'll realise that you arent referring to faith in general (like you claim to be doing) but instead, referring to the Christian faith and using that as a representation of "faith" in general.

>Faith has no context outside of religion ...faith has no weight outside of religion.
right, because if i had faith that my vet could save my dog's life then that is directly/indirectly linked in with religion

>Saying I have faith that my favorite team will win this game, is different from saying; I have faith that God loves me or that Adam & Eve were real people.
oh, wait. are you now saying that a type of faith can exist outside of religion?

>I am not against religion because It promotes what I disagree with
1/10, poor attempt in trying to sound like you take an unbiased perspective of religion

>I agree with science, and evidence. Neither of which agrees with Religion along with faith.
because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science
User avatar #20 - MosKunas (09/06/2013) [-]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Remember that. It's something people like you need to remember.

I'm not going to waste my time giving rebuttals to your badly formed responses. And I see you didn't create an answer for the "46%" part of my argument. You must have realized there was no arguing that point, even though you are trying to defend Religion you realized how embarrassing that statistic is.

I will however respond to your last point, because it is too ridiculous to not give attention

>because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science

You would never be able to start a religion doing so, for the reason that no science that has ever been done, ever, has produced evidence for God, or that the universe needs one at all.
**

Explain to me why Religion does not need extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims that it holds, like I said earlier. Tell me why friend. Tell me why they are allowed to claim something that no one could possibly know. Then once they are done doing so, their beliefs are held above scrutiny. And if someone comes along and challenges those views (Which deserve challenging because they hold zero weight and evidence.) they are immediately bombarded with people like yourself that think Religion deserves a free pass at the modern table of ideas.

I want to let you know that it does not have a free pass. Nothing does.

We are on this Earth for maybe a little less than a century if we are lucky. Maybe not if we were born in sub-Saharan Africa and starving everyday, but nonetheless we are here. (But hey God loves us, so starve on in his name!) To truly believe in a God of the scriptures is sadomasochism.

**Nothing is above scrutiny.


I've tried my best to show you how misguided you are. Remember my two quotes that were in bold at the beginning and end here.
#14 - His point is that it doesn't take a genius to realize how much…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/04/2013 on Atheism 0
#15 - masterboll (09/04/2013) [-]
i dont know what part of his comment suggests that religion is a waste of time, but i can speak out for more than half the world's population when i say that religion isnt a waste of time

my point was that as he is a 5 year old, his mind is still developing and isnt really a valid example to be used to back up any philosophical mindset never mind one as complicated and frequently debated as a religious one
User avatar #16 - MosKunas (09/06/2013) [-]
Religion is based off of faith, faith is the endorsement of ignorance and belief without evidence.. If you view that as not detrimental to modern society I'm not going to argue with you.
User avatar #17 - masterboll (09/06/2013) [-]
if your definition of faith puts an emphasis on "ignorance" and "belief without evidence" then its hardly surprising that youre convinced religion is detrimental to modern society

having faith can have many benefits in life, regardless of whether its influenced by religion or not. if youre against religion for promoting beliefs which you dont agree with then i dont really think its faith that you should be trying to demote
User avatar #18 - MosKunas (09/06/2013) [-]
I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what faith is. Faith is at it's core is caring to believe in something without evidence. I am not convinced that Religion is detrimental to society, I know it is.

46% of Americans perceive the bible to be true, coming from "God". There is no evidence to support anything that came from the bible as fact. Other than the writers, etc. So anything from the bible that isn't also in a history book (mostly nothing) is therefore believed to be true by that 46% by faith. That is irrefutable. This type of belief in something is toxic, and in fact like I said before, detrimental to society.

Faith has no context outside of religion, so it can only be a subsidy of it. So you can't say "by religion or not." Because faith has no weight outside of religion.

Saying I have faith that my favorite team will win this game, is different from saying; I have faith that God loves me or that Adam & Eve were real people.

And I am not against religion because It promotes what I disagree with. I agree with science, and evidence. Neither of which agrees with Religion along with faith.
#19 - masterboll (09/06/2013) [-]
>I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what faith is.
or alternatively, faith is having complete trust or confidence in someone or something before evidence is acquired. it can be used as motivation to work towards gaining scientific evidence and developing further scientific understanding of the universe

>I am not convinced that Religion is detrimental to society, I know it is.
nice try, but ending a sentence with "I know it is" doesnt make it any less of an opinion than it is. there are plenty of people (including myself) who know that religion as a whole isnt detrimental to society

>This type of belief in something is toxic, and in fact like I said before, detrimental to society.
nice try again, this time using the word "fact" in an attempt to sound like you have the irrefutably correct understanding of faith. if you examine closely, you'll realise that you arent referring to faith in general (like you claim to be doing) but instead, referring to the Christian faith and using that as a representation of "faith" in general.

>Faith has no context outside of religion ...faith has no weight outside of religion.
right, because if i had faith that my vet could save my dog's life then that is directly/indirectly linked in with religion

>Saying I have faith that my favorite team will win this game, is different from saying; I have faith that God loves me or that Adam & Eve were real people.
oh, wait. are you now saying that a type of faith can exist outside of religion?

>I am not against religion because It promotes what I disagree with
1/10, poor attempt in trying to sound like you take an unbiased perspective of religion

>I agree with science, and evidence. Neither of which agrees with Religion along with faith.
because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science
User avatar #20 - MosKunas (09/06/2013) [-]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Remember that. It's something people like you need to remember.

I'm not going to waste my time giving rebuttals to your badly formed responses. And I see you didn't create an answer for the "46%" part of my argument. You must have realized there was no arguing that point, even though you are trying to defend Religion you realized how embarrassing that statistic is.

I will however respond to your last point, because it is too ridiculous to not give attention

>because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science

You would never be able to start a religion doing so, for the reason that no science that has ever been done, ever, has produced evidence for God, or that the universe needs one at all.
**

Explain to me why Religion does not need extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims that it holds, like I said earlier. Tell me why friend. Tell me why they are allowed to claim something that no one could possibly know. Then once they are done doing so, their beliefs are held above scrutiny. And if someone comes along and challenges those views (Which deserve challenging because they hold zero weight and evidence.) they are immediately bombarded with people like yourself that think Religion deserves a free pass at the modern table of ideas.

I want to let you know that it does not have a free pass. Nothing does.

We are on this Earth for maybe a little less than a century if we are lucky. Maybe not if we were born in sub-Saharan Africa and starving everyday, but nonetheless we are here. (But hey God loves us, so starve on in his name!) To truly believe in a God of the scriptures is sadomasochism.

**Nothing is above scrutiny.


I've tried my best to show you how misguided you are. Remember my two quotes that were in bold at the beginning and end here.
#5 - If the devil "runs" hell, and he is bad. And you go …  [+] (1 new reply) 08/08/2013 on This channel needs actual... 0
User avatar #6 - YllekNayr (08/08/2013) [-]
Well actually, the simple answer is that Lucifer is being punished in Hell as well. He doesn't run it. He's just there too.

As for how he's supposed to influence people on Earth while simultaneously being in Hell, no idea.
#10 - Who cares if you get offended. A society is a melting pot of i… 07/31/2013 on Clarification 0
#11741 - Picture 07/11/2013 on Thumb Orgy +7
[ 142 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 850

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)