i fucking love this image.
it goes well with so many things.

*episode

1 and 3.)

No he's saying people who are religious commonly aren't able to move away from the ignorance which is religion. Most can't move away from the idea of taking something on the merit of 'faith'. Which means accepting evidence towards determining existence is out of their range of though.

2.)
He's talking about not trying to mesh and mold your religion to obviously contradicting ideas.

Like this:

>Evolution comes out as a hypothesis.
>Church denies it because it contradicts genesis account. No problem because it's still a hypothesis.
>More evidence comes forward and evolution is declared a theory.
>Church does one of two things
>>1.) Completely denies it, saying their religion is true and science is wrong.
>>2.) Says their holy book story of the beginning of life is actually a metaphor and that it shouldn't be taken literally even though it was up until it was proven wrong.

Religion and science do not go hand in hand and trying to mold one to fit the other is narrow minded.

1 and 3 on why you're a complete moron.
1. Saying that people are too ignorant to move away from religion is absolutely fucking stupid, it's not about being ignorant it's about what they believe in. Three says that you're just taking what you started with which is absolutely ridiculous, I have met many people that have gone from Atheism to Christianity and Christianity to Atheism and all other sorts of religions, so if you think that one is true you're just as ignorant as you say other people are.

2. What you said isn't even relevant. How did you get that from, "You're afraid to download anything new." That just says you're afraid to change your religion, I don't know where you got this hold idea of trying to make Religion and Science work together. But that statement OP made was also retarded because as stated above, many people change their religion, some are scared to but that's probably because they strongly believe in their own religion.

Cute.

1.) Yes it is being ignorant, they are using faith as a determination for existence which is accepting ignorance. Also atheist isn't a religion, it's a lack thereof, and yes people can hop back and forth from atheism to theism this doesn't change how each side equivocates evidence with belief.

2.) Um I got that from not accepting new information and applying it. I did however extend on that idea but the premise is the same. Not hard to figure that out.

1. It's not ignorant, can you please prove to me that it's wrong? No? O that's right because NO ONE ACTUALLY FUCKING KNOWS! So honestly, faggots like you should learn to keep to themselves, there are more fuckers like you then there are bible smacking Christians in today's world. Religion is supposed to be what happened and for the most part science is theory. So based on your logic you're just going to go ahead and guess that the world was made how it was! Now that sounds pretty ignorant to me.

2. Again not even relevant, you're just a retard trying to fluff up your argument. The original comment was saying that they are afraid to accept something new, you are taking it a step further and saying that they are afraid to look at new information, which is not what is said in OP's picture, most know the, "new information" but don't accept it. Now you just like to assume things about people as a whole which is as stupid as OP's post.

Wow the "Nobody knows" argument, people still use that?

1.) Believing something with no evidence is ignorant.
and as for the proving you wrong thing: (it's really sad that I have to resort to copy and fucking pasting this same damn thing because I would not write it up for the twentieth time)

"Okay fine I go through with explaining this shit alot so one more time can't hurt.

First of all, humans are not omniscient creatures, we base our determination of existence on evidence and knowledge. It is subjective, but we have no other possibility of claiming knowledge is everything is based on an objective universe in relation to ourselves.

So, why exactly is asking "Prove god doesn't exist" a REALLY fucking retarded question? Because you cannot prove a negative, all evidence for proving a negative is in direct correlation with the LACK of evidence for the affirmative. Humans use this process for EVERYTHING (unicorns, aliens, big foot, loch ness monster, slenderman, etc etc etc) EXCEPT GOD. Why? Because they WANT it to be true. This doesn't make it true though now does it?

Also it's funny because god can only be real through absolute evidence because he is not possible through probability since he is given the wonderful attribute of creating the universe. Meaning no evidence=No god."

"For the most part science is theory"
Actually yes, because science doesn't claim absolute knowledge, only peer reviewed, experimented, and confirmed assumptions that are the best answer given the evidence. So no we don't guess how the world was made, we are taking the answer with the best evidence, if something comes along that is a better answer we will adjust our view. THIS IS PROGRESS.

2.) Not really assuming things, considering there is no evidence for a god yet all of these things (evolution, abiogenesis, etc etc) contradict religious accounts, yet people still believe in religion, ignorance and blind faith are not positive things.

You're fucking stupid, you are beyond fucking stupid, "Believing something with no evidence is ignorant." Most of science is a theory, a guess, no evidence behind it, so you seem to be the ignorant one.

You're a fucking idiot and you're only saying, "Because you cannot prove a negative." Because you have in no way to prove that God doesn't exist, you're simply using that as an excuse to justify your own ignorance.

Well lets see what happens with that stupid fucking logic, Big Bang Theory has no evidence behind it=No universe. Hur dur you're so fucking smart. You're contradicting yourself and you're REALLY not aware that science is mostly THEORY but you're too fucking stupid to know that, you simply cannot grasp the idea of a higher power and reject it instantly without a second though.

2. I'm going to refer you to my previous comment for this part. You're too stupid to comprehend try a second time.

Wow...you really have no clue what you are talking about are you. Please tell me you're a troll, otherwise...seriously go back to school kid.

Do you know what a theory is in science? It is something that has enough evidence and is proven through experimentation and peer review. A theory is the highest point for a hypothesis in science. So it does have evidence you fucking imbecile.

.............YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE, holy shit are you seriously this idiotic? How much glue did you ingest in kindergarten? I explained the reasoning behind why god doesn't exist.
(Basically it's like this: Give me all the reasons you don't believe in the loch ness monester, and I mean it, give me all the evidence to disprove the loch ness monster to you. I will not respond further until you give this 'evidence')\

..................................................................
..............................................
...
...
...
...
...
THE BIG BANG THEORY HAS FUCKING EVIDENCE! WE OBSERVE HOW THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE WORK AND REACT AND HOW THE BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS WORK WITH MATTER AND PARTICLES TO SEE IF WE CAN SEE THE PROCESS BEHIND WHICH THE BIG BANG COULD OCCUR.
We wouldn't call something a theory if it didn't have evidence, to be a theory in science you absolutely NEED evidence.

Please research your definition of a theory in the field of science and please don't respond if you cannot provide your evidence against the loch ness monster.

Lol you're a moron who can't even make a relevant statement when you're proven wrong so how about you get back to school, "kid."

WOW you're a moron, a theory does not have evidence or very little not enough to prove anything, it's a guess you fucking idiot.

Shut up, please shut the fuck up, that is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard, you can prove a negative. That statement was so astronomically stupid I actually lost brain cells reading it.

.................................You're so fucken stupid it's ridiculous and I don't even know if I'm being trolled at this point or not, the big bang theory doesn't have evidence IT'S A FUCKING EDUCATED GUESS YOU MORON!

Damn you have to be the dumbest fucker on Funnyjunk and I've seen some stupid mother fuckers on this site before. I've met a kid with down's that smarter then you are.

Because I haven't been proven wrong yet.

OH MY FUCKING GOD, IF YOU'RE A TROLL 10/10 BECAUSE YOU HAVE ME THINKING YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
^
This is what a fucking theory is in science you goddamn imbecile. A theory is the highest point in science, that means that it had surpassed numerous tests meant to prove it wrong, it has gone against peer review, by scientists calling it a theory, it is the best explanation for whatever you are using it for. (The definition of theory you are using would be "hypothesis" in science)

Really? You can prove a negative?
Okay give me the evidence that santa claus doesn't exist (and don't be cute and say "well a real life santa did blah blah..." tell me why the jolly man who rides around the world in a single night and gives presents to kids and is immortal isn't real and why you don't believe in him. What "evidence' do you use to disprove him?)

and are you stupid? the big bang is supported by just the basic workings of particles....wait a minute, do you think the big bang says how the universe was formed or how it was created? Because the big bang only explains how it was formed.

Okay when you get some kind of education please try and make a logical statement and I'll humor you, Santa Clause isn't real, it is impossible to go to every kids house in the world and give them presents in just a single night there is no where near enough time. Immortality is impossible. There is your evidence, simple logic, but you're clearly too fucking stupid to figure that out on your own now aren't you?

Again you're a complete idiot, no proof behind it whatsoever. You know this is the easiest time I've ever had proving someone wrong on the internet before. You sir are a bitch.

But santa claus is a being with immortality, it's not impossible because santa has it. And it's not impossible to deliver to every kid in the world, santa can do it.

Even so, all of your evidence was a refuting statement to an already pre-existing claim for the existence of santa.

Claim: Santa is immortal.
You said immortality is impossible, why? Because we've never witnessed it and so far see no possibility of it. So your evidence is directly correlated to the lack of evidence for immortality.

Both of your claims were things that had no supporting evidence.


Claim: God created everything.
We have direct proof of evolution proving the biblical account of genesis is just horribly false. As well as every other creation myth out there, and pretty much god is support to be able to do everything possible and impossible. Well we have never viewed any of these happening and it is supposed to be impossible to do anything impossible. Meaning by your logic, god doesn't exist.

I'm glad this was so easy for you because you made my job of making you look like an idiot so much simpler.

You're an idiot and you're not using any type of common logic. So when you get a brain let me know when you want to make an actual argument.

Well immortality is impossible, again common logic. Now you are just being ignorant to try and prove your point but it's failing.

Lol my God you are stupid I feel bad for you. Let me ask, what ACTUAL proof do you have? None, it's all a fucking THEORY WITH NO EVIDENCE. I understand this is a hard concept for you to understand. Also it's called the bible, every try reading it? It's an amazing thing that can actually teach you a lot!

I'm glad you think you have made any sense so far and thank you for making my job of making you like an idiot so much simpler!

No, "Immortality isn't possible" is not common logic. Why is it impossible? What physical evidence do you have that makes it impossible, or are you just implying that because we have never seen immortality and that we have never experienced it, mean it doesn't exist and is not possible. But that would mean you are applying observation and knowledge to your reasoning, which when applied to god give the same results.

Proof of what?...

Yeah the bible can teach me that to get in god good graces I have to commit genocide, kill many people, kill children, enslave women, oh and that incest is perfectly fine.


The bible is an over-loved fairytale, nothing more. Sorry.

Yes it is common logic, you're an idiot and now you're just pretending to be blissfully ignorant because you can no longer make a logical argument.

Yeah exactly rofl.

Wow you're an idiot. I've heard a lot of things about the bible, but not that, you've obviously never actually read the bible.

Hahahahahaha my work here is done.

what episode is this?..........

when did the show about a talking sponge get so .... dramatic?

that was my face exactly i actually read it on the wiki, rewatched the episodes, and thus was mind fucked

i fucking love this image.
it goes well with so many things.

*episode

Absolutely nothing you said related to the points OP's post had.

No that one section does not define the whole religious community BUT it does represent the religion completely. A church that donates all of their time to helping poor children is on the same level of justification for their actions as Westboro baptist church, they just interpret the bible in their own ways. That's the problem, not what some people do, but that they can use their religion to justify anything.

Either way though, OP's post was related how most religious people are just accepting ignorance by following faith, believe it because it's all they've known, or just afraid of new concepts.

1.you are not smart enough to change it.
he's bascially saying the people with religion do not have the common sense to change their believes which of course is false since there are in fact many people who do this.
2.your afraid to download anything new meaning to accept new ideas.
not all people with religion are narrow minded people who have a one track mind and won't accept others beliefs and opinions
3. It was there when you started.
again same as 1 you can change your religion.

GTFO

1 and 3.)

No he's saying people who are religious commonly aren't able to move away from the ignorance which is religion. Most can't move away from the idea of taking something on the merit of 'faith'. Which means accepting evidence towards determining existence is out of their range of though.

2.)
He's talking about not trying to mesh and mold your religion to obviously contradicting ideas.

Like this:

>Evolution comes out as a hypothesis.
>Church denies it because it contradicts genesis account. No problem because it's still a hypothesis.
>More evidence comes forward and evolution is declared a theory.
>Church does one of two things
>>1.) Completely denies it, saying their religion is true and science is wrong.
>>2.) Says their holy book story of the beginning of life is actually a metaphor and that it shouldn't be taken literally even though it was up until it was proven wrong.

Religion and science do not go hand in hand and trying to mold one to fit the other is narrow minded.

1 and 3 on why you're a complete moron.
1. Saying that people are too ignorant to move away from religion is absolutely fucking stupid, it's not about being ignorant it's about what they believe in. Three says that you're just taking what you started with which is absolutely ridiculous, I have met many people that have gone from Atheism to Christianity and Christianity to Atheism and all other sorts of religions, so if you think that one is true you're just as ignorant as you say other people are.

2. What you said isn't even relevant. How did you get that from, "You're afraid to download anything new." That just says you're afraid to change your religion, I don't know where you got this hold idea of trying to make Religion and Science work together. But that statement OP made was also retarded because as stated above, many people change their religion, some are scared to but that's probably because they strongly believe in their own religion.

Cute.

1.) Yes it is being ignorant, they are using faith as a determination for existence which is accepting ignorance. Also atheist isn't a religion, it's a lack thereof, and yes people can hop back and forth from atheism to theism this doesn't change how each side equivocates evidence with belief.

2.) Um I got that from not accepting new information and applying it. I did however extend on that idea but the premise is the same. Not hard to figure that out.

1. It's not ignorant, can you please prove to me that it's wrong? No? O that's right because NO ONE ACTUALLY FUCKING KNOWS! So honestly, faggots like you should learn to keep to themselves, there are more fuckers like you then there are bible smacking Christians in today's world. Religion is supposed to be what happened and for the most part science is theory. So based on your logic you're just going to go ahead and guess that the world was made how it was! Now that sounds pretty ignorant to me.

2. Again not even relevant, you're just a retard trying to fluff up your argument. The original comment was saying that they are afraid to accept something new, you are taking it a step further and saying that they are afraid to look at new information, which is not what is said in OP's picture, most know the, "new information" but don't accept it. Now you just like to assume things about people as a whole which is as stupid as OP's post.

Wow the "Nobody knows" argument, people still use that?

1.) Believing something with no evidence is ignorant.
and as for the proving you wrong thing: (it's really sad that I have to resort to copy and fucking pasting this same damn thing because I would not write it up for the twentieth time)

"Okay fine I go through with explaining this shit alot so one more time can't hurt.

First of all, humans are not omniscient creatures, we base our determination of existence on evidence and knowledge. It is subjective, but we have no other possibility of claiming knowledge is everything is based on an objective universe in relation to ourselves.

So, why exactly is asking "Prove god doesn't exist" a REALLY fucking retarded question? Because you cannot prove a negative, all evidence for proving a negative is in direct correlation with the LACK of evidence for the affirmative. Humans use this process for EVERYTHING (unicorns, aliens, big foot, loch ness monster, slenderman, etc etc etc) EXCEPT GOD. Why? Because they WANT it to be true. This doesn't make it true though now does it?

Also it's funny because god can only be real through absolute evidence because he is not possible through probability since he is given the wonderful attribute of creating the universe. Meaning no evidence=No god."

"For the most part science is theory"
Actually yes, because science doesn't claim absolute knowledge, only peer reviewed, experimented, and confirmed assumptions that are the best answer given the evidence. So no we don't guess how the world was made, we are taking the answer with the best evidence, if something comes along that is a better answer we will adjust our view. THIS IS PROGRESS.

2.) Not really assuming things, considering there is no evidence for a god yet all of these things (evolution, abiogenesis, etc etc) contradict religious accounts, yet people still believe in religion, ignorance and blind faith are not positive things.

You're fucking stupid, you are beyond fucking stupid, "Believing something with no evidence is ignorant." Most of science is a theory, a guess, no evidence behind it, so you seem to be the ignorant one.

You're a fucking idiot and you're only saying, "Because you cannot prove a negative." Because you have in no way to prove that God doesn't exist, you're simply using that as an excuse to justify your own ignorance.

Well lets see what happens with that stupid fucking logic, Big Bang Theory has no evidence behind it=No universe. Hur dur you're so fucking smart. You're contradicting yourself and you're REALLY not aware that science is mostly THEORY but you're too fucking stupid to know that, you simply cannot grasp the idea of a higher power and reject it instantly without a second though.

2. I'm going to refer you to my previous comment for this part. You're too stupid to comprehend try a second time.

Wow...you really have no clue what you are talking about are you. Please tell me you're a troll, otherwise...seriously go back to school kid.

Do you know what a theory is in science? It is something that has enough evidence and is proven through experimentation and peer review. A theory is the highest point for a hypothesis in science. So it does have evidence you fucking imbecile.

.............YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE, holy shit are you seriously this idiotic? How much glue did you ingest in kindergarten? I explained the reasoning behind why god doesn't exist.
(Basically it's like this: Give me all the reasons you don't believe in the loch ness monester, and I mean it, give me all the evidence to disprove the loch ness monster to you. I will not respond further until you give this 'evidence')\

..................................................................
..............................................
...
...
...
...
...
THE BIG BANG THEORY HAS FUCKING EVIDENCE! WE OBSERVE HOW THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE WORK AND REACT AND HOW THE BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS WORK WITH MATTER AND PARTICLES TO SEE IF WE CAN SEE THE PROCESS BEHIND WHICH THE BIG BANG COULD OCCUR.
We wouldn't call something a theory if it didn't have evidence, to be a theory in science you absolutely NEED evidence.

Please research your definition of a theory in the field of science and please don't respond if you cannot provide your evidence against the loch ness monster.

Lol you're a moron who can't even make a relevant statement when you're proven wrong so how about you get back to school, "kid."

WOW you're a moron, a theory does not have evidence or very little not enough to prove anything, it's a guess you fucking idiot.

Shut up, please shut the fuck up, that is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard, you can prove a negative. That statement was so astronomically stupid I actually lost brain cells reading it.

.................................You're so fucken stupid it's ridiculous and I don't even know if I'm being trolled at this point or not, the big bang theory doesn't have evidence IT'S A FUCKING EDUCATED GUESS YOU MORON!

Damn you have to be the dumbest fucker on Funnyjunk and I've seen some stupid mother fuckers on this site before. I've met a kid with down's that smarter then you are.

Because I haven't been proven wrong yet.

OH MY FUCKING GOD, IF YOU'RE A TROLL 10/10 BECAUSE YOU HAVE ME THINKING YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
^
This is what a fucking theory is in science you goddamn imbecile. A theory is the highest point in science, that means that it had surpassed numerous tests meant to prove it wrong, it has gone against peer review, by scientists calling it a theory, it is the best explanation for whatever you are using it for. (The definition of theory you are using would be "hypothesis" in science)

Really? You can prove a negative?
Okay give me the evidence that santa claus doesn't exist (and don't be cute and say "well a real life santa did blah blah..." tell me why the jolly man who rides around the world in a single night and gives presents to kids and is immortal isn't real and why you don't believe in him. What "evidence' do you use to disprove him?)

and are you stupid? the big bang is supported by just the basic workings of particles....wait a minute, do you think the big bang says how the universe was formed or how it was created? Because the big bang only explains how it was formed.

Okay when you get some kind of education please try and make a logical statement and I'll humor you, Santa Clause isn't real, it is impossible to go to every kids house in the world and give them presents in just a single night there is no where near enough time. Immortality is impossible. There is your evidence, simple logic, but you're clearly too fucking stupid to figure that out on your own now aren't you?

Again you're a complete idiot, no proof behind it whatsoever. You know this is the easiest time I've ever had proving someone wrong on the internet before. You sir are a bitch.

But santa claus is a being with immortality, it's not impossible because santa has it. And it's not impossible to deliver to every kid in the world, santa can do it.

Even so, all of your evidence was a refuting statement to an already pre-existing claim for the existence of santa.

Claim: Santa is immortal.
You said immortality is impossible, why? Because we've never witnessed it and so far see no possibility of it. So your evidence is directly correlated to the lack of evidence for immortality.

Both of your claims were things that had no supporting evidence.


Claim: God created everything.
We have direct proof of evolution proving the biblical account of genesis is just horribly false. As well as every other creation myth out there, and pretty much god is support to be able to do everything possible and impossible. Well we have never viewed any of these happening and it is supposed to be impossible to do anything impossible. Meaning by your logic, god doesn't exist.

I'm glad this was so easy for you because you made my job of making you look like an idiot so much simpler.

You're an idiot and you're not using any type of common logic. So when you get a brain let me know when you want to make an actual argument.

Well immortality is impossible, again common logic. Now you are just being ignorant to try and prove your point but it's failing.

Lol my God you are stupid I feel bad for you. Let me ask, what ACTUAL proof do you have? None, it's all a fucking THEORY WITH NO EVIDENCE. I understand this is a hard concept for you to understand. Also it's called the bible, every try reading it? It's an amazing thing that can actually teach you a lot!

I'm glad you think you have made any sense so far and thank you for making my job of making you like an idiot so much simpler!

No, "Immortality isn't possible" is not common logic. Why is it impossible? What physical evidence do you have that makes it impossible, or are you just implying that because we have never seen immortality and that we have never experienced it, mean it doesn't exist and is not possible. But that would mean you are applying observation and knowledge to your reasoning, which when applied to god give the same results.

Proof of what?...

Yeah the bible can teach me that to get in god good graces I have to commit genocide, kill many people, kill children, enslave women, oh and that incest is perfectly fine.


The bible is an over-loved fairytale, nothing more. Sorry.

Yes it is common logic, you're an idiot and now you're just pretending to be blissfully ignorant because you can no longer make a logical argument.

Yeah exactly rofl.

Wow you're an idiot. I've heard a lot of things about the bible, but not that, you've obviously never actually read the bible.

Hahahahahaha my work here is done.

I dislike both of you.

i love you :3

Good to hear.

Prove me wrong.

what if she wants to be a grandmother

Someone was butthurt to thumb this down